LH QT Seeding

And now back to the original topic... If all teams played equal number of games, (3) and those games outcomes decided bracket winners. Why isn't the same logic applied again to the wild card winner, based on points. The 3 team brackets aren't just 3 teams and they didn't play just two games in their brackets. They played 3 games, one against a cross bracket team. So logic would dictate all teams have equal number of total points. Ergo the percentage results would be same across all teams inclusive of out of bracket game to get to equal total number of games per bracket based on Scafones post. It doesn't make sense to throughout a game because u are in a three team bracket when considering results, if you us that logic then are the bracket winners really the bracket winners in 3 team brackets if only in bracket games are considered

As a gunner fan I have to like you and have to totally agree. Don't know if it would be a technicality if they manage to get passed 2 in the following week. Would agree watched a lot of soccer this weekend not a whole lot of posession. Partly the fields I think some teams tried to play posession but got frustrated by the inability to do such on the pitch so turned to a kick and hope approach. Not pretty at all our side was just as guilty. (a lot of sides were from what I saw as well)

For us were going back to PPL to improve on a lot of the little things we need to improve on. Maybe win some games but just get better. Crazy concept but that to me is what this needs to be about for every team. Wins are nice don't get me wrong, but development has to be the real goal. I better make this my last post because I know my favourite fans are going to be cyber bulling me real soon, posting something weird like "development is some excuse for making parents feel better about loses". Or even more classy stuff like a 2 nil loss is a blow out.

So this will be my last post on the subject. Good luck

Joe scafone wrote:Okay, so maybe the combined the two brackets together then.   So, here there would be 80 total points.    With 80 total, then they would have 16/80 = 20%.       

Bracket A, Bracket B
Team 1   Team 2   Team 3   Team 4   Team 5   Team 6   Points
001) TEXAS REDSTAR 01G     2-0 7-0 n/a 3-0 n/a 29
002) AFC 01 RED   0-2   n/a 1-0 n/a 2-0 17
003) FC DALLAS 01G BLUE   0-7 n/a   1-2 0-2 n/a 1
004) INFINITY FC 01 GIRLS   n/a 0-1 2-1   n/a 1-0 16
005) FORNEY SC 01 GIRLS   0-3 n/a 2-0 n/a   0-1 9
006) MEJA WILLIAMS 01 GIRLS   n/a 0-2 n/a 0-1 1-0   8

You would think the formula would statistically normalize the difference between the 3 team brackets and 4 team brackets but it doesn't.  Having the one crossover game gives each team the same number of games.  However, reading the letter of the rule, Joe's original interpretation would be correct.  Though they depict bracket A & B together in results, they are shown independently in the Standings and the rule says total possible points is "the sum total of all points scored in a team's bracket".

The formula is what it is fair or not. If you try to read into the rule what is not stated and say A & B together should be added to determine the sum total of all possible points, it still would not be "fair".  For example, under this scenario, if Infinity had scored 21 points, their percentile according to the calculation would have been 26.25%.  While Keegan's 20 points would still be 33.9%.  So, the same inequities would exist whether you look at the brackets independently or combined - 20 points doesn't equal 20 points.  

I think the problem is with the formula itself and yet it says what it says.  If the definition of "total possible points" were different, it would have the likely intended effect. Since the idea of the crossover was to give the teams the same number of games, that part was good but the total points actually scored is statistically irrelevant in attempting to make all things equal.  If however, they calculated the total possible max points available to be scored in a 4 team bracket and applied that to each score it would be equitable - but if you are going to do that, why use the percentile concept at all?  if each team has three games, conceptually, each team has the same opportunity to earn the same number of points, so why go by percentile? Percentile would be relevant if they did not have the opportunity to play the same number of games.

So, if you go by the letter of the rule, Infinity is the wildcard.  But, if you go by who scored the most points out of what was truly the most possible points available, Keegan should get it.  LHGCL got their definition wrong, but really, had no business using the percentile concept when they already normalized the short brackets with the single game crossovers, which gave each team the same opportunity to score Max points of 30 over three games.  When they all had the same opportunity to score Max points (or total possible points), there was no need to use percentile concept.

