LoneStar wrote:...Funny you guys bring up the boys, I heard last year they were about to change to 10 teams for the first year last year....

Then why are they still doing the 20 team format?

In my opinion, the 20 team format is far superior. The difference between the top 5 teams in D2 and the bottom 5 teams in D1 is so small that trying to decide which teams belong where through a tournament that last 3 - 4 days is ridiculous. Now factor in the fact that many these teams are relatively newly formed or at the very least, have a significant number of new players. They may also not be as used to 11 v 11 play, depending on whether, or how long, their parents and coaches resisted the North Texas mad dash to 11 v 11 or not. These teams may not hit their stride until 3 or 4 games into league play however they may end up being stronger than a team that performed better than they did in the QT tournament.

Also factor in the fact that, no matter how many ranking threads are started, seeding these teams is an exercise in black magic. A tournament with 20 D1 spots is less susceptible to having the results impacted by bad seeding than a tournament with 10 D1 spots.

Although there are exceptions, any team that would make a serious challenge to play in D1 can usually pretty easily qualify in the top 20 and then spend the rest of the year seeing how they stack up against the D1 and D2 teams. After 1 year, you are left with a very good idea of exactly how strong your team is and the resultant D1 and D2 leagues are much closer to truly having the best 10 and second 10, respectively.

I had 2 boys go through the boys QT process and it is far superior to what the girls used to do, in my opinion. It is only one year out of the seven years they will spend in select. I think taking a year to decide which are the top 10 and which are the second 10 teams is a good idea.

Blitzed wrote:

LoneStar wrote:...Funny you guys bring up the boys, I heard last year they were about to change to 10 teams for the first year last year....

Then why are they still doing the 20 team format?

In my opinion, the 20 team format is far superior. The difference between the top 5 teams in D2 and the bottom 5 teams in D1 is so small that trying to decide which teams belong where through a tournament that last 3 - 4 days is ridiculous. Now factor in the fact that many these teams are relatively newly formed or at the very least, have a significant number of new players. They may also not be as used to 11 v 11 play, depending on whether, or how long, their parents and coaches resisted the North Texas mad dash to 11 v 11 or not. These teams may not hit their stride until 3 or 4 games into league play however they may end up being stronger than a team that performed better than they did in the QT tournament.

Also factor in the fact that, no matter how many ranking threads are started, seeding these teams is an exercise in black magic. A tournament with 20 D1 spots is less susceptible to having the results impacted by bad seeding than a tournament with 10 D1 spots.

Although there are exceptions, any team that would make a serious challenge to play in D1 can usually pretty easily qualify in the top 20 and then spend the rest of the year seeing how they stack up against the D1 and D2 teams. After 1 year, you are left with a very good idea of exactly how strong your team is and the resultant D1 and D2 leagues are much closer to truly having the best 10 and second 10, respectively.

I had 2 boys go through the boys QT process and it is far superior to what the girls used to do, in my opinion. It is only one year out of the seven years they will spend in select. I think taking a year to decide which are the top 10 and which are the second 10 teams is a good idea.

Sincerely good points,
but, if you are talking teams 7-14 respectively trying to decide which ones are better than others you may end up with a group that on any given day could beat each other if they get the right bounce or if the wind is blowing just right etc... So, the debate will remain from year to year of can we beat said team that is 2 or 3 spots in front of us? Sure they may be able to so what has the first year accomplished? The point is even if team 11 passes team 10 due to the year long trial have you gained anything? Still the top 5 or so teams don't get the amount of quality games and teams 15-20 or so can be severely outmatched from time to time. If the year is all about those 4 or 5 teams in the middle getting bragging rights then the 20 team plan does seem to be the best. There is no real right or wrong answer but what the majority wishes to do.

