If I had to have picked an upset this weekend, other than the U17B (where last August I was calling out Lexington as a very, very strong team), it would have been U16B. I couldn't have predicted DSC (and no doubt would have picked Bridge given RIIIPL-East results); but I would have predicted that if an upset were to occur it would have been CESA U16B losing. Why? Because CESA U16B had already won a place at regionals by winning outright the RIIIPL-East title. Given the history of close, competitive play among Bridge, CESA, and DSC at this age group, it wasn't hard to understand how a relatively small factor could tip the scales.
Regardless, I'm a bit confused as to why the strong negative response to the "hot" comment made earlier. When I read it, it seemed to me that the point is simply being made that a one-and-done tournament format when there are closely matched teams may not yield the same result as a 2-out-of-3 (or whatever) format. Seemed to make inherent sense.
With regard to competitiveness, the goal differential for U15-U18 from 2004 through 2006 was as follows: 1.6, 2.4, and 2.0. This year for the first time the average goals against was effectively 0. The only final matches in which the goal differential was 3 or greater was U15B (CESA 3, MPSC 0), U18B (Bridge 3, CESA 0), and U18G (CESA 4, CUFC 0). Interestingly, a single CESA coach accounted for an impressive 7 point swing in the goal differential.
