Re: LH QT Seeding

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 Sweeper 02/08/13, 04:00 pm

Blank77 wrote:
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.

I don't think he was referring to U11, just U12 and above.

by Sweeper 02/08/13, 04:05 pm

Thermonuclear wrote: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.

Completely idiotic. Either don't do the crossover at all, in which case there is no disadvantage to the top 2 seeds or do a crossover, where A1 plays B3 and A2 plays B2 and A3 plays B1 and count all the points. What they did does not make any sense at all and obviously has unintended consequences. Absurd.

by Thermonuclear 02/08/13, 04:31 pm

Sweeper wrote:
Thermonuclear wrote: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.

Completely idiotic. Either don't do the crossover at all, in which case there is no disadvantage to the top 2 seeds or do a crossover, where A1 plays B3 and A2 plays B2 and A3 plays B1 and count all the points. What they did does not make any sense at all and obviously has unintended consequences. Absurd.

Agreed - think we are saying the same thing - have the 1s cross over against the 3s and 2s play each other. Hopefully, after time for reflection, LH can swallow their pride and do the right thing - which is why I pointed out the good they did as well - don't want to just beat on them only - a little carrot and a little stick cheers

by Guest 02/08/13, 04:31 pm

Sweeper wrote:
Blank77 wrote:
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.

I don't think he was referring to U11, just U12 and above.

Yeah, what Sweep said. I'm talking about the case where 26 teams are trying to qualify for 4 D3 spots.

by Guest 02/08/13, 04:38 pm

Thermonuclear wrote: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.

I would still like to understand the reasoning for using % total bracket points instead of straight up points for any situation where every team has played an equal # of games.

by CelticFC 02/08/13, 05:27 pm

bwgophers wrote:
Thermonuclear wrote: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.

I would still like to understand the reasoning for using % total bracket points instead of straight up points for any situation where every team has played an equal # of games.

There is none. It should/could be used when a single bracket has three teams and only plays 2 games. It's what OrangeBlooded pointed out back two years ago during the 01's 1st QT. I think it was Solar Red Bates' bracket. The % could try to level the field for Bracket A 2nd place team.

by APato 02/08/13, 06:17 pm

Agreed. No matter how you slice it. Logic was not applied. Nor a basic understanding of simple math was applied.

Again, equal number of games means equal chaces for equal points for all teams. May the best teams win and they did based on overall tournament performance.

...the same should have applied the same overall tournament results regarding the WC, that didn't happen.

When it cam to WC, LH changed the rules.

Overall tournament game results no longer applied. what happened?

LH created an Intrabracket Derby (pronounced Darby having a bit of fun).

Effectively, overall tournament performance did not matter anymore for WC contenders. What mattered now was LH % bracket perfomance is how well you competed in you own bracket.

The problem was a misapplication of the numbers and the worst part was it had nothing to do with team performance...but actual bracket size!!!??? HUH What ? Yeah bracket size!

..so the changed rules meant overall tournement performance didnt matter, what matters now was the results of inner or intrabracket performance.

Overall Points are no longer calculated the same way!?

Enter the dragon, intrabracket performance or % win within bracket system.

OK at 1st glance this looks like it is almost saying the same thing. Overall performance within bracket matters...(i.e.More points wins, and may the Best team win based on overall performance/points vs. other teams within ones bracket vs other teams in other brackets.
Ok no problem with that so far...but something odd is about to occur.

What happened (i think the intent of the braket % systems was good ) may the best team win based on point/performance basd on intrabracket performance... But the LH rule was misapplied or misguided or misinterpreted by their own commitee memebers or all the above.

If based on published LH rules regarding the bracket % win system was applied to all games played in bracket inclusive of cross bracket team which completes the bracket of three and makes it a four team bracket (which is the purpose of creating a cross-bracket is to normalize the field in the fist place all teams play equal number of games then those teams played in cross backet should be included in the calculations.

Meaning the teams that are not actually part of the physical bracket except by proxy or cross bracket games should be treated as if they where part of the others physical bracket. This did not happen...therefore it skewed the calculations becasue LH only used actual phyical (printed list) bracket size of 3 and results of games played in those brackets not including cross bracket teams.

This means the percentage performance gets diluted in large brackets and is not weight as heavily therefore it appears intrabracket performance was less than it actually was if actual physical 4 team brackets as posted vs the physical 3 team brackets as posted. (Do the Math!) if you do the math correclty then it all works...you cant just decide to use logic some of the time. LH...