Both sides have a good argument. I am just telling you for me, that it is a waste of time. I have not had my son go through the ranks yet, but what I have heard there is a difference. A lot more independent teams on the boys side compared to the girls. In the end it is all about your kid getting better. The true answer will not be known until we see the movement after the first yearand player development down the road. The 20 teams stopped a lot of the jumpers before signing, we will see how much the teams that end up in D1 switch.
Normal year each team switches a 1/4 of their roster. I would guess the teams 7-10 might switch 6-8 players after the first year. Again a lot depends on the coach and parent chemistry and club dynamics and of yes the player themselves and how they have devloped and fit into what the coach wants to do. Spring will be fun to watch the parents on the sidelines working deals and the play on the fields will be good to

[flash][/flash]I'm with SS on this one for a number of reasons. Most importantly, as LS stated, there was probably a HUGE decrease in team jumping right before signing day because with the 20 team format, everyone felt like maybe they could make it. Therefore, alot of the academy teams that were built over time with parents and kids that wanted to stay together, actually did that.

Next, the Texans, Flanny, and Stavrou teams are really the only ones that crush all the other teams (EDITOR'S NOTE...out of 120 games...there have been 22 games decided by 5 goals or more and 16 of those 22 were Texans and Sting), but even Hendy snuck a tie against Stavrou. Odyssey, the 20th team in, has played Stavrou to 2 goals, Audrey to 1 goal and tied TFC. The rest of the scores have shown some quality games between top 10 and bottom 10 (Grubb seeded 2 lost to Revolution seeded 17). Additionally, look at Woollard who would've been a D1 team and has only won 1 single game out of 12, and FC Dallas East who came in at 11 has won all of zero games. Under the old format, you are only allowing two teams to swap from D1 to D2, when in actuality it could or should be 3 or 4 teams that are out of place. This format remedies those QT mishaps. Currently, only 10 points separate #8 from #16, and with the way LH did the schedules, there is a lot of potential movement that could take place in these last 7 games. SS's remedy of a balanced schedule where every team plays a top team and a bottom team on alternating weeks throughout the season makes the most sense. The schedule this season did not appear to have any rhyme nor reason.

Finally, as far as the recruiting goes, players are going to move after Year 1. The 20 team format simply eliminates a great deal of false hope or unrealistic expectations that parents may have and everyone gets to see a much wider array of teams. After seeing 19 other teams, parents will have a much better gauge of how teams play, how coaches coach, how parents behave, and can attempt to find the best fit for their DD if they are planning on making a change. They also might be better able to assess how good their child actually is and try to find a situation that fits for them. More than anything if you look at where all of the teams were seeded coming in to league play and where they are all seeded as of today, that should tell you all you need to know that this system is in place for a reason and is working. It also eliminates a ton of unnecessary pressure for 10-11 year old girls and their parents who are paying a lot of money and have a bad first weekend, but actually deserve to play against all of the other top teams. Just my two cents. I know there are detractors, but going through it this year for the first time, I think LHGCL got it right.

Sincerely good points,
but, if you are talking teams 7-14 respectively trying to decide which ones are better than others you may end up with a group that on any given day could beat each other if they get the right bounce or if the wind is blowing just right etc...
Ah but you strengthen my argument. This is soccer so yes, a bad bounce or crazy wind is part of the game and can impact a game. However, over the course of a year, each team will have its share of breaks. This is much better than a crazy bounce deciding the QT tournament, IMO.

So, the debate will remain from year to year of can we beat said team that is 2 or 3 spots in front of us?

The purpose of the first year is not, in my opinion, to see whether one team can beat another. The purpose is to find the 10 teams that can consistently play at the highest level. Over the course of the 19 game year, there will be upsets however you will end up with the 10 teams who were consistently able to play at a high level.
[i]
Sure they may be able to so what has the first year accomplished? The
point is even if team 11 passes team 10 due to the year long trial have
you gained anything?

[/i]Why yes, you have accomplished quite a bit actually. You have allowed 16 girls the opportunity to earn a spot in Classic 1, which is a big accomplishment for them.

And the the reality is there will probably be more than one team that would have started in the second 10 that moves into the first 10 over the course of the year. Both of my times through the boys first year, I have seen more than one team earn a spot in Classic 1 that people didn't expect to be there when the year started.

Still the top 5 or so teams don't get the amount of quality games and teams 15-20 or so can be severely outmatched from time to time.

Many times this is true, particularly in the beginning of the first season, but there will always be surprises. This is soccer after all. I have noticed that the lower teams tend to adjust to the speed of the league as the season progresses and can come up with surprising efforts at times.

