Classic League Challenge Tournament Format – De-Briefing

Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

Se La Perdio wrote:Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

A simple but equitable change would be for the existing Classic teams to get a bye to the second weekend. To me, they earned that the year prior.

Total bunk.

It worked out perfect. Last year a bunch of D3 teams spots 3-6 were vacated by the big clubs(who were using their players to fill higher up spots due to the need to fill in PA and DA teams) and they filled those D3 spots with teams that had NO BUSINESS being in D3. THAT was the reason for the change in format.

This year, for instance, in the 00 group, Dallas Texans Black, and Andromeda Gold would have made it back into D3 in the old system. But guess what, Andro and Texans will be filling out 2000 PA teams next year, and those players will be bumping up to the next spot up. Leaving a shell of a team, which will be filled by any team they can find. Likely a team that couldn't even qualify to get into D3 in the Challenge Tourney in the first place.

I feel sorry for D2, because it will now be the division that will get watered down with the players from Plano and Arlington Premier that couldn't make it in the qualifying tournament.

They cant get away with that in D3 any more - so D3 will actually be pretty competitive.

Just my opinion - based on what I've seen happen in the last few years.

If the big 4 club teams are going to take their very best players and play them in another league (outside of Classic), AFTER they qualify for their Classic spot, they really DON'T deserve to keep the spot.

It makes a mockery of Classic League. They should be forced to play their best players to keep their spots, or lose them. If they try to put crap out there on the field, based on what the club did 2 or 3 years ago with that spot, Classic should see through that charade and just yank the damn team. This PA/DA stuff has taken a little bit of the shine off Classic, and they know it, so they have done something about it.

I applaud them. If the big 4 don't want to put their best on the field in Classic, they don't deserve the spots. The END.

I think 8 is too many any does not properly reward teams for the previous year's performance. Believe that each division should be looked at individually and the teams that are not competitive should have to re-qualify. If the 8 team format stays, the first weekend bye for returning teams has merit but only for teams that were competitive in DII for U11 and DIII all others. As for clubs (any club) being allowed to hold onto a qualified spot in any division, it is a travesty that the players that earned the position are not required to remain on the roster in order for the club to keep the spot. This circumvents the notion of competition and creates an unmerited free pass for the club holding the spot. The advent of PA/DA has changed this dynamic and the process of a club holding onto a spot rather than the team that earned the spot needs to be re-thought.

I am fine with the bottom 8 requaling but I think the tournament should be done after 7/1. I think it is terrible for CL having a club qualify under an old roster and then pulling all their people to other teams the next year. This just allows the big clubs to use a CL slot for marketing.

As to a bye to the next weekend I think it is OK but the way it was run this year was fine. I do think the teams that were the strongest made it.

I'll weigh in having qualified under BOTH scenarios.

The 6 Team format (bottom 2 D3, Top 2 in Plano and API) -- is tough. The expectation is that every game will be competitive and for the most part they are. You see hungry teams from API/Plano and sometimes "apathetic" # 9/10 placed D3 teams. I like the format but could see it going to 9 or 12. INVITE ONLY. The benefit of this format with 6 teams is that everyones plays each other and after 5 games -- top 2 go in.

The New format -- All Comers !! It is interesting. I have mixed thoughts about it. I think you had teams that really had no business in the Tourney and that is unfortunate. I also think because of that format it actually was easier for a weaker team to qualify. If the # 1 seed has an off game then that opens the door for other teams in that bracket. I like the bracket winners "in" the 1st weeked makes sense. The key to the larger tourney really is the seeding. I think for the most part the league did a decent job. The hard seeding area are the lower D3 teams and the top 1-2 Plano/API teams and where they fall for the brackets. The brackets were mainly designed (as it should) that the #1 and #2 seeds play each other , the last game, usually for 1st in the bracket. I could make an argument for different scenarios especially with the U14 and above age groups. ( all 10 spots in D3 availble, relegated D2 teams must qualify, or make 5 spots available instead of 2 or

althought this was not part of the discussion --What i don;t like is the ability for a club to pull any team from anywhere and take their clubs spot. Have seen this 2 times, both with middle of the pack Plano/API teams all the way up to D2.

SoccerXXX wrote:I am fine with the bottom 8 requaling but I think the tournament should be done after 7/1. I think it is terrible for CL having a club qualify under an old roster and then pulling all their people to other teams the next year. This just allows the big clubs to use a CL slot for marketing.

you will not be able to recruit players for a team that does not know where they are playing next year. Why would I sign a contract and pay $$$ without knowing the level of play ?? Also the team that played 18 games was the team that ended up in that position, not the new team, You can cut players before 4/1 and add new players up to 4/15, if you need/want help.

Don't the girls do it that way, qualify after they have signed? I've heard some talking about it?

