Looking forward to the time when at least soccer in these classification go to team seeding across the bracket, 1-16.

These pre-formed brackets are perennially dumb.

Please elaborate on your frustrations as we dust off the book of complaints. I do agree, pre fab is annoying.

I'd be really curious to hear the opinion on seeding from people who have actually done it. I don't like the way it's done now for 3a 4a 5a, but I could easily see seeding being equally frustrating.

We were in 2A for the past two years and I loved the seeding meeting. It was a chance for a coach to make their case for being better than a similar team. It rewards teams that schedule tough opponents.
Now that we are 3A, we are in the predetermined bracket and finished 2nd in our region while being ranked #2 in the state. So we will host the 1st round game and if we advance, will have to be on the road the rest of the playoffs.
If it were seeded 1-16 and we the 2 seed, we would host the first 3 rounds.

It would also give teams outside of the predetermined spots a chance at the playoffs. Look at the AAAAA Region 3. They have Clover, Rock Hill, Northwestern, Nation Ford and Fort Mill. On the boys side a few years ago, they were probably 5 of the top 15 teams in the state but one of them missed the playoffs.

That sums it up.

The idea of the season is to get the best teams in the 16 team bracket according to how well they did.

You don’t get that with a pre determined bracket.

Imagine if you will, a 64 team bracket for NCAA basketball. 16 conferences get four spots each.

Case and point is 4A boys. Last night Berea played at Wren. Berea (maxpreps #7) earned the 3 seed and played at 2 seed Wren (maxpreps #6). Greenville (maxpreps #13) was given an at-large bid and played at South Pointe (maxpreps #23). Maxpreps rankings aren't the end all, but they are a relative indicator in comparing teams. It makes no sense for an at-large team to have an easier match in the playoffs than a team that finished above them in their own region.

I sat in the 2A seeding meeting for several years and I was not a fan. I thought there was too much gray area. For example, a team playing a much weaker schedule than another has a better record (13-2 vs 9-6 or 10-5) gets a better seed because their record is better. Also the buddy system/politics were definitely at play at the table. When I took part the only people at the table that could speak and debate were the “region representatives” unless a coach that was there was asked to speak by one of the said representatives. I was happy to move to the preformed bracket because you knew you had to earn your spot and region play was all that mattered. It was clearly defined and everyone was playing by the same set of rules.

Anything that attempts to bring parity and fairness to a playoff scenario deserves attention and discussion. On the surface, the 1-16/32 seeding scenario appears valid but scratch a little deeper and for me at least, its very problematic. How does this work in reality ? A seeding meeting ? surely not. Defeats the whole purpose. It has to be earned on the field. The only true way to do this is to do away with regions and everyone play everyone. Clearly a logistical impossibility when it comes to travel / cost / time etc. Regions are logistically convenient with legendary rivalries but of course some are naturally stronger than others. Alister alluded too this. Our AAAAA region 3 is traditionally strong top to bottom. NW this year for example took us to OT and a whisker of PK's. They finished 1-7 and us 8-0. Wasn't a one off as we had almost a full starting 11 to pick from. Just a battle tested region. Our at large bid in Fort Mill just knocked a 1 seed in Blythewood ( who they also beat non region in season ) so yes, this system is incredibly harsh on NW for example and can seem unfair but at least it's settled on the pitch as it should be. Look at Greenwood just knocking off Dorman. Seedings go out the window in playoffs anyway with the pressure it brings but of course you need a structure to begin with. Any playoff structure will have its flaws. I do believe that regions are the way to go with perhaps more opportunities for at large bids. I would actually lobby for a few more of these and call them old fashioned wildcards. Even have a structure that gives each 1 seed a bye and then the at large / wildcards can fight it out for a spot in 1st round. Unless I am missing something here, and please correct me, but I can't think of how we could settle on a true seeding top to bottom without having an off the field discussion / debate on seedings; which then flies in the face of why sports are so alluring at playoff time. You don't play on paper as they say and we all love the cinderella story in any sporting bracket. As some have said, strength of non region has to come into play. I have always done chosen tough schedules from day 1. Perhaps the max preps Strength of schedule or some other algorithm comes into play that takes "opinion" out of the equation.