If the year is all about those 4 or 5 teams in the middle getting bragging rights then the 20 team plan does seem to be the best. There is no real right or wrong answer but what the majority wishes to do.

I think the bragging rights that those bottom 4 or 5 teams earn are important. The league is should be about more than just the top 4 or 5 teams. Playing in Classic 1 is a big accomplishment and all 10 teams that earn a spot should be proud. I do agree there are pluses and minuses to both techniques but having gone through the 20 team first year twice, I prefer it.

Blitzed wrote:Sincerely good points,
but, if you are talking teams 7-14 respectively trying to decide which ones are better than others you may end up with a group that on any given day could beat each other if they get the right bounce or if the wind is blowing just right etc...
Ah but you strengthen my argument. This is soccer so yes, a bad bounce or crazy wind is part of the game and can impact a game. However, over the course of a year, each team will have its share of breaks. This is much better than a crazy bounce deciding the QT tournament, IMO.

So, the debate will remain from year to year of can we beat said team that is 2 or 3 spots in front of us?

The purpose of the first year is not, in my opinion, to see whether one team can beat another. The purpose is to find the 10 teams that can consistently play at the highest level. Over the course of the 19 game year, there will be upsets however you will end up with the 10 teams who were consistently able to play at a high level.
[i]
Sure they may be able to so what has the first year accomplished? The
point is even if team 11 passes team 10 due to the year long trial have
you gained anything?

[/i]Why yes, you have accomplished quite a bit actually. You have allowed 16 girls the opportunity to earn a spot in Classic 1, which is a big accomplishment for them.

And the the reality is there will probably be more than one team that would have started in the second 10 that moves into the first 10 over the course of the year. Both of my times through the boys first year, I have seen more than one team earn a spot in Classic 1 that people didn't expect to be there when the year started.

Still the top 5 or so teams don't get the amount of quality games and teams 15-20 or so can be severely outmatched from time to time.

Many times this is true, particularly in the beginning of the first season, but there will always be surprises. This is soccer after all. I have noticed that the lower teams tend to adjust to the speed of the league as the season progresses and can come up with surprising efforts at times.

If the year is all about those 4 or 5 teams in the middle getting bragging rights then the 20 team plan does seem to be the best. There is no real right or wrong answer but what the majority wishes to do.

I think the bragging rights that those bottom 4 or 5 teams earn are important. The league is should be about more than just the top 4 or 5 teams. Playing in Classic 1 is a big accomplishment and all 10 teams that earn a spot should be proud. I do agree there are pluses and minuses to both techniques but having gone through the 20 team first year twice, I prefer it.

IMHO, the whole thing really doesn't matter the first year. It won't be until year 3 of select that you will find the kids who really want to commit the time and effort to playing club soccer (and have the ability to play at a higher level). At that point they will go to the better teams if they can and things really seperate themselves... Until then, just enjoy the ride and keep the troops happy.

Auto wrote:

Blitzed wrote:Sincerely good points,
but, if you are talking teams 7-14 respectively trying to decide which ones are better than others you may end up with a group that on any given day could beat each other if they get the right bounce or if the wind is blowing just right etc...
Ah but you strengthen my argument. This is soccer so yes, a bad bounce or crazy wind is part of the game and can impact a game. However, over the course of a year, each team will have its share of breaks. This is much better than a crazy bounce deciding the QT tournament, IMO.

So, the debate will remain from year to year of can we beat said team that is 2 or 3 spots in front of us?

The purpose of the first year is not, in my opinion, to see whether one team can beat another. The purpose is to find the 10 teams that can consistently play at the highest level. Over the course of the 19 game year, there will be upsets however you will end up with the 10 teams who were consistently able to play at a high level.
[i]
Sure they may be able to so what has the first year accomplished? The
point is even if team 11 passes team 10 due to the year long trial have
you gained anything?

[/i]Why yes, you have accomplished quite a bit actually. You have allowed 16 girls the opportunity to earn a spot in Classic 1, which is a big accomplishment for them.

And the the reality is there will probably be more than one team that would have started in the second 10 that moves into the first 10 over the course of the year. Both of my times through the boys first year, I have seen more than one team earn a spot in Classic 1 that people didn't expect to be there when the year started.