Soccerinsanity wrote:Don't the girls do it that way, qualify after they have signed? I've heard some talking about it?

IDK --my DD is still in rec. I think if you went this direction you would need to start with the U11 age group next year and leave the U12 and above groups grandfathered in. My brain cannot even think that way as it has been "trained" differently

snjn1ab wrote:

Se La Perdio wrote:Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

A simple but equitable change would be for the existing Classic teams to get a bye to the second weekend. To me, they earned that the year prior.

I can agree with a lot of what is being bantered around here, but the reality is that this is about revenue.

In the old system, you had 6 teams per age group paying $650 each to qualify for the 2 open byes.

In the new format, where there were 25 or so teams vying at each age group, Classic League was able to increase its' revenue exponentially.

By adding 18 additional teams @ $650 per team X 6 age groups, Classic League added $70,000.00 in additional revenue.

I understand there are costs involved, but net/net, CL made more.

By judging at the scarce number of teams that are playing in the KSMD tournament, they had to replace lost revenue some way...

Ibra wrote:

snjn1ab wrote:

Se La Perdio wrote:Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

A simple but equitable change would be for the existing Classic teams to get a bye to the second weekend. To me, they earned that the year prior.

I can agree with a lot of what is being bantered around here, but the reality is that this is about revenue.

In the old system, you had 6 teams per age group paying $650 each to qualify for the 2 open byes.

In the new format, where there were 25 or so teams vying at each age group, Classic League was able to increase its' revenue exponentially.

By adding 18 additional teams @ $650 per team X 6 age groups, Classic League added $70,000.00 in additional revenue.

I understand there are costs involved, but net/net, CL made more.

By judging at the scarce number of teams that are playing in the KSMD tournament, they had to replace lost revenue some way...

I understand that CL benefitted financially from this but if it is simply about revenue then why not do this with all three divisions? Have a SuperCopa style tournament. There has to be more than just a financial catalyst for the change. Revenue is part if the equation but I don't think it was revenue solely or primarily, but I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time).

Ibra wrote:

snjn1ab wrote:

Se La Perdio wrote:Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

A simple but equitable change would be for the existing Classic teams to get a bye to the second weekend. To me, they earned that the year prior.

I can agree with a lot of what is being bantered around here, but the reality is that this is about revenue.

In the old system, you had 6 teams per age group paying $650 each to qualify for the 2 open byes.

In the new format, where there were 25 or so teams vying at each age group, Classic League was able to increase its' revenue exponentially.

By adding 18 additional teams @ $650 per team X 6 age groups, Classic League added $70,000.00 in additional revenue.

I understand there are costs involved, but net/net, CL made more.

By judging at the scarce number of teams that are playing in the KSMD tournament, they had to replace lost revenue some way...

LBRA -- decent thought on the money but it doesn;t look like they made off with that much more of our coin.
I looked at the 97's and 98 for the last few years and here are the numbers of teams that played each year. 2010-2012 were under the old challenge rules. I am guessing you would have 1-2 teams that might have traveled elsewhere for memorial day and then the rest would have played in a different tourney locally or not played at all.

97B's
2010 -- Tourney Teams 14 Challenge Teams 6 Total = 22
2011 -- Tourney Teams 14 Challenge Teams 8 Total = 24
2012 -- Tourney Teams 14 Challenge Teams 6 Total = 24
2013 -- Tourney Teams 8 Challenge Teams 22 Total = 30

So basically a Net gain of 6 teams ($3900 bonus)

98B's
2010 -- Tourney Teams 14 Challenge Teams 6 Total = 20
2011 -- Tourney Teams 14 Challenge Teams 7 Total = 21
2012 -- Tourney Teams 16 Challenge Teams 7 Total = 23
2013 -- Tourney Teams 6 Challenge Teams 25 Total = 31

so basically a Net gain of 8 teams for this age group. ($5200)

No problem with the tournament. We played 6 games for $650 which is not bad. It doesn't matter which format you play, 6 or 22 teams in the challenge games. Win your games and you are in Classic League very simple.

I think there are instances where the system sucks (like #4 fc dallas 01 not making it), but in general, the results speak for themselves. A rough estimation would be half of the 8 spots came from non-classic teams, meaning the 2 spots of the past were maybe a little too restrictive, including which teams were allowed to play for qualification. I think that there ought to be a minimum threshold, however, with at least a minimum qualification (say maybe top 10 of plano, top 10 of Arlington), to reduce the number of "gimme games", which I think mess up standings, especially in the case where there are some ties, and then it will come down to who beats up on crap team the worst, or who accidentally gives up a goal even though they beat them 5-1 to not get the full 10 points.

