Re: LH QT Seeding

by KeeperSweeper 30/07/13, 10:29 pm

Bracket A is brutal!

by Tiki-taka 30/07/13, 11:27 pm

Using the serpentine method, Infinity should be the last seed whether using the seeding from week 1 (WC) or the previous season results. Which means they should have been in Bracket A in both scenarios. Sorry, but something doesn't seem right with both week 1 Infinity seeding and now week 2. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it just seems strange. What am I missing?

My predictions now:
Redstar
Strikers
Aztecs
Fusion

Shouldn't the serpentine method be:
Bracket A: 1, 4, 5, 8
Bracket B: 2, 3, 6, 7

by Tiki-taka 30/07/13, 11:35 pm

Here are the round two rules straight from the LH website, looks like they created a rematch and if they don't make the change they are enforcing the last sentence of the rules:

ROUND 2: (12 games)
The 8 teams that advance to Round 2 will be seeded into 2 Brackets of 4. Teams in all Brackets will play all other teams within their bracket.

Brackets
X1:1A Y1:1B
X2:1D Y2:1C
X3:1E Y3:1WC
X4:3WC Y4:2WC
The top two teams in each bracket will qualify for the league in Division III. All other teams are eliminated.
• highest percentile of points = total points/total possible bracket points.
• total possible points in round is the sum total of all points scored in a team’s bracket.
* To the extent possible, Round 2 Brackets will be adjusted after Round 1 to make certain that teams from the same Round 1 Brackets do not play each other in Round 2. Therefore, teams may not actually play in the Brackets as shown above. All bracket adjustments will be done at the discretion of LHGCL.

by Tiki-taka 30/07/13, 11:40 pm

Where is BWGophers to set us straight on this?

by Guest 30/07/13, 11:41 pm

by Guest 30/07/13, 11:50 pm

bwgophers wrote:

If gophers is stumped...you know something MUST be wrong!

by Guest 31/07/13, 07:39 am

3-4-3 wrote:
bwgophers wrote:

If gophers is stumped...you know something MUST be wrong!

I'd love to hear an explanation from LH on how the whole '01 QT was handled this year, because for the life of me, I can't figure it out. Everything from the partial crossover between brackets A & B, to the justification for how the wildcard was determined, to the change-up in the week 2 serpentine that actually ends up with a week 1 rematch.

Honestly, none of it makes sense to me.

by allhatnocattle 31/07/13, 07:43 am

Had they switched Infinity to Bracket A and NTX Strikers to Bracket B, this whole thing would've been fair and balanced. Just like Fox News Channel.

by zerocool 31/07/13, 08:28 am

I would like to hear from a team In bracket A, what response they got from LH, or did they just accept it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-rNIAN5o5M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

by Mia Hamster 31/07/13, 08:37 am

Fair or not, bracket A is going to have some hard fought games this weekend.

Kicks, Strikers, & Redstar have all shown they have 'what it takes'.

It will come down to who is the hungriest for a LH spot. No way to predict who will be the best 2 of that group.

Bracket B: why even play the games? Aztecs & Fusion have that tied up.

by Zeko2 31/07/13, 08:40 am

I always thought that if teams played each other in Round 1, that efforts would be made to reshuffle them, so they wouldn't face each other again in the second round? Seems strange. In the 02 bracket, they also have a rematch from round 1.

by flippinA 31/07/13, 12:29 pm

Im Back...i have missed all this fun...ive seen the controversey of letting Infinity in over LP... i think that is an aweful mistake. Put LP and Infinity on the field and LP beats them 3-0...thats a fact not a guess.... but we will never see that and LP gets to play in Plano and probably dominate this year and go undefeated..not a bad consulation prize..

Ok now on to the brackets, why are they putting AFC and Infinity in the same bracket for the 2nd straight week? Will their game not count? has anybody looked at the rules to make sure this isnt going to happen...I mean really...

Imo NT Strikers are the top seed then Redstar, Lady Aztec, then Kicks Blue. So LH committee puts 1,2 and 4 in same bracket and then 3, 5, 6 in the next bracket...but 5,6,7,8 could beat each other on any given day, thats how close they are. #5 is FF, and #6,7,8 are all the same.

So looking at the brackets, Nt Strikers and Kicks Blue are in from bracket A. Frisco Fusion and Lady Aztecs from Bracket B.

Im not counting Redstar out...but either way...1 or 2 good teams will be left out.

