QT Predictions...

3 Crossover games / 5 games total would change things up.

#1 would play #49, 41, 60, 21, and 20
#2 would play #39, 42, 21, 20, and 60

Basically Group 1 would play Group 20, Group 2 would play Group 19, etc.

Other ways to solve for this I'm sure that keeps the schedule for higher seeds consistently easier than the schedule for lower seeds.

One thing this does is lesson the advantage of the higher seed as the average rank of a team's opponents don't change as much from #1 to #2 to #3 etc.

Purely speculation.

Got it, so 3 crossover games for 5 games total.

If the crossover games are group 1 plays 20, 2 plays 19, etc...then it is effectively the exact same thing as if they did 10 groups of 6 and played five games.

With 10 groups and snake method group one would be 1,20,21,40,41,60

With 20 groups and snake method then have group one play group 20, it would be 1,40,41 plus 20,21,60

It's the same thing!

Group 2...

with 10 groups 2,19,22,39,42,59

with 20 groups and group 2 playing group 19 it's 2,39,42 plus 19,22,59

Again, same thing.

Maybe they're doing something different with the crossover games.

Agreed. 10 groups of 6 is basically the same as 20 groups of 3 with the logical crossover games.

Seems unnecessarily complex if that's what they are actually doing.

We'll know in a few days however.

TayJ6 wrote:Group 2...

with 10 groups 2,19,22,39,42,59

with 20 groups and group 2 playing group 19 it's 2,39,42 plus 19,22,59

Again, same thing.

Maybe they're doing something different with the crossover games.

That is true. The issue is if they are basically doing 10 groups of 6, then why not get the TOP 2 done in the first week guaranteeing all the D1 spots?

D1 done after first weekend, D2 done 2nd weekend. That's what the Classic website states.

I'm wondering if they mean 3 crossover games per bracket, which is 1 per team.

Fuzz wrote:I'm wondering if they mean 3 crossover games per bracket, which is 1 per team.

Would make far more sense and a 3 game weekend seems substantially more sane than a 5 game weekend.

DragonStryker wrote:

Fuzz wrote:I'm wondering if they mean 3 crossover games per bracket, which is 1 per team.

Would make far more sense and a 3 game weekend seems substantially more sane than a 5 game weekend.

But this wouldn't be fair to get to an actual 20 team D1. kids can handle 5 games (1 Fri, 2 Sat and 2 Sun).

This looks likely anyway since they show 3 days for Rd 1 and 2 days for Rd 2.
Rd 2 will be just 3 games....so just Sat and Sun...

How is it unfair?

20 3 team brackets with each team playing one cross-over game. Winner of each bracket to D1.

I saw this format in a tourney earlier this spring. Bracket A will play all 3 teams from Bracket F (as an example). No head to head match-ups, just record against common opponents. Seems to take away the benefit of a higher seed. Frankly I don't like it.

This would be interesting, not sure I like it though...So you're saying Bracket A wouldn't play each other at all, they would be ranked by how they all did individually against Bracket F.

Seems to open the door for a lot of ties in the points, but it does get some higher ranked teams playing against each other with less of a chance of knocking each other out of D1.

In thinking about this, 3 team brackets have a small benefit to higher seeds.

Scenarios in a 6 team bracket. A lower seed manages to our point the team seeded 2nd in the group. If that lower seed were to be in the 3 team group with the top seeded team, they wouldn't go through. In a 6 team group, they would.

Assuming each team plays every other team for a 5 game weekend.

I'm starting to lean toward the 3 crossover games per bracket idea however. 3 games per team seems to make substantially more sense than squeezing in 5. 5 games becomes more about who's in better shape and less about who plays better soccer.

Then go ahead and make the games 5 mins long if you dont think being in shape should matter...

We have unlimited substitutions.....why reward teams that are in bad shape but have good skills? Should be averaged...good skills + good shape = better teams...

3 games  to select 20 teams would be a real bad joke and completely unfair to the kids. Let the kids decide on the field who makes D1 or D2, not a bunch of adults who constantly screw up youth sports

Why limit it to only 5 games that weekend then Roo. Better yet, let's play 4/day on saturday and Sunday. Let the fittest win!

