|
Post by dme1214 on Apr 24, 2015 8:38:15 GMT -6
One thing I don't get is things like at the u15 boys level (going from memory), there are 15 Comp 2 teams with the bottom 6 in playins. Why not do a 8 team Comp 2 and 6 team Comp 3 and only have one playin. I think it's better to allow as many teams as possible to actually compete for state. Agreed, it doesn't make a lot of sense, it begs the question for those 3 teams that lose the playin game, did they just pay $600 to play one game? Or are they refunded their fee?
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Apr 24, 2015 9:52:59 GMT -6
One thing I don't get is things like at the u15 boys level (going from memory), there are 15 Comp 2 teams with the bottom 6 in playins. Why not do a 8 team Comp 2 and 6 team Comp 3 and only have one playin. I think it's better to allow as many teams as possible to actually compete for state. Agreed, it doesn't make a lot of sense, it begs the question for those 3 teams that lose the playin game, did they just pay $600 to play one game? Or are they refunded their fee? Policy manual says a portion of their $600. If LSA were fair they would refund the losing teams all but the cost of the game officials. It just i snot right to put a team through that and take a chunk of their team money. You still have to plan your weekend around a tournament you may not play in. There has to be some reason they did not have a c3. Saving on the cost of medals?
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Apr 24, 2015 10:27:38 GMT -6
Interesting that u 16boys had 8 in comp 2 and 6 in Comp 3? Would love to hear from someone who knows why?
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 3, 2015 17:57:55 GMT -6
This weekend kinda proved the seeding in U15 girls. Three of the four comp 1 teams advanced and the fourth was close to doing so. Just from this age bracket, it appears that placing the Comp 1 teams first was correct.
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on May 3, 2015 18:43:59 GMT -6
This weekend kinda proved the seeding in U15 girls. Three of the four comp 1 teams advanced and the fourth was close to doing so. Just from this age bracket, it appears that placing the Comp 1 teams first was correct. Of course then that begs the questions why drop so many c1 teams down in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gryphon8s on May 3, 2015 21:18:07 GMT -6
This weekend kinda proved the seeding in U15 girls. Three of the four comp 1 teams advanced and the fourth was close to doing so. Just from this age bracket, it appears that placing the Comp 1 teams first was correct. seeding did not prove a thing in the U15B brackets, all the C1 teams that were dropped down were eliminated this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on May 4, 2015 5:27:16 GMT -6
I agree about dropping so many down. In fact, I would rather they keep everyone where they played league and do promotion and relegation for the next year. I understand about the best team for President's Cup but that could be selected another way. I have been told that states have discretion but not sure if true.
Maybe the U15B proved that the C1 teams being higher seed doesn't necessarily impact the C2 team chances. I don't know that seeding is such a big deal in an 8 team bracket. Even if you are truly the second best team and get seeded with the best one, you would still make semis and have opportunity to play the top finishing team in other bracket. If you beat them, you make finals. It may play some bearing if the teams are close.
I don't know if it has more effect in another size bracket.
|
|