|
Post by beauchenecoach on Mar 4, 2012 16:52:15 GMT -6
2011-2012 Louisiana High School Soccer Coaches Association Final Boys Rankings. March 4, 2012For immediate press release: (Number in brackets indicates first place votes.) Division I1. Jesuit- 100 [10] 2. St. Paul's- 90 3. St. Thomas More- 79 4. Brother Martin- 71 5. Lafayette- 58 6. Acadiana- 47 7. Dutchtown- 37 8. New Iberia- 30 9. Catholic BR- 26 10. Rummel- 7 OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:Parkway- 4 St. Amant- 1Division II1. St. Louis- 100 [10] 2. Ben Franklin- 90 3. E.D. White- 75 4. Alexandria- 69 5. Teurlings- 59 6. Beau Chene- 50 7. Vandebilt- 47 8. East Jefferson- 25 9. Bolton- 14 10. Neville- 11 OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:St. Michael-3DeRidder- 3 Morgan City- 2 Lakeshore- 2 Division III1. Country Day- 100 [10] 2. Northlake Christian- 86 3. St. Thomas Aquinas- 84 4. University- 64 5. Newman- 63 6. St. Martin's- 47 7. Catholic New Iberia- 45 8. Episcopal of Acadiana- 21 9. Menard- 15 10. Parkview Baptist- 10 OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:Lusher- 7Westminster- 3 St. Charles- 3 Episcopal BR- 2This poll has been conducted by the LHSSCA, the official coaches association of Louisiana High School Soccer. Each Division was voted on by 10 members who were equally chosen from around the state. All inquiries should be directed to www.lhssca.org
|
|
lobo
Starter
Posts: 88
|
Post by lobo on Mar 4, 2012 23:39:50 GMT -6
Interesting. BM's only losses were to Jesuit and St Paul's and we beat them both once and we end up behind STM?
|
|
|
Post by soccerman100 on Mar 5, 2012 7:45:27 GMT -6
They had more losses and STM only lost to them too
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 5, 2012 7:50:35 GMT -6
Interesting. BM's only losses were to Jesuit and St Paul's and we beat them both once and we end up behind STM? Sounds like body of work vs. who played better in the end. I think all the way up to the last two polls, you can argue body of work, but in the end, it's how you finish. Though definitely not a D1 expert, having seen both semis (I assume that's what most voters relied on in the final poll), I was not surprised at the relative placement. All four were great sides but I agree with the consensus (9 out of 10 voters) that StM would have won the hypothetical 3rd place game.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Crawford on Mar 5, 2012 8:57:35 GMT -6
Because Brother Martin beat both Jesuit and St. Paul's, and Brother Martin's only losses were to Jesuit and St. Paul's, I think Brother Martin was more deserving of the #3 ranking. Against St. Paul's and Jesuit, Brother Martin was 2-3 and outscored 4-9. St. Thomas More was 0-3 and outscored 2-11 against St. Paul's and Jesuit. Talk about how good a team is is fine, but results are how we should determine rankings.
|
|
lobo
Starter
Posts: 88
|
Post by lobo on Mar 5, 2012 13:25:56 GMT -6
BM beat 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 (twice). We did not play 3, 6, or 8. So we beat everyone in the top 10 we played at least once. Maybe we have more loses because we play better teams . No disrespect to to STM because I saw them in the game before their Jesuit game and they looked really good. Then they were dismantled by Jesuit but then again so were we in the finals. D1 was really close this year which was a nice change of pace. This is just all my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 5, 2012 14:26:13 GMT -6
It just seems like two different perspectives on the basis for a team's end-of-year ranking (or, rather that a team's ranking is made up two different things): (1) regular season results and (2) playoff results (+ hypothetical match-ups). In the end, when team is part of the final four, it's hard for me to discount playoff performance in favor or regular season/tournament performance, esp when the teams at issue haven't played.
I don't think your obligated to vote a team as #3 because they beat (final poll) #1 & #2 earlier in the season unless they performed as the 3rd best in the playoffs, just like you would (hypothetically) not be obligated to vote Jesuit #1 if they had somehow beat St Paul's twice during the regular season but lost to them in the state championship match (they would be 2-1 against St Paul's but did not perform as #1 in playoffs and thus didn't "earn" the #1).
There are a lot more factors that go into this evaluation ... but how much weight is given to each is purely subjective (full strength during reg season?, full strength in playoffs, strength of schedule, etc.).
