|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 1, 2012 7:39:50 GMT -6
To all the very knowledgeable people on this board, I need a little help.
After the first round, is there a system for determinating home field advantage? If both teams had home games, does it go to the higher seed? If one played on the road then they will get home field?
Just wondering if there is some logic to this decision making process. Thanks for any information that can be given at this time.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert 
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Feb 1, 2012 7:44:31 GMT -6
I believe the short answer is that the Higher seed gets to host the game unless they've hosted more games than the team that they're hosting - then, it goes to the lower seed.
There may be other nuances, but generally, I think that's the logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbedad20 on Feb 1, 2012 7:44:36 GMT -6
To all the very knowledgeable people on this board, I need a little help. After the first round, is there a system for determinating home field advantage? If both teams had home games, does it go to the higher seed? If one played on the road then they will get home field? Just wondering if there is some logic to this decision making process. Thanks for any information that can be given at this time. Yes. Just as you thought. If both team were at home or both away the higher seed gets the home game. If 1 traveled and 1 was at home the traveling team gets the home game. |
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 1, 2012 7:51:52 GMT -6
We hear some negatives about the way high school soccer is run, but I agree with this logic. I know I may hear some grief about that. Some may think as is the case with professional sports that the higher seed should always be at home, but I can see how here this is not the case. Thanks barbedad and pmaliinich for this info...
|
|
|
|
Post by barnacle13 on Feb 1, 2012 8:22:28 GMT -6
You know it might pump a little blood into some weaker programs if they hosted first round against the better seeds. Let's face it the established programs travel pretty well. The gate for these games would benefit the weaker program. Not suggesting a change, just pointing out a positive of flipping the home field advantage. There might be an effect in the middle seeds to doing this, but the 1-10 or 12 it wouldn't likely impact as far as result of the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 1, 2012 8:33:43 GMT -6
I think the higher seed should be rewarded for their record and seeding with a home field first round game. I understand where you are coming from, but in the end a number 1 should not have to go to a 32. If you change it for the middle seedings you would have to change for all and I do not think that is fair. Keeping it the way it is gives teams the incentive to get better and compete at a higher level...Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
Post by barnacle13 on Feb 1, 2012 8:42:54 GMT -6
I think the higher seed should be rewarded for their record and seeding with a home field first round game. I understand where you are coming from, but in the end a number 1 should not have to go to a 32. If you change it for the middle seedings you would have to change for all and I do not think that is fair. Keeping it the way it is gives teams the incentive to get better and compete at a higher level...Just a thought... I don't disagree with you at all. It is how it is for a reason. Just pointing out that the additional gate might help some of the weaker programs. I don't expect any kind of change to the current system. I am glad that a high seed that wins in the first round doesn't have to travel for two consecutive games. Nice to throw abone to the 17-32's if they can battle through and win. Is that the same for Div II or does the top 8 start with a home game regardless? |
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Feb 1, 2012 8:50:18 GMT -6
The gate for these games would benefit the weaker program. Isn't it a 50-50 split (after expenses) anyway, regardless of where the game is played? You'd expect (generally speaking) to have more fans at the stadium of the higher seed, so if anything, the weaker teams benefit financially from going on the road rather than hosting. Also, why should a Mt. Carmel or Lafayette or other highly-ranked team risk having to travel to Shreveport or Monroe for a first-round game? You should be rewarded in the playoffs for having a good season. Also, as long as the seeds hold true to form, the higher seed would always host, so there's not that much of a difference between the current system and having the higher seed host all the time. All the current system does is possibly reward a team with a home game if it pulls off an upset, which seems reasonable enough to me. (That said, I don't know if it's all that fair to make a 1 seed travel to a 17 seed or a 2 to an 18 in the second round.) |
|
|
|
Post by offthepitch on Feb 1, 2012 9:05:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 1, 2012 9:10:19 GMT -6
that has already been established see first two responses to the initial question.