EOB wrote:

SoccerXXX wrote:I am fine with the bottom 8 requaling but I think the tournament should be done after 7/1. I think it is terrible for CL having a club qualify under an old roster and then pulling all their people to other teams the next year. This just allows the big clubs to use a CL slot for marketing.

you will not be able to recruit players for a team that does not know where they are playing next year. Why would I sign a contract and pay $$$ without knowing the level of play ?? Also the team that played 18 games was the team that ended up in that position, not the new team, You can cut players before 4/1 and add new players up to 4/15, if you need/want help.

IMO the player that needs to have a CL team before signing is a tough argument to make. Heck, there are 22 teams that qualify for that and they can try out for them. This said the bottom 8 plus APL and PPL teams should have the make up of the upcoming team determine where they play. As I mentioned it would dilute the competition if a team re-qualifies and then strips the team for their higher team and replaces them with a lower quality player. If you have the tournament after you get their qualified roster for the upcoming year and no stacking.

Ibra wrote:

snjn1ab wrote:

Se La Perdio wrote:Now that the Classic League Challenge Tournament is over and everyone has had a chance to digest the new format let’s talk about the changes that were implemented this year - where the bottom 8 spots in Division 3 are essentially vacated and anyone can compete for them. For reference, in previous years the Classic League Challenge Tournament was an invitation only tournament typically consisting of the bottom 2 teams from Classic League Division 3 and 2-3 teams each from PPL and APL with all teams competing for 2 spots.

With the Texas Boys Soccer Forum being an open forum anyone can chime in, but I would specifically like to hear from two groups:

(1) those who had a team in Classic League Division 3 that were trying to to re-secure a spot
(2) those who had a team that was not previously in Classic League (i.e. – from PPL, APL, WTPL or no league)

My observations of CL going from 2 spots and an invitational tournament to 8 spots and an open tournament is that the pendulum swung too far. My opinion is that there needs to be a better balance between the two.

What do you think? What do you see as the pros and cons to the new format? Tell your perspective from either being in CL and having to re-secure a spot or trying to challenge in for a spot. My purpose in posting this question is to see if there are some ideas that can be generated that would help the CL further improve the challenge tournament in future years.

A simple but equitable change would be for the existing Classic teams to get a bye to the second weekend. To me, they earned that the year prior.

I can agree with a lot of what is being bantered around here, but the reality is that this is about revenue.

In the old system, you had 6 teams per age group paying $650 each to qualify for the 2 open byes.

In the new format, where there were 25 or so teams vying at each age group, Classic League was able to increase its' revenue exponentially.

By adding 18 additional teams @ $650 per team X 6 age groups, Classic League added $70,000.00 in additional revenue.

I understand there are costs involved, but net/net, CL made more.

By judging at the scarce number of teams that are playing in the KSMD tournament, they had to replace lost revenue some way...

In this years tournament you can see the KDSM teams were of D2/D1 Caliber. If a team wanted to just play teams that were closer but know that they were not going to be a winner then it was better for them to sign up for the challenge. You can see a lot of teams throughout the brackets that had no shot at qualifying but yet the challenge was closest to their skill level.

heyyouguys wrote:I think there are instances where the system sucks (like #4 fc dallas 01 not making it), but in general, the results speak for themselves. A rough estimation would be half of the 8 spots came from non-classic teams, meaning the 2 spots of the past were maybe a little too restrictive, including which teams were allowed to play for qualification. I think that there ought to be a minimum threshold, however, with at least a minimum qualification (say maybe top 10 of plano, top 10 of Arlington), to reduce the number of "gimme games", which I think mess up standings, especially in the case where there are some ties, and then it will come down to who beats up on crap team the worst, or who accidentally gives up a goal even though they beat them 5-1 to not get the full 10 points.

Heyguys --tough deal for the #4 D3 team , seeded #2 overall in the tourney. It looks like they either had tired/hurt players our simply did not perform that weekend. I know nothing about the team (or age division) but in order to advancee you have to do better than 1-1 ties versus the #23 seeded team. Scoring 2 goals in 3 games is tough as well. Looks like a tight bracket with the winner having 16 points and 4th place had 11. Looking at the D3 standings they were one loss from being in 8th place. Time to regroup and go after it again next year. Good luck to that team.

SoccerXXX wrote:

EOB wrote:

SoccerXXX wrote:I am fine with the bottom 8 requaling but I think the tournament should be done after 7/1. I think it is terrible for CL having a club qualify under an old roster and then pulling all their people to other teams the next year. This just allows the big clubs to use a CL slot for marketing.

you will not be able to recruit players for a team that does not know where they are playing next year. Why would I sign a contract and pay $$$ without knowing the level of play ?? Also the team that played 18 games was the team that ended up in that position, not the new team, You can cut players before 4/1 and add new players up to 4/15, if you need/want help.