Great question though and a great topic and will yield to any suggestions that improves the current format.

Just a quick piggyback on my own post. Blythewood "won" 1st on a coin toss with Spring Valley for 1 and 2 seed respectively yet our "at large" 4th seed in Fort Mill ( 2-6 region ) beat Blythewood at their place 2-1 who were 7-1 in their region play same as Spring Valley who also lost at home vs our 3 seed Nation Ford 3-1. NW and FM split their contests 1-1 and so NW could realistically have beaten any region IV team "on paper". However, despite being last and 1-7, NW also deserve a wildcard / at large spot IMO and are (for me) potentially / realistically just as competitive than playoff teams who have already advanced past the 1st round but were never given a chance. I certainly wouldn't fancy meeting them in playoffs. So although it might seem that I am fighting against the current status quo and pre fab seedings, I am not. My fight is simply asking for more wildcard bids to give a chance for team to prove themselves non region who could not play them regular season for many many reasons. These 8 teams regions for example after tournaments simply have no / very few games left for non region. Also, extend playoffs so we don't play 5 games in less than 12 days but that is a whole other beast and conversation that I am preparing soon to take on ... nicely of course lol.

The reality is that EVERY team should get into the playoffs and then this is a moot point. Extend the tournament to 3 weeks with 2 games a week. This would help with weather issues in the spring which seems to happen every year. (And the state would make a bunch of extra money on ticket sales.). Then the top 24 teams (in 40 team 5A) would get a first round bye, while the last 16 would play. I am a fan of seeding meetings. Do upper-state and lower-state. It's ridiculous that a team like Clover, that was #1 in the country for a long part of this season, could have to travel for an away game in the 3rd and 4th round due to a pre-fab schedule. Let everyone it, seed like the NCAA, and the team on the top line is home. Like said above, if you beat a better team, you have earned their spot. Happened in NCAA a few years when Charlotte beat a higher seed and then hosted a nationally ranked Akron team because they were higher on the bracket. This would allow a school like Clover, that has earned their national ranking, to host games all the way up to the state final.
Another argument would be to play at a neutral site for the upper/lower state championships. This is what they already do for basketball to be fair. If it works for basketball why not soccer??
And lastly, let everyone in and get rid of regions. Go to regional conferences with teams from different divisions. The school could then pick their conference and we wouldn't have to re-align every 2 years. Why should Lancaster and Spartanburg be in a region (as they were a few years ago) or Rock Hill be in a region with Blythewood/SV and not Northwestern (which also happened a few years ago)?????

Good post Snickle !!

Agree that the current system where the "H" determines the bracket can be improved upon. That is where a state ranking can help break that tie instead. That forces a stronger non region schedule and lends credence to those games. We had a game cancelled this season where we were told the non region game "didn't matter anyway" so thats a flaw. Problem is that I also like to use those games to experiment and get playing time, squad rotation etc. So always some give and take in any decision.

I would love to see them get rid of regions and then seed all the classifications for the tournament. The argument against the doing away with regions is would hurt teams in the rural regions from getting games.
I'm sure Shilo, at Wando, has a strong opinion about the "H". I don't want to speak for him but it seemed like 4 or 5 years in a row he was playing either at Irmo or River Bluff in the Lower state final.

I'm a fan of having a seeding playoff rather than the pre-determined format we currently have. Look at some of the match-ups we've had and will have and it makes no sense:

-Wren/Berea (as someone already posted) was a 1st round match of 2 top 10 4A teams
-RB/Wando play tonight in the 2nd round & they're ranked 3rd & 4th, respectively, in the state.
-Academic Magnet boys & girls, who have been ranked in the top 2 in 3A all season, have to travel for 2nd round games and beyond.

