Clarification from Fully Loaded

[Bile]

Couple things:

Pre-tournament seedings
Someone mentioned that you need to take into account which team is traveling with their best roster, a patchwork roster, etc... and not JUST what happened the last time they played in a tournament.
Possible solution? Maybe if you can find 3 members of this community who know teams and can receive HONEST (that part is important) information about each team traveling, you could form a "pre-tournament seeding committee". Same 3 people for every tournament, who's job (would be a fun hobby) is to find out more information about each team attending the tournament.

I think that is a fantastic idea.

To be perfectly honest, I think that worked pretty well for VBKO. Go back and read what he put about iB... pretty much exactly what I sent him. Our defense is as good as anyone's, but we'd only go so far as our top-6 batters could take us. Our top-6 failed, so iB failed. Our defense held up, and I think everyone got a chance to see that our Charger is second to none. I was being perfectly (and brutally) honest when I sent in the info for iB before the tourney.

The problem wasn't the seeding... it's how the seeds were presented to the tournament. Don't publish pre-tournament rankings... don't mention anything about them. If you have four pools, rank the top four, then randomize the rest... or try to make it fair... at the end of the day it's HOW the pools came into being that seems to matter the most, not the actual pools themselves.

I have no complaint with our pool from VBKO. We should have won every game we played. In the future I'd prefer not to see pre-tourney seeds from the organizers, however. I think everyone will put two and two together when they see MB, FL and Panik in different pools... but there's no reason to put a number next to everyone else. That'll probably go a long way toward making the tournament draws appear fair and equitable.

[krabbas]

I guess when you have over half the tournament complaining that their pool was too tough, the tournament must have been a success. We need more women in kickball. You dudes bitch too much.

I'm not bitching about it. And I don't think it our schedule was "too tough"... Just saying that the process for determining the seeding can be improved.

Unless you think that a group of kickball illuminati arbitratily assigning rankings based on their subjective feelings is the best process... which in that case, I guess we will agree to disagree.

Brent,

I'm not trying to start anything but most everyone would have had ViDF ranked over EC based on their knowledge of players on both teams. I've never even seen your team play and I know a few people on it. Not to mention your Wednesday night charger (ANT) for EC was playing with ViDF right?

How would you have ranked all 14 teams before the tournament?

That's exactly my point. No one knew who was on our team. So how could anyone give anything but a subjective ranking of them going in? I used ViDF vs. EC in the earlier comparison but I could just as easily ask why was EC ranked ahead of JFK?

I'm not arguing about where my team was ranked. So it isn't about that... I have repeated it several times during this thread. I'm not complaining about my team's schedule or ranking. All I'm doing is pointing out a flaw in the process that I hope will be addressed in the future.

[krabbas]

Unless you think that a group of kickball illuminati arbitratily assigning rankings based on their subjective feelings is the best process... which in that case, I guess we will agree to disagree.

It's mostly objective, with subjectivity used as a tie-breaker. When you're seeded as one of the bottom seeds and you go 0-4, it's tough to argue that you were seeded inaccurately…unless of course you are using subjectivity as your only measure.

1. I'm not arguing that we were seeded inaccurately. (I feel like I keep typing that)
2. However, with that said, the lower seed you get, theoretically, the tougher schedule you get, which would increase the odds of going 0-4. So, IF I was arguing that my team got a lower seed unfairly (AGAIN, that isn't the point I'm making), than it wouldn't necessarily make it a hard argument.
3. Subjectivity should never be a tie breaker when people are paying and competing for money. If these rankings determine who you play, than it could make the difference between coming out of elimination or drinking beer and watching others play. I just don't think any individuals personal opinions should factor into that decision.

[Trey it Up]

Subjectivity must come into play when teams are attending their first tournament, or if they only attend events occasionally. If you don't want subjectivity to come into play, attend more tournaments.

[JimmyB]

Subjectivity must come into play when teams are attending their first tournament, or if they only attend events occasionally. If you don't want subjectivity to come into play, attend more tournaments.

Man sometimes I wonder if there's more than one person posting with you're account name...

