03 LH QT Schedule

So basically if you are playing this weekend and can wow the committee it can certainly have an impact. I think what people need to look at is that we keep talking about one, maybe two teams each year that play in these tournaments as an example of the impact it can have and in reality there are 40 plus teams playing this weekend and we are talking about it having an impact on about 5% of the teams playing.

Plus how does anyone ever really know that it moves them up in the rankings? Unless I'm mistaken (and I have been before so this wouldn't be the first time) it's not like LH puts out a ranking pre Tut and Puma so you actually know how much if an impact playing this weekend has on your team.

My guess is right now they probably have teams slotted in groups and if someone sets the world on fire this weekend they will get moved around. I just wouldn't put too high of expectations on this weekends results.

SteveHolt! wrote:

jsullivan81 wrote:So, just an observation, Tut or Puma won't be used. On the King Tut, did they attempt to pair teams together? Some I see, others I dont.

Email received this morning indicates Tut and Puma will be used (as other posters have mentioned):

"First thank you all for attending the Qualifying Tournament meeting this evening. Hopefully you found the information useful.

A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"

Our plan is to seed and schedule the rest of the league before Friday. Seeding for U10s will happen after Sunday. We plan on scheduling the first U10 games for Thursday and Friday (7/25 & 26) to allow time for the late seeding.

We hope this helps ease any concerns."

Not sure what meeting you attended last night, but I heard Duncan say, "will have schedules out Friday. And we do a damn good job seeding, so don't question our ability.....deal with what we put out". Lead me to believe that they had their minds made up already and schedules would be out Friday. Wonder why the sudden change of heart??

Joe scafone wrote:

SteveHolt! wrote:

jsullivan81 wrote:So, just an observation, Tut or Puma won't be used. On the King Tut, did they attempt to pair teams together? Some I see, others I dont.

Email received this morning indicates Tut and Puma will be used (as other posters have mentioned):

"First thank you all for attending the Qualifying Tournament meeting this evening. Hopefully you found the information useful.

A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"

Our plan is to seed and schedule the rest of the league before Friday. Seeding for U10s will happen after Sunday. We plan on scheduling the first U10 games for Thursday and Friday (7/25 & 26) to allow time for the late seeding.

We hope this helps ease any concerns."

Not sure what meeting you attended last night, but I heard Duncan say, "will have schedules out Friday.  And we do a damn good job seeding, so don't question our ability.....deal with what we put out".   Lead me to believe that they had their minds made up already and schedules would be out Friday.   Wonder why the sudden change of heart??

According to the email (sent by Duncan Hoffman), "A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"

So I assume it came up after most of us had left or had stopped paying attention.

According to the email (sent by Duncan Hoffman), "A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"


they are just placating you, its easier that way....

they are just placating you, its easier that way....

That would not surprise me.

SteveHolt! wrote:

Joe scafone wrote:

SteveHolt! wrote:

jsullivan81 wrote:So, just an observation, Tut or Puma won't be used. On the King Tut, did they attempt to pair teams together? Some I see, others I dont.

Email received this morning indicates Tut and Puma will be used (as other posters have mentioned):

"First thank you all for attending the Qualifying Tournament meeting this evening. Hopefully you found the information useful.

A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"

Our plan is to seed and schedule the rest of the league before Friday. Seeding for U10s will happen after Sunday. We plan on scheduling the first U10 games for Thursday and Friday (7/25 & 26) to allow time for the late seeding.

We hope this helps ease any concerns."

Not sure what meeting you attended last night, but I heard Duncan say, "will have schedules out Friday.  And we do a damn good job seeding, so don't question our ability.....deal with what we put out".   Lead me to believe that they had their minds made up already and schedules would be out Friday.   Wonder why the sudden change of heart??

According to the email (sent by Duncan Hoffman), "A valid question was asked after the meeting. "How can you schedule our team(s) by Friday if our Tut and Puma performance is going to be part of the seeding exercise?"

So I assume it came up after most of us had left or had stopped paying attention.

I in fact asked this question to Duncan after the meeting had concluded because based on what was said in the meeting about schedules being out prior to the Tut and Puma, I wanted to know if we were wasting our time by entering "IF" the results were not even going to be used in seeding teams.   He gave an elaborate response about the committee being at the games this weekend and also that they have been invited out to scrimmages.   Yesterday morning, the email was sent to all TM stating what he had told me after the meeting.   He also stated that when the application is submitted, the history information that the TM provides about where the team finished in a league and/or past tournaments is used in seeding so it is always in a team's best interest to provide that information on the application.  I assume that information is followed up to check for the validity of those statements.    Bottom line is, they already have some idea of where teams will be seeded and if you do not like where your team gets seeded, he said, "he will not change it, so deal with it."

