High School Girls soccer 2017

[Unregistered]

Why is the source of this garbage not being disclosed? They deserve massive public shaming.

Wachusett, Sutton, and Nashoba??? Go take a lap for writing this poll. When you get back from the lap, smash all computers and phones in your house and never speak a word to anyone about soccer again.

[Unregistered]

Wachusett, Sutton, and Nashoba??? Go take a lap for writing this poll. When you get back from the lap, smash all computers and phones in your house and never speak a word to anyone about soccer again.

With all the ammo that poll provides and you're going with Nashoba? Good job.

[Unregistered]

With all the ammo that poll provides and you're going with Nashoba? Good job.

3 teams from east bf where they never put up a fight in the state championship. Yup , going with those teams. Plus AW was already ripped by someone else earlier.

[Unregistered]

There will be a few surprises this tournament season. Will be interesting to compare results at the end of the tourney to these polls to see how well they did.

[Unregistered]

Why isn't the source and date of this "poll" identified?

For what it's worth, some of the records are as of 10/10, but others as of 10/12 and others aren't correct regardless of the date.

In other words, before even getting to how dumb this poll is compared to the Walker System that some districts use, it's already worthless.

Interesting read on MIAA site. EMass north and south uses winning percent for seeding. West and central use walker system.

[Unregistered]

Interesting read on MIAA site. EMass north and south uses winning percent for seeding. West and central use walker system.

Been that way for as long as I can remember. And any ties in the Emass seeding process are supposedly broken by a coin flip

[Unregistered]

There will be a few surprises this tournament season. Will be interesting to compare results at the end of the tourney to these polls to see how well they did.

Thank you Captain Obvious!

[Unregistered]

Interesting read on MIAA site. EMass north and south uses winning percent for seeding. West and central use walker system.

Using only win % to seed is an absolute joke.

[Unregistered]

Been that way for as long as I can remember. And any ties in the Emass seeding process are supposedly broken by a coin flip

CMass went to Walker from win % last year.

[Unregistered]

Using only win % to seed is an absolute joke.

See Feehan, Bishop the last 5 tourneys as exhibit A

[Unregistered]

Using only win % to seed is an absolute joke.

I don't think it's an absolute joke.
I think the north and south have to many d1 and d2 teams mixed in the same leagues the walker system would help some and hurt others just because of the league they are in.
In the end does it matter? The best teams will be in the finals. Maybe some good teams will have to play each other in the early rounds but eventually the best teams will face each other.
So I'm not sure why people complain about the seedlings? So what if a weaker team has a higher seed? You shouldnt punish teams for winning. For the most part teams can't control who they play. Some teams are already locked in for 14-16 games in their league. So maybe the coach controls 2-4 games a year. Has any one looked at the standings in some of these leagues? There's a few leagues out there that have a few teams with no wins for maybe 2.

[Unregistered]

I don't think it's an absolute joke.
I think the north and south have to many d1 and d2 teams mixed in the same leagues the walker system would help some and hurt others just because of the league they are in.

In the end does it matter?

The best teams will be in the finals. Maybe some good teams will have to play each other in the early rounds but eventually the best teams will face each other.
So I'm not sure why people complain about the seedlings? So what if a weaker team has a higher seed? You shouldnt punish teams for winning. For the most part teams can't control who they play. Some teams are already locked in for 14-16 games in their league. So maybe the coach controls 2-4 games a year. Has any one looked at the standings in some of these leagues? There's a few leagues out there that have a few teams with no wins for maybe 2.

"You shouldnt punish teams for winning." LOL

What a dumb and dishonest post. You're either an ignorant simpleton or you're a parent of a school that would no longer be the beneficiary of the current seeding system.

Winning % *by itself* is a terrible way to seed, especially when such a simple means already being used by other districts is available. In its formula it rewards (or punishes) each playoff team relative to the others in two ways to modify its winning percentage: (1) their schedule measured by division of opponents, and (2) performance against playoff teams.

It's simple, don't play lower division teams or lose more against playoff teams than another playoff team with the same winning percentage and you won't be seeded lower, but if you do either or both of those things, then the team that plays a stronger schedule based on division of opponents and wins more against playoff teams will be seeded higher.

Sorry to teams rolling through cupcake leagues and scheduling garbage non-league games, but you shouldn't be rewarded for that.

Could the Walker System be improved? Of course. There are probably several sensible ways to make it more complex than just weighing the division of scheduled opponents and performance against teams that qualified for the playoffs, but compared to not doing any of that at all, it seems good enough.

[Unregistered]

"You shouldnt punish teams for winning." LOL

What a dumb and dishonest post. You're either an ignorant simpleton or you're a parent of a school that would no longer be the beneficiary of the current seeding system.

Winning % *by itself* is a terrible way to seed, especially when such a simple means already being used by other districts is available. In its formula it rewards (or punishes) each playoff team relative to the others in two ways to modify its winning percentage: (1) their schedule measured by division of opponents, and (2) performance against playoff teams.

It's simple, don't play lower division teams or lose more against playoff teams than another playoff team with the same winning percentage and you won't be seeded lower, but if you do either or both of those things, then the team that plays a stronger schedule based on division of opponents and wins more against playoff teams will be seeded higher.

Sorry to teams rolling through cupcake leagues and scheduling garbage non-league games, but you shouldn't be rewarded for that.

Could the Walker System be improved? Of course. There are probably several sensible ways to make it more complex than just weighing the division of scheduled opponents and performance against teams that qualified for the playoffs, but compared to not doing any of that at all, it seems good enough.

Would be interesting to see how much of a difference it would make in South sectional.

[Unregistered]

Would be interesting to see how much of a difference it would make in South sectional.

Enough that not doing it is indefensible.

[Unregistered]

"You shouldnt punish teams for winning." LOL

What a dumb and dishonest post. You're either an ignorant simpleton or you're a parent of a school that would no longer be the beneficiary of the current seeding system.

Winning % *by itself* is a terrible way to seed, especially when such a simple means already being used by other districts is available. In its formula it rewards (or punishes) each playoff team relative to the others in two ways to modify its winning percentage: (1) their schedule measured by division of opponents, and (2) performance against playoff teams.

It's simple, don't play lower division teams or lose more against playoff teams than another playoff team with the same winning percentage and you won't be seeded lower, but if you do either or both of those things, then the team that plays a stronger schedule based on division of opponents and wins more against playoff teams will be seeded higher.

Sorry to teams rolling through cupcake leagues and scheduling garbage non-league games, but you shouldn't be rewarded for that.

Could the Walker System be improved? Of course. There are probably several sensible ways to make it more complex than just weighing the division of scheduled opponents and performance against teams that qualified for the playoffs, but compared to not doing any of that at all, it seems good enough.

Fine in theory. However schools can move classes more easily than they move leagues.. Many leagues have a 3 yr "out" clause that makes it difficult to change a schedule from year to year. This has been the case as a couple of NEPSAC schools.