|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 12:53:54 GMT -6
I think we can all agree that the six team format as it is in state cup needs to be scrapped.
I am mostly familiar with U14 girls so I will speak from there. In comp 2, you had a team with no wins and on tie advancing over a team with a win and tie. The advancing team won it all so that may not be an issue with that group.
However, in comp 1, you have a team with three losses advancing over a team with two wins. Lets assume that this three loss team loses their semi final game and that again this year, Louisiana is allowed to send four teams to RPL. We would be sending a four loss team to play regionals.
My suggestion is as follows: in comp2 where no need to determine 3rd place- two in-bracket games on Saturday. Sunday third games are either semis 1 vs 2 of other bracket or consol where 3 plays 3.
In comp 1 first weekend: two in-bracket games 1 on Sat and 1 on Sun. Semis Sat of next weekend as above with finals on Sun and two semi losers playing to determine 3rd place.
Only issue I see is that two Comp 1 teams would only play two games but I think the fairness in assuring best teams progress would outweigh that issue.
I am not meaning this to belittle the team that is advancing this time but it is evident that the two win team was better this weekend.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 2dominifans on May 18, 2014 15:30:29 GMT -6
This six team cross bracket system needs to be looked in a dark closet and never spoken of again. Let's just pretend something this ugly never really happened. How do you knowing apply a system like this that has so many obvious flaws.
In u14's...not only did that team lose every game, they did not even score!! I feel for Baton Rouge and how they just got robbed of their entire U15 season!
|
|
|
Post by gowest225 on May 18, 2014 17:08:21 GMT -6
I was very confused by this so I googled it to see if I could gain some insight. I believe this is a 6 team seeded double elimination bracket. Or something like that. "Seeded" is an important distinction here I think. It makes it easier for the number one and two seeds to get through by making it very difficult for the lower seeds. Seems like seeds 3-6 have to win every game to stay in. And if 3 and 4 don't win all their games, #1 and 2 get to play number 5 and 6 (or some combination) in the semi finals. The lower seeded teams have to pull off some upsets to advance. If I'm understanding the format correctly, I think it is the right way to do it and gives the best chance of winning the State Championship to the two teams who did the best over the course of the whole year. In turn it provides for teams to qualify for RPL who have most consistently won. I could be completely wrong! If anyone reading this has some more explanation, please chime in. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 17:31:53 GMT -6
It is not a good format. If you can have a team winning no games, scoring no goals, and having a negative 7 goal differential advance over a two win team with a plus two goal differential- not a good format. At this point, it doesn't matter how the teams were originally seeded.
Look at the U14 girls comp 1 brackets and see if you can justify how this is fair.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by gowest225 on May 18, 2014 18:20:37 GMT -6
I don't know enough about the u14 teams to know for sure what the seeding is. But I think from the state cup game schedule and the Flight Results grid, it looks like Mandeville was the top seed and BR was the #4 seed. Dynamo and Shockwave were 2 and 3 after the regular season?? If so, I think BR's loss to Mandeville was their 1st elimination. They could have stayed in but La. Fire pulled off an upset and since they were lower seeded than BR, it put them through. I understand how that must sting to teams who had wins, and if this were just a tournament, it wouldn't be right. But as the #2 or 3 seed, they get the advantage of dropping out second, after #4 drops. Had the 6th seed pulled off an upset, the 3 seed would have been the next to drop. It seems right if the point of the State Championship is to advance the teams who have performed the best all season. My daughter played in u16 c3 with a 5 team round robin. We were #2 seed. We got stunned with a tie in the first game of the preliminaries by the #5 seed. This #5 ended league play with a -28 goal differential and went 0-8. They must have added some ringers because it was a whole different situation for state. It was nice to see them do well in prelims since they had gotten hammered during league play. But c3 is meaningless in terms of regionals or president's cup or RPL, etc. So I think it would not have mattered for them to win "state" only because of key players added a month after league play ended. For c1 and c2 I think the goal is to advance the best team to regionals and president's cup. I think that's why the RPL teams play c1 for state and bottom c1 teams drop to c2. Again, if there is an LSA authority out there who will reply with the official explanation, please do!
edit - hey I am editing my stupid thoughtless statement out of this post but leaving it here as a lesson to all not to assume!! Shreveport girls must have worked their butts off because they really gave us a tough game. They scored first, we managed to go ahead 2-1 and then we fouled in the box on a breakaway and they were awarded a PK which was a goal. Many props to Shreveport girls and coach!
