State Cup observation

Question for lower ranked teams in the tourney and the results of those that have to play 2 matches in one day versus a team that had 1 match for the day.

The same trend holds true for the last three years.

Teams with 2nd
FC Dallas Texas Spirit 7-0
Sporting vs Liverpool 6-0
Liverpool vs Andromeda 6-2.

03's
FC Dallas vs Ayses 8-1
Odyssey vs Andro 4-0


One may say the moral is earn a higher seed. In some games it might be have 18 players. But in looking at the trend that second match 4.5 hours later seems to yield significantly one sided results. Looked at trends for sides that both have 2 games in a day and noticed the differential is not as significant.

Just an observation that makes you think a bit.

2nd game is always harder than the 1st one, and when your second game is vs the #1 seed - well, that's a tough row to plow... Higher seeds have earned their spot through a year of solid play vs the best, so it may seem unfair to bottom seeds, but really it makes sense in the grand scheme of things IMO; you want the best teams to advance... I know our team was missing 3 starters yesterday, and we did not play to run up the score...

Totally get that and agree with trying to get top seeds thru. WYou play with what you have we were missing 4 starters and 2 consistent contributors but such is life. The lower teams have be in above shape. Again it was just an observation. That can be supported by facts. The curious to me will be on the girls side. Where a higher ranked team has to play two games and todays against a lower seed first match. Curious if it works the other way. Its just hard to play two games when another side played 1. If both played multiple matches then it presents a fair fight.

When it's 3 team groups something has to give unless you play on Fri as well. It was pretty hot and I'm sure the 2nd game wore folks out.

Code:

In the FCD Ayses example in 03s that was the 2nd game for both.

I hear you number 13 and I guess my theory seems to how a little water. NTFC A mid level division 2 ( really division 3 on the girls side if not for the rain) beats a division 1 side 1 nil. In their second game. While the lower level team had only 1 game to play and on the girls side they provide 8 hours between the start of the games versus the 6 hours on the boys side. Ayses 01 girls gets a draw against a side that that finished near the top of Division 1 classic with ECNL players on their side and fails to advance in state. A lower level Plano team Draws a Division 1 Classic team. Common factor of that is 1 game versus 2 games. As I started the conversation something to think about.

Marvelousmar wrote:I hear you number 13 and I guess my theory seems to how a little water.  NTFC  A mid level division 2 ( really division 3 on the girls side if not for the rain) beats a division 1 side 1 nil.  In their second game.  While the lower level team had only 1 game to play and on the girls side they provide 8 hours between the start of the games versus the 6 hours on the boys side.   Ayses 01 girls gets a draw against a side that that finished near the top of Division 1 classic with ECNL players on their side and fails to advance in state.  A lower level Plano team Draws a Division 1 Classic team.  Common factor of that is 1 game versus 2 games.  As I started the conversation something to think about.  

The only thing I (and probably everyone else) has to think about is WHAT are you talking about?? You are doing nothing but rambling and make no sense what so ever!! You sign up for this tournament knowing you are the underdog, play in it or don't- it's your choice!!

Hello maybe my point is.  When favorites  are effected by the schedule is the schedule appropriate.  The real simple question  is does it make sense for A top seed to have two games and a lower seed have one game.  Thus reducing the top seeds chance to get through.  It goes to the biger question of two games verse 1 games and the overall effect  on the players.  I agree that my point  might appear to be rambling.  However visit the results of rhe u15 girls where schdueling  effected the results of the favourites.  This has nothing  to do with my team if you read my post in its entirety you might understand my question.  Sorry if my ramiblings made no sense to you. It probably makes sense to those girls that were effected by it. Life is a choice you can choose to read it or skip over it. I like looking for solutions when I see patterns that don't make sense. Again lower seeds should have a harder time. Top seeds shouldn't. The scheduling should not impact matches which it can and did for some top seeds.

