National playoff draws

[Lambchop]

How is this different than any other team borrowing a player for a tournament? At least this player is within their club. Get over it Lampchop, life is not fair so stop picking on the Blues.

Yes I do have a player in DA. Ok, so according to the poster, this is a showcase, it is not a league game, it is not a tournament, it is not playoffs, it is a showcase to allow the players to be seen by college coaches. If as everyone agrees, that US soccer scouts and college coaches, scout all year, then the ECNL player has already had three or four showcases to be seen. So why take away a players chance, on the team they have been playing on all year, to be seen by college coaches. By the way, I could care less which club it is. Unless they are in the "playoffs" and they want this player to help them win. Which wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[glen_dandy]

Off to a decent start. Each of my U15 predicted pool winners won their first matches (including both Top Hat and Surf in group C).

For U16/17, all teams from Pot 1 defeated the Pot 4 team in their bracket. There were two ties in the Pot 2 vs Pot 3 games, and two instances of Pot 3 teams defeating a Pot 2 team. Among these, Legends lost as a Pot 2 team, and RSC won as a Pot 3 team. So all eight 1 vs 4 games (and half the 2 vs 3 games) went all chalk. We'll see if the Pot 1 teams can keep this up on Tuesday.

 

[Fact]

Yes I do have a player in DA. Ok, so according to the poster, this is a showcase, it is not a league game, it is not a tournament, it is not playoffs, it is a showcase to allow the players to be seen by college coaches. If as everyone agrees, that US soccer scouts and college coaches, scout all year, then the ECNL player has already had three or four showcases to be seen. So why take away a players chance, on the team they have been playing on all year, to be seen by college coaches. By the way, I could care less which club it is. Unless they are in the "playoffs" and they want this player to help them win. Which wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

I hate to break it to you Lambchop but life is not fair. If you do not like this policy go find another club.

 

[Mystery Train]

Yes I do have a player in DA. Ok, so according to the poster, this is a showcase, it is not a league game, it is not a tournament, it is not playoffs, it is a showcase to allow the players to be seen by college coaches. If as everyone agrees, that US soccer scouts and college coaches, scout all year, then the ECNL player has already had three or four showcases to be seen. So why take away a players chance, on the team they have been playing on all year, to be seen by college coaches. By the way, I could care less which club it is. Unless they are in the "playoffs" and they want this player to help them win. Which wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

So I went and took a look at the game reports to check this out and see if this was more widespread than just a couple of players (there were actually 2 Blues ECNL players mentioned by name in this link, but I only saw the one when I posted the question). Turns out that neither of the two Blues players played nor were rostered with Blues for at least the first game.

I decided to hunt around just out of curiosity and see which clubs played their regular line-ups for the showcase and which brought in a bunch of non-rostered players. I only checked out about 4-5 SoCal clubs, and it looked like most of them played their usual regular season DA line-ups with usually just one or two DP players (often youngers or players from their DPL teams).

However, I noticed that LA Premier had 5 girls from their 2000 DA team playing DOWN in the showcase for the 01/02 team. I didn't bother to look up the rules. At first I thought it must be a typo or maybe they are trying out that "bio-banding" thing. But after reading more game reports, I'm assuming this must be ok by the showcase rules, because I also found a 2000 player who played for Surf and one from another club from the east. Ok. But 5?? Half their team were playing down nearly two age groups? What about that 02 DPL team, LA Premier?? If you were short players for the tourney, didn't a few more of those '02 or '01 DPL players earn the right to play? Isn't that how this was supposed to work? If I had a kid who suffered through the DPL sales pitch and stuck through the year and then didn't get a chance to play in the showcase because you brought half your older team down . . . well, I'd be pissed. Then again, maybe USSDA told LAPFC to do this so they didn't get totally embarrassed. After all, with half their 2000 DA roster playing 01/02's, they've been able to keep their goal differential to a respectable -4.

Maybe I'm missing something. It seems like maybe the logic was since there is no "showcase" event for the oldest age group, the powers that be were ok letting some of those players play in front of college coaches by playing down, but that sure seems weird.

 

[Dummy]

So I went and took a look at the game reports to check this out and see if this was more widespread than just a couple of players (there were actually 2 Blues ECNL players mentioned by name in this link, but I only saw the one when I posted the question). Turns out that neither of the two Blues players played nor were rostered with Blues for at least the first game.

I decided to hunt around just out of curiosity and see which clubs played their regular line-ups for the showcase and which brought in a bunch of non-rostered players. I only checked out about 4-5 SoCal clubs, and it looked like most of them played their usual regular season DA line-ups with usually just one or two DP players (often youngers or players from their DPL teams).

