|
Post by beauchenecoach on Dec 29, 2013 21:59:01 GMT -6
I have to respectfully disagree. If you look at the "Also Receiving Votes" and the bottom portion of the top 10's, these teams tend to have a significant number of wins. Which I think would be attractive to a top team from a power points perspective. We disagree on definitions. I would not consider a top ten or top fifteen team as 2nd tier. I think you can see what too many out of state games will do to your power rating when you look at the rankings of Jesuit in the intial release of these Power Ratings. That is definitely the WRONG thing to do. Methusalah has it right with regards to trying to find mid table teams that will win a lot that you think your team can beat. THAT is the way to maximize your power ratings. You can also afford to schedule the TOP TEAMS and if you lose, then it won't be a costly scheduled game. What you won't see is a top 5-10 team scheduling a team that will win less than 5 games unless they are in the same district. And you would also, therefore, see more lower tier teams scheduling each other... which gives them the best chance to have a chance at the playoffs through power ratings. All in all, it will fix scheduling issues that we have now. THE current system, while better that what we had before, has ended MANY, MANY cross divisional rivalries... An example for us is that we no longer play Catholic NI and ESA which we played every year at least once since I have been at BC. They both quit scheduling us over the past couple of seasons... due to them wanting a bunch of division III games. Power Ratings will change these situations too. Any team that can't schedule 15 games (4 tournaments guarantees you 12), isn't trying to schedule games. It would eliminate the teams that went to the playoffs over Opelousas Catholic last season... even though OC defeated those teams head up. They were done in by losing too many games to TOP Division III teams. In power ratings, they get rewarded for brave scheduling and winning vs those teams and all teams. Seeding may suffer slightly... but for the most part, it will be close to what we do as coaches seeding...
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Dec 29, 2013 22:01:54 GMT -6
The computer generated state PR ranks all the soccer teams against each other, ignoring divisions, etc. If the PR system has any credibility, it ought to generate a State-wide ranking that is somewhat believable. It doesn't ... and that is the same complaint the basketball people have. Here are the current comparative PR top twenty teams ... lets be sure we understand... the computer thinks this is the proper strength ranking of all the teams in the State. And if we had a playoff bracket that ignored divisions, Jesuit would travel to Menard for their first round game. 1. St. Pauls 2. Catholic BR 3. Brother Martin 4. Bolton 5. Northlake Christian 6. Acadiana 7. St. Louis 8. Lafayette 9. Sulphur 10. Northshore 11. Mandeville 12. Beau Chene 13. Grace King 14. Captain Shreve 15. Menard 16. Westminster 17. St. Amant 18. Jesuit 19. University 20. Destrehan. Read more: laprepsoccer.proboards.com/thread/17958/2013-standings-schedules-power-ratings#ixzz2ovXcgbC5Good thing we don't ever have a bracket with all divisions in it then? STOP looking at the power ratings today as the playoffs... they will settle out at the end of the season! Once teams all play district games and everyone finishes their complete schedule. Jesuit is low because they haven't played many games that count. How are they to get points doing that? Well, that's why they can see it this year and know next year not to schedule so many out of state games or they may not be able to over come that and be the top seed in the playoffs. Let's see where they end up at the end of the regular season in Division I power ratings. For every team you think is too low today... go look at their schedule and results to date and you can find your own answer! The only true sport that should award going up to play a team in a higher division or classification is football. THere are division II and division III teams that could be in the top 10-20 of Division I. SO you think a team should get bonus points for playing and beating the worst team in division I? Look... I was like you a few years ago and even as recently as last season, still wasn't sure. In a perfect world, I would like some objectivity, like maybe coaches seed after power ratings with only a plus or minus 3 movement from their power ratings allowed on a coaches seed ballot... but it isn't happening. The PLUSES far outweight the NEGATIVES in this. LHSAA taking over the reporting of schedules and results alone is a HUGE thing to have just by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 29, 2013 22:09:43 GMT -6
Same things... trouble is, this time if at the end of the season the program turns up fertilizer it will be too late... the vote will have been taken.