Not trying to poke holes here, but to me it is obvious that a team who is rested has the advantage over a team who has already played a game that day...  Any way you wash it though, the best teams (most of the time) will win...  The seeding is how we thin the herd systematically... Granted there are those flukes that make the lower level teams parents say "D1 is no tougher than D3", but those are few and far between...  Take the 03s boys division for an example:  Andromeda loses to Solar Red 1-0, then Odyssey 4-0...  Solar is a mid level D1 team, Odyssey is the top D1 team, and Andromeda was the #2 team in D2...  I did not see the 1-0 loss vs Solar, but I bet the game was " kinda even" to some extent, but eventually the better team won...  Now the 2nd game was a different scenario; Andromeda had already played a game and Odyssey was rested, right?  Well, although it's true that Odyssey was more rested, it is not mentioned on the final tally that Odyssey took it easy and played without several key pieces...  If you play that game 10 times, you get the same result 9 out if 10 times...  Now there is always the CHANCE that David beats Goliath, and that's why we play the games, but as far as the phenomenon of tired teams losing to rested teams, well I think that is just how things go in a tournament that is seeded correctly...  NOW: the higher ranked teams who played an unfavorable schedule may have something to gripe about, but I bet there were "coaches request" or special circumstances that led to the unfavorable conditions...  I know our bracket was seeded correctly...  
#1 Odyssey
#2 Solar Gold
#3 FCD Premier
#4 Solar Red
#5 Liverpool Rush
#6 Andromeda
#7 AYSES Gold

#1, #4 and #6 Bracket A
#2,#3,#5 and #7 Bracket B

For 7 teams, was seeded perfectly (according to how they finished CL)...

Let me begin again by stating that there is nothing wrong with the seeding and the discussion or observation has everything to do with determining if the process should be looked at. To the poster who though it appropriate to take a shot at me if you know me please know I looked at years of history for this event before entering my team into the event knowing that it's always been that in a three team bracket the lower team plays two games in 1 day and knew what I was getting into for the parent that asked don't enter. (Trust me I wouldn't have entered if I knew that I would be missing my best 5 defenders but that's not the point of this discussion and saw 5 years of history that the 2nd game is always painful for the lower seed)

The point is simple this just because that's how it always is done does it mean it should always be done that way.  Does it make sense to play 2 games on 1 day when another team plays 1 game on that day?  I guess the original though that if it's a lower seed it makes sense because with 3 team brackets that's going to happen unless you space it out.  ( Maybe again it makes more sense to space it out if you are going to play 3 team brackets)

The specific example I gave this year was the 01 girls to show the effect on what is right when scheduling due to rain effects the plan. (again the team that I support advanced so this has nothing to do with me)   I am giving a specific team to give an example.

Dallas Texans 01 Girls who finished in 6th place in Classic (a premier league team) and the week before had just beaten the number 1 team in the state and was picked as one of the favorites to get to the final 8. Seeding was set that allowed that to happen.  They play Texas Spirit in a great tough match that sucked the life out of both teams and lose a tough on 2-1.  They have their first game at 8 AM and their 2nd at 4 PM.  against a rested Ayses team.  A good side that finished 2nd in D2 and can work you.  The result a 0-0 tie.  Texans didn't loose but a win and they are through to next week.  The draw and their out.  The similar result was shown in the Defeaters game and the Texans white match.

So when trying to search for solutions for problems I try to take my team out of the argument and look at the situation as a whole to see if things can be improved.  Especially when you can see with data and facts that the better team was effected by it and the desire of a competition is to allow all teams a fair shot at playing and not have scheduling have an effect on the product on the field.

The first rule of competition is to try to set a level playing field.  Change generally only happens when it effects the big dogs.  With two Texans teams being effected by the schedule maybe the powers that be may look back at the process and changes can be administered going forward.

Do you know if the coaches of those teams had multiple teams/games to make it to? Seems like they were seeded incorrectly (by what you have said) if there was not a special circumstance...

No they were seeded correctly and not a multiple team issue. It was the rain. Which changed the schedule without looking at the two games in one day effet. I think they did their best by making it 8 hours away. But in reality that is not sufficient time. It is hard here because as you can see it is raining again. If no rain they were going one game a day. Also note that at u15 it isn't unlimited subs once subbed you can't go back in.

The playing field should be level for all teams. Everyone should have an equal shot. Seeding is not supposed to be used to tilt the field and give the best teams a systematic advantage.

The point of seeding is not ensure the big teams advance. It is avoid the situation where big teams knock each other out early, while the weak ones slip through because they only played weak opponents.

Tournament schedules have many constraints so sometimes there will be uneven circumstances due to weather, brackets, etc. but there should not be inherent systematic advantages built in for the high seeded teams.

Exactly...

davito wrote:The playing field should be level for all teams. Everyone should have an equal shot. Seeding is not supposed to be used to tilt the field and give the best teams a systematic advantage.

We were the top seed and we had a huge systematic advantage.   Most of that was due to the number of teams, which made for a 3 team group and a 4 team group.   But by virtue of being top seed we got put in the 3 team group (2 advance from both) and then we got to play the lowest seed on their 2nd game of the day.   Which makes for a less daunting path to the 2nd weekend.   Hell, for a minute there I thought we were a Solar team playing in a U90 tourney.