[krabbas]

Subjectivity must come into play when teams are attending their first tournament, or if they only attend events occasionally. If you don't want subjectivity to come into play, attend more tournaments.

[Trey it Up]

Build a resume.

[JimmyB]

Build a resume.

This isn't a job...

[Trey it Up]

Build a resume.

This isn't a job...for most teams

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

Couple things:

Pre-tournament seedings
Someone mentioned that you need to take into account which team is traveling with their best roster, a patchwork roster, etc... and not JUST what happened the last time they played in a tournament.
Possible solution? Maybe if you can find 3 members of this community who know teams and can receive HONEST (that part is important) information about each team traveling, you could form a "pre-tournament seeding committee". Same 3 people for every tournament, who's job (would be a fun hobby) is to find out more information about each team attending the tournament.

I think that is a fantastic idea.

To be perfectly honest, I think that worked pretty well for VBKO. Go back and read what he put about iB... pretty much exactly what I sent him. Our defense is as good as anyone's, but we'd only go so far as our top-6 batters could take us. Our top-6 failed, so iB failed. Our defense held up, and I think everyone got a chance to see that our Charger is second to none. I was being perfectly (and brutally) honest when I sent in the info for iB before the tourney.

The problem wasn't the seeding... it's how the seeds were presented to the tournament. Don't publish pre-tournament rankings... don't mention anything about them. If you have four pools, rank the top four, then randomize the rest... or try to make it fair... at the end of the day it's HOW the pools came into being that seems to matter the most, not the actual pools themselves.I have no complaint with our pool from VBKO. We should have won every game we played. In the future I'd prefer not to see pre-tourney seeds from the organizers, however. I think everyone will put two and two together when they see MB, FL and Panik in different pools... but there's no reason to put a number next to everyone else. That'll probably go a long way toward making the tournament draws appear fair and equitable.

Did anyone see my horn? cause i want to toot it..


I said this last week. When it was presented pool a and pool b. I said dont call them pool. Just Say "we ranked the teams and made schedules, here is your morning schedule."
I knew it would cause someone to bitch.

I think the way they did it was fair. The only other way was to make pools with having 1 pool play the same team twice. And ALL you same people said you DID NOT like that. some of you are ridiculous

[JimmyB]

Build a resume.

This isn't a job...for most teams

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

Unless you think that a group of kickball illuminati arbitratily assigning rankings based on their subjective feelings is the best process... which in that case, I guess we will agree to disagree.

It's mostly objective, with subjectivity used as a tie-breaker. When you're seeded as one of the bottom seeds and you go 0-4, it's tough to argue that you were seeded inaccurately…unless of course you are using subjectivity as your only measure.

1. I'm not arguing that we were seeded inaccurately. (I feel like I keep typing that)
2. However, with that said, the lower seed you get, theoretically, the tougher schedule you get, which would increase the odds of going 0-4. So, IF I was arguing that my team got a lower seed unfairly (AGAIN, that isn't the point I'm making), than it wouldn't necessarily make it a hard argument.
3. Subjectivity should never be a tie breaker when people are paying and competing for money. If these rankings determine who you play, than it could make the difference between coming out of elimination or drinking beer and watching others play. I just don't think any individuals personal opinions should factor into that decision.

1.Then what are you arguing about?

2. Thats how it works! In every god damn sport starting at freakin little league!!! do you get paid to play little league? NO! Do your parents pay lots of money for you to play little league and maybe travel? yes

3.HUH? What are you talking about? You support a company that ranks teams in a tournament based on how they finished in their local league. How are those rankings accurate?

There is no question that some sort of rankings need to be factored in to every tournament before the weekend to determine morning play. Whether it be done by a tournament committee or having each team captain submit there rankings its going to be pretty accurate for the most part. I really dont understand what the problem some of you are having here.This is how tournaments work. And if people dont like and support it i can really care less if they decide not to play. I have no problem with going to tournaments with the same 12-16 teams there everytime that gets how the system works.

And to sum it up. I am shocked that teams that go winless in a day are complaining that their schedule was to tough and seedings were wrong. So you all played 4 games against teams that you should not have played? Are you all out of your freakin mind?

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

Build a resume.

