|
|
Post by babybacksets on Nov 12, 2024 14:14:04 GMT -5
Does anyone have any insight on exactly how they figure out how to structure pools tournament to tournament.
Seems kind of ridiculous to have the same team in your pool 3 tournaments in a row. I feel like SCVA does/did a better job of mixing up the competition, I feel like whatever is the current formula for SoCal is flawed in some way…
|
|
|
|
Post by slates on Nov 12, 2024 14:28:03 GMT -5
Your pool is based on the strength of the team. Each week if you are in the top 3 you move up if you are 4th or 5th you stay and 6-8th move down. So always trying to match you up vs evenly matched competition. So if very close with another team you may end up moving (or not moving) together.
|
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Nov 12, 2024 15:11:10 GMT -5
Your pool is based on the strength of the team. Each week if you are in the top 3 you move up if you are 4th or 5th you stay and 6-8th move down. So always trying to match you up vs evenly matched competition. So if very close with another team you may end up moving (or not moving) together. But like…not really, because there were plenty of teams that finished with a really good record after the first, were placed really low on the rankings, and now there’s not even enough tournament play, no crossovers, and basically not much of a chance to make any real movement towards playing better/different competition. You could argue that a few chunks of divisions (20+ teams) are all capable of beating each other but there’s not really an opportunity to compete because pools are made by just moving up towards the next Pool rather than reconfiguring pools that mix up the 1&2s, 3s&4s with others within the division. If you have a team somewhat blowing out the lower flight division teams, why keep them there rather than matching them up with the higher flight division teams and getting big jumps from those who are capable? |
|
|
|
Post by couchanalyst on Nov 12, 2024 15:46:18 GMT -5
And remember there is the SoCal cup league for the local teams and the three larger tournaments. They had an initial seeding tournament where the remaiining league starts from and then based on performance teams move up and down as mentioned before.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokeclubdad on Nov 12, 2024 23:44:22 GMT -5
Your pool is based on the strength of the team. Each week if you are in the top 3 you move up if you are 4th or 5th you stay and 6-8th move down. So always trying to match you up vs evenly matched competition. So if very close with another team you may end up moving (or not moving) together. But like…not really, because there were plenty of teams that finished with a really good record after the first, were placed really low on the rankings, and now there’s not even enough tournament play, no crossovers, and basically not much of a chance to make any real movement towards playing better/different competition. You could argue that a few chunks of divisions (20+ teams) are all capable of beating each other but there’s not really an opportunity to compete because pools are made by just moving up towards the next Pool rather than reconfiguring pools that mix up the 1&2s, 3s&4s with others within the division. If you have a team somewhat blowing out the lower flight division teams, why keep them there rather than matching them up with the higher flight division teams and getting big jumps from those who are capable? I'd be curious as to which teams you might be referring to. Who has dominated the lower divisions and have moved up two divisions (2 tournaments so far) and is blowing out teams on the way. As Slates said, the format is set up so that the cream rises to the top and the solids settle at the bottom. Based on prior year finishes and after a two day qualifying event, the initial seeds/divisions were established. There are then 3 opportunities to move up divisions before Winter Formal. If you are constantly playing the same teams, then you aren't good enough to move up and are staying in the same division. Get top 3 and you move up. Pretty simple process. |
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Nov 13, 2024 1:20:40 GMT -5
But like…not really, because there were plenty of teams that finished with a really good record after the first, were placed really low on the rankings, and now there’s not even enough tournament play, no crossovers, and basically not much of a chance to make any real movement towards playing better/different competition. You could argue that a few chunks of divisions (20+ teams) are all capable of beating each other but there’s not really an opportunity to compete because pools are made by just moving up towards the next Pool rather than reconfiguring pools that mix up the 1&2s, 3s&4s with others within the division. If you have a team somewhat blowing out the lower flight division teams, why keep them there rather than matching them up with the higher flight division teams and getting big jumps from those who are capable? I'd be curious as to which teams you might be referring to. Who has dominated the lower divisions and have moved up two divisions (2 tournaments so far) and is blowing out teams on the way. As Slates said, the format is set up so that the cream rises to the top and the solids settle at the bottom. Based on prior year finishes and after a two day qualifying event, the initial seeds/divisions were established. There are then 3 opportunities to move up divisions before Winter Formal. If you are constantly playing the same teams, then you aren't good enough to move up and are staying in the same division. Get top 3 and you move up. Pretty simple process. That would apply to teams that were in SoCal last season, if you weren’t and were placed low because of that, you can still be only inching forward with the way it seems like they determine pools tournament to tournament which doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’ve only ever finished 1 or 2 in your pool. Please, if you don’t have anything but a repeat answer with your own additional smugness, just keep your comment to yourself. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Nov 13, 2024 2:27:41 GMT -5