I in fact asked this question to Duncan after the meeting had concluded because based on what was said in the meeting about schedules being out prior to the Tut and Puma, I wanted to know if we were wasting our time by entering "IF" the results were not even going to be used in seeding teams.   He gave an elaborate response about the committee being at the games this weekend and also that they have been invited out to scrimmages.   Yesterday morning, the email was sent to all TM stating what he had told me after the meeting.   He also stated that when the application is submitted, the history information that the TM provides about where the team finished in a league and/or past tournaments is used in seeding so it is always in a team's best interest to provide that information on the application.  I assume that information is followed up to check for the validity of those statements.    Bottom line is, they already have some idea of where teams will be seeded and if you do not like where your team gets seeded, he said, "he will not change it, so deal with it."

Great info - thanks!

Can you imagine trying to actually seed 52 teams in a tournament? Especially when we are talking about 10 year olds?

I started trying to type out a top 13 and even that was hard after the first 5. IF they do take into account your team accomplishments in recent leagues and tournaments what do some of these teams really have to hang their hats on when trying to justify their seeding (assuming it's something you aren't happy with)? The majority (obviously not all) of the tournaments that either SRSA, DTS, LP Elite, FCD Gold, and Sting G entered one of those teams won and I can only think of one tournament in the past 6 months where more than one of these teams were in a tournament and they didn't meet in the finals. Then if you look at the leagues they played in, is finishing at the bottom of a Gold league mean more than finishing at the top of a silver league?

Now if they used the FBR as a jumping off point that might help but even then that can only get you so far. I tip my hat to the committee because it has to be a mind numbing, pain in the arse trying to seed these teams.

Agree 100%

Rank the top 10 to 12

pull the rest out of a hat

Let them play it on the field, 2 weeks to qualify, the top 30 will show themselfs

How would you even begin to make an assessment based on player movement in June/early July. Lots of these teams including ours has added/lost quality players that can make a difference. I always thougth King Tut/Puma was the first chance to see how these teams really begin to sort out.

My gut tells me that much of this sorting out won't really take place until well into Fall/Spring seasons. By then we should have all marked out realistic territory, LH or PPL divisions.

...excluding maybe top 5 or 10.

I thought they also go out to games because quality of play (possession vs kick ball) also is part of the seeding equation. Is that not correct? If it is true, That will certainly impact teams 5-30. Not all top 5-10+ teams play or even try to play a good possession game. Will that hurt them or is a win is a win is a win ... No matter how ugly?

Just watching it over the past few years, here is what I have seen...

Their rankings are quite similar overall to Gopher's list (as far as groupings of teams) since the difference in ability between 2 and 12 is actually different, but 20 and 22 are usually quite similar in ability, there is a little variance, but similar teams don't face up anyway...

So, Puma and Tut show how similar teams stack up against each other (but with 13 brackets, unless you are a 13/14, you don't play each other anyway...12/15...11/16 are the ones that find the seeding most difficult. (Okay, so you were 15...and after Tut you think you deserve the 12...so you play the 15 who last time was 12 anyway...).

They often DON'T put 3 Sting teams or 3 Solar teams in the same group, so they will substitute an 11 for a 12 sometimes, but there is NO guarantee of that.

Outside of the ones who everyone knows are the top X number of teams, the second weekend is the most fair way to do it, and other than the teams close to the turnarounds (12/13 and 26/27 who play each other) it doesn't really change a lot.

As Gophers says (and I paraphrase-apologies)...a few will surprise and get in, a few will surprise and be left out, but overall, you are what you are. Play the game.

dadof3 wrote:Just watching it over the past few years, here is what I have seen...

Their rankings are quite similar overall to Gopher's list (as far as groupings of teams) since the difference in ability between 2 and 12 is actually different, but 20 and 22 are usually quite similar in ability, there is a little variance, but similar teams don't face up anyway...

So, Puma and Tut show how similar teams stack up against each other (but with 13 brackets, unless you are a 13/14, you don't play each other anyway...12/15...11/16 are the ones that find the seeding most difficult.  (Okay, so you were 15...and after Tut you think you deserve the 12...so you play the 15 who last time was 12 anyway...).

