LH QT Seeding - U12

Does anyone else think the QT seeding for the U12 brackets is a little off...
Bracket A

001) DALLAS TEXANS 02 GIRLS RED (lost all their games, didn't score any goals, but played in Gold A) 
002) STING CENTRAL 02G CUEVAS 
003) MUTINY FC 02G 
004) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS OWEN 

Bracket B

001) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS DALGLISH (played Round Robin type games, not sure how they played)
002) ANDROMEDA FC 02G WEST 
003) FC DIVAS 02 
004) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS HEIGHWAY 

Bracket C

001) FC DALLAS YOUTH FC DALLAS 02G BLACK (played in Tut- 3 wins, 1 loss (to Dallas Rush Nero)
002) FORT WORTH FC 02G WHITE 
003) SOLAR CHELSEA FC 02 G GOLD 
004) FC DALLAS YOUTH 02G EAST 

Bracket D

001) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS HANSEN played in Tut -(3 loses, 1 draw)
002) FC DALLAS YOUTH 02G WHITE 
003) TEXAS THUNDER 02 
004) FEVER UNITED 02 GIRLS BLACK 

Bracket E

001) DALLAS RUSH 02G NERO (PREV SOLAR CHELSEA 02G STARK) (Played in Tut - 3 wins, 1 draw)
002) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS KEEGAN 
003) ANDROMEDA FC 02G BLUE 
004) CHELSEA EAST SC 

Looks like the 4 LH teams were given preferential treatment in QT seeding, but the 3 teams (D'Feeters (formerly Polaris) with a D3 bye, LP Hansen & FCD Black) that played this weekend did not all have good results.
Seems like seeding committee should have waited on King Tut results!

Goalkick wrote:Does anyone else think the QT seeding for the U12 brackets is a little off...
Bracket A

001) DALLAS TEXANS 02 GIRLS RED (lost all their games, didn't score any goals, but played in Gold A) 
002) STING CENTRAL 02G CUEVAS 
003) MUTINY FC 02G 
004) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS OWEN 

Bracket B

001) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS DALGLISH (played Round Robin type games, not sure how they played)
002) ANDROMEDA FC 02G WEST 
003) FC DIVAS 02 
004) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS HEIGHWAY 

Bracket C

001) FC DALLAS YOUTH FC DALLAS 02G BLACK (played in Tut- 3 wins, 1 loss (to Dallas Rush Nero)
002) FORT WORTH FC 02G WHITE 
003) SOLAR CHELSEA FC 02 G GOLD 
004) FC DALLAS YOUTH 02G EAST 

Bracket D

001) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS HANSEN played in Tut -(3 loses, 1 draw)
002) FC DALLAS YOUTH 02G WHITE 
003) TEXAS THUNDER 02 
004) FEVER UNITED 02 GIRLS BLACK 

Bracket E

001) DALLAS RUSH 02G NERO (PREV SOLAR CHELSEA 02G STARK) (Played in Tut - 3 wins, 1 loss)
002) LIVERPOOL FC AMERICA 02 GIRLS KEEGAN 
003) ANDROMEDA FC 02G BLUE 
004) CHELSEA EAST SC 

Looks like the 4 LH teams were given preferential treatment in QT seeding, but the 3 teams (D'Feeters (formerly Polaris) with a D3 bye, LP Hansen & FCD Black) that played this weekend did not all have good results.
Seems like seeding committee should have waited on King Tut results!

Actually Rush Stark had 3 wins and 1 draw no losses for them this weekend.

As I recall from last year, the LHCL seeding committee did not use the King Tut to alter seeding. The prior records plus coach input were used.

LHGCL always takes care of their own first. That's the way it is!

The way it was explained to me is that the highest seeds go to the four teams having to requalify, and in the order they finished the year before. How they seed the "new" teams I'm not aware of but it appears Starke got the high seed in their bracket because they won PPL, with Keegan behind him respectively. They assured us at the QT meeting they've been doing this "for a while" and are confident they do a pretty fair job of it.

JohnJohn wrote:The way it was explained to me is that the highest seeds go to the four teams having to requalify, and in the order they finished the year before. How they seed the "new" teams I'm not aware of but it appears Starke got the high seed in their bracket because they won PPL, with Keegan behind him respectively. They assured us at the QT meeting they've been doing this "for a while" and are confident they do a pretty fair job of it.

I'm sure they are consistent in what they do but how do they know its fair or not fair? What's fair when seeding? There has to be some tournament records of games between the best teams in Plano and Arlington and the LH demoted but they don't look at that at all?