My point was there's a balance. 5 games in 3 days is too many for 9/10 yr olds IMHO. Fitness matters but I don't believe it should be the over-riding factor. It's the reason DA doesn't play multiple games on the same day.

It is obviously a flawed system. But it is not like our kids never play a 5 game weekend tourney....that happens all the time...4/5 games...i think 3 games given the number of teams is not fair...some will benefit greatly from seeding based on bs politics...

They'll play 3 games. Historically they have had a mix of 3 and 4 team brackets. If bracket A has 3 teams, the top seed will play bottom seed in Bracket B. They did this in 2016 and 2015.

Will work out well for top seeds.

I can tell you all 1 thing. When your boys get older you will wonder why you worried so much about all this. lol I know because I was one of them. Most of the boys will not even be on the same team in 2 to 3 years from now. The only thing they need at this point is a good coach.

Good Point 03. I watched some of the younger teams play at King Tut and what I saw was the same old mess on a smaller field, with the ball being kicked up to a big forward to outrun the defense of the other team. Same poop different pile.

IMO, in the 9v9 and 7v7 leagues, the Keeper should not be allowed to punt out of the back, but play to the defense. On the other side of the ball, the offense, should then not be allowed to press the defense within 10 yards of the keeper-to-defender play. This hodor each team to actually play the ball out of the back, which teaches them the game.

To further that point, I believe Select should not even begin until the kids reach the age of 11v11. Having Select qualifying on 9v9 fields is criminal because it enables the poor play that plagues NTX (and US) soccer.

Finish, under your rules, the focus would be on the big picture, not winning.   That is ridiculous and un-American.  Plus, I would then have to wait until my nephew was twelve to let everyone know that he was playing Classice League.  Is that really fair to me?

In my opinion, Lovingsoccer is spot on. It took me some time to see the light, but at this age, having the right coach for your son should be the priority (and that might mean different things for different people).

Further piggy backing on Lovingsoccer's post, next summer, many teams will be different with the "top" players moving to DA, which will result in a lot of movement among the teams - especially among FCD, Texans, and Solar teams. The "top" teams will look completely different.

Finally, to cause panic among those that do not have players on the top five or so teams, it is to your advantage to have crossover games where every team in your bracket plays the same teams in the other bracket.  Otherwise, if the seeding is wrong, you could end up playing a more difficult crossover game than a team ranked lower than you in the same bracket. It can make a huge difference.

Good luck to everyone.

Uncleof05AP wrote:Finish, under your rules, the focus would be on the big picture, not winning.   That is ridiculous and un-American.  Plus, I would then have to wait until my nephew was twelve to let everyone know that he was playing Classice League.  Is that really fair to me?

In my opinion, Lovingsoccer is spot on. It took me some time to see the light, but at this age, having the right coach for your son should be the priority (and that might mean different things for different people).  

Good luck to everyone.

I bit tongue in cheek, but yes I get it. But, that's also my point. We don't win where it matters because we are focused on the wrong thing too early. Speaking of the DA, you know there are no rankings until U16. Below that age, it's just kids learning the game. But even in the DA, the coaches are screaming at the younger kids to get wins when they should be spending more time learning skills, shape, passing and playing out of the back.

I believe Klinsmann was fundamentally correct at instituting the new player development system in the US. What is missing is leadership to make sure policies are put in place to focus on early age development. One thing is for sure, Bruce Arena can't move the development ball forward.

But, then hey, what do I know. I'm just a rec level coach with rec level kids, right?

Went through all this with my DD 3 years ago. Here's what I recall/ have learned-
-for top 15 teams QT is a joke. You will be seeded high enough to make D1. Then you have to actually play in the league. It all gets sorted then
- you'd rather be in D2 than bottom 5 of D1. Most of the teams I saw at bottom of D1 were blown up following year. Really sucks getting destroyed every week.
- the real battle in this tournament is week 2- especially at the bottom of D2 to get in.
- 1/3 of these players will be out of soccer in 3 years- so if your kid has any talent and dedication he will have a good chance to play D1/D2 at the least in the coming years. If you aspire for DA you better play D1 this year or have a great coach and work hard.