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 19:36:24 GMT -6
It does have to do with seeding going in. BR Black was seeded lower than Shockwave based on Shockwave beating Baton Rouge in RPL. Guess that game ended up being the difference.
Although Baton Rouge beat them in the state prelims- that doesn't matter in this case. In my scenario, you would seed bracket A as 1, 4, 5 and bracket B as 2, 3, 6. Assuming it played out as it was seeded, 1 would play 3 and 2 would play 4 in semis.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 19:38:34 GMT -6
Also in current format, you could potentially have two no win teams advancing in one bracket guaranteeing a no win team in the finals.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 19:48:14 GMT -6
U16 Comp 1 has team with one tie advancing over team with two wins.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 2dominifans on May 18, 2014 20:20:23 GMT -6
Let me clarify first that my daughter plays U14 for LA FIRE. Do not want anyone to confuse me with a bitter Baton Rouge parent. My opinion, even with all the laughable attempts to justify the LSA six team cross bracket system, is still that BR was robbed of their U15 season. GET RID OF THE SYSTEM!
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 18, 2014 20:25:39 GMT -6
And to clarify.... my daughter played for a comp 3 team and we have friends who play for Shockwave but based on this weekends results, I feel BR should have advanced.
Every age group has something similar. This doesn't work so let's try something else next year.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by mortner on May 18, 2014 20:59:50 GMT -6
I think LSA's goal was for teams to have 3 games at state cup, although I can't be sure. The truth is it should be about making sure the best teams advance. I brought the change to the six team bracket up at the last competitive meeting before any state cup games had even been scheduled and warned them that this new system was flawed. I was quickly shut down and the meeting went on without a second thought. I sent a follow up email to a few directors that wanted change as well, but LSA refused to change the cross bracket format for state cup. How do you determine "bracket winners" when no one in the bracket plays one another? I feel bad for all the teams affected by this system and can only hope the system is changed before next years championship.
|
|
|
Post by copakid14 on May 18, 2014 23:13:10 GMT -6
There was an email sent to each club prior to state cup starting referencing the changes mortner mentioned. The clubs had an opportunity to vote and change it. Those of us who voted to change it to where the top 4 teams point wise advance, lost 9-8 if I remember correctly. Everyone that didn't advance who should have can start with their own club and ask how they voted. I have no clue who the 9 clubs were, but if people don't understand the logic of what they are voting on they should just abstain. Also, #1 and #2 should never play in the prelims.