Does anyone know how seeding works for round 2 of QT?

Joga14:55 wrote:Does anyone know how seeding works for round 2 of QT?

LAKE HIGHLANDS GIRLS CLASSIC LEAGUE
2013 QUALIFYING TOURNAMENT
PLAYING FORMAT FOR UNDER 12 (02’s)

20 Teams trying out for 4 spots in Division III

ROUND 1: (30 games)
Teams will be seeded into 5 Brackets of 4.

Brackets
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1
A2 B2 C2 D2 E2
A3 B3 C3 D3 E3
A4 B4 C4 D4 E4

Teams in all Brackets will play all other teams within their bracket.
After Round 1, the 1st place teams from Brackets A through E and the three remaining teams with
the highest percentile of points earned will move on to Round 2. All other teams are eliminated.

ROUND 2: (12 games)

The 8 teams that advance to Round 2 will be seeded into 2 Brackets of 4. Teams in all Brackets will
play all other teams within their bracket.

Brackets
X1:1A Y1:1B
X2:1D Y2:1C
X3:1E Y3:1WC
X4:3WC Y4:2WC

The Top 2 teams from each bracket are in Lake Highlands Girls Classic League Division III.
highest percentile of points = total points/total possible bracket points.
total possible points in round is the sum total of all points scored in a team’s bracket.

Thanks mommabear! I was hearing that there was a "reseeding" process for round two. Thanks for the clarification.

Anyone know why the Y bracket that has the second highest seed seem to have the easiest route rather then the # 1 seed getting this path? Also any observations to today's games?

I think once the seeds are finalized you will find the x bracket the easier of the two, however a big reason the x bracket  will be a little easier is that the "1 seed" is currently 0-2 and eliminated from week 2.

Yes but I am sure it was not designed that way? So the format still seems to benefit Y

Don't think Y is easier? Potential to have two LH, top Arlington and top Plano teams in one bracket. The other bracket has potentially a new team, a team that didn't play in any of the three and the 2nd and 8th best teams from Plano. Keegan has to love their chances

JohnJohn wrote:The way it was explained to me is that the highest seeds go to the four teams having to requalify, and in the order they finished the year before. How they seed the "new" teams I'm not aware of but it appears Starke got the high seed in their bracket because they won PPL, with Keegan behind him respectively. They assured us at the QT meeting they've been doing this "for a while" and are confident they do a pretty fair job of it.

Two top seeds that finished 4th in their bracket??? Lake Highlands does a "fair job of it". Another theory disproven by fact.

9876 wrote:

JohnJohn wrote:The way it was explained to me is that the highest seeds go to the four teams having to requalify, and in the order they finished the year before. How they seed the "new" teams I'm not aware of but it appears Starke got the high seed in their bracket because they won PPL, with Keegan behind him respectively. They assured us at the QT meeting they've been doing this "for a while" and are confident they do a pretty fair job of it.

Two top seeds that finished 4th in their bracket???  Lake Highlands does a "fair job of it".  Another theory disproven by fact.

Good to see your bitterness hasn't faded...

It amazes me that simple minded people resort to name calling when they can't dispute the facts.   

If you have two premises that seem to contradict themselves re-look at them, one must be wrong.

Premise 1. Lake highlands did a good job of seeding week 1 of qualifying

Premise 2.  When 40% of your top seeds finish last in their pool, the tournament organizer did not do a good job seeding the brackets.

Since theses premises contradict each other, one must be wrong.  My only beef is with the committee not the teams.  I think if their goal was really to seed teams accurately, seeds would have been different.    It was obvious before and verified during king tut/puma their were some bad seeds.

By the way congrats to all pool winners.   Great first weekend for you and good luck in week 2.  You did all that you could do, finish ahead of the rest of teams in your pool.

LH has always seeded this way a probably alway will. Other than U11, they only use last season's standings with LH teams first, PPL generally next and APL, then any new teams last.

There is always turnnover on teams and a lot of times the previous LH teams are decimated due to the perception that they are moving down or simply that they have to requalify, so there a many cases where they are seeded high but get knocked out by PPL teams on the rise. There are also cases where a top PPL team has to play one of the better LH teams and in onother bracket 2 weak LH teams play. Believe me, I've been there with my 97 DD's team getting stuck in the 'bracket of death' 3 years straight always at the top of PPL, but not doing well enough to qualify. They are now playing in LH D1, once we qualified we shot up the ranks and have not had to qualify since. But it took 3 years of playing in PPL Remember its a marathon not a sprint.

