2035, 2034, 2033 Girls
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| What you don't realize as a lax parent, is that the days when you worried about NGLL tiebreakers were the good old days. Try to enjoy. Summer season around the corner. |
Anonymous
| HOCO didn't beat anyone by that much. |
Anonymous
|
That's why M&D forced their way into the 7th position, despite the fact that the Goals Allowed was almost DOUBLE between Legends and M&D DC --- which is what the rules defined as the actual tie-breaker. Again, sadly now it will be a bunch of blowout/unexciting games. NGLL is making what could have been a fair and interesting play off tournament a wash and a terrible precedent for unhappy parents/teams in the future.
I don't think anyone was going to go to bat for the eighth spot, HOCO will certainly win and they have no problem running up the score and taking a few girls out while they do. |
Anonymous
1000%. From what I know the impacted 2035 teams are taking it in stride. 2034—>not as much. |
Anonymous
|
Who - according to you is impacted?
They had the exact same situation (multiple ties in 8th place) and chose two completely different interpretations of their own rules to apply. I don’t have a dog in the fight today but I have kids in the NGLL. If its a guessing game (or a matter of a few bitter parents “making calls”) to decide which rules apply when, it creates an ugly dynamic for future games and playoffs. |
Anonymous
You are not reading the rules correctly. You are ignoring that it says specifically that head to head is thrown out if there is “a three way tie in head to head competition” There was not a three way tie in head to head competition in the 2034 division. M&D DC was 2-0, BLC 0-1, Legends 0-1. M&D DC won in head to head competition and it does not move to the next tie breaker, clearly. Also it’s just common sense and fair that if M&D DC beat both - that’s all that matters. How is there any other argument here? BLC lost by 6 goals to M&D DC and played a much easier schedule. Also - none of this applied in the 2035 bracket. Why is it being brought up? |
Anonymous
The 35 bracket had no teams that had Head 2 Head wins over each other so that was pretty easy based on the GA criteria. The 34 bracket ended up how it should have been since M&D DC beat both the teams they were "tied with". They really just need to do a better job clarifying the tiebreakers with ACTUAL examples. As far as "changing it" - it's possible that Tourney Machine tie-breaker doesn't have the Head to Head worked out unless it's two teams that are Head to Head. |
Anonymous
Read the two posts above. This is asinine. |
Anonymous
Yea, it's weird someone is pissed they didn't get in over a team they lost to? Man BLC parents are delusional. LOL |
Anonymous
|
2035 had the issue of vastly different schedules in terms of difficulty.
The complaint—although it sounds like no one actually complained (like in 2034) and they figured it is what it is—was that a team got into the playoffs from a 3-way tie who played a schedule that had 100% B teams including playing twice a 0-8 team. Other playoff teams also had lighter schedules, allowing them in over ones with more difficult schedules. Whoever made the RPI comment in jest was right on. 
|
Anonymous
10000000%. M&D DC only losses are to the top 4 teams. BLC only played one of those teams. M&D DC beat BLC easily. The complaining is embarrasing. |
Anonymous
| Pretty sure people have a right to complain if the brackets were published as your team is in, you tell your child and they get excited, and then have to tell them they're out. |
Anonymous
| Everyone is just skipping the first rule that says "THIS IS HOW THE TEAMS ARE SEEDED" and then provides a formula that makes the three teams tied. Regardless of the supposed intent of the rule, that is how it is written. You should insult the NGLL for having stupidly written rules, not other people. |
Anonymous
No - you are skipping the bullet right before that that says: “ Tie Breaking Procedures for Playoffs : **Tie breaks in the standings will be decided in order. If #1 does not decide the tie break, then we move on to #2, etc. until the tie break is decided.” The rules are actually written correctly and fairly. They could perhaps be tightened up around the edges and examples added but the intent is very very clear based on the rules. It’s just some people don’t like the outcome based on the rules. It’s not even a question here - the arguments for Legends and BLC are non-sensical. |
Anonymous
|
Clearly some on all sides are feeling defensive.
There is not a head to head comparison if the head to head did not exist. M&D LOST to teams Legends beat (but that doesn’t matter). Legends was within 1 of FLC and M&D lost to FLC by 12. (but that also doesnt matter). You can make your own rules up but until there is a Head/Head between M&D and BLC you can’t use that rule. Hard to argue that a 40 point Goals Allowed difference doesnt demonstrate a team’s overall performance but, oh wait it does matter. Specifically since thats how the rules were written and have been applied! The same thing happened in 2035 - BLC, MD Black and MD DC. BLC LOST to MD DC but MD black didnt play either of them. They threw out number 2 bc they did not all play each other. So they went to GA, which is how BLC ended on top, followed by MD Black and then MD DC. I agree that is unfortunate but that is how the rules are laid out. And why the COMPUTERS took the rules, the scores and spit out brackets that had to be “fixed” when parents didn’t like the outcomes. Either way, teams, and especially 9-10 year old girls are not to blame. NGLL needs to decide on how they want to address so it moving forward doesn’t leave rules open to feelings of wrongdoing. |