How will D3 schedule be determined?

First, congratulations to the D1 teams.
Anyone have any ideas on seeding for D3? I'm assuming you can't go by past QTs because of the changes. When do schedules generally post for those who go on to week 2?

bringit wrote:First, congratulations to the D1 teams.
Anyone have any ideas on seeding for D3? I'm assuming you can't go by past QTs because of the changes. When do schedules generally post for those who go on to week 2?

No idea how teams will be seeded for the second week, but schedules are supposed to be out Tuesday.

Here's a couple of possible bracket setups.  We'll see if either are close.

The top bracket would be if placement is based on points scored in week 1, using the published tie-breaker format of goal differential followed by most goals scored.

The bottom bracket would be if placement was based on a similar methodology used in the past few years, based on week 1 bracket finish, adjusted to account for the brackets that had 2nd place teams qualify for D1 in week 1 this year.

Minor adjustments (noted by asterisks) are made to avoid any Week 1 re-matches in Week 2.

So, under the second scenario, teams that performed the best in week 1 are not rewarded, but teams that were mis-seeded in week one, continue to get the benefit of their beneficial seed.

bwgophers wrote:Here's a couple of possible bracket setups.  We'll see if either are close.

The top bracket would be if placement is based on points scored in week 1, using the published tie-breaker format of goal differential followed by most goals scored.

The bottom bracket would be if placement was based on a similar methodology used in the past few years, based on week 1 bracket finish, adjusted to account for the brackets that had 2nd place teams qualify for D1 in week 1 this year.

Minor adjustments (noted by asterisks) are made to avoid any Week 1 re-matches in Week 2.

You missed TX Spirit Red in the second scenario... would they be in the second IFC spot that you duplicated?

soccerisfun wrote:So, under the second scenario, teams that performed the best in week 1 are not rewarded, but teams that were mis-seeded in week one, continue to get the benefit of their beneficial seed.

That is total bs. It should go off of first week results.

soccerjack wrote:

soccerisfun wrote:So, under the second scenario, teams that performed the best in week 1 are not rewarded, but teams that were mis-seeded in week one, continue to get the benefit of their beneficial seed.

That is total bs. It should go off of first week results.

Based on the rules that was my understanding that the seeding went off the first weekend's results... is something amiss?  

SoccerShocker wrote:

bwgophers wrote:Here's a couple of possible bracket setups.  We'll see if either are close.

The top bracket would be if placement is based on points scored in week 1, using the published tie-breaker format of goal differential followed by most goals scored.

The bottom bracket would be if placement was based on a similar methodology used in the past few years, based on week 1 bracket finish, adjusted to account for the brackets that had 2nd place teams qualify for D1 in week 1 this year.

Minor adjustments (noted by asterisks) are made to avoid any Week 1 re-matches in Week 2.

You missed TX Spirit Red in the second scenario...  would they be in the second IFC spot that you duplicated?

Ahhh... good catch. Tx. Spirit Red would be in Bracket H instead of IFC.

BWG.....

Do you think that teams from the same club will play each other?  IE...FCD WHite/FCD Central White?

SocDad wrote:BWG.....

Do you think that teams from the same club will play each other?  IE...FCD WHite/FCD Central White?

In the past 3 years, they have not adjusted brackets in week 2 to avoid same club matches, only week 1 re-matches.

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs (good & bad) ???

SocDad,

Would you not determine order based on goal dif. when it comes to the ties at 15 pts, 9 pts, 8pts, etc.?

Noticeable Movements

GSSC - Surprised to see them in DIV 3.  Should easily win thier bracket!!!
Andromeda - good showing lately, has improved a ton since May
FC Premier - 2nd most Improved overall, but most improved in the top half. A tiger in the rough???
Lady Aztecs - Most decline...but still made a top seed for a bracket
FCD Boyles - Looking to be a competitive team...I know they played hard against "Sting -Donovan".
RFC - Most Improved in differential.

bringit wrote:SocDad,

Would you not determine order based on goal dif. when it comes to the ties at 15 pts, 9 pts, 8pts, etc.?

Good Point....I wanted to get something up quick.  I will go back and determine this and repost this.