I'm sure there's more anomalies as well. I do like CloverSoccer's idea of adding more wildcards and top seeds getting a bye. I'm definitely on board on joining that battle of extending the playoffs for soccer

When's the last time he had a home lower state game??? Lol his argument is definitely valid

If you want to take it a step further...
When I was in a different state, we had 8 districts. My district had 23 schools. Everyone got into the playoffs. Once teams were seeded, the coach put their name on the board at the location of his/her choice. So, if you were the 3 seed and liked your match-up better with the #1 as opposed to the #2, you could put yourself on that half of the bracket. Ultimate control for the coach, ultimate importance of regular season to get a seed where you get to choose your path.

Cant argue that Shilo has been on the wrong end of the 'H' for sure lately.

Wando v River Bluff 2nd round !!! sheesh.

Having been through pre-bracketed and now open seeding, I must admit that I prefer the seeding method. However, I would like to see more teeth in the process with a clearly spelled out criteria to follow for Class 2A. My thoughts would be to have this in writing for the 2A ADs to approve for the 2019-2020 year.

1. S.C. High School Soccer Coaches Association’s State Rankings via MaxPreps information
2. Region Standings – i.e. one team finished 2nd in their region, the other 3rd in theirs
3. Head-to-Head
4. Strength of Schedule via MaxPreps
5. Common Opponents
6. Overall Record

State rankings
Strength of total schedule
Region
HTH
Overall record
Common opp

The regions are geographic convenience, nothing more. Using region results for much of anything needs to be de-emphasized.

you could pick the top teams from each region and seed them but even them you risk ruling out a fifth place team in a region with a better strength of schedule that a region top four team from elsewhere.

the bottom line here is getting the top 16 teams into the tournament and get them seeded according to their entire body of work for the season. Pre-formed doesn't come close

I can appreciate everything surrounding this topic, but sometimes there are many more underlying issues that none of us are aware of at different schools. What if a school is in an 8 team region? That is 14 games, which does not leave a lot of room for outside commitments. So, the strength of schedule may be lacking when compared to others.
What if a school has funding problems, so they cannot afford to travel? For most of us, the soccer team is not a big revenue generator, no matter how good they are for a season. I may be an anomaly, but I don't have a real problem with the current set-up. This season, it is a favorable scenario, and in the past it has been unfavorable. All you can do is play the team in front of you, no matter the location. If your team is good enough to get to the latter stages of the playoff, then they are good enough to win home or away.

The exact reason that EVERYONE should get in, seed everyone, top seeds get a bye, 2 games a week.
There are always ways to improve a schedule. Pre-season/in-season tournaments and high level non-region opponents. Even if a school has 14 region games, if you play 2 very strong non-region games and 2 strong tournaments you will have a good strength of schedule. It would encourage some great teams to play the best schedule available instead of putting wins on the schedule.
Upper/lower state finals should be at a neutral site. Basketball already does this, why not soccer????

Let me take a moment to apologize publicly to both Blythewood and Spring Valley. My earlier post reading it back could have come across as perhaps a little insensitive when stating our lower region seeds overturned the higher seeds in that region. I saw coach Whiting on Sunday and he is a classy guy so again coach, my apologies .


My dog in this fight is just to tweak the process so that the kids control their own destiny. Shoot, id even take a game of Rock Paper Scissors over the dreaded "H". My game is strong and we'd be hosting

Head to head seems to be the first tiebreaker in any tournament etc. That would be my first way to break the host tie and yes, lets the best teams in the playoffs.

I have been somewhat attracted to the full seeding process over regions the more I think about it.

Coach Heise made good points putting "teeth" into the argument and my AD said that getting the coaches association on board is the way to go and then get AD approval.