They often DON'T put 3 Sting teams or 3 Solar teams in the same group, so they will substitute an 11 for a 12 sometimes, but there is NO guarantee of that.

Outside of the ones who everyone knows are the top X number of teams, the second weekend is the most fair way to do it, and other than the teams close to the turnarounds (12/13 and 26/27 who play each other) it doesn't really change a lot.

As Gophers says (and I paraphrase-apologies)...a few will surprise and get in, a few will surprise and be left out, but overall, you are what you are.  Play the game.

 
Very well said on every level.      At the end of the day the best 18-20 teams will make it into D1.  It might take some teams 2 weeks to get in based on less than ideal seedings but if they are worthy then they will most likely cruise through the second weekend with the only pressure being the added pressure the parents put on them.  

To the '04 (and younger) parents lurking....with QT being so close on the heels of Tut/Puma this year and likely hereafter, FBR/tournament play results will most likely determine your seedings.  Therefore by hook or by crook get into the top 8 of FBR by years end and you shouldn't have to worry about a thing....

Till-I-Collapse wrote: I thought they also go out to games because quality of play (possession vs kick ball) also is part of the seeding equation. Is that not correct?  If it is true, That will certainly impact teams 5-30. Not all top 5-10+ teams play or even try to play a good possession game.   Will that hurt them or is a win is a win is a win ... No matter how ugly?

It was my understanding they don't care about style of soccer but a win is a win is a win. I bet they will rank teams only on wins and losses and will not give any benefit to the better style of play, if you don't win.

I also thought I read somewhere that the FBR have absolutely no bearing on what the seeding committee does and they don't even look at the FBR. But I could be wrong.

RunsLikeWind wrote:

Till-I-Collapse wrote: I thought they also go out to games because quality of play (possession vs kick ball) also is part of the seeding equation. Is that not correct?  If it is true, That will certainly impact teams 5-30. Not all top 5-10+ teams play or even try to play a good possession game.   Will that hurt them or is a win is a win is a win ... No matter how ugly?

It was my understanding they don't care about style of soccer but a win is a win is a win.  I bet they will rank teams only on wins and losses and will not give any benefit to the better style of play, if you don't win.  

I also thought I read somewhere that the FBR have absolutely no bearing on what the seeding committee does and they don't even look at the FBR.  But I could be wrong.

They say they don't, but the rankings look oddly familiar.

RunsLikeWind wrote:

Till-I-Collapse wrote: I thought they also go out to games because quality of play (possession vs kick ball) also is part of the seeding equation. Is that not correct?  If it is true, That will certainly impact teams 5-30. Not all top 5-10+ teams play or even try to play a good possession game.   Will that hurt them or is a win is a win is a win ... No matter how ugly?

It was my understanding they don't care about style of soccer but a win is a win is a win.  I bet they will rank teams only on wins and losses and will not give any benefit to the better style of play, if you don't win.  

I also thought I read somewhere that the FBR have absolutely no bearing on what the seeding committee does and they don't even look at the FBR.  But I could be wrong.

I actually did have a recent discussion with someone who has been involved in QT seeding in recent years. I was told by this person that style of play has been taken into account, from the standpoint of the following example...

Let's say you have 2 teams playing each other in the same King TuT pool, and those teams play to a 2-2 Draw. Team A scores their goals by playing kickball out of the back and driving long balls up the field with no particular direction to 1 or 2 stud athletes up top that just can't be stopped. Team B has much more balanced talent and skill across the entire field and scores their goals through a combination of methodical possession and skill. The seeding committee will lean towards giving Team B the higher seed because if Team A were to lose the 1 or 2 stud players to injury or something else, their level of play and competitiveness would take a larger hit than if Team B lost any of it's players.

In that context, I thought it made perfect sense.

dadof3 wrote:

RunsLikeWind wrote:

Till-I-Collapse wrote: I thought they also go out to games because quality of play (possession vs kick ball) also is part of the seeding equation. Is that not correct?  If it is true, That will certainly impact teams 5-30. Not all top 5-10+ teams play or even try to play a good possession game.   Will that hurt them or is a win is a win is a win ... No matter how ugly?

It was my understanding they don't care about style of soccer but a win is a win is a win.  I bet they will rank teams only on wins and losses and will not give any benefit to the better style of play, if you don't win.  