However, I noticed that LA Premier had 5 girls from their 2000 DA team playing DOWN in the showcase for the 01/02 team. I didn't bother to look up the rules. At first I thought it must be a typo or maybe they are trying out that "bio-banding" thing. But after reading more game reports, I'm assuming this must be ok by the showcase rules, because I also found a 2000 player who played for Surf and one from another club from the east. Ok. But 5?? Half their team were playing down nearly two age groups? What about that 02 DPL team, LA Premier?? If you were short players for the tourney, didn't a few more of those '02 or '01 DPL players earn the right to play? Isn't that how this was supposed to work? If I had a kid who suffered through the DPL sales pitch and stuck through the year and then didn't get a chance to play in the showcase because you brought half your older team down . . . well, I'd be pissed. Then again, maybe USSDA told LAPFC to do this so they didn't get totally embarrassed. After all, with half their 2000 DA roster playing 01/02's, they've been able to keep their goal differential to a respectable -4.

Maybe I'm missing something. It seems like maybe the logic was since there is no "showcase" event for the oldest age group, the powers that be were ok letting some of those players play in front of college coaches by playing down, but that sure seems weird.

Interesting. I checked the results from their showcase, and LA Premier ‘01 and ‘02 DPL teams appear to have lost players and to have struggled against ordinary competition.

http://home.gotsoccer.com/rankings/team.aspx?TeamID=1214309

http://events.gotsport.com/events/s...206&FieldID=0&applicationID=4691089&action=Go

Maybe the ‘01/‘02 DA team would have had to forfeit without the ‘00s? To be fair, the ‘00s will be merging with the ‘01s very soon.

 

[LadiesMan217]

So I went and took a look at the game reports to check this out and see if this was more widespread than just a couple of players (there were actually 2 Blues ECNL players mentioned by name in this link, but I only saw the one when I posted the question). Turns out that neither of the two Blues players played nor were rostered with Blues for at least the first game.

I decided to hunt around just out of curiosity and see which clubs played their regular line-ups for the showcase and which brought in a bunch of non-rostered players. I only checked out about 4-5 SoCal clubs, and it looked like most of them played their usual regular season DA line-ups with usually just one or two DP players (often youngers or players from their DPL teams).

However, I noticed that LA Premier had 5 girls from their 2000 DA team playing DOWN in the showcase for the 01/02 team. I didn't bother to look up the rules. At first I thought it must be a typo or maybe they are trying out that "bio-banding" thing. But after reading more game reports, I'm assuming this must be ok by the showcase rules, because I also found a 2000 player who played for Surf and one from another club from the east. Ok. But 5?? Half their team were playing down nearly two age groups? What about that 02 DPL team, LA Premier?? If you were short players for the tourney, didn't a few more of those '02 or '01 DPL players earn the right to play? Isn't that how this was supposed to work? If I had a kid who suffered through the DPL sales pitch and stuck through the year and then didn't get a chance to play in the showcase because you brought half your older team down . . . well, I'd be pissed. Then again, maybe USSDA told LAPFC to do this so they didn't get totally embarrassed. After all, with half their 2000 DA roster playing 01/02's, they've been able to keep their goal differential to a respectable -4.

Maybe I'm missing something. It seems like maybe the logic was since there is no "showcase" event for the oldest age group, the powers that be were ok letting some of those players play in front of college coaches by playing down, but that sure seems weird.

This showcase is U16/U17 not 2001/2002.

 

[Mystery Train]

This showcase is U16/U17 not 2001/2002.

Isn't it the same thing? If you were born in 2000, you'd be 18 now, right?

 

[LadiesMan217]

Isn't it the same thing? If you were born in 2000, you'd be 18 now, right?

If born before 6/23/2000 yes. If they were born before that date the team will be disqualified.

 

[Mystery Train]

If born before 6/23/2000 yes. If they were born before that date the team will be disqualified.

Got it. Makes sense.

 

[Soccer43]

disqualified from what? a showcase? that's kind of funny - maybe LAPFC thinks they can just add whatever players are needed to fill a roster. Doesn't sound right to have 2000's playing against '01's and '02's. My understanding is U17 means you were under 17 years old at the beginning of that calender year - thus born in 2001 or 2002.

 

[LadiesMan217]

disqualified from what? a showcase? that's kind of funny - maybe LAPFC thinks they can just add whatever players are needed to fill a roster. Doesn't sound right to have 2000's playing against '01's and '02's. My understanding is U17 means you were under 17 years old at the beginning of that calender year - thus born in 2001 or 2002.

LAPFC was not the only club...