Good news is, the games must be played and the score is 0-0 when they start. Its anybody's game from here. Good Luck to all participating this weekend and let the best teams win. Peace out...

by longhorns24 31/07/13, 12:36 pm

They apparently listened and have swapped Infinity into Bracket A and Strikers into Bracket B.

by CHIVAS 31/07/13, 12:37 pm

Schedule is out....http://events.gotsport.com/events/Default.aspx?eventid=33941

by #9156 31/07/13, 12:43 pm

Have any of you commenting saw Frisco Fusion play recently? They are NOT the same team that dominated PPL last year.

I predict RedStar, Kicks, Strikers, & Aztecs.

by longhorns24 31/07/13, 12:45 pm

Frisco Fusion did just beat Strikers in Tut 3-1.

by allhatnocattle 31/07/13, 12:55 pm

longhorns24 wrote:They apparently listened and have swapped Infinity into Bracket A and Strikers into Bracket B.

I think this was the right move. They got it right after, well, not getting it right with LP Keegan.

Bracket B looks a bit tougher and more well-balanced now.

by Thermonuclear 31/07/13, 02:58 pm

flippinA wrote:Im Back...i have missed all this fun...ive seen the controversey of letting Infinity in over LP... i think that is an aweful mistake. Put LP and Infinity on the field and LP beats them 3-0...thats a fact not a guess.... but we will never see that and LP gets to play in Plano and probably dominate this year and go undefeated..not a bad consulation prize..

Ok now on to the brackets, why are they putting AFC and Infinity in the same bracket for the 2nd straight week? Will their game not count? has anybody looked at the rules to make sure this isnt going to happen...I mean really...

Imo NT Strikers are the top seed then Redstar, Lady Aztec, then Kicks Blue. So LH committee puts 1,2 and 4 in same bracket and then 3, 5, 6 in the next bracket...but 5,6,7,8 could beat each other on any given day, thats how close they are. #5 is FF, and #6,7,8 are all the same.

So looking at the brackets, Nt Strikers and Kicks Blue are in from bracket A. Frisco Fusion and Lady Aztecs from Bracket B.

Im not counting Redstar out...but either way...1 or 2 good teams will be left out.

Good news is, the games must be played and the score is 0-0 when they start. Its anybody's game from here. Good Luck to all participating this weekend and let the best teams win. Peace out...

Infinity tied Keegan in Spring PPL - interesting fact. Not sure how anyone could guarantee a 3-0 win as fact - not even a pie eyed parent like me - or you. Anyway, huge long shot for either to have made final four and girls from both teams will have much more fun dominating PPL.

by CelticFC 02/08/13, 11:22 am

Sweeper wrote:
Blank77 wrote:OK, I see what is really wrong. Since they are counting the tie breaker as who has the highest percentage of bracket points and some teams have 3 teams and some 4 - but the teams in the 3 team bracket get to play a game against an opponent whose points don't count in their bracket.

For bracket B, the total points should not just be what AFC, Inf, and Meja scored, but also what their opponents scored from bracket A. Redstar beat AFC and FCD scored a goal against Inf, so that should be 10 points added to bracket B's total - to make it fair.

This would make Infinity 16/51 and LP 20/59 or inf 31% and LP 33%. The way it was done really doesn't make sense as it gives free points to the 3 team division team.

Doing it the way they did it, there was an inherint advantage being the 2 seed in a 3 team division, and this advantage went to the lower 2nd seeds which is even more confusing.

Silver lining, LP will get to play Infinity twice in PPL this year and should be able to settle it.

100% correct. The methodology employed was inherently unfair and ill conceived. There are three ways to make the comparison fair:

(1) just go by points because each team played 3 games. [LP has more points and gets in.]

(2) count the points by ALL teams playing crossover games in the numerator and denominator of the bracket B teams, not just the points earned by the bracket B teams. [LP gets in as noted above by Blank.]

(3) completely ignore the crossover games and all points from them. In my experience, this is the standard way to handle 3 team brackets. In this case, the AFC loss, Meja win and Infinity win are disregarded entirely. [LP gets in by a hair as Infinity has 8/25 or 32% to LP's 34%.]

Anyhow, it is what it is. Not getting into D3 could make for a more enjoyable season in the long run.

