Quarterfinal Playoffs Raise a Question

[Zamboni_Driver]

I believe that the tournament is designed to get the 9 AQs in to the tournament, and then the 7 top teams outside of the AQs. In that regard, the system does as good a job as it can.
DG

I completely agree! With it's current design, the league and pollsters do an outstanding job putting together a very competitive and exciting national tournament.

However, with a growth in talent level across the MCLA, I believe it will become increasing hard for league to identify the Top 10-16. A "re-design" (i.e. semi-final rule for AQ conferences) may help the pollsters narrowing the pool through a means the teams can control (i.e. win the quarterfinals).

I know some will say - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". However, any good product developer doesn't take their product to #1 in the market and then stop improving it. If they did, they would be overtaken by a competitor.

Again, love the discussion. I don't know if there is even a issue here or a solution, but I do think discussing it ahead of time is better than being taken off guard later on.

[CATLAX MAN]

I do not think that a "semifinal" rule is at all necessary. You have the 9 AQs - actually 8 until the RMLC gets another A team - and the 7 next best non-conference winners as determined by the polling system. THe 7 next best teams are determined by the body of their work during the season, not by one game in the playoffs. Having a rule as you suggest would make in a lot more inequitable.

[univduke21]

Personally I think a Semi-Final or a Quater-Final rule would ruin this league. We have a top heavy league in that we have two conference's for all intents and purposes that dominate this league. To hurt those teams in those leagues because of a semi/quater final rule I think would hurt the development of the game. Take last year for example, granted the RMLC only has semi-finals but still, 3 of the 4 semi-finalist were from one conference, and the fourth lost in the quater finals of the WCLL confernce tournament. Granted it is always good to see new blood in the tournament but at what cost?

A RMLC, WCLL, CCLA, and a SELC team in the semifinals would be great, but not if the 4 best teams are RMLC, RMLC, RMLC, WCLL.

[x1dschm]

IMHO, I like the current system. Life isn't fair and neither is being on the bubble - where a point here or a point there is the difference between dancing and going home early.

If ASU/U of A/UCSB/UMD/oregon/michigan were to lose in the opening round of their conference playoffs it would be shameful to leave them out of the tournament.

Increasing the size of the tourney is not the answer either.

[Theflow]

I

If ASU/U of A/UCSB/UMD/oregon/michigan were to lose in the opening round of their conference playoffs it would be shameful to leave them out of the tournament.

.

Why would it be shameful to keep UMD and UCSB out of the tournament if they lose the first round? UMD has beat lindenwood and Cal Poly, two teams not in the top 13 (they lost to the number 13 Utah). UCSB has beat on team in the top 10 Colorado, and two teams between 15-25, Cal Poly and then Boston College. They were beat by "unranked" chapman and Utah. Both of these teams are already bubble teams, and not winning the first round, why would it be so horrible not to have them go? Have they earned it in front of a number of other teams that will maybe go further in their divisional games? Just becasue they have big names does not mean they should always go to the tournament, certainly if they did not earn it.

[scooter]

because UMD has shown they can hang with the best in the league. I think we have already covered that they lost 2 games they were supposed to by 2 goals combined to BYU and CSU, arguably the 2 best teams in the league.

If UMD were to lose early in conference playoffs, I still think they have earned a spot at Nationals.

[Theflow]

Cal played UCSB to a goal
Lindenwood played CSU to a goal
Chapman played ASU to a goal
Cal Poly played Sonoma to a goal

Teams like Texas A & M beat Colorado by a goal.

Each game, anyone can win. What matters is WHO wins. Playng a good team close does not buy you into the tournament.

[Zamboni_Driver]

While creating the results from this week, I realized something that I didn't noticed before.

The WCLL-A and SELC-A create their playoff rankings based on divisions (which are loosely based on location) and not on a poll of who is better. I checked and sounds like some other leagues do this as well.

Thus I retract my favoring of a "semi-final" rule because now I understand that the top 2 teams in a league can meet in the quarterfinals under such a system.

However, this brings up a bigger question that may have already been discussed previously -

If the individual leagues are reluctant to use a poll to rank their teams for their own playoffs when they share common opponents and see each other play, how is it the MCLA expects pollsters to be able to rank teams who they haven't seen and don't share common opponents and use that as a mechanism for determining seeds in the national tournament?

[Again, I am not bashing the pollsters. I think they do a tremendous job with the infrastructure they are provided. My position is ranking of the top 10-16 will become increasingly difficult, and there needs to be assistance to them that all teams know about ahead of time - similar to the MCLA rule of 3 OOC games. I also admit, I don't have the answer]