Also as noted earlier......the LGHCL DIV 3 is a toss up...nobody knows for sure.  How they are goign to seed the brackets.

Ok here is the revised....

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs (good & bad) ???

Once again....Noticable Activity (due to re-ranking based on Goal-Dif):

GSSC/D'Feeters - Surprised to see them in DIV 3...but somebody had to lose out on DIV 1.  Both should easily win thier bracket
Andromeda - good showing lately, has improved a lot since May
FC Premier - On paper....they were not expected to do much..maybe there a tiger in the rough???
Dallas Comos Black - Looking promising
FCD East Boyles - Most improved based off the QT point structure.  I know they played hard against "Sting -Donovan"
Lady Aztecs - Most decline on paper....but I would certainly not count them out by any means
RFC - Most improved in the differential.

Took it a step further....(yes apparently I have had WAYYYYy to much time on my hands today)

BWG has already beat me to the punch on this ........so this is just another way of looking at the possible DIV 3 seeding.

If so much effort was put into figuring out the seeds for the tourney, why would LH base the 2nd round seeding off of points in the first round, and not initial seeding?...especially when there were no cross bracket games. Seems like they would just use their initial seeding, as a lot more research and effort went into that seeding process.

This is what I imagine the next round to look like if based on original seeding...


If based on round 1 points I imagine to look more this...

canaryman wrote:If so much effort was put into figuring out the seeds for the tourney, why would LH base the 2nd round seeding off of points in the first round, and not initial seeding?...especially when there were no cross bracket games.  Seems like they would just use their initial seeding, as a lot more research and effort went into that seeding process.

Simple answer- the results from round 1 show where they made mistakes. Now they can remedy that.

Hmm...so recent game records, talking with coaches and soccer community, watching each team play went into the original seeding...which they seemed to do a pretty good job of (18 of 20)...and one weekend of game scores within different brackets with no way to measure strength of schedule across each bracket by only using points is a "remedy"?...sound logical to you? Especially when LH takes so much pride in getting the seedings right the first time...they say there is quite a bit that goes into it and to quote them at the pre-QT meeting, they "know each of the teams way better than you think we do"

Like the pirate said, they can remedy some seeding mistakes.

For example, brackets B, C, F, H etc. did not finish in seeding order. Now is the opportunity to make some adjustments and reward teams who performed - on the field.

SickofSilliness wrote:Like the pirate said, they can remedy some seeding mistakes.

For example, brackets B, C, F, H etc. did not finish in seeding order.  Now is the opportunity to make some adjustments and reward teams who performed - on the field.

Unfortunately I don't think they think of it as a three game seeding series... I think they look at this overall... Some of the teams that "had a bad day" likely aren't wrongly seeded, they just "had a bad day". Supposedly they put a lot of time and effort into properly seeding the teams, it's my guess they aren't going to mess with that and will let the chips fall as they may by just removing all Div 1 seeds and closing the gaps. To "adjust" seeding means they accept that they're seeding process is less than perfect. They did say they knew our teams better than we thought they did so it would be in their best interest NOT to reward or punish teams based on one weekend of tournaments in my honest opinion.

That's great in theory, but isn't that EXACTLY what just happened?  Teams were "rewarded" or "punished" based on one weekend of games.

D1 was just determined by a 3 game seeding series.  Teams who just "had a bad day" were deteremined to be not good enough to play in D1.  Teams who performed the best last weekend were rewarded with a position in D1.

If their seeding process were "perfect", each bracket would have finished in the seeding order.

What happened with teams like Sting Angell, FC Dallas East, or FC Premier?  Flukes? Dumb luck? Underrated?  or do they deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and performance on the field?  

Sting Angell was rewarded - they made D1.  Why shouldn't the other 2 (and others who performed well) be rewarded?  Why wouldn't you reward teams for their performance on the field?

I reject the idea that the seeding committee knew each team well at all since many teams were playing with new players, playing without the help of borrowed players and had only had an opportunity to play together as a complete team for Tut, Puma or Seeding Showdown so there really wasn't any way for the seeding committee to seed as accurately as they would like and the end results turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy based on an unbalanced schedule strength. That being said I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect tournament and I think the seeding committee did a fine job and the best that they could.