Just can't get past the logic here. With the whacky way they did bracket A and B to begin with, they should've calculated WC pt's like in option 3. If they aren't going to use the pts scored by bracket A teams from crossover games, in the total pts calculation, then they can't use the pts scored by bracket B teams during crossover games either. The rule is the rule. LH did NOT understand or did NOT follow their own rule, period. They need to fire an intern!

Sorry to the LP girls. They must really feel disenfranchised here.
Good luck to the Infinity girls. Play hard. Keep cool.

by APato 02/08/13, 02:13 pm

I wish all teams the very best in QT round 2.
I especially wish Infinity the very best and hope they make it.
The commentaries i have posted in no way to lessen any teams accomplishments

The point if my orginal post was to highlight or illuminate what I thought was
An a very large error by LH, in a couple if areas one regarding seeding and the % of bracket rule.
As published by LH

I understand the intent of the rule but in the end I believe it was misapplied.

LH declined to reevaluate which is its purgrogative as it is rule number one
LH reserves the right to determine any rules application as appropriate or in appropriate as
They see fit

I can live with that.

I would appeal to LH to reevaluate this % bracket rule or at least be very careful how it gets applied if all things are truely equal in bracket sizing in light of the outcome this year. I hope other teams and clubs take notice of this event and appeal to LH So it does not happen again next year or there after.

Best regards to all and best wishes to all the girls competing in QT and hoping they all have a great season in LH or PPL

It is truly an honor to be apart of it all

by Guest 02/08/13, 02:30 pm

What the heck... I'm bored today, so I'll throw this out here...

This is what I think would have been the fairest way to handle the seeding/advancement for 26 teams...

LH QT Seeding - Page 8 _01_u110

Brackets A and B play a full crossover against each other (i.e. each team in A plays each team in B). All other brackets play within their bracket. Use straight total points as the determining factor for the bracket winners AND the single WC team (unless one of you statisticians out there can explain to me the merit of using % of total bracket points instead of straight total points, because I haven't been able to figure out the justification for that).

Under this scenario, 13 is playing 2 and 14 is playing 1, same as if there were 28 teams and a standard serpentine was used. The 13 v 14 game is essentially the "2 v 3" game that would've taken place in either brackets A & B if there were 28 teams.

Any (legitimate Cool

) reason anybody can give me as to why this wouldn't have been the best way to do it?

by 01GirlsOnly 02/08/13, 02:36 pm

bwgophers wrote:What the heck... I'm bored today, so I'll throw this out here...

This is what I think would have been the fairest way to handle the seeding/advancement for 26 teams...

Brackets A and B play a full crossover against each other (i.e. each team in A plays each team in B). All other brackets play within their bracket. Use straight total points as the determining factor for the bracket winners AND the single WC team (unless one of you statisticians out there can explain to me the merit of using % of total bracket points instead of straight total points, because I haven't been able to figure out the justification for that).

Under this scenario, 13 is playing 2 and 14 is playing 1, same as if there were 28 teams and a standard serpentine was used. The 13 v 14 game is essentially the "2 v 3" game that would've taken place in either brackets A & B if there were 28 teams.

Any (legitimate ) reason anybody can give me as to why this wouldn't have been the best way to do it?

by Blank77 02/08/13, 02:39 pm

bwgophers wrote:What the heck... I'm bored today, so I'll throw this out here...

This is what I think would have been the fairest way to handle the seeding/advancement for 26 teams...

Brackets A and B play a full crossover against each other (i.e. each team in A plays each team in B). All other brackets play within their bracket. Use straight total points as the determining factor for the bracket winners AND the single WC team (unless one of you statisticians out there can explain to me the merit of using % of total bracket points instead of straight total points, because I haven't been able to figure out the justification for that).

Under this scenario, 13 is playing 2 and 14 is playing 1, same as if there were 28 teams and a standard serpentine was used. The 13 v 14 game is essentially the "2 v 3" game that would've taken place in either brackets A & B if there were 28 teams.

Any (legitimate ) reason anybody can give me as to why this wouldn't have been the best way to do it?

You would have team 1 playing team 2 in QT which would be a little odd. You'd end up with team 3 sweeping their easy bracket and getting the first or 2nd see while the loser of the 1v2 megabattle would end up being a lower seed as seeds 4 and 5 would also probably sweep or just about sweep their bracket. If 1 and 2 tied each other, then you'd have a scenario that they may be seeds 8 and 9 going in to the first year of select - which would be very off. The league sets up that the top teams play the last games of the season (1v2 week 19) so to build the most drama - this scenario would eliminate that.

