State Cup Seeding/Brackets

socrocks wrote:Bracket A
#1 Sting
#8 Revolution Premiere
#9 Solar Blue
#16 Lubbock Comets

Bracket B
#2 Texans
#7 Mustangs
#10 Solar Gold
#15 FC Dallas Blue

Bracket C
#3 Solar Red
#6 FC Dallas
#11 DFW Tornados
#14 FC Dallas Black

Bracket D
#4 Solar
#5 D’Feeters
#12 Texans Red North
#13 Sting Royal

Any idea if they will they have quarterfinals?

edit: Looked at last year's tournament and no quarterfinals were used.

anybody no the 94 bracket layout...

Gunners wrote:

socrocks wrote:Bracket A
#1 Sting
#8 Revolution Premiere
#9 Solar Blue
#16 Lubbock Comets

Bracket B
#2 Texans
#7 Mustangs
#10 Solar Gold
#15 FC Dallas Blue

Bracket C
#3 Solar Red
#6 FC Dallas
#11 DFW Tornados
#14 FC Dallas Black

Bracket D
#4 Solar
#5 D’Feeters
#12 Texans Red North
#13 Sting Royal

Any idea if they will they have quarterfinals?

edit: Looked at last year's tournament and no quarterfinals were used.

No qtr finals / 4 bracket winners straight to the semis.

How do they seed this particular tournament? It does not match up

solambaexan wrote:How do they seed this particular tournament? It does not match up

Fall LHCGL standings.

Unfortunately, that's only partially correct and a very popular misconception. NTX provides an initial seeding for each age group as a starting point...that seeding is based on the standings from the Fall. At the State Cup meeting each age group is supposed to review that seeding to make sure it is appropriate....if it is not, the group has the authority to change it. Some years the seedings (based on Fall) are appropriate, some years they're not. In principle the group is charged with with getting it right.

For the u15 and older age groups the seeding based on the Fall season is typically appropriate because the high school season precludes the Spring LHGCL games from starting until mid March (at best). Because of this, the Fall standings are actually representative of the most recent play...there is not much room for debate for the older kids. But typically, the Fall season has more games than the Spring, so they're seeding represents more than 1/2 of their full year's play.

However, in the u11 thru u14 age groups, 7/8 of the season has typically been completed (rather than just 1/2) by the time the meeting is held. Some years things change in the 2nd half. The group has the opportunity to recognize that change and seed teams to appropriately reflect that change. Unfortunately, sometimes self-serving motives get in the way of doing the right thing. This is disapointing.

The way I look at it is that we all know that the fall standings are used in large part to determine seedings. Yes, there is the meeting, but it is my understanding that particularly in our age group the seedings have gone unchanged in years past. So, we all had the same knowledge that they are based on the fall performance. Therefore, I don't really see an issue. Bottom line is that the fall performance should be a high priority for all if they want a top seed. Now it is a matter of winning the games.

ontheball wrote:The way I look at it is that we all know that the fall standings are used in large part to determine seedings. Yes, there is the meeting, but it is my understanding that particularly in our age group the seedings have gone unchanged in years past. So, we all had the same knowledge that they are based on the fall performance. Therefore, I don't really see an issue. Bottom line is that the fall performance should be a high priority for all if they want a top seed. Now it is a matter of winning the games.

You are correct on that. Teams have to be ready to win games and since there are no quarters finals, the teams especially in brackets C and D better max out in points in the games they are expected to win if they want to get out of bracket.

Everyone knows that ties will kill you in tournaments.

This time its not only the battle for State Cup but an entry into Regionals.

Should be quite a showdown.

ontheball wrote:The way I look at it is that we all know that the fall standings are used in large part to determine seedings. Yes, there is the meeting, but it is my understanding that particularly in our age group the seedings have gone unchanged in years past. So, we all had the same knowledge that they are based on the fall performance. Therefore, I don't really see an issue. Bottom line is that the fall performance should be a high priority for all if they want a top seed. Now it is a matter of winning the games.

Just because it’s been done wrong all along, that doesn’t make it any more right now. How long did people think the world was flat? The only flippin’ way that standings are relevant from 4 months ago (as the sole criterion)….is if you were playing the tournament 4 months ago.

On Jan 16, the Texas Longhorns basketball team was 17-0 and ranked #1 in the country. So why weren’t they seeded #1 for the NCAA tournament in mid-March? Because between Jan 18 and Mar 6…they lost 8 of 14 games. You see, the seeding committee had the benefit of current information and there was absolutely no logic in seeding them #1.