|
|
|
Post by copakid14 on May 18, 2014 23:33:00 GMT -6
I was very confused by this so I googled it to see if I could gain some insight. I believe this is a 6 team seeded double elimination bracket. Or something like that. "Seeded" is an important distinction here I think. It makes it easier for the number one and two seeds to get through by making it very difficult for the lower seeds. Seems like seeds 3-6 have to win every game to stay in. And if 3 and 4 don't win all their games, #1 and 2 get to play number 5 and 6 (or some combination) in the semi finals. The lower seeded teams have to pull off some upsets to advance. If I'm understanding the format correctly, I think it is the right way to do it and gives the best chance of winning the State Championship to the two teams who did the best over the course of the whole year. In turn it provides for teams to qualify for RPL who have most consistently won. I could be completely wrong! If anyone reading this has some more explanation, please chime in. Thanks! I'm not an LSA official but it is not a double elimination bracket. 1,3,6 and 2,4,5 were put together to try and keep competitive balance in the brackets. Those seeds add up to 10 and 11 respectively which is basically even. The issue is playing cross bracket but having two teams make the semis from each bracket. If you play cross bracket you have to take the top 4 points regardless of bracket. There was almost no benefit to having a good seed this year. The reason for the change was the lower seeds complained that they had to play two games in one day while the other two teams only had to play one (in the old format). I do think that's a valid complaint and makes it difficult since the C1 teams don't get to play the RPL teams during the season and therefore can't improve their seeding. My suggestion would be playing 2 games within bracket and 1 cross bracket game. If you want seeding to be important, make the cross bracket matchup based on your seed. For example, if brackets are 1,4,5 and 2,3,6 and you are the 1 seed your cross bracket would be against 6. 2 would play 5, 3 would play 4. Then you could take the top 2 from each bracket and at least teams would have the chance to beat the teams they are competing to advance against.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on May 18, 2014 23:38:54 GMT -6
The problem is with the advancement rationale. Playing cross bracket is fine if the determining factor for advancement is overall points earned in bracket play rather than bracket winners. That's the way it HAS TO BE if a cross bracketed schedule is used. I find it ASTOUNDING that with all the soccer experience that exists in this state a mistake of this magnitude was permitted to take place. Events like this reduce the credibility of not just the state tournament but also of the league play used to seed the teams
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 19, 2014 2:46:41 GMT -6
I disagree with the one cross bracket game. I don't see why it is a necessity that every team plays three games in prelims if they are not needed to ensure that the best teams advance.
I still am in favor of the two in bracket with semis. It works where every team gets three games except if you need to determine third place where you would probably want to have the semis on finals weekend. Although you could require the semis losers to advance and play each other for third on second weekend.
I guess the one cross bracket game could benefit your higher seeded teams- the highest in bracket A could play lowest in bracket B. It would be better than current system for sure.
I think enough clubs are being affected negatively by this new format that it will probably get changed. In just my cursory review of the girls side, I saw similar if not as glaringly wrong situations involving CSC, Baton Rouge, and Mandeville. I am sure it will happen or has happened several times on the boys side as well.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by gatorsoccerdad on May 19, 2014 5:23:43 GMT -6
To Gowest225, I don't usually post on the boards, so I will try to make this simple for you to understand. I take offense to the statement you made about about a #5 seed bringing in ringers a month before the prelims. My daughter plays on that team and I am the manager. WE DID NOT ADD ANY GIRLS TO OUR ROSTER BEFORE PRELIMS.In fact we had a girl leave our team and we had 2 girls missing for the weekend. We were playing with 13 girls. Why don't you call the state office and ask if anyone was added to the roster before coming here and making idiot statements that you have no idea what you are saying. It is true we did not win a single league game this season, and we did get alot of goals score against us. That is the only true statement you made. For you to put statements on here about ringers and key players added a month before state makes you a very shallow person. Our girls worked hard after our last league game to make themselves better and it showed this past weekend. I am sorry your team was "stunned" to get a tie, but maybe it was because you played a team that was equal to yours. You don't need to apoligize. One more point I will make in my rant. Your manager has a copy of our roster and our girl's birthdates. Look at them and compare. We are playing in the U-16 age group only because at the beginning of the season, we had 3 girls on our team that had birthdates that fell into the U-16 age, so we had to play up. 2 of those girls quit after the fall season, so basiclly we are a U-15 team playing up. Why don't you call out the team by name that you were "stunned" to get a draw? I have no problem calling out your team and club. Baton Rouge 98 red. If this is how you represent your team and club, then you might want to take a step back and decide if the field is the best place for you to be.
|
|
|
Post by gowest225 on May 19, 2014 6:30:18 GMT -6
Gator Dad - I sincerely apologize. The Shreveport girls played so well that we were shocked -- I was surprised since in the fall your team had really struggled against us. It is clear to me now that your girls and coach must have worked so hard all season. Again, I am very sorry for assuming.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on May 19, 2014 7:55:39 GMT -6
Here is the highlights of a proposal I've shared for all size brackets. I'm trying to look at it from primarily a player's perspective and with the goal of crowing a season-long champion (and runner-up for RPL purposes). I know there are other factors.
Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of tournaments. Wear-and-tear on players. Not playing at top of game (tired factor). More focus at times on winning tournaments than good play (when your team can't win & you're at a distance, the discussion about skipping the last game usually begins).
I also don't like that league games have little impact (now) other than to group teams into "similar" brackets. I would like to see them have more of a factor in the path to the Cup. My guess is that in-season results on "decent" rest are generally more indicative of performance than prelims weekend with multiple games (3 usually) in a short (28 hours usually) period to see who advances. That all said, I would eliminate the preliminary weekend as we know it. We already allow teams to be auto-seeded from RPL, but we essentially ignore the results of full length LCSL games (bracket match-ups, especially in 6-team flights, often create odd matchups). At the older age groups, teams often play each other twice (or even 3 times with GSPL tossed in now) in 2 (or 3) weeks. I would do away with prelims as it exists.
I would seed teams based on regular season results and start playoffs from there. I like 8 teams & would go with:
Day 1 - 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5 Day 2 - 1/8 v 4/5 and 2/7 v 3/6 (semi's) Day 3 - Finals (a week later)
If you went with 6 teams (and variations as necessary for other sizes), I would probably go with:
Day 1 - 3v6 and 4v5 (1 & 2 get a bye on day 1) Day 2 - 1 v 4/5 and 2 v3/6 (semi's) Day 3 - Finals (a week later)
Less games but ones that mean more. Less travel. No repeat opponents. League games mean more. Head to head is the only advancement at State Cup. It shifts the current paradigm. Every state cup game then is important because it is win or go home. But if you lose, you save on hotel & head on home (there's a parent perspective).
It doesn't deal with who the 3rd place team is because they probably wouldn't want to travel the next weekend for a consolation & hope at 3rd place, but maybe you compare how the 2 teams did in league & declare a 3rd place finish (since it's rare LA ever gets that 3rd RPL spot anyway).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by justsayin on May 19, 2014 9:19:14 GMT -6
I disagree with the one cross bracket game. I don't see why it is a necessity that every team plays three games in prelims if they are not needed to ensure that the best teams advance. I still am in favor of the two in bracket with semis. It works where every team gets three games except if you need to determine third place where you would probably want to have the semis on finals weekend. Although you could require the semis losers to advance and play each other for third on second weekend. I guess the one cross bracket game could benefit your higher seeded teams- the highest in bracket A could play lowest in bracket B. It would be better than current system for sure. I think enough clubs are being affected negatively by this new format that it will probably get changed. In just my cursory review of the girls side, I saw similar if not as glaringly wrong situations involving CSC, Baton Rouge, and Mandeville. I am sure it will happen or has happened several times on the boys side as well. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards Coming from one of the "big" clubs you mentioned, and having a close relationship with one of those teams, I have to say that I think you might overestimate the club's desire for silverware. I can't speak for the other clubs, but we have more of a 'don't rock the boat' policy when dealing with LSA. In my experience large clubs are typically more concerned with large roster sizes, better known as "paycheck" players.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 19, 2014 9:51:02 GMT -6
Maybe I am over assuming but I know one large club president is raising issues on Facebook with the format.
I do think they are looking for silverware to try to attract more and better players. There is competition in most areas. Most feature state cup winners predominantly on their web pages.
As far as Paul's idea, I would be ok with it if all the teams had played each other during the year. With drop downs from RPL and Comp 1 this doesn't happen. In essence with seeding these teams first in each bracket you are rewarding previous year results over this year's results.
Also how would Paul's proposal work when you have two comp 2 divisions in an age group where each is split to form comp 2 and three?
However, anything almost short of drawing names from hat for seeding would be better than what we have.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|