IMO the player that needs to have a CL team before signing is a tough argument to make. Heck, there are 22 teams that qualify for that and they can try out for them. This said the bottom 8 plus APL and PPL teams should have the make up of the upcoming team determine where they play. As I mentioned it would dilute the competition if a team re-qualifies and then strips the team for their higher team and replaces them with a lower quality player. If you have the tournament after you get their qualified roster for the upcoming year and no stacking.

you make some valid arguments and there is alot of different problems you have addressed in your post (clubs moving players, classic league, level of play for BB, challenge rules, dilution of talent, etc). I'm too tired to respond to all of that -- gives me tired head. I have 2 more years of this scene and then I am done and will be taking my med's on a regular basis, i promise.

Soccerinsanity wrote:Don't the girls do it that way, qualify after they have signed? I've heard some talking about it?

The girls do it the same weekend the U11 play thier tournament, which is the weekend before the boys and I think it is the top six are safe from the prior year, so there are only 4 open slots.

I think you should take D3 team 3-5 and they get automatic D3 next year (no re-qualifying). Then its a free for all for the last 5 spots. I just think you should be awarded for finishing in the top half with something.

As someone fairly new to the Classic League process, I don't think it was fair to make teams that performed well in D3 requalify.  You either finish 1st or 2nd or have to requalify every year.  I think that makes it difficult to build a team that has the objective to advance in class.  As was mentioned by another poster, some teams who did well during the whole of the classic league season can find themselves out of the league with a poor 2-3 game peformance.  I think something like the bottom 4 + all comers would be more fair and reward the teams who did well but didn't finish 1 or 2 to keep their spot and perhaps improve their team.  It may sound good to all of the Plano or Arlington teams who get in but should they not finish #1 or #2 they'll be fighting for their Classic League lives again next year.  Players and parents don't want that uncertainty and I think it will make the better players on these teams look to D1/D2 opportunities which will cause a lot of teams to fold or be completely reworked I believe.  Time will tell.

  Just my $0.02.  To all the promoted teams, be careful what you wish for.

  Giddyup.

As someone fairly new to the Classic League process, I don't think it was fair to make teams that performed well in D3 requalify.  You either finish 1st or 2nd or have to requalify every year.  I think that makes it difficult to build a team that has the objective to advance in class.  As was mentioned by another poster, some teams who did well during the whole of the classic league season can find themselves out of the league with a poor 2-3 game peformance.  I think something like the bottom 4 + all comers would be more fair and reward the teams who did well but didn't finish 1 or 2 to keep their spot and perhaps improve their team.  It may sound good to all of the Plano or Arlington teams who get in but should they not finish #1 or #2 they'll be fighting for their Classic League lives again next year.  Players and parents don't want that uncertainty and I think it will make the better players on these teams look to D1/D2 opportunities which will cause a lot of teams to fold or be completely reworked I believe.  Time will tell.

  Just my $0.02.  To all the promoted teams, be careful what you wish for.

  Giddyup.

yeh -- i don;t think you are going to create a system that everyone is happy with. Under last years rules where D3 #9 and # 10 versus top 1-2 teams from Plano/Arlington -- what i have seen is the D3 teams don;t requalify. the 6-7 teams play each other and for the most part - every game is tough. The Plano/API teams are hungry and typically good to have placed 1st/2nd in their leagues over 18 games. Many times the D3 teams at #9/10 spots are struggling coming down the stretch and have not performed well in the challenge. Under the new rules with the open format and seeding -- you have a different scenario. Even the D 3 #9/#10 receive decent draws. They catch a break with a team in their bracket having an off game and boom --they requalify.
 
If i were ass't to the regional mgr-- i would propose bottom 5 of D3 spots are open. Those 5 teams and then limiting the number of teams from Plano/API (or elsewhere) that can challenge. (maybe must have finished in top 5 in their respective league ?). In the past the knock against the top 1-2 in Plano/API were invited, made it very difficult to get out of Plano and into Cllassic. You could argue it is the same as D3 teams trying to get into D2 by finishing 1st / 2nd. There are teams that finish 3rd in D3  3-4 years in a road -- "stuck" in D3.
 
I heard someone comment about competitive teams and it actually makes sense to me. Here would be the reclassifications for most competitive diisions.
 
Top 5 in D1 (better than everyone esle)
Bottom  5 in D1 and then top 5 in D2
Bottom 5 in D2 and top 5 in D3
Bottom 5 in D3 and top 2-3 in Plano/API
 
I have seen several times where a team out of Plano challenges into D3 and then finishes 1st in D3 that next year-- several have then competed very well at D2 the following year (now the team may have changed the 2nd year as can the existing teams in D2 idk)

Interesting idea, EOB!  NTX would still make the $70K for each age level because the d1/d2 would have to register as well so they would be happy.