I saw the same thing JustASport saw this weekend. In last year's D3, we saw how one team could do very well without playing any possession soccer. This appears to be the exception, not the rule. This weekend, it appeared that most teams are playing "dump and chase" or "high/low" soccer because the players haven't been taught possession soccer. So, you go with what you know. Which is wrong in my opinion.

Passes should "find feet". "Long-ball passing with no intent" (as JustASport points out) works only if there is a transcendant forward who can make goals happen with overpowering will or significant individual skill.

But this responsibility falls on the coaches who should be teaching possession soccer mixed in with some use of "clearing the zone" when the situation warrants it.

allhatnocattle wrote:In last year's D3, we saw how one team could do very well without playing any possession soccer.

It isn't just a D3 phenomenon. There is a lot of ugly (but effective) soccer out there, and everyone is guilty of it from time to time.

Oh no, this thread is being hijacked by the "long ball vs. possession" debate! Save the thread. This too shall pass.

Okay, I would think LP has the wild card as all teams played 3 games, the percentage rule does not come into play. LP had the most points possible versus available.

Can any LP parents confirm that their team is indeed the Wild Card?

Tiki-taka wrote:Oh no, this thread is being hijacked by the "long ball vs. possession" debate!  Save the thread.  This too shall pass.

Okay, I would think LP has the wild card as all teams played 3 games, the percentage rule does not come into play.  LP had the most points possible versus available.  

Can any LP parents confirm that their team is indeed the Wild Card?  

I don't think anyone can confirm anything until LHGCL posts the brackets for round 2. I would doubt the league will be offcially informing anyone of anything before they post - info of their decision may leak but it certainly won't be to the parents, imo.

What you're saying makes sense and is consistent with my take, but nonetheless, is not consistent with the actual wording of the rule. So, will be interesting to see how LHGCL handles it.

http://www.girlsclassicleague.org/QT13-Round1.pdf

U13
The following teams will advance to Round 2

Texas Redstar 01G
AFC 01 Red
Lady Aztecs FC 01
Sting Ft. Worth 01 O’Keefe
Dallas Kicks Blue SC 01
Frisco Fusion 01G
NTX Strikers 01
Infinity FC 01G

Eagle1 wrote:http://www.girlsclassicleague.org/QT13-Round1.pdf

U13
The following teams will advance to Round 2

Texas Redstar 01G
AFC 01 Red
Lady Aztecs FC 01
Sting Ft. Worth 01 O’Keefe
Dallas Kicks Blue SC 01
Frisco Fusion 01G
NTX Strikers 01
Infinity FC 01G

Congrats to all that made it to next week and good luck.

Thermonuclear wrote:

Joe scafone wrote:Okay, so maybe the combined the two brackets together then.   So, here there would be 80 total points.    With 80 total, then they would have 16/80 = 20%.       

Bracket A, Bracket B
Team 1   Team 2   Team 3   Team 4   Team 5   Team 6   Points
001) TEXAS REDSTAR 01G     2-0 7-0 n/a 3-0 n/a 29
002) AFC 01 RED   0-2   n/a 1-0 n/a 2-0 17
003) FC DALLAS 01G BLUE   0-7 n/a   1-2 0-2 n/a 1
004) INFINITY FC 01 GIRLS   n/a 0-1 2-1   n/a 1-0 16
005) FORNEY SC 01 GIRLS   0-3 n/a 2-0 n/a   0-1 9
006) MEJA WILLIAMS 01 GIRLS   n/a 0-2 n/a 0-1 1-0   8

You would think the formula would statistically normalize the difference between the 3 team brackets and 4 team brackets but it doesn't.  Having the one crossover game gives each team the same number of games.  However, reading the letter of the rule, Joe's original interpretation would be correct.  Though they depict bracket A & B together in results, they are shown independently in the Standings and the rule says total possible points is "the sum total of all points scored in a team's bracket".