Someone may need to quote this for BW to read it because I am pretty sure he ignores me!

by Guest 02/08/13, 02:53 pm

Blank77 wrote:
bwgophers wrote:What the heck... I'm bored today, so I'll throw this out here...

This is what I think would have been the fairest way to handle the seeding/advancement for 26 teams...

Brackets A and B play a full crossover against each other (i.e. each team in A plays each team in B). All other brackets play within their bracket. Use straight total points as the determining factor for the bracket winners AND the single WC team (unless one of you statisticians out there can explain to me the merit of using % of total bracket points instead of straight total points, because I haven't been able to figure out the justification for that).

Under this scenario, 13 is playing 2 and 14 is playing 1, same as if there were 28 teams and a standard serpentine was used. The 13 v 14 game is essentially the "2 v 3" game that would've taken place in either brackets A & B if there were 28 teams.

Any (legitimate ) reason anybody can give me as to why this wouldn't have been the best way to do it?

You would have team 1 playing team 2 in QT which would be a little odd. You'd end up with team 3 sweeping their easy bracket and getting the first or 2nd see while the loser of the 1v2 megabattle would end up being a lower seed as seeds 4 and 5 would also probably sweep or just about sweep their bracket.

Someone may need to quote this for BW to read it because I am pretty sure he ignores me!

Not always... just adds a filter to prevent anyone looking over my shoulder from seeing something blatantly inappropriate or offensive... but you have been on better behavior recently, so I may let you out of my doghouse... Wink

Agree, the 1 v 2 matchup is still odd in this scenario, but...

- 1 should do better against 2/14/25 that 13 should and 2 should do better against 1/13/26 than 14 should, so 1 & 2 should both win their brackets and move on to week #2 (whether by points or a GA/GD tiebreaker), regardless of what the outcome of the 1 v 2 game is.
- If you employ the standard week 1 -> week 2 format that LHGCL has employed in recent years, A1 will still be the #1 seed in Week 2 bracket X and B1 will still be the #1 seed in Week 2 bracket Y

Week 2 Brackets:

X = A1, D1, E1, WC
Y = B1, C1, F1, G1

It's aimed at coming up with the most fair and balanced way to determine bracket winners and the WC team that advance to week 2, where the qualifying is really determined.

by Blank77 02/08/13, 03:36 pm

bwgophers wrote:
Blank77 wrote:
bwgophers wrote:What the heck... I'm bored today, so I'll throw this out here...

This is what I think would have been the fairest way to handle the seeding/advancement for 26 teams...

Brackets A and B play a full crossover against each other (i.e. each team in A plays each team in B). All other brackets play within their bracket. Use straight total points as the determining factor for the bracket winners AND the single WC team (unless one of you statisticians out there can explain to me the merit of using % of total bracket points instead of straight total points, because I haven't been able to figure out the justification for that).

Under this scenario, 13 is playing 2 and 14 is playing 1, same as if there were 28 teams and a standard serpentine was used. The 13 v 14 game is essentially the "2 v 3" game that would've taken place in either brackets A & B if there were 28 teams.

Any (legitimate ) reason anybody can give me as to why this wouldn't have been the best way to do it?

You would have team 1 playing team 2 in QT which would be a little odd. You'd end up with team 3 sweeping their easy bracket and getting the first or 2nd see while the loser of the 1v2 megabattle would end up being a lower seed as seeds 4 and 5 would also probably sweep or just about sweep their bracket.

Someone may need to quote this for BW to read it because I am pretty sure he ignores me!

Not always... just adds a filter to prevent anyone looking over my shoulder from seeing something blatantly inappropriate or offensive... but you have been on better behavior recently, so I may let you out of my doghouse...

Agree, the 1 v 2 matchup is still odd in this scenario, but...

- 1 should do better against 2/14/25 that 13 should and 2 should do better against 1/13/26 than 14 should, so 1 & 2 should both win their brackets and move on to week #2 (whether by points or a GA/GD tiebreaker), regardless of what the outcome of the 1 v 2 game is.
- If you employ the standard week 1 -> week 2 format that LHGCL has employed in recent years, A1 will still be the #1 seed in Week 2 bracket X and B1 will still be the #1 seed in Week 2 bracket Y

Week 2 Brackets:

X = A1, D1, E1, WC
Y = B1, C1, F1, G1

It's aimed at coming up with the most fair and balanced way to determine bracket winners and the WC team that advance to week 2, where the qualifying is really determined.

