Classic Qualifying Tourney Seeding

According to the rules the seeding goes by "best available information".

Anyone have any info on how the seeding generally works? Assumably the CCSAI tries to even out the groups, right?

Anyone have any idea how the various leagues and divisions are weighted? Are tournaments given consideration? If so, which ones?

We went through it last year with my 00's team. It appeared like they look at everything your kids do that is reported to got-soccer (which includes lots of tournaments). I'm thinking they look at what is written on these boards for a general sense of how good a team is (where they could see who won and lost games since SDL doesn't report results). I also think they listen to many of the coaches - which weighs heavily in favor of big clubs, and heavily against independents and small clubs (big clubs have many more coaches who will all say their particular best team is the best, where the small clubs and independents don't have as many coaches to vouch for their teams).

Not to say they got it wrong last year, but the 00 Bandits and Wizards had the best records and results against everyone else other than Texans Gall (all 3 teams were about equal in records against each other going into the Qualifying Tourney), but if I remember right, several other teams from bigger clubs (who both Bandits and Wizards had beaten over and over again - close games but still victories)the teams from the bigger clubs ended up ranked a little higher than the Wizards and Bandits.

It all washes out in the end though. Bandits and Wizards still secured their first round byes and took care of business. So if your team is good enough to be in the top 5 in your opinion - the fact that they get ranked maybe as low as 8-10 will not likely hurt them too much - they will still make D1 - they get matched up against the 21-40 ranked teams.

The teams that you rank 13-22 or so can get screwed though. They can end up in a very tough group - where everyone knows they are probably around the 13-16 best team, yet not make D1 because of a bad draw (matched up with 3 other teams ranked very close to the same as they are) - where all the 30-40 teams get matched up against the 1-10 teams - so the 1-10 teams have an easy time of it, but the 13-22 teams have some hellish matchups in a few of the groupings. Some will be worse than others.

thx for the detailed response.

One problem though ... I only see rankings for U12 and up on got-soccer.

For the 2000's that just went through in the fall...King Tut and Puma Cup are taken into consideration. Last year, FCD Premier won King Tut and was ranked a #1 seed.

If you look at last year's final standings....FCD was in 12th place. The team that beath them at King Tut got an 11th seed. Show well in these tourney, and you MIGHT get a good seed. The year before....the #1 seed did not play in any of those touneys.

It's a toss up. I think the coaches get together and decide among themselves who deserves what seed.

Bottom line....if you deserve to be in the the 20 that make D1, then you have nothing to worry about. Just handle your business in the first round of qualifying...and try to stay cool. Bring a tarp because it's a beast in August!

Last years King Tuts Results

Last years standing before qualifying

Final Seeds for 2010:

1) FCD Premier
2) DT Gall
3) Wizards FC
4) Solar Red
5) TFC Wells
6) Solar Partain
7) Andromeda Red
8. Bandits
9) FCD East
10) DT Craft
11) Andromed White
12) ASG Gold North
13) DFW Tejanos
14) Texas Toros
15) Dallas Tigres
16) FCD Suarez
17) Liverpool Lidell
18, Liverpool Kuyt
19) FCD Figo
20) DT Connel

jack0fspeed wrote:thx for the detailed response.

One problem though ... I only see rankings for U12 and up on got-soccer.

you have to look at tournament results, not the rankings. they list the tourney results for specific tournaments, that's what he was referring to. takes a bit of digging though

R1, no one looks at this forum to determine team strength.
And coaches do not get together to determine the seeding, the board has a group that determines seeding after watching the younger leagues and going to the tournaments.
Frankly, with a few exceptions, the seeding is remarkably accurate over the years considering we're trying to judge 9 and 10 year old boys.

happyfeet wrote:R1, no one looks at this forum to determine team strength.
And coaches do not get together to determine the seeding, the board has a group that determines seeding after watching the younger leagues and going to the tournaments.
Frankly, with a few exceptions, the seeding is remarkably accurate over the years considering we're trying to judge 9 and 10 year old boys.