If the logic is not clear through that example, then I can’t make it clear. But the truth (and the problem) is that most understand that logic…it’s just not necessarily in their best interest to acknowledge it.

socrocks wrote:

ontheball wrote:The way I look at it is that we all know that the fall standings are used in large part to determine seedings. Yes, there is the meeting, but it is my understanding that particularly in our age group the seedings have gone unchanged in years past. So, we all had the same knowledge that they are based on the fall performance. Therefore, I don't really see an issue. Bottom line is that the fall performance should be a high priority for all if they want a top seed. Now it is a matter of winning the games.

Just because it’s been done wrong all along, that doesn’t make it any more right now. How long did people think the world was flat? The only flippin’ way that standings are relevant from 4 months ago (as the sole criterion)….is if you were playing the tournament 4 months ago.

On Jan 16, the Texas Longhorns basketball team was 17-0 and ranked #1 in the country. So why weren’t they seeded #1 for the NCAA tournament in mid-March? Because between Jan 18 and Mar 6…they lost 8 of 14 games. You see, the seeding committee had the benefit of current information and there was absolutely no logic in seeding them #1.

If the logic is not clear through that example, then I can’t make it clear. But the truth (and the problem) is that most understand that logic…it’s just not necessarily in their best interest to acknowledge it.

Dude, get your panties out of a wad and breathe. It will be okay. Obviously, I hit a nerve. I am just saying that we all had the same information on how it's done and so be it. If you want the system changed, then go for it.

I appreciate your constructive input and suggestions. I've taken care of the panties part...I'll go to work on the rest.

96Guru wrote:

ontheball wrote:The way I look at it is that we all know that the fall standings are used in large part to determine seedings. Yes, there is the meeting, but it is my understanding that particularly in our age group the seedings have gone unchanged in years past. So, we all had the same knowledge that they are based on the fall performance. Therefore, I don't really see an issue. Bottom line is that the fall performance should be a high priority for all if they want a top seed. Now it is a matter of winning the games.

You are correct on that. Teams have to be ready to win games and since there are no quarters finals, the teams especially in brackets C and D better max out in points in the games they are expected to win if they want to get out of bracket.

Everyone knows that ties will kill you in tournaments.

This time its not only the battle for State Cup but an entry into Regionals.

Should be quite a showdown.

Just to be a little more clear on my earlier post, I agree that teams need to show up and be ready to play in State Cup but I dont total agree on the seeding part of it. I know its been done that way forever but I think it doesnt quite cover the entire picture that some teams are developing new players that signed in July and it takes some time to gel. Plus add in PL and you have a whole new ball game. Thats additional league games that are played and only the LH teams get counted towards standings.

The travesty in all this is the fact that SR gets FC in their bracket and Feet gets Solar in theirs and only one team will advance in each bracket because of no quarter finals. You are talking about 4 teams that could win State cup. Any mistakes in bracket play (a tie) and their done. Sting and Texans on the other hand are bracketed in a way that they can have a slip and still advance. In my opinion, only let D1 teams in State Cup. Make it very competitve from the start and dont look for total blowouts to give a team the slight points edge.

I dont like the way it is done but we really have no choice. The teams playing their best soccer after the winter will always be penalized in State Cup. To have the representatives from each team get together and decide on any changes to be made is just a joke. What team would honestly sit there and say, "your team is should be seeded higher than ours so lets changes the seeing"?

Sting will coast to the semis and Texans will too. The other two teams will have fought very hard to get there.
Sting will play Solar or Feet and Texans will play Sr or FC.

Just out of curiousity, these last couple of LH games will decided if Solar or SR will be in ECNL next year right?

96Guru wrote:Just out of curiousity, these last couple of LH games will decided if Solar or SR will be in ECNL next year right?

Good question. The 95 representative was Chris Gangi's team.

2wheels wrote:

96Guru wrote:Just out of curiousity, these last couple of LH games will decided if Solar or SR will be in ECNL next year right?

Good question. The 95 representative was Chris Gangi's team.

I guess the 96 group as whole better be ready for some traveling next year. We new the time would come and now it is upon us. I know ECNL will be 4 travel trips which includes the National Championship in July.

96Guru wrote:Just out of curiousity, these last couple of LH games will decided if Solar or SR will be in ECNL next year right?

Your guess is as good as mine. We have been given minimal information on how Solar will decide who gets the spot and are awaiting an answer.
Back to State Cup Seeding. My point is that if people don't agree with the system, then work to change it now for next year. It is unrealistic to think at this point that it will be decided any differently than in the past unless a new guideline is set for the following year. As long as we know how it is decided and it is applied then I feel we decided our own fate and have no one to blame but ourselves(being the team) for not performing better in the fall.