This isn't a job...

If you win you get paid.

.

[Howitzer]

Couple things:

Pre-tournament seedings
Someone mentioned that you need to take into account which team is traveling with their best roster, a patchwork roster, etc... and not JUST what happened the last time they played in a tournament.
Possible solution? Maybe if you can find 3 members of this community who know teams and can receive HONEST (that part is important) information about each team traveling, you could form a "pre-tournament seeding committee". Same 3 people for every tournament, who's job (would be a fun hobby) is to find out more information about each team attending the tournament.

I think that is a fantastic idea.

To be perfectly honest, I think that worked pretty well for VBKO. Go back and read what he put about iB... pretty much exactly what I sent him. Our defense is as good as anyone's, but we'd only go so far as our top-6 batters could take us. Our top-6 failed, so iB failed. Our defense held up, and I think everyone got a chance to see that our Charger is second to none. I was being perfectly (and brutally) honest when I sent in the info for iB before the tourney.

The problem wasn't the seeding... it's how the seeds were presented to the tournament. Don't publish pre-tournament rankings... don't mention anything about them. If you have four pools, rank the top four, then randomize the rest... or try to make it fair... at the end of the day it's HOW the pools came into being that seems to matter the most, not the actual pools themselves.

I have no complaint with our pool from VBKO. We should have won every game we played. In the future I'd prefer not to see pre-tourney seeds from the organizers, however. I think everyone will put two and two together when they see MB, FL and Panik in different pools... but there's no reason to put a number next to everyone else. That'll probably go a long way toward making the tournament draws appear fair and equitable.

I won't agree with second to none, but I will agree that he was talented. I will also say you have a lot of confidence, I'll give you that! You guys are a very good team. Good luck with your next tourney...

[Trey it Up]

I won't agree with second to none, but I will agree that he was talented. I will also say you have a lot of confidence, I'll give you that! You guys are a very good team. Good luck with your next tourney...

Funny how some player's stock improves after their team goes winless against middle tier teams.

[krabbas]

Unless you think that a group of kickball illuminati arbitratily assigning rankings based on their subjective feelings is the best process... which in that case, I guess we will agree to disagree.

It's mostly objective, with subjectivity used as a tie-breaker. When you're seeded as one of the bottom seeds and you go 0-4, it's tough to argue that you were seeded inaccurately…unless of course you are using subjectivity as your only measure.

1. I'm not arguing that we were seeded inaccurately. (I feel like I keep typing that)
2. However, with that said, the lower seed you get, theoretically, the tougher schedule you get, which would increase the odds of going 0-4. So, IF I was arguing that my team got a lower seed unfairly (AGAIN, that isn't the point I'm making), than it wouldn't necessarily make it a hard argument.
3. Subjectivity should never be a tie breaker when people are paying and competing for money. If these rankings determine who you play, than it could make the difference between coming out of elimination or drinking beer and watching others play. I just don't think any individuals personal opinions should factor into that decision.

1.Then what are you arguing about?

2. Thats how it works! In every god damn sport starting at freakin little league!!! do you get paid to play little league? NO! Do your parents pay lots of money for you to play little league and maybe travel? yes

3.HUH? What are you talking about? You support a company that ranks teams in a tournament based on how they finished in their local league. How are those rankings accurate?

There is no question that some sort of rankings need to be factored in to every tournament before the weekend to determine morning play. Whether it be done by a tournament committee or having each team captain submit there rankings its going to be pretty accurate for the most part. I really dont understand what the problem some of you are having here.This is how tournaments work. And if people dont like and support it i can really care less if they decide not to play. I have no problem with going to tournaments with the same 12-16 teams there everytime that gets how the system works.

And to sum it up. I am shocked that teams that go winless in a day are complaining that their schedule was to tough and seedings were wrong. So you all played 4 games against teams that you should not have played? Are you all out of your freakin mind?

