05s 2016 QT

I'm sure they take prior records into account as well as play style, etc, etc.... I can't pretend to know but the seeding probably is more complicated than it looks. Plus, just playing against good teams doesn't prove anything, right? I mean, the bottom teams in D1 are not necessarily better than the top teams of D2 just because they played in D1. That's why there is a relegation process every year.

Just because a team plays Gold doesn't mean they are automatically better than Silver teams in the same tournament. I'm just saying it is not that simple.

As KeeperCom stated in a prior post, we'll see how it all plays out in the season and then people can talk all they want (i.e. Voutier last year) ...or not - if they get drilled... HA!

Yes talking is done on the fields. Let the games begin

Triumph FC wrote:1-0 lost to Sting Gray happened in the last 5 minutes of a very even game. JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half. Solar we were terrible no excuses and we beat the Texans #5 seed fair and square. Still don't get how playing in Silver and winning translates to a higher seed while playing in gold against some of the best teams equates to a lower seed. It doesn't matter now just didn't understand the seeding committee thinking

It didn't matter then either.  Did you really come on here to complain about 7 v. 8 seed in a 7-bracket field?  Can you tell me the difference? Unless you are going to claim you deserved a better seed than Bellatores, the difference was whether you were home or visitor in games?  I'm sure the committee looks at more than just your head-to-head from February.

No complaints about either just saying the seeding wasn't quite right

ForReal wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:1-0 lost to Sting Gray happened in the last 5 minutes of a very even game. JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half. Solar we were terrible no excuses and we beat the Texans #5 seed fair and square. Still don't get how playing in Silver and winning translates to a higher seed while playing in gold against some of the best teams equates to a lower seed. It doesn't matter now just didn't understand the seeding committee thinking

It didn't matter then either.  Did you really come on here to complain about 7 v. 8 seed in a 7-bracket field?  Can you tell me the difference? Unless you are going to claim you deserved a better seed than Bellatores, the difference was whether you were home or visitor in games?  I'm sure the committee looks at more than just your head-to-head from February.

Seeding was off for King Tut and had a few that were off for QT. It does not matter really. If you are a good team then you will win either way.

KeeperCommander wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:1-0 lost to Sting Gray happened in the last 5 minutes of a very even game. JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half. Solar we were terrible no excuses and we beat the Texans #5 seed fair and square. Still don't get how playing in Silver and winning translates to a higher seed while playing in gold against some of the best teams equates to a lower seed. It doesn't matter now just didn't understand the seeding committee thinking

It didn't matter then either.  Did you really come on here to complain about 7 v. 8 seed in a 7-bracket field?  Can you tell me the difference? Unless you are going to claim you deserved a better seed than Bellatores, the difference was whether you were home or visitor in games?  I'm sure the committee looks at more than just your head-to-head from February.

Seeding was off for King Tut and had a few that were off for QT. It does not matter really. If you are a good team then you will win either way.

And that is the real point here. difference in 5 or 6 seeding spots is more significant. A spot or two you should be able to overcome either way.

That being said, I'm with KC -- the seeding was a bit off for both. I have no connection to this bracket (my kids are not in this age), but from an outsider perspective, I do think the choices at TUT and seeding at QT were not exactly what I would have thought they should be. But again, it is complicated and I am just one voice. I'm sure some committee argued it out.

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:1-0 lost to Sting Gray happened in the last 5 minutes of a very even game. JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half. Solar we were terrible no excuses and we beat the Texans #5 seed fair and square. Still don't get how playing in Silver and winning translates to a higher seed while playing in gold against some of the best teams equates to a lower seed. It doesn't matter now just didn't understand the seeding committee thinking

It didn't matter then either.  Did you really come on here to complain about 7 v. 8 seed in a 7-bracket field?  Can you tell me the difference? Unless you are going to claim you deserved a better seed than Bellatores, the difference was whether you were home or visitor in games?  I'm sure the committee looks at more than just your head-to-head from February.

Seeding was off for King Tut and had a few that were off for QT. It does not matter really. If you are a good team then you will win either way.

And that is the real point here.  difference in 5 or 6 seeding spots is more significant.  A spot or two you should be able to overcome either way.

That being said, I'm with KC -- the seeding was a bit off for both.  I have no connection to this bracket (my kids are not in this age), but from an outsider perspective, I do think the choices at TUT and seeding at QT were not exactly what I would have thought they should be.  But again, it is complicated and I am just one voice.  I'm sure some committee argued it out.

Tough year to seed really. I dont think everyone would be happy either way it turned out. I think that if you deserve to make LH it does not matter about your seed. IMO

KeeperCommander wrote:

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:1-0 lost to Sting Gray happened in the last 5 minutes of a very even game. JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half. Solar we were terrible no excuses and we beat the Texans #5 seed fair and square. Still don't get how playing in Silver and winning translates to a higher seed while playing in gold against some of the best teams equates to a lower seed. It doesn't matter now just didn't understand the seeding committee thinking

It didn't matter then either.  Did you really come on here to complain about 7 v. 8 seed in a 7-bracket field?  Can you tell me the difference? Unless you are going to claim you deserved a better seed than Bellatores, the difference was whether you were home or visitor in games?  I'm sure the committee looks at more than just your head-to-head from February.