The thing is, this program is faced with the same shortcomings as all the others we've examined for the purpose of seeding. It doesn't recognize the difference between playing a 10 win Jesuit and a 10 win Houma Christian.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Dec 29, 2013 22:27:12 GMT -6
The computer generated state PR ranks all the soccer teams against each other, ignoring divisions, etc. If the PR system has any credibility, it ought to generate a State-wide ranking that is somewhat believable. It doesn't ... and that is the same complaint the basketball people have. Here are the current comparative PR top twenty teams ... lets be sure we understand... the computer thinks this is the proper strength ranking of all the teams in the State. And if we had a playoff bracket that ignored divisions, Jesuit would travel to Menard for their first round game. It is pointless to worry about what the power ratings say now. If you want to complain about them, look at the ratings from the end of last season. Only the end of season power ratings matter. Sorting teams by power rating right now would be as silly as sorting them by win percentage right now.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 29, 2013 22:34:13 GMT -6
Kevin, we have been looking at various formula for many years, and every one of them produced this kind of dysfunction ... at the end of the season. And this is exactly the problem in basketball that has caused multiple problems including scheduling since it was adopted... and cannot now be gotten rid of.
The issue is always caused by the same mathematical inequality. In reality, 10 win Jesuit does not equal 10 win Houma Christian, though the program says it does. Program seeding with that inherent flaw cannot be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Dec 29, 2013 22:57:50 GMT -6
Kevin, we have been looking at various formula for many years, and every one of them produced this kind of dysfunction ... at the end of the season. And this is exactly the problem in basketball that has caused multiple problems including scheduling since it was adopted... and cannot now be gotten rid of. The issue is always caused by the same mathematical inequality. In reality, 10 win Jesuit does not equal 10 win Houma Christian, though the program says it does. Program seeding with that inherent flaw cannot be fixed. I don't disagree with the theoretical flaws of the power rating system. But in practice, I don't think they will work out all that differently from the coach seeding. Ideally we'd have a more sophisticated system, one that could tell the difference between Jesuit and Houma Christian. I don't follow high school basketball closely enough to see where things are out of whack. A brief glance at last year's brackets makes it look like things worked out reasonably well, but there are a few more surprises in previous years. But I have no idea whether that's due to greater parity, or basketball being more favorable to upsets, or failure on the part of the power rating system.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 29, 2013 23:29:00 GMT -6
Well, we'll live with whatever, but I'll probably recommend voting against the proposal simply on the seeding issue. The reason is that I believe the seeding of the top teams is the most important element of the playoffs and I think getting the top 8-10 teams right is better accomplished with coach seeding ... even if it is sometimes corrupt.
I wouldn't object to computer qualification for playoffs. And I agree with the number of games required issue. I wonder... who at the LHSAA is going to keep track of the constantly rearranged schedules and verify the results? How will they know who played who when, weather, etc.? We have a hard enough time on this board with interested people from across the State helping ... I know some schools whose coach honestly can't tell you what his record is this year...
Note: I say that getting the top teams is more important than insuring all deserving teams are in ... even though our team was once gerrymandered out of the playoffs when we were in reality probably a top ten team. I did think the system last year was unusually screwed up in D-III and gamed by several schools ... but I put most of the mess at the feet of simply terrible districting ... 2-team districts... 8-team districts, two districts in same city that are terribly imbalanced. Who the heck comes up with these districts every two years... a knitting circle or a coffee shop crew?
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Dec 29, 2013 23:32:31 GMT -6
Do the loJic ratings need to make a comeback?
I keed I keed
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Dec 30, 2013 9:56:27 GMT -6
Another theoretical issue with the power ratings, which I know has been brought up before: teams whose opponents play more games have an advantage. Just playing more games yourself might not help, since the power rating is divided by the number of games. But if you're in a district where a bunch of teams hardly play any games, you could be at a disadvantage.
I admit this is more of an issue on the girls' side, but anyone involved in the boys' game has a responsibility to consider how this affects girls soccer (and vice versa). It also seems to be an issue mostly with some of the public schools in the New Orleans area--teams such as West Jeff that play district games and nothing else.
There may be a few schools that are motivated by the 15-game minimum. But many of the schools that aren't playing many games aren't going to make the playoffs anyway and probably won't bother, but they'll still be hurting the teams in their district. Let's suppose a district has two really bad teams. If the teams play once, one team finishes with 1 win and the other finishes with 0. If the teams in the district play twice, one of those bad teams probably ends up with two wins. Admittedly, the effects of that on anyone else's power ranking are so tiny as to be pretty much insignificant. But translated across a whole district schedule and regular season it adds up.