Still the top 5 or so teams don't get the amount of quality games and teams 15-20 or so can be severely outmatched from time to time.

Many times this is true, particularly in the beginning of the first season, but there will always be surprises. This is soccer after all. I have noticed that the lower teams tend to adjust to the speed of the league as the season progresses and can come up with surprising efforts at times.

If the year is all about those 4 or 5 teams in the middle getting bragging rights then the 20 team plan does seem to be the best. There is no real right or wrong answer but what the majority wishes to do.

I think the bragging rights that those bottom 4 or 5 teams earn are important. The league is should be about more than just the top 4 or 5 teams. Playing in Classic 1 is a big accomplishment and all 10 teams that earn a spot should be proud. I do agree there are pluses and minuses to both techniques but having gone through the 20 team first year twice, I prefer it.

IMHO, the whole thing really doesn't matter the first year. It won't be until year 3 of select that you will find the kids who really want to commit the time and effort to playing club soccer (and have the ability to play at a higher level). At that point they will go to the better teams if they can and things really seperate themselves... Until then, just enjoy the ride and keep the troops happy.

Well said Auto.....It's a marathon not a sprint

I've been through it with the boys side and now am experiencing it with the girls and I LIKE IT! With my bb's team, they played an excellent QT and were ranked 8th and, funny enough, ended up 8th after the U11 year. With my dd's team, girls had a misstep in one QT game and ended up further down the totem pole then we thought we would be. Think this U11 year of playing 20 teams will rectify that.
As for the recruiting....don't think there will be as much of that from the top teams. Surely most players will want to remain on those top 5 teams for another year so maybe 2--3 players will leave or be replaced on each team? I think the biggest changes will come around U14/U15 as players really get involved in school basketball, volleyball, track. I have seen good soccer players leave soccer, totally, to play school volleyball and run track. Anyway, all opinions on here are valid opinions and many good points have been brought up. Food for thought!

Good thought but after 2 years you will have at least 8 new players from when you started. That is half the team. So make sure you take care of your own

LoneStar wrote:Good thought but after 2 years you will have at least 8 new players from when you started. That is half the team. So make sure you take care of your own

I totally agree with Lonestar here.

[quote="KatCon"]

LoneStar wrote:Good thought but after 2 years you will have at least 8 new players from when you started. That is half the team. So make sure you take care of your own

I totally agree with Lonestar here. Now a days there is no such thing as committment from players, loyalty or somebody's word. Trust me I learned this the hard way last year. If you don't look out for your dd then nobody else will.[/quote]

Well said KC....take care of your own........things obviously worked out great for you.....

[quote="bexster"]

KatCon wrote:

LoneStar wrote:Good thought but after 2 years you will have at least 8 new players from when you started. That is half the team. So make sure you take care of your own

I totally agree with Lonestar here. Now a days there is no such thing as committment from players, loyalty or somebody's word. Trust me I learned this the hard way last year. If you don't look out for your dd then nobody else will.[/quote]

Well said KC....take care of your own........things obviously worked out great for you.....

Thanks Bexter, We are very lucky to end up with the great coaches she has now.

You are right LS, each year a few players move so after two years you will most likely have somewhere around 8 new players. Even teams that REALLY REALLY want to stay together will have movement. And Bexter and KC that is true, too--you are paying for your player so you definitely should take care of your player first. The team/club doesn't do what's best for your player....they do what's best for the team/club.

[quote="bexster"]

KatCon wrote:

LoneStar wrote:Good thought but after 2 years you will have at least 8 new players from when you started. That is half the team. So make sure you take care of your own

I totally agree with Lonestar here. Now a days there is no such thing as committment from players, loyalty or somebody's word. Trust me I learned this the hard way last year. If you don't look out for your dd then nobody else will.[/quote]

Well said KC....take care of your own........things obviously worked out great for you.....

Taking care of your dd should always come first obviously. Commitment, loyalty, and somebody's word should be a two way street by both the player/parent and the club. I understand that this is competitive soccer and the clubs will do what they do to get better so it's hard to say there is no commitment from the player when there is no commitment from the club.

Once again, i am glad you did what was best for your kid and what she wanted to do..... Hope we see you soon!!!!