Does anyone have any insight on exactly how they figure out how to structure pools tournament to tournament. Seems kind of ridiculous to have the same team in your pool 3 tournaments in a row. I feel like SCVA does/did a better job of mixing up the competition, I feel like whatever is the current formula for SoCal is flawed in some way… I agree that socal cup messed up with the lowest ranked teams in the qualifying weekend. For example, in 17/18, if a team started in D3 #129 or lower, there is no way to move up quickly. There was cross pollination for D1 and D2 but D3 was isolated and best a team could do was finish #129 after 2 days even if the won all 6 matches 25-0, 25-0. Teams that started in D2 and lost every match finished ranked higher. After that there is only movement of 4 or 8 spots per one day event possible so it is a long road from 129 to go through all the worst D2 teams 4 or 8 at a time until they can get up to #32 where 8 team groups start and there is the 3 up 3 down system. Pool winners day 1 in D3 should have been placed in D2 day 2 where they had a chance to win pool and place 33rd and play into the gold 4 group by winning pool in the first one day event. The last place D2 teams in day 1 pools should have gone down to D3. I also don't understand why they don't use the 8 team groups down lower and stay with 4 team pools which slows movement down low where they should be speeding up movement. Finsh last of 8 and go down 2, 6th or 7th go down 1. Finish 1st and go up 2, 2nd or 3rd and up 1, 4th and 5th stay. If they had just allowed the initial D3 teams to make it into D2 with #65-#128 on day 2 it would have solved a lot. Maybe a case of too fast of growth leading to oversights. Does SCC respond to the club directors concerns? It seems like a valid complaint. 150 teams should be evenly grouped after 4 days of competition. A system that can't do that is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by babybacksets on Nov 13, 2024 3:08:12 GMT -5
Does anyone have any insight on exactly how they figure out how to structure pools tournament to tournament. Seems kind of ridiculous to have the same team in your pool 3 tournaments in a row. I feel like SCVA does/did a better job of mixing up the competition, I feel like whatever is the current formula for SoCal is flawed in some way… I agree that socal cup messed up with the lowest ranked teams in the qualifying weekend. For example, in 17/18, if a team started in D3 #129 or lower, there is no way to move up quickly. There was cross pollination for D1 and D2 but D3 was isolated and best a team could do was finish #129 after 2 days even if the won all 6 matches 25-0, 25-0. Teams that started in D2 and lost every match finished ranked higher. After that there is only movement of 4 or 8 spots per one day event possible so it is a long road from 129 to go through all the worst D2 teams 4 or 8 at a time until they can get up to #32 where 8 team groups start and there is the 3 up 3 down system. Pool winners day 1 in D3 should have been placed in D2 day 2 where they had a chance to win pool and place 33rd and play into the gold 4 group by winning pool in the first one day event. The last place D2 teams in day 1 pools should have gone down to D3. I also don't understand why they don't use the 8 team groups down lower and stay with 4 team pools which slows movement down low where they should be speeding up movement. Finsh last of 8 and go down 2, 6th or 7th go down 1. Finish 1st and go up 2, 2nd or 3rd and up 1, 4th and 5th stay. If they had just allowed the initial D3 teams to make it into D2 with #65-#128 on day 2 it would have solved a lot. Maybe a case of too fast of growth leading to oversights. Does SCC respond to the club directors concerns? It seems like a valid complaint. 150 teams should be evenly grouped after 4 days of competition. A system that can't do that is flawed. Thank you! I was never trying to drag AAU/SoCal Cup or anything like that but after the past few weeks of tournament seeding, it just seems like a flawed system if you’re winning every weekend but the games aren’t getting more challenging. No offense to any team out there and much praise to the teams competing at a high level each weekend and staying on top of this tough league. I was just trying to figure out if this the way things should be working because it seems rough to compete, win, and not see improvement in competition or the same team over and over. There are simply not that many tournaments in the season to have it feel like you’re not even getting the chance to play better teams until a featured tournament. Appreciate the insight/feedback |
|
|
|
Post by gtrich on Nov 13, 2024 13:55:10 GMT -5
Initial seeding is so critical in these King of the Court type events; especially when you have similarly skilled teams. In the 8 years my son played club, I saw a lot of these in camps and it's next to impossible to go from the bottom all the way up to the top. When you are near the top initially, you can lose a game here or there and still stay near the top. When you are towards the bottom, you basically have to be perfect every single game and it seemed like there was never enough time to make your way all the way up to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Nov 13, 2024 15:03:03 GMT -5
The club director(s) should contact SSC and point this out so they can improve. I gave a couple options in my post how this can be improved.