1. I'm not arguing anything. This is a discussion... And I'm not complaining about any impact to my team specifically... I'm trying to look at this from a process standpoint and I can see a flaw in subjectively ranking teams all the way down the line, especially when the further down the list of teams you go in a tourney, the less info you're likely to have about a team.
2. You're right, that's how it works in every sport that seeds. So if we're going to make the decision to rank every team prior to the tourney, than WE need to find a consistent and fair way to do that. Or do you think it's best to leave it to the tourney organizers to rank based on who they think or feel is better. (They probably won't all do as good a job as Wilkinson and co. did).
3. Bringing up WAKA is a not relevant. This is about the Circuit.

And finally for the 50th time... I'm not complaining about going winless. I'm not complaining that our schedule was too tough. I'm not even complaining necessarily that the seedings for VBKO were wrong... I'm just pointing out that we really ought to look at this...

Personally, I think the conversation has been a productive one. Some people have thrown out some good ideas. I really liked the idea of ranking the top teams registered for the circuit than doing a random drawing from every team below the top 4 (or however) and the non-registered teams.

[machinegunkelly]

i think one of the main points here is no matter how u do it, people WILL complain....however once the tournament starts every team is equal so pre tourney should be the LAST tie breaker.....and run differnce should be used before runs against

[-APBT-]

If anything need to rank your top 4 teams going in to that tournament,put them at the top of each pool and random draw it from there. Luck of the draw.

This is more of the format that was done in DC last year and one that I think is a better way to let things fall. That being said, you may get a bad pool pull, but when it's in this format it really depends more on how many teams play and where they would be "ranked. So that being said,

Pool A
#1
#8
#9

Pool B
#2
#7
#10

Pool C
#3
#6
#11
#14

Pool D
#4
#5
#12
#13

You get a good mix of higher and lower ranked teams this way, or some similar variation of the distro of teams after #1-#4. The lowest ranked team may end up in the pool A, but if there are more or less teams in the tourney, that can vary as well. Again, I am not complaining, I just want to see the Circuit succeed so I can continue to play against new and talented teams. It's probably safe to think I should I come with a solution and not just a problem though.

[JACKHAMMER]

i think one of the main points here is no matter how u do it, people WILL complain....however once the tournament starts every team is equal so pre tourney should be the LAST tie breaker.....and run differnce should be used before runs against

I never thought I would agree with you but I just said this last night to A. Salt Hammer. Run differential should be #1 for tie breakers not runs against. Encourage the top tier teams to play their starters so they aren't 100% rested in the afternoon. This might give a mid level team a chance for an upset because the top tier will be worn down a little. Just a thought.

[JACKHAMMER]

Correction not #1 because head to head and win loss ratio are more important but you get what I'm sayin

[Edge]

I guess when you have over half the tournament complaining that their pool was too tough, the tournament must have been a success. We need more women in kickball. You dudes bitch too much.

I'm not bitching about it. And I don't think it our schedule was "too tough"... Just saying that the process for determining the seeding can be improved.

Unless you think that a group of kickball illuminati arbitratily assigning rankings based on their subjective feelings is the best process... which in that case, I guess we will agree to disagree.

Brent,

I'm not trying to start anything but most everyone would have had ViDF ranked over EC based on their knowledge of players on both teams. I've never even seen your team play and I know a few people on it. Not to mention your Wednesday night charger (ANT) for EC was playing with ViDF right?

How would you have ranked all 14 teams before the tournament?

That's exactly my point. No one knew who was on our team. So how could anyone give anything but a subjective ranking of them going in? I used ViDF vs. EC in the earlier comparison but I could just as easily ask why was EC ranked ahead of JFK?

I'm not arguing about where my team was ranked. So it isn't about that... I have repeated it several times during this thread. I'm not complaining about my team's schedule or ranking. All I'm doing is pointing out a flaw in the process that I hope will be addressed in the future.

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

[Horses and Genitals]

i think one of the main points here is no matter how u do it, people WILL complain....however once the tournament starts every team is equal so pre tourney should be the LAST tie breaker.....and run differnce should be used before runs against

I never thought I would agree with you but I just said this last night to A. Salt Hammer. Run differential should be #1 for tie breakers not runs against. Encourage the top tier teams to play their starters so they aren't 100% rested in the afternoon. This might give a mid level team a chance for an upset because the top tier will be worn down a little. Just a thought.