The formula is what it is fair or not. If you try to read into the rule what is not stated and say A & B together should be added to determine the sum total of all possible points, it still would not be "fair".  For example, under this scenario, if Infinity had scored 21 points, their percentile according to the calculation would have been 26.25%.  While Keegan's 20 points would still be 33.9%.  So, the same inequities would exist whether you look at the brackets independently or combined - 20 points doesn't equal 20 points.  

I think the problem is with the formula itself and yet it says what it says.  If the definition of "total possible points" were different, it would have the likely intended effect. Since the idea of the crossover was to give the teams the same number of games, that part was good but the total points actually scored is statistically irrelevant in attempting to make all things equal.  If however, they calculated the total possible max points available to be scored in a 4 team bracket and applied that to each score it would be equitable - but if you are going to do that, why use the percentile concept at all?  if each team has three games, conceptually, each team has the same opportunity to earn the same number of points, so why go by percentile? Percentile would be relevant if they did not have the opportunity to play the same number of games.

So, if you go by the letter of the rule, Infinity is the wildcard.  But, if you go by who scored the most points out of what was truly the most possible points available, Keegan should get it.  LHGCL got their definition wrong, but really, had no business using the percentile concept when they already normalized the short brackets with the single game crossovers, which gave each team the same opportunity to score Max points of 30 over three games.  When they all had the same opportunity to score Max points (or total possible points), there was no need to use percentile concept.

Now we know - LHGCL followed their rule no matter how ill conceived. Maybe they'll take a closer look at that concept before next year.

What an absolute sham! 3 team bracket with cross bracket game not counting? Why play the game ? I gues they were practice games for the LH Incumbants to mop up PPL teams. Nice Job LH ! Sounds like school board ruling Gee everyone did bad on test lets throw out low score of 3 team bracket and average the points...Yeah that sounds about right!

Good luck to all remaining teams playing LH system

WOW!

Tiki-taka wrote:Oh no, this thread is being hijacked by the "long ball vs. possession" debate!  Save the thread.  This too shall pass.

Okay, I would think LP has the wild card as all teams played 3 games, the percentage rule does not come into play.  LP had the most points possible versus available.  

Can any LP parents confirm that their team is indeed the Wild Card?  

Didn't mean to hijack the thread, Double T; although I think the majority of my statements were specific to the QT games and this age group. It is refreshing to read that Marv and AllHat recognized much of the same type of play I witnessed... and were bold enough to address it on here. I'm with Marv in that I would sure rather see my daughter's new team just be able to work on their game without the pressure of D3 for a year. Certainly not all of the parents would agree with me; and I understand that. But from what I saw, EVERY team in their bracket would benefit from not advancing out of Plano. NONE of them are up to that level at this point. As mentioned, hopefully this next weekend will work out such that those with the true talent and ability to compete at the next level up will be among the teams to advance.

The cross-play caveat for total points and advancement that LHGCL is using is an odd one. I don't remember any tournaments ever incorporating such a practice in the past.

Really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - rule was written before games started, just no one paid attention to it.

Bummer for LP. Congrats to Infinity! Good luck to all this weekend.

No doubt, Liverpool Keegan was wronged. Really, they had earned a 2nd weekend spot after their second game. Yesterday, their game vs Strikers was decided in the first minute when Strikers scored on their first push. After that, Strikers clogged the middle and Keegan's forwards had almost no chance to get a shot off, much less even possess the ball in the middle.

Realistically, Infinity/Keegan would've been assigned to Redstar's bracket. I know, anything can happen, but Redstar appears the heaviest favorite to win a D3 spot.

After that, one has to like the chances of Kicks Blue, NTX Strikers, and Frisco Fusion to finish D3. Top to bottom, their brackets had more to them than the others.

Redstar comes the closest to playing the type of soccer that could put a team into the top half of D3 in 2013-2014.

JustaSport wrote:
The cross-play caveat for total points and advancement that LHGCL is using is an odd one.  I don't remember any tournaments ever incorporating such a practice in the past.

I think I remember this same rule being used & discussed for this age group during U11 QT. Only difference was that I don't believe they played a cross-over/3rd game in the 3 team pools. I could be wrong . . . slept too many times since then.

Congrats to those that advanced! Best of luck!