1 & 2 wouldn't move on to week 2, they would be placed in D1 with their current point total. If Seed 3, 4, and 5 all swept their brackets and got 30,29, 38 points then the loser of the 1v2 match up would get stuck with a lower seed, and if 1 and 2 tied, they would enter D1 as team 7 or something - which would get the schedule dynamic for the D1 would be completely off. Now, I know you call me out for whining about the schedule, but it still means something and is designed for the top teams to play each other at the end of the spring - makes more excitement for the GC.

by Thermonuclear 02/08/13, 03:57 pm

Just happened to meet up with a committee member this week. They maintain that what they did is correct and they will not be changing it - for now anyway.

The inherent advantage Blank references was indeed intentional, but was not implemented for the benefit of the 2 seeds. The twist is this – the advantage to the 2 seed is just a consequence – the intent was to give the advantage to the 1 seeds because they cross over against each other and the Committee did not think it fair that the loser would suffer a disadvantage since they were the two highest seeds in the tournament.

I suggested that the preferable solution to their concern would have been to have the 1 seeds cross over against a lowest seed in the other bracket. The lowest seeds are supposed to get the hardest schedule and then you don’t have to fix the problem of the top two seeds having to play a 1 seed when none of the other top 8 seeds have to play a 1 seed in the first round. Caused head scrathcing but would not go so far as to admit an error or need for change.

It will be intersting to see if they remain steadfast. But, all said, they have to be given credit for a nice job of seeding. All the one seeds made it and I would bet my last dollar the wild card will have no affect and those girls will enjoy being dominant in PPL next year.

by Sponsored content

Tired of being slow on the soccer field? Get lightning fast	24/04/24, 08:38 pm	Jumpman
09 Boys Team Rockwall area	22/04/24, 06:00 pm	socroc
Dallas Texans Soccer Club 2008G * ECRL, NTX	17/04/24, 08:11 am	Dallas Texans East
Dallas Texans field player/keeper opportunities	15/04/24, 11:52 am	Dallas Texans East
Dallas Texans 10G Keeper/field opportunities	15/04/24, 11:44 am	Dallas Texans East
Dallas Texans Soccer 2024/25 ECNL platform opportunities	13/04/24, 11:45 am	Dallas Texans East
Dallas Texans 2024/25 Keeper opportunities	13/04/24, 11:37 am	Dallas Texans East
Fever United 17G NEW! - Keller/Colleyville/Southlake/FTW	11/04/24, 12:55 am	Jumpman
2024 University of North Texas Summer Camps	09/04/24, 09:37 am	meangreen17
The Complete Soccer Individual Development Program	22/03/24, 07:21 pm	Ben16
Renegades 2014G Pre-ECNL - Blanton	12/03/24, 03:51 pm	FCsoccer1
09 Boys	13/02/24, 03:16 pm	socroc
Looking for 2014b to join our FCD 2014b east team-plano	12/02/24, 11:39 pm	Littleakde
Looking for 2014 boys,to join our FC Dallas 2014B east team	12/02/24, 11:10 pm	Littleakde
Cross City SC 12B (Allen, TX)	12/02/24, 05:10 pm	SkyblueMachine
Cross City SC 13B (Allen, TX)	12/02/24, 05:00 pm	SkyblueMachine
Cross City SC 06B Classic DI & UPSL & CCSC 07B Classic D2	12/02/24, 04:51 pm	SkyblueMachine
Cross City SC 06B (Classic DI & UPSL)	12/02/24, 04:44 pm	SkyblueMachine
ecnl 09	06/02/24, 02:48 pm	smugrr
Fever United 14G Wright - Keller/Colleyville/Southlake/FTW	21/01/24, 12:55 am	Fever United Wright
BVB 2015 Boys - Wylie, Rockwall, Plano	11/01/24, 03:47 pm	wyliesoccer
Dallas Texans 2014G Advanced group forming	03/01/24, 05:41 pm	Dallas Texans East
Dallas Texans 2014G Advanced group forming	03/01/24, 02:44 pm	Dallas Texans East
2015B Team	27/12/23, 12:10 pm	BG1013
Dallas Showcase Keeper guest player opportunity	26/11/23, 01:19 pm	Dallas Texans East