I played with OBYF during the South Florida event and everybody raped us. I'm actually surprised nobody called the police to report it. If some team just happened to go balls out and put up 30 on us....I just don't know if that's worth a big reward. One freak blowout against a bottom team could skew everything. I kind of like runs allowed.


EDIT: My concern may be ameliorated (well...I call it a concern but I don't really care that much, this just happens to be the only site that isn't blocked yet at work) by a per-game RD cap.

[wilson]

i think one of the main points here is no matter how u do it, people WILL complain....however once the tournament starts every team is equal so pre tourney should be the LAST tie breaker.....and run differnce should be used before runs against

I never thought I would agree with you but I just said this last night to A. Salt Hammer. Run differential should be #1 for tie breakers not runs against. Encourage the top tier teams to play their starters so they aren't 100% rested in the afternoon. This might give a mid level team a chance for an upset because the top tier will be worn down a little. Just a thought.

I played with OBYF during the South Florida event and everybody raped us. I'm actually surprised nobody called the police to report it. If some team just happened to go balls out and put up 30 on us....I just don't know if that's worth a big reward. One freak blowout against a bottom team could skew everything. I kind of like runs allowed.

that's a good point. if there is one bad team in the tourney that everyone destroys, then the teams coming out of that pool will have an advantage in wild cards and seeding.

[krabbas]

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

Clearly, that's how they did it. Which, I think they did a good job of (again, no complaints with my teams' ranking or schedule). HOWEVER, I gotta believe there is a better way to do it. Because I can see it causing some issues.

Example, where would the Tropics have ranked if they did make the trip?

[JellyDogg]

Personally, I think rankings are an important part of making the schedule, but I agree it's not really fair to match up top v. bottom and middle v. middle. When possible, I think teams should be ranked in 3 or 4 tiers (tiers should equal however many pool games that tournament has), and each team randomly plays 1 team from each tier (or you can weight it so teams don't play other teams from their home division or area). That way, everyone would play a comparable pool schedule, and it would make the re-seeded single elim rankings a lot more accurate.

[krabbas]

Personally, I think rankings are an important part of making the schedule, but I agree it's not really fair to match up top v. bottom and middle v. middle. When possible, I think teams should be ranked in 3 or 4 tiers (tiers should equal however many pool games that tournament has), and each team randomly plays 1 team from each tier (or you can weight it so teams don't play other teams from their home division or area). That way, everyone would play a comparable pool schedule, and it would make the re-seeded single elim rankings a lot more accurate.

JD, your 11,000th post was a quality one. I think this is a very good idea for the tourney organizers to think about.

[Edge]

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

Clearly, that's how they did it. Which, I think they did a good job of (again, no complaints with my teams' ranking or schedule). HOWEVER, I gotta believe there is a better way to do it. Because I can see it causing some issues.

Example, where would the Tropics have ranked if they did make the trip?

I would assume last.

[Pobbie4]

I believe, someone correct me if I am wrong, each tournaments' event manager is able to set up their event in whichever way they think is best.

I think MK said no matter which way the tournament is set up not everyone is going to be happy- I think be can all agree this is true. As I read different posts there are a lot of different formats that people have proposed that seem logical.

There is absolutely no way to make 2 or 3 teams agree on the best format much less 13 or 14, not only for the benefit of teams already participating in The Circuit but also for new teams leading the growth of The Circuit.

[JellyDogg]

.....and run differnce should be used before runs against

I totally agree. Team A beating Team B 11-1 is a better performance than Team C beating Team B 1-0, yet Team C would have the tie-breaker due to the lower RA. Doesn't really make sense.

WAKA used RA to stop encouraging running up the scores in division play. That's not an issue for the Circuit.

[kim dude]

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

Clearly, that's how they did it. Which, I think they did a good job of (again, no complaints with my teams' ranking or schedule). HOWEVER, I gotta believe there is a better way to do it. Because I can see it causing some issues.

Example, where would the Tropics have ranked if they did make the trip?

I would assume last.

I guarantee they would have have been ranked ahead of Skittles

[Edge]

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

Clearly, that's how they did it. Which, I think they did a good job of (again, no complaints with my teams' ranking or schedule). HOWEVER, I gotta believe there is a better way to do it. Because I can see it causing some issues.