|
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Feb 2, 2012 7:42:28 GMT -6
We keep forgetting to change that semifinal round part about traveled last! When shouldn't matter, only the amount of times traveled. Last year a #1 seed in boys had to go on road for semifinals after both teams had each traveled once. But the lower seed traveled in quarters and the top seed In Regional round. So why is it better to be top seed again? They lost a 1 goal lead in The last minute of game and then in OT. When both travel same amount, higher see should always get home like in every round but semifinals currently states. I think that was left from pre seeding times and lhsaa forgot to scratch that out. Either way, that needs to be fixed for next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 2, 2012 7:53:03 GMT -6
I agree, if all being equal the higher seed should ALWAYS play at home. I am a firm believer that you should reward the team for their body of work over the whole season and being a higher seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by barcafan on Feb 2, 2012 9:06:57 GMT -6
Seeding is not perfect, meaning that the most talented team might not get the highest seed. Additionally, looking at the top 5 or 6 seeded teams in the playoffs, one could easily make the case for moving any one of them to a higher seed or dropping a particular team to a lower position. So, a high seed gets the advantage early in the playoff but as the playoff progresses that advantage should be lessened and a lower seed can earn back some of that advantage. After all, the lower seed will have played a tougher playoff schedule to get through to a quarter- or semifinal game. Traveling every week creates a punishment for a talented team that may have gotten a less favorable seed through little fault of their own. In lieu of moving the later playoff games to neutral sites, travel for the previous home team seems to be in the interest of creating the most competitive games.
|
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 2, 2012 11:59:54 GMT -6
If a lower seeds wins their first round game as I understand it the higher played at home and so they (higher seed) would travel. Again this is competitive sports and unfortunately the strong will and in my eyes should be rewarded. Whether it be pro, college , high school or club ball there is no perfect play off scheduling. Remember Saints went to Seattle and lost to a 500 team. Now that is home field advantage!
|
|
|
|
Post by archangel on Feb 6, 2012 19:07:09 GMT -6
We keep forgetting to change that semifinal round part about traveled last! When shouldn't matter, only the amount of times traveled. Last year a #1 seed in boys had to go on road for semifinals after both teams had each traveled once. But the lower seed traveled in quarters and the top seed In Regional round. So why is it better to be top seed again? They lost a 1 goal lead in The last minute of game and then in OT. When both travel same amount, higher see should always get home like in every round but semifinals currently states. I think that was left from pre seeding times and lhsaa forgot to scratch that out. Either way, that needs to be fixed for next year. Higher seed, lower seed, regional round, quarter final round -- it is all very hard to follow. Let's look at a possible situation this year that might explain it. In this round (the regional round), Lafayette High (#1) travels to Shreveport to play Caddo Magnet (#17), and St. Thomas More(#5) is home against Northshore (#12). Assuming St. Thomas More (#5) beats Northshore (#12) and Mount Carmel (#4) beats Hahnville (#13), next round (quarter finals) will have St. Thomas More (#5) traveling to Mount Carmel(#4). Lafayette High (#1) will play at home against either Mandeville (#8) or East Eascension (#9). So, if St. Thomas More (#5) and Lafayette (#1) advance to the semifinal round, who gets the home game? It sounds like even though both teams traveled once, St. Thomas More (the lower seed) would get the home game because they traveled more recently? Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Feb 6, 2012 19:14:20 GMT -6
That would be correct. I believe that this is the same rule used in the throwball playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by workhard on Feb 6, 2012 19:47:50 GMT -6
I agree with most of the discussion, but have to bring up the fact that the teams from the north sometimes get seeded lower than they should be. Why would the teams below I-10 ever put a team in the top 16 if the rule was changed to keep ALL of them from leaving the comfort of home and every team from the north traveling every 4 or 5 days.
We need to remember that they are students first and that much travel would effect their GPA. Just a thought..
|
|
|
|
Post by div1coach222 on Feb 6, 2012 20:28:16 GMT -6
workhard- What Division are you questioning about seeding? Div. I I feel the seeedings were pretty accurate. What team or teams in this years playoffs from "up north" do you feel were seeded to low? Please remember if they were seeded to low and maybe an underdog they would probably be playing a higher seed at home this week. Both West Monroe and Byrd (I think Byrd not sure) are both not from the southern area and Byrd at home for second week with W. Monroe traveling for the first time. Lower seeded teams are rewarded for pulling upsets, the system is not perfect, but logistically well enough for high school sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by workhard on Feb 6, 2012 21:33:15 GMT -6
I am just making the point that to get noticed by the coaches of quality teams down south the northern teams have to go south for tournaments and games during the regular season. That doesn't mean that that is the fault of the southern teams it is what it is. We all know that the best soccer in the state is played in the south. If we are gonna build a program in the northern part of the state it is hard.
I am a second year coach at a D 3 school and have been seeded low both years and got the #2 team (at home) in the second round both years. I agree that you have to play the best to be the best, but it seems that we, because of very few D 3 teams here, have to play the West Monroes, Nevilles,West Ouachitas of the state and get beat up and unnoticed by our peers in the south. And because of our records it seems that we are a weaker team.
Just saying that if the system was to change to the highest seed gets the home game all the time that it could make the seeding all about staying close to home.
I do agree that the system is not perfect, but good enough for high school sports.
|
|