I guess my point is that I think final ranking should weigh post-season performance more heavily that regular season/tournament performance .... or, better said, I could see why this poll had StM higher. But then again, if you believed StM got "dismantled" vs Jesuit in Semis then your perspective would be different than mine for all the same reasons (Bro. Martin outperformed StM in playoffs and reg season, nuff said).
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Mar 5, 2012 16:23:57 GMT -6
Question... does anyone really care about final ranking if it isn't #1? Seriously? Has nothing to do with anything else. For preseason next season, coaches do their homework and don't just revote the final poll... they do check returning players, talent level lost, etc... I can't think of any other reason why someone would care about final ranking besides the team with the Big Trophy with Gold writing and rings on order...
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 5, 2012 17:08:07 GMT -6
Question... does anyone really care about final ranking if it isn't #1? Seriously? Has nothing to do with anything else. For preseason next season, coaches do their homework and don't just revote the final poll... they do check returning players, talent level lost, etc... I can't think of any other reason why someone would care about final ranking besides the team with the Big Trophy with Gold writing and rings on order... wow, talk about raining on our parade of discussion, chad. guess we'll have to get the stamp of approval before starting any more threads about this 2011-12 season ;D it's not necessarily a bad thing that people "care" enough to talk about the past season....just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 5, 2012 19:57:25 GMT -6
I'll have to say that the final D-III "ranking" is just about as bizarre as the D-III seeding was. From place 6 on, this ranking goes against the entire history of ranking and results for the entire season.
It has teams ranked ahead of teams that beat them handily, has teams getting votes that didn't win a game against any of the other top teams, has teams that won 4 games against teams that got votes, not getting any votes.
It is just ... strange in the extreme. It's almost as if an entirely new set of coach-voters were introduced. Oh well... no real matter.
|
|
|
Post by The World's Game on Mar 5, 2012 20:11:55 GMT -6
From a coaching stand point, this tells me that I can no longer use great tune up games against Jesuit, St. Pauls, Brother Martin, Lafayette HS, Newman, Northlake Christian, Catholic BR because the only thing the coaches were looking at was overall record. Even division records counted for nothing. With that being said Vandebilt would like to schedule games against only D2 schools next year. Please PM me if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Mar 5, 2012 20:50:47 GMT -6
From a coaching stand point, this tells me that I can no longer use great tune up games against Jesuit, St. Pauls, Brother Martin, Lafayette HS, Newman, Northlake Christian, Catholic BR because the only thing the coaches were looking at was overall record. Even division records counted for nothing. With that being said Vandebilt would like to schedule games against only D2 schools next year. Please PM me if you are interested. Rankings....shmankings Vandebilt lost to St. Louis by an own goal in the quarters. I can tell you that their tune up games against those teams you mentioned prepared your kids for that game. I doubt we will see those opponents off of your schedule next year.
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Mar 5, 2012 20:56:38 GMT -6
I'll have to say that the final D-III "ranking" is just about as bizarre as the D-III seeding was. From place 6 on, this ranking goes against the entire history of ranking and results for the entire season. It has teams ranked ahead of teams that beat them handily, has teams getting votes that didn't win a game against any of the other top teams, has teams that won 4 games against teams that got votes, not getting any votes. It is just ... strange in the extreme. It's almost as if an entirely new set of coach-voters were introduced. Oh well... no real matter. Boomer, I'll give you a quick response. I have had the DIII teams in these tiers since early December. Tier 1: Country Day, Northlake/STA Tier 2: Newman/U-High Tier 3: The 9 remaining ranked schools, plus a few more. To me the only question was where to rank CNI: Tier 2 or Tier 3. As far as where the schools in Tier 3 are ranked or why some were left out. That's what happens with only 10 voters. The 3rd Tier schools are so close that it is hard to rank them all with numbers. And I am glad for it. I think it is great that we have such a large competative group in Tier 3. (Personally, I could switch Lusher and St. Martins, and think that was a fair ranking.) But there is no way this ranking compares to the seeding, Just look at these under seeded teams: STA at 5, Newman at 8, and Lusher at 17. All three of those teams had a seeding number nearly double their ranking. And two are in the top 5 ranking that you like. Overall in all three Divisions, this is a very good ranking. NewO
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Mar 5, 2012 22:28:46 GMT -6