 

[MakeAPlay]

disqualified from what? a showcase? that's kind of funny - maybe LAPFC thinks they can just add whatever players are needed to fill a roster. Doesn't sound right to have 2000's playing against '01's and '02's. My understanding is U17 means you were under 17 years old at the beginning of that calender year - thus born in 2001 or 2002.

It used to be a mixed age group all the time and in college there are 5 or 6 birth years playing together. My rule of thumb was basically who cares what the other guys are doing just focus on your player and it will all work itself out.

 

[casper]

US soccer allowed 00s that will be Seniors in HS next year to play in the showcase event for the 01/02 age group. Multiple teams across the board did this as the 00/01 teams will be merging after this event and it was a way to get some 00s a look from colleges otherwise they wouldn't have been on display. As far as wins and losses go nobody really cares in a showcase, the playoffs that's a different scenario and those teams are intact with just 01s and 02s. So far like the other college DA showcases this one is loaded with college coaches. If you were a DA 01/02 parent you probably already knew this added rule allowing 00s in the showcase part of the event. There is a lot of false speculation on these boards about the DA, clubs, and teams. People complain all the time about diluting the talent and yet the combine age groups helps control that and yet people complain about the combine age groups. Having a very young 02 playing and training with 01s and 00s isn't a negative as long as she is smart it only makes her better. If ECNL and DA are going to coexist allow it to happen and in a few years one may rise above the other or not but complaining about every little thing or making a big deal because this club is all in or this club isn't does nothing. If you are a DA parent and you didn't like DA that's fine but if you are an ECNL parent and you don't like DA that's ridiculous just like if you are a DA parent and don't like ECNL without ever experiencing it you shouldn't have an opinion based on hearsay. I have experienced both and both are good overall, my daughter prefers DA but had she chose ECNL that would have been fine too. For those of you who have younger dd's and have a choice to play either DA or ECNL go to both and get a feel for the coach and the team for yourself and dd.

 

[Simisoccerfan]

A lot of coaches out today at DA. Every single field I saw was packed with coaches.

 

[SocalPapa]

For U16/17, all teams from Pot 1 defeated the Pot 4 team in their bracket. There were two ties in the Pot 2 vs Pot 3 games, and two instances of Pot 3 teams defeating a Pot 2 team. Among these, Legends lost as a Pot 2 team, and RSC won as a Pot 3 team. So all eight 1 vs 4 games (and half the 2 vs 3 games) went all chalk. We'll see if the Pot 1 teams can keep this up on Tuesday.

My U16/17 Predictions are on track too...

A: TopHat (in a surprisingly easy pool for them)...a 2-0 win for TopHat (other 2 teams tied so TopHat with the early lead)
B: Cincinnati (eeks out the big upset)...Cincinnati as the 4th wild card tied #10 seed Breakers; the RPI showed Cincinnati had some strength and they did just enough to have a chance
C: PDA or Real Colorado - pick 'em...PDA and Real Colorado both won, each with a goal differential of 2, pick 'em indeed
D: Penn Fusion...Penn won uneventfully
E: FC Dallas (and this won't be close either)...FC Dallas won 4-2 (tied for most goals in the first round of games)
F: Crossfire (but Solar has a chance at the upset; sadly a TOUGH draw again for poor Legends)...Crossfire and Solar both won. Solar's win was an "upset" as they were the 3rd wildcard and Legends was the 9th overall seed). This result confirms what my RPI showed - Legends had a bad draw despite its higher playoff seeding.
G: Nationals (but Real So Cal might have a good showing)...Nationals and Real So Cal both won. Real So Cal won as the Pot 3 team (beat the #12 seed as a #18 seed). The RPI predicted this "upset" as well.
H: LAFC Slammers (with only Midwest United putting up any sort of a fight)...LAFC won 2-0 and Midwest won 2-1

 

[SocalPapa]

Update on my U15 predictions after the 2nd round of games:

