U10 LHGCL Spring Roundup - February 14 - 17

I appreciate everyone's comments, critical and supportive, and wanted to address some of the concerns expressed, partly as a mea culpa, as some of the wounds are self inflicted, but also to hopefully explain what occurred. Warning - long comment to follow.

We originally planned the tournament for Friday - Monday. Due to numerous concerns about various schools opting to be open Monday to make up for lost weather days, we shortened the schedule to wrap up Sunday. This compression made the schedule much more brittle, but also placed stress on field availability and referees.

Due to this compression and resource constraints, we were unable to field multiple flights - as it is, the last final games wrap up Sunday night @ 8:00. So we have teams from across the spectrum in a single flight, which will likely create some uneven games. In seeding, we did try to recognize this and try to give teams a chance for some measure of success in a game or two. We also had a couple of situations as we were sorting through the schedule where teams only had 2 games scheduled. When notified of the issue, I reached out to a couple of those to let them know we were working on addressing the issue and if it couldn't be resolved, I would offer a compensatory rebate, recognizing they would not get the same value for their fee as other teams.

Throughout the registration process, we asked all teams to let us know of conflicts due to games in other local leagues. We also made it clear those were the only conflicts we could hope to accommodate due to the compressed schedule. Some teams did notify of us of conflicts, others did not.

So, when the schedule was released earlier this week, we had numerous teams that had conflicts they had not informed us of (and at least one which I missed). So we posted a schedule, teams made plans, we revised the schedule (which probably exacerbated some inequities, resolved others), this revision then caused other conflicts, etc.

I see several posts on this thread and others where individuals have said, in essence, it is what it is, we may get spanked, but that's how we improve and I applaud that take. Though having been on the lopsided losing side, it sucks for us as parent, but my dd never gave it a thought. It's going to be a beautiful weekend after a pretty crappy few weeks, so hopefully, the schedule is set and we can move forward. If anyone wants to reach out to me directly, please feel free - lhgcl-roundup@swbell.net.

Finally, this opinion/explanation is mine as the tournament chair, not the league's or anyone else's, so if you have issue, please take it up with me.

Thanks

Kudos to you for addressing the issue. It is appreciated.

jsullivan81 wrote:Kudos to you for addressing the issue. It is appreciated.

Agreed. Well done.

Hmm didn't notice it, but they took the top 4 points rather than the group winners to advance to the semis. Not too fair to SRFC who may have had the most competitive group top to bottom.

Agreed. SRFC got screwed...great showing by them though

Is the bracket correct that Sting Goodman played in the semifinals?

https://events.gotsport.com/events/results.aspx?EventID=35874&Gender=Girls&Age=10

No. LFS played Lady Aztecs not Sting Goodman in semis. LFS won against Sting Goodman 3-0 this morning.

canaryman wrote:Agreed.  SRFC got screwed...great showing by them though

What did SRFC do that Aztecs or Spirit didn't do?

Won their bracket...Spirit won theirs, but Aztecs didn't. Aztecs and Spirit bracket not as strong as SRFC bracket either. Bracket D had an FCD team was ranked in the 50's I think and then an 05 team...there wasn't an easy game in Bracket B

With all due respect to SRFC, they did play well this weekend, but to use the term "screwed" or "unfair" is inaccurate in my opinion. A tournament is what it is.  You have to take care of business. All they had to do is win this morning and they were in. Spirit won 2 games, Aztecs won 2 games, and SRFC won 2 games. Would SRFC have beaten either of those 2 teams? I guess well never know. They had their chance as did Premier and LFS White when Chacon was put in bracket A.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. Great tourney.

So who won?

Results
https://events.gotsport.com/events/results.aspx?EventID=35874&Gender=Girls&Age=10

In case got soccer is acting wonky, which it has for some of the age groups, results are @ http://thedallasspringroundup.com/wp2/?page_id=562.

Thanks to everyone who participated.

ballboy wrote:With all due respect to SRFC, they did play well this weekend, but to use the term "screwed" or "unfair" is inaccurate in my opinion. A tournament is what it is.  You have to take care of business. All they had to do is win this morning and they were in. Spirit won 2 games, Aztecs won 2 games, and SRFC won 2 games. Would SRFC have beaten either of those 2 teams? I guess well never know. They had their chance as did Premier and LFS White when Chacon was put in bracket A.

Got to agree with Ballboy on this one. A tournament is what it is, you have to play with what you're delt. It's easy to say "They got the cakewalk bracket while we got the gauntlet". I know you don't want to hear it but all you have to do is take care of busines and you are in.

This was a great tournament... but the player were expecting trophies... not medals...

FCsoccer1 wrote:This was a great tournament... but the player were expecting trophies... not medals...

...but I heard that each of the medals was made with a piece of the meteor that is responsible for all of the craters on fields 2-6 at UTD...

Thanks, as always, for the constructive feedback. We did discuss trophy vs. medal awards and a couple of factors weighed in to our decision.

We wanted to use the branding of the tournament logo (ball with cowboy hat) and felt medals were the best way to do so vs. your standard girl with pony tail kicking a ball or cup, or whatever. I realize this is a U10 forum, so it may be more acute for those of us with older girls, but we felt one more thing to dust.....