Seeding was off for King Tut and had a few that were off for QT. It does not matter really. If you are a good team then you will win either way.

And that is the real point here.  difference in 5 or 6 seeding spots is more significant.  A spot or two you should be able to overcome either way.

That being said, I'm with KC -- the seeding was a bit off for both.  I have no connection to this bracket (my kids are not in this age), but from an outsider perspective, I do think the choices at TUT and seeding at QT were not exactly what I would have thought they should be.  But again, it is complicated and I am just one voice.  I'm sure some committee argued it out.

Tough year to seed really. I dont think everyone would be happy either way it turned out. I think that if you deserve to make LH it does not matter about your seed. IMO

Agreed. Given all the changes and lack of real head-to-head game history (and no FBR), I'd say LH did a very good job. 5 of first week bracket winners were seeded in top 6, and 7 of were seeded in top 10.

So, who's going to predict the last 5 in D1 (the bracket winners) and the 7 going to DIII?

ForReal wrote:So, who's going to predict the last 5 in D1 (the bracket winners) and the 7 going to DIII?

A -- LFC Redknapp
B -- FCD East
C -- DT Central
D -- FCD North Black
E -- Sting Covey

Revolution, Sting Robles, Raiders, Spirit, FCD White, FCD West, Arsenal SC

lol...

Those last seven are a complete, blind guess.

A- LFC Redknapp
B- Texas Spirit No.
C- DT Central
D- Triumph Oakes
E- Sting Covey

Yes, all no. 1 seeds, but with FCD East most likely to upset.

Other 7 in no particular order: FCD East; FCD North Black; Sting W. Robles; Solar Bourg; Sting Alvarez; FCD West and Revolution.

ForReal wrote:A- LFC Redknapp
B- Texas Spirit No.
C- DT Central
D- Triumph Oakes
E- Sting Covey

Yes, all no. 1 seeds, but with FCD East most likely to upset.

Other 7 in no particular order: FCD East; FCD North Black; Sting W. Robles; Solar Bourg; Sting Alvarez; FCD West and Revolution.  

Looks like LH is getting very watered down. These last five will have a tough time with the top 10. Not that the bottom five don't usually have trouble. Would have been better to have 3 div.

They will have a tough time with some teams. Some of the teams that qualified this past weekend, and some of the ones mentioned for qualifying this weekend, already own wins over teams that had byes in D1.

S3 wrote:They will have a tough time with some teams. Some of the teams that qualified this past weekend, and some of the ones mentioned for qualifying this weekend, already own wins over teams that had byes in D1.

My comment/opinion was directed more to the overall level of play at QT. Seems to be a little lacking compared to previous years. For obvious reasons of course but lacking. Some of the top seeds are extremely talented as stated before and should do very well against top teams.

Triumph FC wrote:JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half.

 So 1-0 in the second half?  Dominant indeed

Sho'Nuff wrote:

Triumph FC wrote:JM game we were 3-0 down at half and dominated the 2nd half.

 So 1-0 in the second half?  Dominant indeed

Edited indeed

KeeperCommander wrote:

S3 wrote:They will have a tough time with some teams. Some of the teams that qualified this past weekend, and some of the ones mentioned for qualifying this weekend, already own wins over teams that had byes in D1.

My comment/opinion was directed more to the overall level of play at QT. Seems to be a little lacking compared to previous years. For obvious reasons of course but lacking. Some of the top seeds are extremely talented as stated before and should do very well against top teams.

yeah, this year with the age pure shuffling has had weird effects. I really wonder why byes were even allowed. If any year should have been played on the field, it was this one! Given that LH could have charged every team a bunch of money to qualify, I'm surprised they didn't HAHA!

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

S3 wrote:They will have a tough time with some teams. Some of the teams that qualified this past weekend, and some of the ones mentioned for qualifying this weekend, already own wins over teams that had byes in D1.

My comment/opinion was directed more to the overall level of play at QT. Seems to be a little lacking compared to previous years. For obvious reasons of course but lacking. Some of the top seeds are extremely talented as stated before and should do very well against top teams.

yeah, this year with the age pure shuffling has had weird effects.  I really wonder why byes were even allowed.  If any year should have been played on the field, it was this one!  Given that LH could have charged every team a bunch of money to qualify, I'm surprised they didn't HAHA!

They charge a bye fee you know. Everyone with a bye had to pay a fee to use the bye. That way they make money regardless. Plus we all pay the league fee. They are getting their $.

Congratulations to all those who made D1 already and good luck to those teams going into week 2. The temperatures last week were tough, kudos to every player and spectator for withstanding that!
Here's to a roller coaster season for us all.