You would know more than I would. And I'm sure that these "boards" are not on the official list of what you are supposed to consider. But I'm guessing there is some "reputation" evidence that is taken into consideration - or has some influence on how you think of a team, and since you are on this board and know something about the teams from the information on these boards, my guess is others who have something to do with this process do as well, and even though this isn't an "official" source, I bet it has some influence (even if its not supposed to).

But yes, you guys do a fantastic job of ranking the teams. That wasn't meant to be a dig, just a reality check for people. Just like the BCS ranking system, the bigger schools get more of a benefit of the doubt than smaller ones - same could be said of clubs. The result of the "big school" getting the benefit of the doubt is not intentional, just the way the human mind works when you think about rankings - known system, coaches, etc vs. unknown system, unknown coaches, etc.

But the main point I was trying to make is that every year you have 1-2 teams that don't make it in D1 who probably should have, and 1-2 teams that probably shouldn't have made it who do - but they are the ones who fall in the 13-22 area who have a bad tournament, bad draw, or whatever, but immediately before, and immediately after the tourney they are back to their old form - just had a bad weekend or two.

That's still a 90% or more if you were to grade it, so that's not bad.

If you think about it as an attempt to find the top ten teams and not the top twenty - it really falls in line and pretty much ends speculation/objection to the seeds.
I recall our team as #42 or something like that (small club), then, they changed it to #12, we qualified first week, ended the first year third. The 19 games sort them out pretty easily. Those finishing 17-20 usually end up in D3 or close to D3 in 2 years (given some natural deselection of their teams by their stars).

In trying to find the top ten, they through in the 'maybe they belong' next ten - to diminish the uncertainty. You can't really go wrong placing the top clubs best team in the top ten seeds (whether they belong there or not) as time has proven they do or will belong there.

OK ... trying to put together a "road to the 2010 seedings" ...
Can someone help fill in the missing or incorrect info?

seed	team	SDL finish	Tourneys
1	FCD Premier	12	King Tut mid-July(1st), North American Memorial Day Cup (1st)
2	DT Gall	2	North American Memorial Day Cup (?)
3	Wizards FC	4	Kyle Owen Classic (1st),North American Memorial Day Cup (2nd)
4	Solar Red	7	North American Memorial Day Cup(?)
5	TFC Wells	1	Kyle Owen Classic (2nd)
6	Solar Partain	10
7	Andromeda Red	9	North American Memorial Day Cup (?)
8	Bandits	3	Kyle Owen Classic (3rd?)
9	FCD East (Spencer)	14
10	DT Craft
11	Andromed White	8	King Tut mid-July(2nd)
12	ASG Gold North	5
13	DFW Tejanos		North American Memorial Day Cup (?)
14	Texas Toros		North American Memorial Day Cup (?)
15	Dallas Tigres
16	FCD Suarez
17	Liverpool Lidell
18	Liverpool Kuyt
19	FCD Figo	19
20	DT Connel

Are you really trying to figure out how they determine the seeds for the QT into Classic League? Seriously? I know for sure they don't take into consideration what biased parents have to say on this forum. Between the refs, coaches, and tournament results...they get it right. AND, they know that there is always movement of impact players in June/July...so the need to keep SDL results is truly a waste of time.

Updated ..