Suppose a 7-team district goes from playing each other once to playing each other twice. That's an extra 21 district matches. If we wanted to figure out the average power rating of the district, those 21 matches will get added into the denominator. The district now has 21 more wins (every match has a winner). That adds 126 points to the numerator (5 points for each win; 1 point per game because the opponents' win totals have gone up).
Since power ratings are an average, the effect of those extra district matches would depend upon how many matches teams are already playing. Let's suppose the teams played 18 matches on average (126 for the 7 teams combined). If we add in an extra 6 matches per team, the new denominator is 24 on average (168 for the 7 teams combined; each of the 21 extra district games counts twice, once for each team that played in it). 126/168 is .75. In other words, each team's power rating goes up by an average of .75 points. That could be 5-8 spots in seeding or playoff qualification.
I worry that this would lead to districts wanting to play a double round robin instead of a single round robin (because that's the only way the district teams could really force the other teams in their district to schedule more games). And I think that the fewer district games we have, the better--just look at some of the lopsided scores from District I-6 on the girls' side.
I think it would probably help if teams were held to a maximum number of games. As it is, a team could quite plausibly play well over 30 games thanks to tournaments. If teams had a firm limit in the 25-30 game range, and if they only played each other once in their district, I think it would make the power ratings somewhat more fair.
It would also help if every single school played at least 15 games, but short of booting out the teams that don't, I don't know what to do. How do we grow the game at places like Riverdale and Higgins (not to mention the schools that don't even have teams)?
|
|
jk52
All-District
Posts: 216
|
Post by jk52 on Dec 30, 2013 21:30:48 GMT -6
It is obvious that the initial power ratings are somewhat skewed, particularly for teams that have very few games played or posted. For teams that have played a sufficient number of games, it gives a general indication of where those teams stand but not a truly accurate picture. The biggest problem is that teams are not reporting results which could affect many other teams' ratings. This is one problem that would be resolved if the proposal passes.
Kevin's analysis highlights some of the problems with the power ratings. It is similar to some of the problems that college football has had with the BCS. A couple of years ago, LSU was waiting on the result of a game between Idaho and Hawaii to determine if they would go to the championship game.
For example, my team has lost 6 games to weather or other reasons this year. This affects the power rating of every team on my schedule assuming I would have won some of those games. So something completely out of the control of my opponents results in a lower power rating for all of them.
One thing that needs to be fixed is the size of the districts. A two team district is a joke. A four team district should be the minimum size allowed. Is it possible for us to have more input in the next district realignment?
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Dec 30, 2013 22:14:17 GMT -6
I agree with what others have said about not trying to do a micro look at the PR's based on one or two teams midway through the season.
Heck, if you wanted to do that you could say the Power Rankings predicted the Lakeshore/EJ game more accurately than the coaches' rankings. Both Rankings had the two teams highly rated and close together but the power rankings had Lakeshore slightly ahead of EJ while the coaches rankings had EJ slightly ahead. And Lakeshore won by 1 goal.
OF course both this comparison and comparisons going the other way are kind of silly at this point in the season.
I think the power ratings will do just fine if passed and implemented and will help to open up scheduling and grow the sport.
(FWIW, I think most would agree that the disparity in the size of districts should be looked at the next time districts are re-drawn. I'm not sure if that is due to districts being linked to football when not all schools have soccer teams or what. But yeah 2 team districts shouldn't exist).
|
|
|
Post by rora on Dec 31, 2013 13:26:36 GMT -6
Question: Are we planning on updating the power ratings each Sunday like the Coaches Poll?