A: Blues (in a slight upset)...Eclipse (6 seed) and Blues (11 seed) have both taken care of business. We'll see if my predicted Blues upset comes to fruition in the 3rd game. Eclipse looking strong though.
B: Quakes (but Albion with a chance at the big upset)...I was slightly overly-enthusiastic about Albion. They weren't strong enough to overcome Quakes in their first game, but they did score a big 2-0 victory over Penn Fusion. Pretty good given that Albion is the #30 overall seed and Penn is the #10 seed (and Penn had beaten the #24 seed 6-1 in their first playoff game). The RPI saw this strength.
C: Top Hat and Surf will tie in points and it will come down to tie breakers...kind of uncanny how close this prediction is playing out so far. Top Hat and Surf have each won each of their first two games by the same exact goal differential. Wednesday should be very exciting.
D: Solar (sorry Legends, this draw is not fair for you)...Solar and Legends each with two wins so far so Legends still has a chance to win the pool here. It would be a very good win if they do.
E: FC Dallas (and it won't be close)...This indeed will not be close. The POT2 team Dallas plays in the 3rd game lost its first two games. FC Dallas has already beaten the tougher (yet lower seeded) teams.
F: PDA wins (as the other 3 teams beat each other up)...My first failed prediction it seems. SC del Sol, as the Pot 3 team upset PDA. Great win for them. Still a chance (albeit a small one) that PDA wins on tie breakers after the 3rd game. (At the same time I noted on another thread: "PDA's U15 team may be a #1 seed in the playoffs, but with a #11 in RPI they are not quite the favorite they appear to be." So the RPI revealed PDA's vulnerability.)
G: Dallas Texans (easily)...not as easy as I predicted as the Texans tied the Slammers in their second game. The Texans (the Pot 2 team) still lead the pool on points and win the pool if they win their third game.
H: Beach all the way...Beach makes me look good by earning two wins. The Pot 2 team Beach plays tomorrow already has a loss. So still on pace to be Beach all the way.

All in all I'm pretty happy with the predictive nature of the RPI so far.

 

[Fact]

A lot of coaches out today at DA. Every single field I saw was packed with coaches.

Still trying too hard.

 

[Fact]

US soccer allowed 00s that will be Seniors in HS next year to play in the showcase event for the 01/02 age group. Multiple teams across the board did this as the 00/01 teams will be merging after this event and it was a way to get some 00s a look from colleges otherwise they wouldn't have been on display. As far as wins and losses go nobody really cares in a showcase, the playoffs that's a different scenario and those teams are intact with just 01s and 02s. So far like the other college DA showcases this one is loaded with college coaches. If you were a DA 01/02 parent you probably already knew this added rule allowing 00s in the showcase part of the event. There is a lot of false speculation on these boards about the DA, clubs, and teams. People complain all the time about diluting the talent and yet the combine age groups helps control that and yet people complain about the combine age groups. Having a very young 02 playing and training with 01s and 00s isn't a negative as long as she is smart it only makes her better. If ECNL and DA are going to coexist allow it to happen and in a few years one may rise above the other or not but complaining about every little thing or making a big deal because this club is all in or this club isn't does nothing. If you are a DA parent and you didn't like DA that's fine but if you are an ECNL parent and you don't like DA that's ridiculous just like if you are a DA parent and don't like ECNL without ever experiencing it you shouldn't have an opinion based on hearsay. I have experienced both and both are good overall, my daughter prefers DA but had she chose ECNL that would have been fine too. For those of you who have younger dd's and have a choice to play either DA or ECNL go to both and get a feel for the coach and the team for yourself and dd.

It's nice to have you chime in. Last I recall your dd was out with a serious injury??? Sounds like she recovered well!

Whether I agree with you or not, you always have something relevant to say that makes me think twice. Come around more often. There are some Pansies on this site that can learn a lot from you.

 

[fotos4u2]

However, I noticed that LA Premier had 5 girls from their 2000 DA team playing DOWN in the showcase for the 01/02 team. I didn't bother to look up the rules. At first I thought it must be a typo or maybe they are trying out that "bio-banding" thing. But after reading more game reports, I'm assuming this must be ok by the showcase rules, because I also found a 2000 player who played for Surf and one from another club from the east. Ok. But 5?? Half their team were playing down nearly two age groups? What about that 02 DPL team, LA Premier?? If you were short players for the tourney, didn't a few more of those '02 or '01 DPL players earn the right to play? Isn't that how this was supposed to work? If I had a kid who suffered through the DPL sales pitch and stuck through the year and then didn't get a chance to play in the showcase because you brought half your older team down . . . well, I'd be pissed. Then again, maybe USSDA told LAPFC to do this so they didn't get totally embarrassed. After all, with half their 2000 DA roster playing 01/02's, they've been able to keep their goal differential to a respectable -4.

There's been rumors going around that the 2001 DA team has lost quite a few players and the 2001 DPL are also rumored to be in Ireland right now so I guess it makes sense that they'd use the 2000s who didn't graduate this year since that will be next season's 2000/2001 DA team.

 

[Simisoccerfan]

There's been rumors going around that the 2001 DA team has lost quite a few players and the 2001 DPL are also rumored to be in Ireland right now so I guess it makes sense that they'd use the 2000s who didn't graduate this year since that will be next season's 2000/2001 DA team.

We both know one player that has switched DA’s from this team.