The horse has left the barn on the initial seeding but they can still modify pool structure and how results reseed teams for future weekends.
SCC is better than SCVA and it is not close. SSC has mostly been good about listening to feedback and making adjustments. SCVA was horrible with this. Also, the SCVA model is closer to what is being complained about here and is currently the format in the lower groups. Current SCVA can't have this issue because of the small field they have.
The big challenge here is the quantity of teams, the growth id insane, it feels like it has doubled in the past 4 years since SSC took over. Some of this is probably growing pains. Make sure the issue is brought to thier attention so they can correct it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixpak on Nov 13, 2024 17:13:32 GMT -5
The results are online, it's easy enough to parse the results and see how well this format is working, and I did so for the 17/18s division.
* 142 teams played in the qualifier and first two events
* Only one team that has a legitimate gripe over seeding and promotion: ECVBA 18-1. One of only two undefeated teams (MB Surf 18), they are currently ranked #117.
* Six other teams are undefeated after the qualifier, but all lost multiple matches in the qualifier and are thus at least reasonably seeded correctly.
This indicates to me that the format is working quite well for the large number of teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Nov 13, 2024 18:36:04 GMT -5
The results are online, it's easy enough to parse the results and see how well this format is working, and I did so for the 17/18s division. * 142 teams played in the qualifier and first two events * Only one team that has a legitimate gripe over seeding and promotion: ECVBA 18-1. One of only two undefeated teams (MB Surf 18), they are currently ranked #117. * Six other teams are undefeated after the qualifier, but all lost multiple matches in the qualifier and are thus at least reasonably seeded correctly. This indicates to me that the format is working quite well for the large number of teams. I had assumed ECVBA 18-1 was the team they are upset about, but there are probably some other teams that are stuck down deep that should be 20 seeds higher. That team only saw one team twice in the 4 days so that didn't add up with the OP's grips so maybe the issue is teh lack of movement down low. If that is teh case, at least the team is playing similar comp. Different comp is another issue, the top teams all play each other over and over again, that is how it is and the best system. Any other part of the country and you are playing the same teams over and over and the skill level is not similar so shouldn't complain. I looked at the 15/16s and that division has similar # of teams, no stand outs but there are a lot of point differentials above 1.3 or below 0.75 which in a perfect world isn't the case after 4 days of competition. Some of that might be lineup decisions by coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by stelsonvb on Nov 14, 2024 13:17:06 GMT -5
I totally agree the seedings are skewed, but it's not easy to come up with a better system given there is only four tournaments to figure it out. The first seeding tournament, particularly on the first day, really determines where your placement is. The first day you have to start your best kids, have the best roster even if your best players are playing a different sport and haven't practiced much. Top 2 in pool on the first day is crucial. Balboa Bay White U16 had a bad first day and is working their way up through the silver division, there's just no way around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixpak on Nov 18, 2024 14:17:05 GMT -5
ECVBA 18-1 is now the lone undefeated team in SoCal Cup 18/17s. They dominated this weekend and only moved up to #113. I wonder why they chose 4 team pools for the lower divisions instead of 8 team brackets, which would allow for more movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbur on Nov 18, 2024 15:38:26 GMT -5
I totally agree the seedings are skewed, but it's not easy to come up with a better system given there is only four tournaments to figure it out. The first seeding tournament, particularly on the first day, really determines where your placement is. The first day you have to start your best kids, have the best roster even if your best players are playing a different sport and haven't practiced much. Top 2 in pool on the first day is crucial. Balboa Bay White U16 had a bad first day and is working their way up through the silver division, there's just no way around it. Simple fix would to be not to silo the D3 teams in the qualification tourney. The top 25% of the D3 teams based on day 1 finish go to D2, the equivalent # (wouL d have been around 8 teams this year) of bottom D2 based on finish go to D3 for the second day. They blended D1 and D2 like this, D3 should have been included. Other change should be to use the 8 team groups for all, top to bottom. Additionally the bottom might allow the #1 team to go up 2 flights and #8 go down 2 flights. |
|