Sorry if this has been answered already and I missed it.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Dec 31, 2013 13:56:17 GMT -6
Question: Are we planning on updating the power ratings each Sunday like the Coaches Poll? Sorry if this has been answered already and I missed it. I still need to talk through it with Squeak, who is the current data guy for Scores, etc. The spreadsheet that contains all of the score data also has the Power Ratings calcs. So every time a game is entered, the Power Ratings are updated. My thinking is that he will publish Power Ratings at the same time & frequency that he updates the Standings tab and the Schedule & Results tab. We've been back-and-forth trying to set up a phone call this week that works for both of us. We'll discuss it, but what I describe above is what we did last year & I think he will likely try to continue.
|
|
|
Post by rora on Dec 31, 2013 15:10:04 GMT -6
Question: Are we planning on updating the power ratings each Sunday like the Coaches Poll? Sorry if this has been answered already and I missed it. I still need to talk through it with Squeak, who is the current data guy for Scores, etc. The spreadsheet that contains all of the score data also has the Power Ratings calcs. So every time a game is entered, the Power Ratings are updated. My thinking is that he will publish Power Ratings at the same time & frequency that he updates the Standings tab and the Schedule & Results tab. We've been back-and-forth trying to set up a phone call this week that works for both of us. We'll discuss it, but what I describe above is what we did last year & I think he will likely try to continue. Thank You
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 16:30:45 GMT -6
Okay, I am going to admit upfront that I don't have a full grasp of the PR system yet.
IMHO, from a practical standpoint, I think teams need a 'mixture' of even matchups, games against superior opponents as well as some 'training' games. (Training games are games against weaker opponents. It allows stronger teams opportunities to work on their weaknesses as well as giving developmental playing time for the weaker players on the roster.)
Granted, the ratio tends to be skewed because many (especially the players and parents) would rather win more than anything else. But, as most coaches and a few others know, you don't improve individually or collectively if the majority of your competition is substantially weaker. (The big selling point of club soccer.)
Next there is the problem of geographic isolation. Using Shreve as an example, there isn't a top 10 (and only 1 top 20) D1 team within 100 miles. And only one top 10 d2 team...Loyola. (Which is on Shreve's schedule by the way.)
It's much less of a problem for Lake Charles, Lafayette, BR and New Orleans area teams. (Population density.)
NW La teams have historically had to attend tournaments like La Showcase and St. Paul's tournaments in order to get any recognition. I know it is what it is! But Shreve's schedule was 95% completed by the time a new coach was hired. So, it certainly isn't a case of intentionally setting up a weak schedule.
The only way I see Shreve breaking into 8th or 9th in the coaches' poll is to remain undefeated and win 'convincingly'.
But I think strength of schedule, strength of district as well as margins of victory (although common sense should prevail here) should all be factors.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Dec 31, 2013 18:17:16 GMT -6
Kind of going a bit off topic but I agree that I think it's unquestionable that geographic isolation hurts the north La teams.
As you say, the tournaments are one solution to that - where in exchange for a few hours riding and one night hotel stay, a team gets at least 3 games (more if you make it to the brackets) over a couple of days. Plus get exposure to coaches from throughout the state.
Although it kind of seems to me that the fields from the tournaments may be becoming more localized - ie: drawing more teams from the immediate area and less travelers. (though that observation might not be accurate - maybe some of the tourney directors can weigh in).
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Dec 31, 2013 20:32:19 GMT -6
Most basic information used by a human to prejudge a game are not included in the computers... home team, field size, quality of opponent. I suggest if the proposers want to use a computer system, let's try it out for D-II for a couple of years and see how it works, leave D-III and D-I alone.
RE: Geographical isolation - this often works in favor of the isolated area. For instance, every one of these proposed PRs have acted in favor of SW Louisiana ... jumping those teams several places up over the coach polls. But it is the coach polls that have proved more accurate. But this is for a specific mathematical reason, not conspiracy or anything else.
An isolated system always has local super teams - big frogs small ponds - with sparkling records produced inside the pond. Truth is the profile hierarchy of small-pond teams is the same as in the larger pond, but without the winnowing that more competition produces... see basketball.
As an example, for years there was a large D-III district with only one State-quality team ... but because they pretty much played only each other, several always presented a nicely favorable record... until they got outside their bubble and were beaten badly... coaches always downgrading these teams, but guess what... the computers always thought they were great... imagine that!
I understand the problems of N. Louisiana and perceptions. But it wouldn't hurt to publish info on the teams up there, join the community, interact a bit more. Also, I agree it would help if a few of the S. LA teams would go up there and play... give some geographic feedback. Perhaps super districts is the answer - force some games.
BUT ... There is zero chance these simple mathematical models will produce a good seeding except by chance. If it were that simple imagine how much money you could make betting football lines in Vegas using this system ... What will happen is enough teams will learn to game the system to prevent getting rid of it after its weaknesses are exposed, ala basketball. You WILL see Jesuit vs SPS in the 2nd third round.. and other teams will benefit from it.. and NEVER will agree to change it.