As for the second weekend: it is very appearent they use a standard snake seeding that is absolutely fair IF the original seeding is accurate and the teams in each bracket of the first weekend fall into the results that the seeding predicted. But what is usually the case (has happened to my 97's team) is that some lower seeds are actually stronger and the second weekend brackets become unbalanced. I don't know of a better solution that to just keep with it. If you change it to snake by the highest points earned in the first weekend, then there is the argument that strong first weekend brackets would result in lower points for the top seeds and that wouldn't be fair to them. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I would say the issue with LHGC is two fold:

1) They just make bad seeds at times. This is most challenging, becuase it is very difficult 40 or 50 teams for U11 and 20-25 at older age groups. I will say it seems like they will at times penalize teams based on style of play and not just focus on results. That is wrong and is a fixable issue. If they just started with that FBR(or whatever it is) and then really looked very hard if they were seeding +/- 3 off that they would probably be pretty accurate. These bad seeds can really haunt other teams in week 2 of qualifying.

2) They just don't have a very high IQ when it comes to bracketing logic. To me this is unexcusable. Two examples come to mind from my two years of following Lake Highlands qualifying
a) Last year they put the 3 lowest seeded teams into 3 team brackets and then gave them automatic byes into the 2nd round. Two of these 3 teams had no business being in the 2nd week and the impact was that it created a situation where 3 teams in those brackets essentially automatic byes into LH becuase all they had to do was max points essentially a rec team. This is a little complex, but if you are creating bracketing logic you have to think through these things.

However it appears they have outdone themselves this year:

b) How they are applying the % of total pool points might be the dumbest bracketing logic I have ever seen. Go look at the 01 forum/results. You have one potential wildcard that scored 20 points in 3 games. However the team that apparently is going to get the 1 and only wildcard spot socored 16 points in 3 games. The reason? They were only in a pool with 2 other teams(but played 3 games becuase of a cross over game). The main reason you would use this "% of pool points" is to normalize results between a team that plays 2 games(because of 3 team bracket) vs 3 games(because of a 4 game bracket). If everyone playing is playing in 4 team brackets it, I don't think it adds any value only confusion. But when you have all teams playing 3 games but some in 3 team brackets and some in 4 game brackets, applyhing this concept is just per stupidity.

Lonestar54 wrote:Anyone know why the Y bracket that has the second highest seed seem to have the easiest route rather then the # 1 seed getting this path? Also any observations to today's games?

The round 2 format was set before the QT began. The round 2 seeding logic begins with the assumption that round 1 is accurately seeded (yes, that's a big assumption). Let's start with round 1. The brackets were seeded as follows
BRACKET A 1,10, 11, 20
BRACKET B 2, 9, 12, 19
BRACKET C. 3, 8, 13, 18
BRACKET D. 4, 7, 14, 17
BRACKET E. 5, 6, 15, 16

So each bracket has a #1 seed
Bracket A had the #1 seed for the QT
and BRACKET E had the #5 seed.

As I said, the round 2 logic assumes that this seeding is correct, and that the 5 #1 seeds will finish #1. So then they format round 2
Bracket X. A1, D1, E, WC3. OR!!!
Bracket X. #1, #4, #5, #8

Bracket Y. B1, C1, WC1, WC2. OR!!!
Bracket Y. #2, #3, #6, #7

Round 2 seeds have nothing to do with the points a team earned in Round 1
Round 2 seeds were predetermined.

The winner of bracket B was going to play the winner of bracket C because B had the #2 seed and C had the # 3 seed.

Correct I never question the seeding I question the layout. The correct layout would be the following

Y winner would play: 8,6,4
X winner would play: 7,5,3

If a correct serpentine method was used.

1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. Same as March Madness, Wimbledon etc.

Lonestar54 wrote:Correct I never question the seeding I question the layout. The correct layout would be the following

Y winner would play: 8,6,4
X winner would play: 7,5,3

If a correct serpentine method was used.

Wrong. Gumby has it right, which is what I was saying earlier, I just didn't spell it out like Gumby did. The seeding you have here would have the #1 team (X) playing 1 seed higher in all games, thus a harder bracket. A serpentine seeding (or fantasy football draft order for that matter) by its very nick name reverses at the ends and goes backward in even numbered rounds, it does not go across the same direction on each line like reading a book.