I also thought I read somewhere that the FBR have absolutely no bearing on what the seeding committee does and they don't even look at the FBR.  But I could be wrong.

They say they don't, but the rankings look oddly familiar.  

That's because the rankings are result driven, and in most cases, the results generally follow the quality of athletes a team puts on the field, and/or the overall quality of play on the field. There are exceptions, and that's why you will see some select cases of large seeding difference from FBR. In those cases, over the past couple of years, is been pretty close to 50-50 between FBR being correct vs. the seeding committee.

Also, everyone talks about teams having huge changes between May and July and those changes having impact on a team. Again, my observation is that the number of cases where changes (either key losses or key additions) move a team more than +/- 3 spots or so in the pecking order, are actually pretty rare. Most of the teams that are in the hunt for LHGCL, and especially for D1, have solid cores, and unless a large chunk of those cores (i.e. 5+ starters) has turned over and been replaced with noticeably stronger or weaker players in that time, you just don't see drastic changes in performance. Unless you are in the 17-23 range, or the 27-33 range, +/- 3 spots in the pecking order doesn't really change your fortunes when it comes to qualifying.

This is a primary reason why FBR, based on game performance from 4+ months leading up to QT, is generally not only pretty good at predicting who qualifies, but is also a fairly accurate indicator of what the final standings will look like after U11 is completed.

There are lies, darn lies and then statistics.

No in truth gophers FBR has been amazingly accurate haven't done the math but I would say it predicts to about 85% accuracey. Gopher you could correct me on that one It should be a fun weekend and just in time the heat has decideded to come back and grace the state.

The analysis from last year's FBR-vs-LHGCL QT seeding... Sure looks like the Gopher does a
better job (at least last year) that the seeding committee...

Interesting info Gypsy. Can't wait to see this years comparison after everything is said and done.

Thank you gypsy for the the breakdown.....but, the way I see it when comparing LHGCL Seeding vs. FBR : 26/30 of each made it into the League.

In other words, if you take the Seeding Committee's Top30 and you take FBR's Top30.....both had 26/30 make it....4 misfires....that is about 87%.

That sounds kind of impressive. But, I bet I can take my 03 and give her the list of 52 in alphabetical order...and say "which of these do you think will qualify?". I'm guessing she'll be at least 75% accurate (without out any help from dad!).

SolarPower00 wrote:Thank you gypsy for the the breakdown.....but, the way I see it when comparing LHGCL Seeding vs. FBR :  26/30 of each made it into the League.

In other words, if you take the Seeding Committee's Top30 and you take FBR's Top30.....both had 26/30 make it....4 misfires....that is about 87%.

That sounds kind of impressive. But, I bet I can take my 03 and give her the list of 52 in alphabetical order...and say "which of these do you think will qualify?".  I'm guessing she'll be at least 75% accurate (without out any help from dad!).

SP00 - You are correct on all points.

Here is the summary of QT Seeding and FBR vs. actual qualifying teams from the past 2 years.  Nearly identical with overall accuracy of ~85%.

bwgophers wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:Thank you gypsy for the the breakdown.....but, the way I see it when comparing LHGCL Seeding vs. FBR :  26/30 of each made it into the League.

In other words, if you take the Seeding Committee's Top30 and you take FBR's Top30.....both had 26/30 make it....4 misfires....that is about 87%.

That sounds kind of impressive. But, I bet I can take my 03 and give her the list of 52 in alphabetical order...and say "which of these do you think will qualify?".  I'm guessing she'll be at least 75% accurate (without out any help from dad!).

SP00 - You are correct on all points.

Here is the summary of QT Seeding and FBR vs. actual qualifying teams from the past 2 years.  Nearly identical with overall accuracy of ~85%.

Of course, just predicting "who will qualify" is a pretty low bar. It's more impressive to predict the order of finish a year after the final pole!

Ruh Roh Rorge!  QT Format change this year... 

The full 20-team D1 Supergroup is going to be determined from Week 1 of QT.  Week 2 will be to determine who gets into D3...

http://girlsclassicleague.com/2013QTFormatsfinal.pdf

FORMAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN CHANGED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS YEARS.  PLEASE DISREGARD MY POST ABOVE - BW.

Omg. Not sure if I like this or not
I'll let you know in about 10 days. 

https://events.gotsport.com/%28S%28wv0jrl55vlbdbya0bp5lo555%29%29/events/default.aspx?EventID=32488

The schedules posted...but will change.