Additionally, there are some other complications. The note by the Country Day coach of the brand new difficulty presented by many small school soccer programs basically being unable to play their full team, or even play at all, until mid-December or even January is important.
The change in football playoffs mean there will be eighteen schools playing football right up to mid-term exams ... 36 teams will still be playing football through first week in December. It isn't so easy to "just play four tournaments..." That just indicates a lack of understanding of D-III soccer. Most of us struggle with the cost and logistics to attend one. This development of the loss of two to four weeks of play for quite a few smaller schools caused by the change in football playoffs needs some thought.
This PR system is a pig in a poke ... we are being asked to vote a change without knowing how it will work out ... and being asked to fix something that isn't broken, change a system that has worked reasonably well. I personally think this PR program is far worse than the corrupt fixers, and many of us have an idea where and who attempts that, mostly unsuccessfully so far.
PS - the idea of making public the seeding votes is interesting. I also wonder what would happen if D-III coaches seeded D-II, D-II coaches seeded D-I, D-I coaches seeded D-III. The NCAA went with a special body to select four football teams... did not opt for computer for a reason. Perhaps a 10 man soccer emeritus panel?
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Dec 31, 2013 22:01:56 GMT -6
You can have 4 tournaments and 18 games or 3 tournaments and 19 games... In other words, at least 30 games or at least 28. What you are describing is 3 weeks at most of the Regular season...and for Division III soccer, that is 10 teams at most and really only 4-6 since it's mostly private or select schools that are soccer schools in Division III anyway. Subtract 6 or 10 games at most, and that's not a huge deduction off a team unless that team just isn't trying to get games scheduled... And you still easily meet the 15 game minimum. The only people I see against this are schools that don't play many games and low and behold, they aren't teams from the middle of the state or the northwest... It's mostly from the most populated area where over half of the soccer playing population in this state is. Schedule more games... Report all games scores... This will at least make teams start scheduling and playing. Understand Division III? You are kidding me right? I'm in touch with more coaches in this state over both club and school than almost anyone outside of Sean Esker. And you know what, he may not even be all for this, but he knows it is what a majority want. I'm sorry this isn't good for you or your current team. Vote against it. But if you continue to claim some sort of anti NOLA bias or that its good for Div II (till you remembered that St Louis is now Div III) or now that's it only good for SW La... Man, you are so off base its sad! At the end of the season, things will work out! Schedule in state teams, schedule teams that play games, and most importantly... Schedule games yourself. If you win enough, it work out, if you don't, well then you may not deserve that wild card anyway just because you placed third in a big district. And this system also stops all the district problems you always complain about... The second place team of a two team district doesn't get a spot now... They must earn it. There are so many more benefits from this than there are problems... Yes, a team or two may be too high. Yes, a team may be lower than eyes say they are... But tough. It happens more than you know in coaches seeding!
Just to have the LHSAA finally run scheduling and results is MORE than enough! I guess part of the problem is some of you are spoiled to the HUGE amount of volunteer work that goes on at this site, especially over the past 5-10 years as more and more in depth info from volunteers becomes available. And even with the huge amount of volunteer hours, how accurate are our standings anyway? Close... But still not accurate! Everything will be mandated, like every other sport! Soccer will be more legitimized within the LHSAA! Jesus, I don't know what else to say about that? I guess the conspiracy theorists will say something bad about this? Maybe Division II or SW La will get a secret point boost from LHSAA since they proposed this?
Can you imagine a football or basketball team complaining about their ranking when they don't play enough games? There are plenty enough playing dates to get a large amount of games in. Stop with the end of the world scenarios and stop to think about it... And look at the end of the year results! Kevin has shown numbers and facts and not just put accusations out there that aren't true. He used end of year numbers... That is fact. And he isn't even sure he is for it yet, but at least he is putting facts out there instead of ideas about this benefitting the proposals schools! He is having a discussion... Not typing false accusations! This accusation makes me so angry, especially with all the times I put the state ahead of what's best for my team... After all, that is my duty as VP of LHSSCA. Your statements are borderline attacks on me and Coach Oertling as backing something that only helps us and our neighbors. Get a grip!
