How will D3 schedule be determined?

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.

soccerisfun wrote: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?

My DD team played against FC Premier last weekend. The only thing I saw from them for the entire game was kick it out. They have a great CB, and she could be a great forward, but she is only one of about three decent players on that team. I think if they make D3, they will be relegated and have to qualify again next year, but if they try to tie every game in D3, if they make it, they will stay in more than likely. I think going into this weekend, they have about a 40% chance of making the cut if they can score. I think FCD East can get in from looking at last eight weeks progression in game play. We made D1 last weekend, so good luck to the teams going for D3. It should be a battle. In the end, I was beside myself that Thunder did not make it. Really saw them getting through, but the cards were not there for them.

soccerisfun wrote: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?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you but I don't think that's how THEY look at it but I guess we'll see very soon.

Beto wrote:

soccerisfun wrote: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?

My DD team played against FC Premier last weekend. The only thing I saw from them for the entire game was kick it out. They have a great CB, and she could be a great forward, but she is only one of about three decent players on that team. I think if they make D3, they will be relegated and have to qualify again next year, but if they try to tie every game in D3, if they make it, they will stay in more than likely. I think going into this weekend, they have about a 40% chance of making the cut if they can score. I think FCD East can get in from looking at last eight weeks progression in game play. We made D1 last weekend, so good luck to the teams going for D3. It should be a battle. In the end, I was beside myself that Thunder did not make it. Really saw them getting through, but the cards were not there for them.

BETO....

I'm glad your team made DIV 1..congrats on a job well done

Now on to my point, with the exception of "D'Feeters/GSSC"

The majority of the teams in DIV 3 are there for a reason......DIV 3 teams may have only 1 good player or they only know how to play defense or the girls woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning (you choose the reasoning).
Most of these teams do not have girls beating on thier doorsteps to join...so they have to play the cards they are delt.
If a DIV 3 team had all the skills of a DIV 1....then they wouldnt be playing this coming weekend.

In the end.....I would say the top 20 of the 32 teams, have the same amount of chances of making DIV 3...because you just never know.

PS...
and too your point about, FCD East Boyles, there going to give whoever the play a run for thier money!!!!! 

I would say the majority of the teams still playing are where they need to be and want to be this weekend.  Something that I have seen over and over for this 04 group...match-ups, match-ups, match-ups...some so-called lower level teams give the top teams fits each and every time they play.  I hope we don't play "so-and-so" was said quite often before this past weekend.

You are aware that 2 of the teams that made D1 will be relegated to D3 the following season.  Two of the teams that make D3 will be promoted to D2. (all subject to change with teams disbanding, etc.)  Because of the structure of 10 teams D3 from top to bottom will be more competitive week-to-week this next season than D1.

Enough BS- when are the schedules coming out?

dreadpirateroberts wrote:Enough BS- when are the schedules coming out?

  

dreadpirateroberts wrote:Enough BS- when are the schedules coming out?

I believe the TD said Tuesday at the manager's meeting. That would be today like last week...

Schedule is out...

Well that was fun while it lasted....to all the ones who said they will use thier original seeding....you were right..at least it made for good conversation...

Yep - no one rewarded for their good performances last weekend (well, except those who made D1)

Yup. Another departure from previous years' method to be debated ad nauseum...

I'll bet you won't hear any complaints from Lady Aztecs....seeded 25th, finished 38th after last weekend, and now seeded 6th for this weekend....

bwgophers wrote:Yup.  Another departure from previous years' method to be debated ad nauseum...

I thought you said they didn't re-seed last year. Maybe I got it wrong.

I believe the brackets were adjusted slightly -

1 - to make sure no teams played each other on subsequent weekends, and

2 - if the #3 seed in a bracket beat the #2 seed in the bracket week #1, then their positions were switched in weekend #2

(for example, FC Dallas White was #2 seed, FC Premier was #3 seed last week - FC Premier finished ahead of FC Dallas White - so they would have rewarded FC Premier by switching the teams and FC Dallas White would be in bracket E, FC Premier would be in bracket C)

CBTeamworks wrote:

bwgophers wrote:Yup.  Another departure from previous years' method to be debated ad nauseum...

I thought you said they didn't re-seed last year. Maybe I got it wrong.

In past years, it went off week #1 bracket placement, not week 1 seeding.

If they used past year's method, the week 2 brackets would have looked like below (where "J2" = Week 1, Bracket J, 2nd place finisher, "H2" = Week 1, Bracket H, 2nd place finisher, etc.).  This is different from using the week 1 seeds.

Using bracket placement rewards teams who performed well in their week 1 bracket.

I understand, without cross-bracket play, that LH would not want to reseed based on the first weekend's points (though I question how you defend that . . . and then award D1 status based upon . . . points).  But at least the the bracket placement method allows teams who finished above someone in their bracket to be rewarded with a higher seed.

This year's approach places more weight on LH's original seeding, then on actual performance.

SickofSilliness wrote:Using bracket placement rewards teams who performed well in their week 1 bracket.

I understand, without cross-bracket play, that LH would not want to reseed based on the first weekend's points (though I question how you defend that . . . and then award D1 status based upon . . . points).  But at least the the bracket placement method allows teams who finished above someone in their bracket to be rewarded with a higher seed.