seed	team	SDL reported record	Tourneys
1	FCD Premier	3-0-3	ASG Adidas Invit (2nd), King Tut (1st), North American Memorial Day Cup (1st)
2	DT Gall/Pomykal	8-0-0	North American Memorial Day Cup (lost in semis)
3	Wizards FC	6-1-1	ASG Adidas Invit (1st), Kyle Owen Classic (1st),North American Memorial Day Cup (2nd),
4	Solar Red	4-2-2	Puma Cup (1st),North American Memorial Day Cup(--)
5	TFC Wells	8-0-1	Kyle Owen Classic (2nd)
6	Solar Partain	3-1-5	ASG Adidas Invit (lost in semis)
7	Andromeda Red	4-0-5	North American Memorial Day Cup (lost in quaterfinals)
8	Bandits	7-1-0	Kyle Owen Classic (3rd),King Tut (4th)
9	FCD East (Spencer)	1-3-4	King Tut (3rd),Soccer Fest XI (1st), North American Memorial Day Cup (--)
10	DT Craft	?	King Tut (3rd)
11	Andromed White (formerly Dinamo)	4-0-3	Soccer Fest XI (2nd), King Tut mid-July(2nd)
12	ASG Gold North	6-0-2	ASG Adidas Invit (3rd/4th)
13	DFW Tejanos	?	Puma Cup (--),North American Memorial Day Cup (--)
14	Texas Toros	?	Puma Cup (3rd), North American Memorial Day Cup (--)
15	Dallas Tigres		Puma Cup(2nd),North American Memorial Day Cup (lost in quarters)
16	FCD Suarez	?	King Tut (--)
17	North Texas Strikers	?
18	Liverpool Kuyt	?	King Tut(--)
19	Comets Badii	?
20	Fort Worth FC (Remmel)	?	Puma Cup (?)

staywide wrote:Are you really trying to figure out how they determine the seeds for the QT into Classic League? Seriously? I know for sure they don't take into consideration what biased parents have to say on this forum. Between the refs, coaches, and tournament results...they get it right. AND, they know that there is always movement of impact players in June/July...so the need to keep SDL results is truly a waste of time.

I agree with staywide, you are wasting a huge amount of time with this. R1 explained it all pretty good above. That is how it is done. I think that if you go back and look at the result of the QT you will see a couple of things that demonstrate that the Board knows how to do this correctly: (1) most of the teams that qualified the first weekend are in or close to the top 10 after the Fall and 1-2 games of Spring; (2) there were very few brackets where 3 teams in the bracket made D1; and (3) in most brackets the 1-2 seeds ended up in D1, the third seed ended up in D2 and the fourth seed ended up not making it. I think these 3 things are all good indications that they got it as close to correct as possible keeping in mind that it wasn't and never will be "perfect". There are going to be some brackets that will, in hindsight, look like they could have done better. But, in reality, there is no way to know what a bunch of 10 year old boys are going to do when you put them in the pressure cooker that the QT has become and you crank up the temperature to 110 degrees in the shade. Some teams will over-achieve others will under-perform under those circumstances.

Here are the standings for the teams as of this Saturday followed by their QT seeds:

1. Texans (Gall) 2
2. Bandits 8
3. FCD Premier 1
4. TFC 5
5. Andro Red 7
6. Solar 6
7. Wizards 3
8. FCD East 9
9. Toros 14
10. Texans Red 10
11. Tigres 15
12. Solar Red 4
13. Odyssey 24
14. Andro White 11
15. Liverpool Kuyt 18
16. ASG 12
17. FWFC 20
18. Strikers 17
19. TFC WHite 27
20. Tejanos 13
21. Chivas 29
22. Hurst 23
23. FCD Youth 16
24. Longview 28
25. DT White 21
26. Mitlan 26
27. Kernow Storm 39
28. Comets 19
29. TFC Blue 31
30. Andro (McLemore) 25

It shows that they got 28 of the top 30 seeded in the top 30 and TFC Blue and Kernow Storm were the only exceptions. I would say that is pretty darn good.

soccer23 wrote:I agree with staywide, you are wasting a huge amount of time with this...

The intent of this thread is to figure out how the seeding is done, not whether it's good or bad.

I'd say that it's provided me with some pretty useful information in that my son's team plays SDL and not much else. It looks like performing well in summer tournaments is a pretty important part of getting a good seed. I didn't necessarily know that before this exercise.

But since we seem to have sidetracked onto judging the seeding, it looks to me like the one glaring error from last year is giving Solar Red a #4 seed. I don't see anything on their resume that would justify anything better than a #10 seed.