Use facts and not conspiracy opinions when you put your point out there, cause typing the same post over and over again doesn't make it fact. I'm perfectly fine with you hating this and against it... You are just wrong with a lot of your reasons. Just say a team will be too high! A team will be lower... But don't say they won't know why! Schedule 10 games out of state and you will know why! And if Jesuit only wins 10 games that year, then yes... For a division I team that is equal to a 10 year Houma Christian in a Division III bracket! Compare each division, not the whole state, cause I don't recall a composite divisional playoff bracket being played. We all know you hate this now, and will ask your principal to vote against it. But when a large majority vote for it, will your principal really vote against it? When Commmissioner Henderson and Gary Duhe claim their full support of it and explain how much more organized the sport will now be, will your principal still vote against it? I hope you have a reason better than it benefits Division II and SW La teams who proposed it? I'm pretty sure that this week I'm #2 in my division in both rankings and polls and St Louis is the same as well? Also both of us stand chances at #1 in both polls and power ratings if we take care of business. But see, that's the beauty of it, we won't know till the WHOLE season Plays out! And when it does, then we can have facts of this brand new formula that is the proposed formula and can see its outcome and how to react to it for next years implementation year. I guess I can't win for losing... I get called out by one poster for being higher in the coaches poll and then I want power ratings cause it only benefits me and my division and St Louis and SW La.
Your solutions of a 10 man panel or cross divisional voting is even worse than a geographically preset system we had years ago. Comparing LA high school soccer to Major College football is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! I guess if we could watch up to 10 high school soccer games game day on television than it would help that proposal?
That's all I have... Just asking that you state facts and NOT conspiracy theories or scary scenarios. Any system that can be manipulated by hate, jealousy, or political phone calls to all fellow coaches should not be the system to decide anything. It was good and did a good job of getting us to now... But its time to become like the other sports of the LHSAA and be legitimized enough to have them track us all season! It doesn't get better than that!
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Dec 31, 2013 22:10:58 GMT -6
One more thing... If this thing goes in and the majority of us don't like the results... We can EASILY propose adjustments and amendments to the formula or the entire process! But I promise you that far fewer deserving schools will be left out of the playoffs then what we currently have! Schools will know where they are instead of hoping they didn't get the screw job from a coach that doesn't necessarily like them.
This isnt the be all, end all proposal! It's the next step in the ongoing evolution of our sport in the past decade from borderline club sport to a true statewide sport. Having the LHSAA track us for all season is the biggest selling point of all! Take a step forward or stay where you are...
The only people who defend the two team districts are the only ones that should matter... The ones that have to drive 2 hours one way to the next closest divisional teams that could be in a district with them! Not every school has 12-16 similar size schools within a half hour to an hour away! Really, with power ratings, districts are de-emphasized a bit as only the champ will get the auto bid. So still rivalry benefitting, but doesn't hurt other districts playoff chances!
Now I'm Done defending the proposal. We put it out there after speaking to many people across the state. Merged some ideas into the formula. And this is where we are... Vote for it or don't vote for it... But do not blast it as an unfair proposal benefitting the proposed schools only! You shouldn't be blasting anything till you have the facts and those won't be there till you have all results reported!
|
|
|
Post by futbolfiend on Dec 31, 2013 22:55:27 GMT -6
Kind of going a bit off topic but I agree that I think it's unquestionable that geographic isolation hurts the north La teams. As you say, the tournaments are one solution to that - where in exchange for a few hours riding and one night hotel stay, a team gets at least 3 games (more if you make it to the brackets) over a couple of days. Plus get exposure to coaches from throughout the state. Although it kind of seems to me that the fields from the tournaments may be becoming more localized - ie: drawing more teams from the immediate area and less travelers. (though that observation might not be accurate - maybe some of the tourney directors can weigh in). Risk reward of getting on the bus for 4-5 hours and maybe go .500 in a tournament against stronger teams doesn't work for teams like Shreve under PR system. Better to be the biggest fish in a smaller pond. I would still like to see Shreve schedule some teams similar to the recent Dutchtown games (no more than 2 in a day with both teams on equal legs--maybe a neutral site in Alexandria for teams in BR/Laffy or Laffy for NO teams. tourney games should not count equal to a regulation match game too many variables.
|
|