Example, where would the Tropics have ranked if they did make the trip?

I would assume last.

I guarantee they would have have been ranked ahead of Skittles

I could see that due to their success in their area.

[JohnPWilks]

Couple things:

Tie-breakers before elimination rounds
At this point, there's been 2 major tournaments where more than one good team shows up, and there have been issues with either who gets in, or where they are placed once they get in. There has to be some amendments to the list of tie-breakers. I am urging the leaders of the circuit to act now, rather than later. Something like this CAN ruin a team's impression of the circuit and cause them not to come back. Regardless of what anyone says about not wanting teams who dont want to improve, if you have team A (use Jellystone Rangers for example) who did actually earn a spot in single elim, but did not get in, that is wrong. And that stands for any level of competitive play.
Solution: Nothing that has ever happened before the games were played that day should EVER count towards a tie-breaker. While pre-tournament rankings are largely based on your accomplishments, everyone should get a clean slate once the first pitch is thrown/rolled.

Not to dig up results of the single elimination seeding of SFKO, but Jellystone definitely did not earn a single elimination berth. Matter of fact I think the reason they didn't is because when it came to head to head, your team beat them which gave you a spot. However, as far as the overall discussion of The Circuit, Seedings, and Tie-Breakers, I get what you and everyone is saying. It needs to be looked at and fixed so that single elimination teams and the tournaments are placed accordingly.

[mtcoup]

No one knew exactly who any team was bringing. I think it was based off gut and how they honestly thought they should be ranked. For example, take BiB. I had no problem with the ranking but if we had Larry probably would have been ranked above ViDF. I may be wrong but assume not having our starting charger did play some type of role in the rankings.

I do agree in the future they probably should just place teams in pools rather than putting out a ranking as some team will always question where they are ranked.

Clearly, that's how they did it. Which, I think they did a good job of (again, no complaints with my teams' ranking or schedule). HOWEVER, I gotta believe there is a better way to do it. Because I can see it causing some issues.

Example, where would the Tropics have ranked if they did make the trip?

I would assume last.

I guarantee they would have have been ranked ahead of Skittles

I could see that due to their success in their area.

You could legitimately rank them anywhere after #8 as no "team" (there may be players on those teams, but no team) ranked 9-14 had any previous circuit experience. With no previous event to base a ranking on, it becomes a complete judgment call for the event manager.

At the end of the day, win your pool play games and you'll find the road easier in single elims.

[JellyDogg]

You could legitimately rank them anywhere after #8 as no "team" (there may be players on those teams, but no team) ranked 9-14 had any previous circuit experience. With no previous event to base a ranking on, it becomes a complete judgment call for the event manager.

At the end of the day, win your pool play games and you'll find the road easier in single elims.

There were a couple other teams in that bottom half with Circuit experience (from 2010), but I think both those teams were ranked right around where they should have been.

[Sleeveless]

Pat is a good charger. He made some good throws at SFKO (but also had a few that got away from him). Unfortunately I didn't see him play at VBKO.

If he can eliminate those, I think he can be a great charger.

I won't agree with second to none, but I will agree that he was talented. I will also say you have a lot of confidence, I'll give you that! You guys are a very good team. Good luck with your next tourney...

Funny how some player's stock improves after their team goes winless against middle tier teams.

[Bloody_knees]

Wow...I just made it all the way through this thread and am shocked. I may be new to the circuit part of kickball but I can't believe what some people are saying. I think the teams were ranked as fairly as possible....and minus PA and FL, most teams were about equal on the playing fields. Any of those games could have gone either way. I also agree that FL is #3 right now. They've proved it in tournaments where some of these other teams, BiB included, have not played in the circuit before as a team.

I obviously didn't play in "pool A" but I felt like our pool and match up was really fair. We had some tough games and your team had to prove themselves to get beyond pool play. It really just sounds like a bunch of whining to me. If you're going to complain about the bracketing etc...come up with a better way. But I feel like teams that have already proven themselves in tournaments should not be penalized for being a better team. As some of the guys have said, it takes time to build a team like MB, PA, and FL. Those teams out there that want to compete for those spots aren't complaining about who they had to play this weekend. The only people that seem to be complaining are ones where their team didn't seem to perform as they were hoping.

