How will D3 schedule be determined?

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

  

10sDad wrote:

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...  

It certainly doesn't help fcd central premier..who deserves better than the bracket they got...except for Sunday performance.

9876 wrote: however you are very political as to  assessment  of the committee.   Why is that?  

Haven't you figured it out yet???  I AM the seeding committee.    

Seriously though, go check some of the other '04 threads from this week.  I've gone on record stating that I'm not particularly a fan of the "new" format.

I personally would go back to the "old" format, and furthermore, would modify that format to re-seed the teams for week 2 based on week 1 points.

Now, even though I personally think that would be a more "fair" way to do things, and may change the fortunes of a couple of teams, the data tells me that overall, it would not change things significantly. Both FBR and QT seeding will be ~85% correct at predicting things, you will still have teams every year that felt shafted by their seeding, and you will still have people coming on here every year to complain about the seeding process and the tournament format.

Once again a very politically correct qualified answer, however i will join the crowd and tell your model is very impressive. . I work with "predictive" models in my day job, and most when applied to reality aren't very predictive. I am incredibly impressed by the accuracy of yours, year, after year, after year...... Great job. They not just stand up in lhgcl qualifying, but really are pretty predictive of how teams will fare the entire first year of lhgcl.

It's even better at predicting where teams will be after the fall of U12 season is completed... what does that say???

I remember we used the FBR to predict Lebrons return to Cleveland