APato wrote:WOW!

I second that WOW! I feel for LP Keegan. This will definitely motivate them the rest of the year.

I said I wouldn't post on this subject but it is just so interesting to me. Even though we will be playing in Plano.
As a math major that loves numbers I am very interested in how this all works out next week. A lot depends on how LH does it's seedings. As stated before with only 1 wild card there was an inherent unfairness associated with seedings and how the wild card would be obtained. (I.E. easier brackets would allow more points) To average it out this percentail thing makes sense. If infinty serves itself well next week and gets in then this fair or not fair should probably subside. If North Texas blows doesn't blow out teams next week that had statistically a more challenging bracket then LH method worked. If it goes the other way there will be a lot of folks from LP running to ask LH "what the heck are they doing and we were robbed." At the end of the day 4 teams will survive the heat, the bumps, the refs, the parents and the crazy coaches. Some will kick and chase, some will try to hold on to the ball. Hopefully all will have fun and be ready to go back to school at the end of the summer becasue at the end of the day these little girls (soon to be young women yes they all turn 13 this year) need to be thinking about reading, writing and adding and maybe having some fun playing the beautiful game wherever it may be. (Oh one more thing stay away from boys)

For the four lucky (or not so lucky) it will be in lake highlands.

Good luck to all and for the love of Pete, can we see four passes prior to a goal once this weekend it will make a lot of people happy with just a little build up. Maybe a switch in the play once in a while.

If I were a Liverpool family, I'd be pretty angry right now.

LP got robbed.. LH committee blew this one.

Bracket A
1: TEXAS REDSTAR 01G (TXN)
4: STING FT. WORTH '01 (O'KEEFE) (TXN)
5: KICKS SC DALLAS KICKS BLUE SC 01 (TXN)
14: INFINITY

Bracket B
2: AFC 01 RED (TXN)
3: AZTECS FC LADY AZTECS FC 01 (TXN)
6: FRISCO FUSION 01G (TXN)
7: NTX STRIKERS 01 BLUE (TXN)

My predictions if the above brackets hold true:

1: TEXAS REDSTAR 01G (TXN)
5: KICKS SC DALLAS KICKS BLUE SC 01 (TXN)
6: FRISCO FUSION 01G (TXN)
7: NTX STRIKERS 01 BLUE (TXN)

DDsdadforsoccer wrote:A- Texas Redstar
B- AFC Red
C- Aztecs
D- Sting Fort Worth
E- Kicks Blue
F- Frisco Fusion
G- Strikers

Wildcard- Andro Blue

Congrats to DDsdadforsoccer, he had the best/closest prediction of the results for round 1

allhatnocattle wrote:I'd say Infinity is set up to do well for the first weekend of QT.  AFC, their bracket's #1 seed, had a tough King Tut bracket and didn't do well this weekend.  Don't know about Meja, but Infinity's other game is against FCD Blue.  FCD Blue had a frustrating weekend as well.

Looks like they have a chance of making it through to the second weekend.

Did you buy a lottery ticket? had Inifinity been seeded 8 or 9, I wonder....

Tiki-taka wrote:

allhatnocattle wrote:I'd say Infinity is set up to do well for the first weekend of QT.  AFC, their bracket's #1 seed, had a tough King Tut bracket and didn't do well this weekend.  Don't know about Meja, but Infinity's other game is against FCD Blue.  FCD Blue had a frustrating weekend as well.

Looks like they have a chance of making it through to the second weekend.

Did you buy a lottery ticket?   had Inifinity been seeded 8 or 9, I wonder....

Totally forgot I posted that. But they did make it to the second weekend last year, too.

In an effort to understand why LH created this rule, what if the following VERY PLAUSIBLE scenario had occurred?

Infinity beats FCD Blue 3-1 and beats Meja Williams 2-0, making their total 18 points and winning the bracket. AFC Red would've been finished 2nd with 17 points.

Do you still believe LP Keegan should advance over AFC Red purely on points when they (the #2 seed) played and lost to the #1 seed?

Did LH create this rule to account for the seeding issues with the cross-over bracket?