PS My opinions do not reflect my teams....these are just my personal reflections...and as Trey said...I felt like a girl needed to chime in.

[dp3]

new teams that we are trying to encourage to come to the Circuit will not see this the same way if they get CRUSHED by PA and FL in their first appearance.

Most "new teams" that join the Circuit will be teams that have been dominating their local leagues and are looking for more competition.

In my WAKA league, most new teams don't last more than a season or two because they sign up, get massacred in every game, deem it "no fun," and quit. This will be much less of a problem on the Circuit, as teams who join aren't just looking for "fun." They're looking for war.

I think you'd be surprised how many teams like Flying V there are in this country. I fully share their sentiments, and many others do as well.

No, the Circuit won't be able to keep the just-for-fun, flip-cup-champion, karaoke-singing light blue team from my WAKA league...but is that what you even want?

I HOPE the organizers are concerned with making it fair and fun. Because if that isn't "what the circuit is about" than it's a business model doomed for failure.

I disagree. You opened a Neiman-Marcus...Don't worry so much when your price point weeds out the Walmart shoppers. You'll quickly find that the large woman in the zebra spandex and her toothless husband in the wife beater are bad for business anyway. Sure the prices are higher, but so is the quality. I don't think you'll ever get 90+ teams for CC like there are for FC/KG, but I also don't think that was ever the Circuit's goal.

[Catch-22]

This actually seems like a pretty easy fix. Most issues people have mentioned from the seedings came about just because there were only two pools. In the future, we should just have more pools. It'll separate out the top four or five teams, and as a result, even out the morning schedule for every team. Done and done.

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

Wow...I just made it all the way through this thread and am shocked. I may be new to the circuit part of kickball but I can't believe what some people are saying. I think the teams were ranked as fairly as possible....and minus PA and FL, most teams were about equal on the playing fields. Any of those games could have gone either way. I also agree that FL is #3 right now. They've proved it in tournaments where some of these other teams, BiB included, have not played in the circuit before as a team.

I obviously didn't play in "pool A" but I felt like our pool and match up was really fair. We had some tough games and your team had to prove themselves to get beyond pool play. It really just sounds like a bunch of whining to me. If you're going to complain about the bracketing etc...come up with a better way. But I feel like teams that have already proven themselves in tournaments should not be penalized for being a better team. As some of the guys have said, it takes time to build a team like MB, PA, and FL. Those teams out there that want to compete for those spots aren't complaining about who they had to play this weekend. The only people that seem to be complaining are ones where their team didn't seem to perform as they were hoping.

PS My opinions do not reflect my teams....these are just my personal reflections...and as Trey said...I felt like a girl needed to chime in.

great post

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

new teams that we are trying to encourage to come to the Circuit will not see this the same way if they get CRUSHED by PA and FL in their first appearance.

Most "new teams" that join the Circuit will be teams that have been dominating their local leagues and are looking for more competition.

In my WAKA league, most new teams don't last more than a season or two because they sign up, get massacred in every game, deem it "no fun," and quit. This will be much less of a problem on the Circuit, as teams who join aren't just looking for "fun." They're looking for war.

I think you'd be surprised how many teams like Flying V there are in this country. I fully share their sentiments, and many others do as well.

No, the Circuit won't be able to keep the just-for-fun, flip-cup-champion, karaoke-singing light blue team from my WAKA league...but is that what you even want?

I HOPE the organizers are concerned with making it fair and fun. Because if that isn't "what the circuit is about" than it's a business model doomed for failure.

I disagree. You opened a Neiman-Marcus...Don't worry so much when your price point weeds out the Walmart shoppers. You'll quickly find that the large woman in the zebra spandex and her toothless husband in the wife beater are bad for business anyway. Sure the prices are higher, but so is the quality. I don't think you'll ever get 90+ teams for CC like there are for FC/KG, but I also don't think that was ever the Circuit's goal.

and another great post!