Question... does anyone really care about final ranking if it isn't #1? Seriously? Has nothing to do with anything else. For preseason next season, coaches do their homework and don't just revote the final poll... they do check returning players, talent level lost, etc... I can't think of any other reason why someone would care about final ranking besides the team with the Big Trophy with Gold writing and rings on order... wow, talk about raining on our parade of discussion, chad. guess we'll have to get the stamp of approval before starting any more threads about this 2011-12 season ;D it's not necessarily a bad thing that people "care" enough to talk about the past season....just sayin' . It is true though... Why does it matter? In Div II, there is St Louis and that's all that matters. They got the big trophy and rings on order! Same for Jesuit and Country Day! Can't wait till we get closer to 2012-2013! Then we can go on with new stuff and new season! Both you and I should be very excited about next year eh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by capitalcityboy on Mar 6, 2012 18:33:11 GMT -6
eye test is also something that plays into voting...seeing teams play means a lot, regardless of their stellar records....Or talking about how good their program works....those types get put in appropriate places....I think the voting was appropriate with how teams finished the year and how they were playing..if you notice, #2 and #3 are 2 points apart, 4 and 5, 1point, and 6 and 7 are 2 points..very close which means votes were split between the teams and very close.....As for teams getting votes, letting their play towards the end of the year including playoffs is why the got votes...not by politicking on here....imo
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 7, 2012 20:31:11 GMT -6
I'll have to say that the final D-III "ranking" is just about as bizarre as the D-III seeding was. From place 6 on, this ranking goes against the entire history of ranking and results for the entire season. It has teams ranked ahead of teams that beat them handily, has teams getting votes that didn't win a game against any of the other top teams, has teams that won 4 games against teams that got votes, not getting any votes. It is just ... strange in the extreme. It's almost as if an entirely new set of coach-voters were introduced. Oh well... no real matter. Boomer, I'll give you a quick response. I have had the DIII teams in these tiers since early December. Tier 1: Country Day, Northlake/STA Tier 2: Newman/U-High Tier 3: The 9 remaining ranked schools, plus a few more. To me the only question was where to rank CNI: Tier 2 or Tier 3. As far as where the schools in Tier 3 are ranked or why some were left out. That's what happens with only 10 voters. The 3rd Tier schools are so close that it is hard to rank them all with numbers. And I am glad for it. I think it is great that we have such a large competative group in Tier 3. (Personally, I could switch Lusher and St. Martins, and think that was a fair ranking.) But there is no way this ranking compares to the seeding, Just look at these under seeded teams: STA at 5, Newman at 8, and Lusher at 17. All three of those teams had a seeding number nearly double their ranking. And two are in the top 5 ranking that you like. Overall in all three Divisions, this is a very good ranking. NewO That is a very resonable analysis, and I concur with it completely down to the question about CHni. Still, looking at the votes... and knowing that each vote means a vote for a team someone thinks should be in the top ten, doesn't something strange catch your eye? I would like to suggest that next year, the coach's poll have the voters vote on the top 15 or top 16, but just publish the top 10. The large grouping 6-16 or so, along with needing to vote a team actually in the top ten to get a vote, can act to skew voting. hummm... ok, someone must have been "politicking" for top-10 placement, not sure who you refer to, ... but i ask you, nothing looks strange in that accumulation of votes for "top ten?" Sure looks odd to me... cause those votes may have resulted in a place shift or two up the scale.
|
|
|
Post by nolasoccer811 on Mar 8, 2012 10:53:01 GMT -6
What teams are you referring to boomer that "shifted up the scale"? I don't understand what you feel is wrong with them, as all these teams receiving votes for their placements can justify their positions, as they all had fairly successful regular seasons and played well in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by capitalcityboy on Mar 8, 2012 11:35:33 GMT -6
What teams are you referring to boomer that "shifted up the scale"? I don't understand what you feel is wrong with them, as all these teams receiving votes for their placements can justify their positions, as they all had fairly successful regular seasons and played well in the playoffs. His reference is b/c he feels slighted that his school didnt get any votes in final rankings....and that, in his opionion, they are better than those schools who did get votes and/or were in the top 10...
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 8, 2012 12:05:27 GMT -6
What teams are you referring to boomer that "shifted up the scale"? I don't understand what you feel is wrong with them, as all these teams receiving votes for their placements can justify their positions, as they all had fairly successful regular seasons and played well in the playoffs. His reference is b/c he feels slighted that his school didnt get any votes in final rankings....and that, in his opionion, they are better than those schools who did get votes and/or were in the top 10... I'm not too sure about him talking about his own team. Without too much details (at first glance), it does look a little "off" that CHNI received 22 less votes than the team they narrowly lost to in the quarters. Don't get me wrong, it was a very competitive year in DIII, but geographical bias exists too (intentional or not). All things being equal, unfortunately, it's a little tougher to get recognized if you're not from SE LA.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Mar 8, 2012 12:09:57 GMT -6
I admittedly haven't seen that many of these teams in person but the DII listing looks pretty accurate to me from what I know.
|
|