This year's approach places more weight on LH's original seeding, then on actual performance.

Yes...but doing it this way makes sure the original seeding works out right.

FWIW, the more I think about it, the more I personally am a fan of the "old" system where only the Week 1 bracket winners qualify for D1, and then the remainder of D1 and all of D3 are filled from Week 2 results.

I think the "new" format gives teams a very small margin for error in week 1.  One "off" game, or one bad bounce, can pretty much lock out a deserving team from D1.  I'm not really a fan of that.

The old system would allow a team to recover from a bad game/break and still qualify for D1.

HOWEVER, I would also change the "old" format to where I would re-seed the Week 2 brackets based on Week 1 points.  Then, you are rewarding teams that performed well in week 1 with a higher week 2 seed, and theoretically, an easier path in D1 or D3.  Teams that had a bad week 1 would still get "punished" via the lower seed, but again, would still have a chance to work their way out of it with a good performance in week 2.

soccerjack wrote:

SickofSilliness wrote:Using bracket placement rewards teams who performed well in their week 1 bracket.

I understand, without cross-bracket play, that LH would not want to reseed based on the first weekend's points (though I question how you defend that . . . and then award D1 status based upon . . . points).  But at least the the bracket placement method allows teams who finished above someone in their bracket to be rewarded with a higher seed.

This year's approach places more weight on LH's original seeding, then on actual performance.

Yes...but doing it this way makes sure the original seeding works out right.

and that is what is most important, right?

SickofSilliness wrote:

soccerjack wrote:

SickofSilliness wrote:Using bracket placement rewards teams who performed well in their week 1 bracket.

I understand, without cross-bracket play, that LH would not want to reseed based on the first weekend's points (though I question how you defend that . . . and then award D1 status based upon . . . points).  But at least the the bracket placement method allows teams who finished above someone in their bracket to be rewarded with a higher seed.

This year's approach places more weight on LH's original seeding, then on actual performance.

Yes...but doing it this way makes sure the original seeding works out right.

and that is what is most important, right?

Correct. Hopefully next year there will be no surprises.

soccerjack wrote:

SickofSilliness wrote:

soccerjack wrote:

SickofSilliness wrote:Using bracket placement rewards teams who performed well in their week 1 bracket.

I understand, without cross-bracket play, that LH would not want to reseed based on the first weekend's points (though I question how you defend that . . . and then award D1 status based upon . . . points).  But at least the the bracket placement method allows teams who finished above someone in their bracket to be rewarded with a higher seed.

This year's approach places more weight on LH's original seeding, then on actual performance.

Yes...but doing it this way makes sure the original seeding works out right.

and that is what is most important, right?

Correct. Hopefully next year there will be no surprises.

I told you the LA parents would be happy...  

Below is the comparison of the final FBR ranking and QT seeds from the past 4 years.

Below that is summary of how well FBR ranking and QT seed predicted which teams would win Week1 brackets, qualify for D1, and total D1+D3 qualifiers.

What you see is that the "accuracy" of both FBR rank and QT seeding has been very consistent from year-to-year, independent of how well FBR and QT seeding match up.

What does this mean?  It's means that 85-90% of the time, seeding doesn't matter.  Teams that get mis-seeded end up playing to their ability end up qualifying right where they should have.  It also says that when there is a large discrepancy between FBR and QT seed, it's pretty much a 50/50 split between whether FBR or QT was more "correct". (That may not be 100% obvious from looking at these charts, but I have done the analysis and it is almost exactly a 50/50 split.)

Now, that means that in 10-15% of the time, seeding can have an impact on where a team qualifies, but that is very difficult to predict, and will probably always be the case, no matter what the seeding methodology, or what the format.

Bottom line, the only way you could avoid someone feeling shafted, would be to run a full round-robin competition... oh yeah, that's called league play, and takes 8 months to complete.

Great analysis of the QT seeding history. Your last two paragraphs are eloquently stated and completely true. Thanks for being the voice of reason... :-)

In all sincerity and I don't say this very often......I'm impressed.

Bwg, I have been following this tournament for three years. Every year the committee makes mistakes on the structure of the tournament. Allowing seeds from week1 to carryover into week2 might be biggest mistake I can remember, however you are very political as to assessment of the committee. Why is that?

Also having teams qualify for d1 this year, without having to beat an lhgc quality team(ie some of the 6 wildcards) is a mistake. Also having 8 pools determine the remaining 10 seeds is a mistake. You would have been much better eliminating some.teams after week 1, and having less pools to eliminate the risk having strong 2 or 3 seeds who don't qualify because they have a strong 1 seed, while lesser teams qualify simply because they win a much easier bracket

9876 wrote:Bwg, I have been following this tournament for three years.  Every year the committee makes mistakes on the structure of the tournament.   Allowing seeds from week1 to carryover into week2 might be biggest mistake I can remember,  however you are very political as to  assessment  of the committee.   Why is that?  

Also having teams qualify for d1 this year, without having to beat an lhgc quality team(ie some of the 6 wildcards) is a mistake.     Also having 8 pools determine the remaining 10 seeds is a mistake.  You would have been much better eliminating some.teams after week 1, and having less pools to eliminate the risk having strong 2 or 3 seeds who don't qualify because they have a strong 1 seed, while lesser teams qualify simply because they win a much easier bracket