Please fix this in the future for the sake of all clubs and teams

Bad math bad logic bad league bad santa

It is a mind numbing exercise in how not to misuse math or manipulate numbers to get the results you want...

by APato 02/08/13, 06:27 pm

And dont forget the seeding mess made this a bit worse too.

Ok, nuff said, train wreck is over eveybody go home now.

Enjoy the rest of the QT...and cheer the girls on.

No matter how things are decided...it is all good in the end.

Thanks for the effort LH...it not easy to run a league but please look at changing some rules or at the not so good ones and or the folks that interpret them.
.

by Joe scafone 02/08/13, 06:40 pm

Joe scafone wrote:Just curious, why would the #1 seed play the #2 seed in first round, in cross bracket play?

Finally you guys starting to see what I saw back on 7/23

by allhatnocattle 02/08/13, 06:58 pm

It will be good to have the games begin again tomorrow. LHGCL has taken their stand, in all its obstinance, and shown unwillingness to change. Although, they did rearrange the Round 2 brackets to have Infinity in its "rightful" place.

The best thing Infinity can do is play well and be competitive.

All of these permutations and combinations posited by various members are great, but at some point, let's just get the games going. We know LP Keegan should've been there. We know LHGCL believes they did no wrong in the face of considerable evidence.

by Sweeper 02/08/13, 07:19 pm

allhatnocattle wrote:All of these permutations and combinations posited by various members are great, but at some point, let's just get the games going. We know LP Keegan should've been there. We know LHGCL believes they did no wrong in the face of considerable evidence.

Looking forward to the games this weekend, but let the floggings continue until they do. Twisted Evil

by Thermonuclear 02/08/13, 09:00 pm

Yes the fantasy that Keegan or Infinity ever really had a chance will soon be over - then those girls can regroup and have fun in PPL - no shame in that.

by berserker13 02/08/13, 10:21 pm

I guess I'll throw in my 02c even though I have no dog in this fight, however I do have a background in statistics and I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.

1st illogical part of the rule: total points possible should not be total points that the bracket scored, it should be "possible" so if 3 games played total possible is 30 in a 10 point system and if 2 games played 20 is max possible. Most tournaments that use a % of possible points to normalize different bracket sizes use these total possible point for the team to compare, not some strange total points the whole bracket scored, which varies based on ties and total number of goals within the bracket.

Second, the way they applied it favors the 2nd place team that is closer in total points to the 1st place team, so the driving factor isn't so much the 2nd place team's performance but the performance of the 1st place team. In this case the 1st place team in Infinity's bracket actually lost a game to the other bracket and then infinity lost to them. So the rule favors the weaker performance. Had the first place team in Infinity's bracket won all 3 games, infinity would have been out.

Basically, LP couldn't have done any better as a second place team other than tying the first place team. They maxed points on 2 games and lost against the first place team 1-0, far better performance than Infinity.

Of course if you think this is bad you should see what they came up with for the 99's. They had 5 brackets and didn't go into a second weekend, so you have a bracket winner with 22 points that failed to qualify. Yet the 96's had 8 teams competing for 6 spots and they went 2 weekends. LH seems to randomly come up with ways of qualifying each age group. No consistency.

by Guest 02/08/13, 10:49 pm

bwgophers wrote:
Thermonuclear wrote: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. They jacked up the crossover for certain. I had the answer to your question yesterday, but now I'm fresh out of chicken bones and toad warts and I can only divine the answer while entranced.

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.

I would still like to understand the reasoning for using % total bracket points instead of straight up points for any situation where every team has played an equal # of games.

by Guest 02/08/13, 10:57 pm

Quoting impaired, sorry. They jacked up the crossover for certain. Gopher, I had your answer yesterday, but now I'm fresh out of chicken bones and toad warts and I can only divine the answer while entranced.

by zerocool 03/08/13, 12:29 pm

Got to have me some scores posted!

by allhatnocattle 03/08/13, 12:38 pm

Sting West OKeefe 1-0 over Kicks Blue
Redstar 3-1 over Infinity

by Soccermom22 03/08/13, 02:06 pm

NTX strikers 3-0 over Aces..

by Soccermom22 03/08/13, 02:07 pm

Mistake sorry NTX strikers 3-0 over AFC

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