Does it really matter? Everyteam would like the easy path to the finals but the bottom line is you have to win your games. Last year Texan's had a low seed due to their performance in the fall. The girls just need to play well at the right time.

Just an observation, but about half of the age groups change the seeding. The team reps going into the meeting need to know what they are doing. If you really should be a lower seed, you should have no issues with correcting the order. If your team should be higher, then you should be able to bring it up and have a vote on the change. I think if it were the coaches having the seeding meeting, the outcome would be different. And I bet some reps didn't even talk to their coaches about what to do if a change was proposed.

I tend to agree with justbecause....

I have recently found out that it did go to a vote. So, seems that the majority did not agree with making any change as the seedings stayed as originally set. Now, it's time to move on. Play hard or go home.

ontheball wrote:I have recently found out that it did go to a vote. So, seems that the majority did not agree with making any change as the seedings stayed as originally set. Now, it's time to move on. Play hard or go home.

So if it really did go to a vote, I wonder why no changes were made? Looks to me like one particular team stands above the other two. I am just reading the standings and looking at the scores. Did egos get in the way in the voting?
This is really an interesting conversation. I know that nothing can be changed but seedings can really hurt or help a team. OTB, are so set on arguing the point because you know that SR shouldnt be seeded so high? Looking at your record this Spring I dont think you should. You just dont seem to want to let go of justifyng your seeding.
On a side note, I woudl be more concerned with the bracket that SR has drawn. FC is one of the most chaotic playing team I have seen. They are the one team I woudlnt want in my bracket at this point in time. I would be surprised if they are playing the Texans in the semis of State Cup.

mojo wrote:

ontheball wrote:I have recently found out that it did go to a vote. So, seems that the majority did not agree with making any change as the seedings stayed as originally set. Now, it's time to move on. Play hard or go home.

So if it really did go to a vote, I wonder why no changes were made? Looks to me like one particular team stands above the other two. I am just reading the standings and looking at the scores. Did egos get in the way in the voting?
This is really an interesting conversation. I know that nothing can be changed but seedings can really hurt or help a team. OTB, are so set on arguing the point because you know that SR shouldnt be seeded so high? Looking at your record this Spring I wouldnt think so. You just dont seem to want to let go of justifyng your seeding.

Hmm....really? Which team?

1 Sting
2 Texans
3 Solar Red
4 Solar
5 Feet

The people complaining are Feet parents, so tell us what would be fair? Placing you above Solar makes no change in the brackets. Placing you ahead of SoR doesn't make your route easier either as FC Dallas is playing very well lately. Or are you guys looking to be placed at #2 or #1?

Splitting hairs, IMO.

Gunners wrote:

mojo wrote:

ontheball wrote:I have recently found out that it did go to a vote. So, seems that the majority did not agree with making any change as the seedings stayed as originally set. Now, it's time to move on. Play hard or go home.

So if it really did go to a vote, I wonder why no changes were made? Looks to me like one particular team stands above the other two. I am just reading the standings and looking at the scores. Did egos get in the way in the voting?
This is really an interesting conversation. I know that nothing can be changed but seedings can really hurt or help a team. OTB, are so set on arguing the point because you know that SR shouldnt be seeded so high? Looking at your record this Spring I wouldnt think so. You just dont seem to want to let go of justifyng your seeding.

Hmm....really? Which team?

I am not speaking for them because they are not my team and I sure dont want to stir up anymore crap but if it were but from my perspective, the 3rd and 5th seed should be swapped. I am sure I will get a pm shortly from someone on that team.

mojo wrote:

Gunners wrote:

mojo wrote:

ontheball wrote:I have recently found out that it did go to a vote. So, seems that the majority did not agree with making any change as the seedings stayed as originally set. Now, it's time to move on. Play hard or go home.

So if it really did go to a vote, I wonder why no changes were made? Looks to me like one particular team stands above the other two. I am just reading the standings and looking at the scores. Did egos get in the way in the voting?
This is really an interesting conversation. I know that nothing can be changed but seedings can really hurt or help a team. OTB, are so set on arguing the point because you know that SR shouldnt be seeded so high? Looking at your record this Spring I wouldnt think so. You just dont seem to want to let go of justifyng your seeding.

Hmm....really? Which team?

I am not speaking for them because they are not my team and I sure dont want to stir up anymore crap but if it were but from my perspective, the 3rd and 5th seed should be swapped. I am sure I will get a pm shortly from someone on that team.

Taking into account all play to date, I think that is probably accurate.