In the 4 team group nobody had an advantage, unless you consider player pass frenzy to be an advantage.  

Mostly though, not a lot of folks interested in playing in the State Cup.  Both on teams that didn't register, and on teams that did.   Age pure awaits.

Number13 wrote:

Mostly though, not a lot of folks interested in playing in the State Cup.  Both on teams that didn't register, and on teams that did.   Age pure awaits.

Exactly. I was looking through the age groups and noticed the same thing. I recall when my oldest was U11 and U12 we had a large turnout for State Cup, even though there was no advancement and it was more for bragging rights. This year, it seemed the younger ages were struggling to even fill out the brackets to have a meaningful tournament.

Agreed the top seeds waltz through to the Semis or Finals. Not saying that I disagree...

Number13 wrote:

Mostly though, not a lot of folks interested in playing in the State Cup.  Both on teams that didn't register, and on teams that did.   Age pure awaits.

Yep, that would seem to be the sentiment given the reset button is about to be pressed....

I don't think highly ranked teams would mind so much playing two games in one day if both games are against much lowly ranked teams. Stronger teams have deeper benches and they can put together a competitive team using different players at different times. Therefore they are less worried about playing two games in a day compared to a less competitive team. Also they posses the ball more, and need to run less to dominate the game. They don't get as tired at the end of the game. When our top D1 team plays against a D2 team, the difference in skills is quite evident and the effort put to dominate the game is so much less than when we play a local D1 top team or a NL team.

Now this is healthy discussion. I knew that there is hope for this board. As a tear enters my eye. People can discuss issues and stay on the issues. The million dollar question on attendance being low is also an interesting question. You would think as many teams as there are in the north Texas area each age group could field at least 16 teams. However, I think in truth in most age groups only 4-5 teams have a legit shot at winning it if that many. So folks stay a way for fear of getting the living crap kicked out of them. Laroja your point is true but I think Davito point ( dang how time has changed we agree again) is spot on. The question is does it stay status quo ( as this has been the pattern for at least the last 5 years ) or does someone take a look at these items. We know they spent a lot of time looking at Age pure and it's working out smoothly.

The fact of the matter is that State Cup is just more of the same.  For most teams.   Its pretty easy to reach your saturation point with the same opponents etc.  I'm sure at least a few teams are sick of playing us.

So you get the 3-4 who might win, a few who want to test themselves against teams playing in a higher league, and in that mix there are a few who really want to go to Regionals or whatever.   This year Regionals seems like more curse than blessing with it being late June with age switch.   As a bonus, you could very easily end up paying $700 for 2 games.   Its not a recipe for super high attendance.  

To Laroja's point:   The older ages much more closely approximate an actual soccer game.   At the younger ages, there still seems to be a whole lot of running around going on.   Regardless of your level.   It's free subs and thus its all press, press, press against kids who just aren't that skilled  yet.  "Possession" means you attempt something like 150 passes in 70 minutes.    And you still have to haul ass to run down the kickballs.

The good news is the 03's are now U13 and can punch their ticket to Regionals and get way beyond more of the same. Some of the kids playing at the Region 3 tournament will be familiar faces to those who attend the Regional ODP camp in Alabama.

Once you win Regionals and head to Nationals, it's a whole new game and the competition is fierce. Let's hope that the fundamentals are sound as teams beat up the locals and venture out to prove their point on the national scene!

Haha. Well we already get to go to Regionals. Woohoo! Which, again, may be more of a curse depending on how you think about $Xk worth of travel right before signing day.

We didn't actually get to see any faces at Regional ODP camp. Just the back of kids jerseys as they ran in to score yet another goal on NTX.

Interesting that Barcelona is competing in the state cup at the U19 level. It looks like no activity throughout the year. According to gotsoccer they won the U19 State Cup last year and so they are trying for a rare repeat at the same age group.

Age chart:
U19-98 22 1/1/98-12/31/98
U19/20-97 22 8/1/97-12//31/98

I like it and wonder how many teams next year at U19 will have kids from 8/1/98-12/31/98. Maybe Solar Red can be next year's Barcelona.

I'm not a fan of this Barcelona bs. They don't play in a league as required of State Cup teams in every other age group. With no league, comes no game history and an automatic bottom seed in State Cup, despite clearly being a quality team deserving of a higher seed. They have several sophomore college players. In fact, the entire roster is put together just for purposes of State Cup rather than requiring any certain percentage of previously rostered players like every other group. Maybe a little bitter because we lost 1-0 but still. . .

As far as teams doing this bs next year, it is my understanding that with the age pure shift, this is the last year that teams will be able to do what Barcelona and it's man-children are doing.