Looks like their performance is agreeing with me.

jack0fspeed wrote:

soccer23 wrote:I agree with staywide, you are wasting a huge amount of time with this...

The intent of this thread is to figure out how the seeding is done, not whether it's good or bad.

I'd say that it's provided me with some pretty useful information in that my son's team plays SDL and not much else. It looks like performing well in summer tournaments is a pretty important part of getting a good seed. I didn't necessarily know that before this exercise.

I think that you need to play in some tournaments this Spring. First, I think that your team probably needs some exposure to other teams and it may help them in the seeding. But, I think that some of the teams last year might not have done that and there was still enough information available to the Board that they were able to get pretty close.

soccer23 wrote:

jack0fspeed wrote:

soccer23 wrote:I agree with staywide, you are wasting a huge amount of time with this...

The intent of this thread is to figure out how the seeding is done, not whether it's good or bad.

I'd say that it's provided me with some pretty useful information in that my son's team plays SDL and not much else. It looks like performing well in summer tournaments is a pretty important part of getting a good seed. I didn't necessarily know that before this exercise.

I think that you need to play in some tournaments this Spring. First, I think that your team probably needs some exposure to other teams and it may help them in the seeding. But, I think that some of the teams last year might not have done that and there was still enough information available to the Board that they were able to get pretty close.

Recommend that teams play at least in 3-4 tournaments before QT. On top of what the performance means in the seedings, I think it helps the boys quit a bit when they actually play in the Classic QT. It will be a hot and grueling weekend and anything you can do to get them prepared mentally and physically will help them. The second weekend is even hotter and harder on the bbs.

Starting with the Memorial Day tourny, there are some really good tournaments... ASG Adidas Invitational, Kyle Owen Classic, King Tut & Puma Cup are all very good tourneys. The King Tut & Puma Cup are must plays for teams who want to improve their chances of getting a better seeding.

i am still baffled by what it all matters. in any event, seeding etc seems premature if someone is looking at how a team does in sdl or spring tourneys, much less than what some yahoo says about a team out here, if there is movement of players before july 1. whole teams could evaporate.

Don't over think this too much. Nothing you are doing today matters at all.

Go back to last year's seedings, if you do well in the tournaments over the summer you get bumped up if you don't you get bumped down. They also look at player movement and make predictions about who is going to be better or worse.

And lastly if you do look at last year's seedings, Premier should have never been #1, that should have been Gall. Solar, Solar Red, Andro had really no track record to speak of but were rated highly because of club/coach reputation, and the Wizards basically won one tournament and were bumped to #3. Nothing you can do about it, so again don't over think it except win the first or second weekend of QT and get in.

mplsnsg wrote:i am still baffled by what it all matters. in any event, seeding etc seems premature if someone is looking at how a team does in sdl or spring tourneys, much less than what some yahoo says about a team out here, if there is movement of players before july 1. whole teams could evaporate.

It is not necessarily premature. Jack asked a legitimate question. I think maybe I didn't answer his question directly the first time but I was attempting to point out that the Board seems to use all of the available information and they do a pretty good job based on the information they have available to them. But, I think he was asking how does one go about creating information for the Board to evaluate. And SDL standings and tournaments are one of the ways a team can take this issue, at least in some part, into their own hands. And, now is the time to ask. You can't wait until after the signing deadline on July 1 to try to start figuring out if you want to play in some tournaments to attempt to improve your seeding chances. You have to be somewhat proactive and make decisions now about when and where you are going to take your shots. You are right, whole teams could evaporate and large portions of teams could change. That is part of the reason that I think the Board receives and considers input from certain experienced coaches and DOC's. Otherwise there is no way to take those issues into consideration. My point was, and still is, that the Board will take all of the information into consideration and they will make the best judgment they can based on what is before them. And, past performance demonstrates that they are very good and getting the seeds correct.