We did compare the medals to ones our kids had gotten at other tournaments, and these are larger, heavier and with painted colors vs. 2 tone stamping.

I was going to post a separate note, but I will be sending your managers a satisfaction survey and we absolutely want frank feedback (critical and complimentary), and I encourage you to send your thoughts - I know now that we're not going to please all the people all the time, but we do want to continue to improve the tournament and make it a special even for your daughters and for you.

Thanks for spending the weekend with us.

bwgophers wrote:

FCsoccer1 wrote:This was a great tournament... but the player were expecting trophies... not medals...

...but I heard that each of the medals was made with a piece of the meteor that is responsible for all of the craters on fields 2-6 at UTD...

I was going to say something similar about the fields, but did not have the field numbers.  Pot holes, craters...besides the defenders it was a maze to dribble through and around:)

Wait.... I thought of something else.... parking was hell... who thought of just one way in and out.

DalWild... thanks for the feedback, very much appreciated.

It was also kind of windy, please fix that.

Cleansheets wrote:

ballboy wrote:With all due respect to SRFC, they did play well this weekend, but to use the term "screwed" or "unfair" is inaccurate in my opinion. A tournament is what it is.  You have to take care of business. All they had to do is win this morning and they were in. Spirit won 2 games, Aztecs won 2 games, and SRFC won 2 games. Would SRFC have beaten either of those 2 teams? I guess well never know. They had their chance as did Premier and LFS White when Chacon was put in bracket A.

Got to agree with Ballboy on this one. A tournament is what it is, you have to play with what you're delt. It's easy to say "They got the cakewalk bracket while we got the gauntlet". I know you don't want to hear it but all you have to do is take care of busines and you are in.

My opinion is that if you don't have a hyper-accurate ranking system to do your seeding, stay away from the points only advancement. (my dd didn't play this weekend, so impartial here)
I have seen points only advancement fall on its face too many times. Saw a tournament once where groups A&B were 4 teams, groups C&D were three and cross-played. Group D was basically rec, and group A was essentially the top teams (group of death). Ultimately, all three teams from group C advanced, as well as the group winner of B. The winner of Group A won all three games, but missed out on the semis due to getting 8 or 9 points a game against tough teams. Ultimately, the best teams in the tournament did not advance due to seeding and a points only system.
Until U-14, you should NEVER set up a points only advancement system, as you don't have enough information to ensure that problems don't occur. I think LH dodged a bullet this weekend. I say at this age, take your best guess as a ranking, and seed it snake order where group winners advance.
Did SRFC get "screwed"? The fact that we are having this arguement only proves my point. They DID win their group, but the tournament rules were clear, and had they won their last game instead of tying, they would have been in. BUT...try to explain to 9 and 10 year olds that even though they didn't lose a game, and won their bracket, they are out of the tournament...It would have been much easier if they would have set it up as snake order/group winners. My $0.02.

I agree that Bracket D was easier than the other 3 brackets, but to say that SRFC got screwed is a bit of an overstatement. They did not have any of the top 10 rated teams in their bracket. I doubt they would have been in this position to complain if they would have had to play DT Scott, LFS, Sting Chacon or Sting Goodman in bracket play.

Jackie Moon wrote:I agree that Bracket D was easier than the other 3 brackets, but to say that SRFC got screwed is a bit of an overstatement.  They did not have any of the top 10 rated teams in their bracket.  I  doubt they would have been in this position to complain if they would have had to play DT Scott, LFS, Sting Chacon or Sting Goodman in bracket play.

Not sure if anyone was saying "Screwed" a much as "shame that kinda sucks". Also you have to look at the bottom of the group competition more than the top.

db10 wrote:

Jackie Moon wrote:I agree that Bracket D was easier than the other 3 brackets, but to say that SRFC got screwed is a bit of an overstatement.  They did not have any of the top 10 rated teams in their bracket.  I  doubt they would have been in this position to complain if they would have had to play DT Scott, LFS, Sting Chacon or Sting Goodman in bracket play.

Not sure if anyone was saying "Screwed" a much as "shame that kinda sucks". Also you have to look at the bottom of the group competition more than the top.

I said "screwed"...but meant "shame that kinda sucks"...pardon my language. SRFC tied DT Scott (0-0) several weeks ago at the Michael Brown Classic...would have been nice to see how a 2nd match went.

canaryman wrote:

db10 wrote:

Jackie Moon wrote:I agree that Bracket D was easier than the other 3 brackets, but to say that SRFC got screwed is a bit of an overstatement.  They did not have any of the top 10 rated teams in their bracket.  I  doubt they would have been in this position to complain if they would have had to play DT Scott, LFS, Sting Chacon or Sting Goodman in bracket play.

Not sure if anyone was saying "Screwed" a much as "shame that kinda sucks". Also you have to look at the bottom of the group competition more than the top.

I said "screwed"...but meant "shame that kinda sucks"...pardon my language.  SRFC tied DT Scott (0-0) several weeks ago at the Michael Brown Classic...would have been nice to see how a 2nd match went.

Not a good tournament to measure. Michael Brown was a "friendly" tournament and DT Scott played it as a friendly. Different formations girls in different positions, etc.