Again, we also HAVE to get the playoff schedule extended. The game of Soccer needs just as much rest as Football but I can handle two a week. Sat, Weds, Sat etc. Playoff games go to PK's at this stage frequently and you gotta slog through an additional 30 mins just to get there. Teams in deeper runs are playing ANOTHER whole game or two on top even with how condensed the structure is at this point. Its crazy, its unsafe, its a recipe for disaster, its overtraining and feels like it hasn't been thought through with the kids best interests at heart. Very difficult to prepare your team also for a new opponent, formation, individual matchups. All seems so rushed.

Besides, we always get weather as this point also as the humidity rises and the storms begin to roll in. Nothing built in to make it fair to these kids who have slogged it out for 6 months since preparing for the season when we start back in December.

Perfect weather example:

Our Saturday game was set to kickoff @ 1pm. We officially kicked off @ 3:15pm. Game officially ended at 6:21pm. We both were adamant on getting the game fully played Saturday because there was no way eitehr team can play a game Monday night & turn around and play a Lower State final the next day. Surely, for player safety, the HSL wouldn't mind extending the game a day in case of weather or other circumstances that may prevent a game getting played the originally scheduled date.

And to get back on topic here, there's enough in place that doing seeding over region works.

Regarding a couple of recent posts, I would point out that the boys do control their own situation. Win your region, and you are rewarded with a top seed. I am all for extending the playoffs to only have two games per week, b/c the effort is taxing on the players. Not to mention weather events always rear their ugly heads. Why play a regular season if everyone makes the playoffs? I would prefer we try to change the tournament rules, so they are more showcase events, playing only three games. These events would be true opportunities to step outside of your region to play different teams from other areas. The possibility of playing five games in three days is not appealing, even for deep teams.

Dead on with showcases instead of tournaments.
Why play a regular season if everyone makes the playoffs? Well, how many #1 seeds have lost in the first round to opposing region's #4 in the past 10 years? If the #4 can beat a #1, seems logical that a #5 could beat a 2/3. Teams are sometimes left out because they are geographically in an area with stronger teams. No attempt to insult any #1 that lost this year or in the past. It doesn't hurt anyone to let every team into the playoffs. It adds a half round of games and the top seeds get the bye they earned through the regular season and only have to win 5 games instead of 6 to win a state title.

Submitted via email by another coach, but it raised some good points, so I have included in this thread:

What are you really trying to do?

Run an end of the year tournament where all participants have a fair chance to win?

Run an end of the year tournament based on what teams have accomplished during that season?

Run a tournament to recognize the best teams at that time?

Run an end of the year tournament that HIGHLIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER & OFFERS MAXIMUM EXPOSURE/OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCHOOLS, PLAYERS & FANS

Some of you would say we are trying to do all of these, but how you set up the tournament will most likely favor one over the others.

The reality is collectively we all could probably come up with the 2-6 teams that actually have a legitimate shot to win in a given year AND the 4-10 teams that WILL ACTUALLY win over multiple years. The rest of the teams are just playing for the experience and to possibly be the "Cinderella Team" making it all the way to the Championship!

The discussion thread leads towards "seeding" and notes groups like the NCAA Basketball tournament. It also moves towards "downplaying" Region (league) results noting that they are just "geographical considerations". None of the comments adds all the elements into a "big picture". NCAA is a PROFIT driven tournament. It also utilizes NEUTRAL SITES featuring MULTIPLE GAMES for EXPOSURE and EXCITEMENT. If Regions are just for geography then lets play all games at midpoint neutral sites. NO, then follow the model for many major soccer tournaments and play a HOME & AWAY aggregate format >>>> TRAVEL DOES MATTER! What a difference when I coached at Hilton Head and traveled to Berkeley for a "Region Game" vs. coaching at West Ashley and making that trip!!!!

How does the state tournament actually run?

At this time we basically follow a "model" that is the easiest for the SCHSL to "oversee" BUT do as little as possible to actually run. This model is used for many sports and by MANY states (not just SC). The changes being proposed don't REALLY change that; they only HELP/SUPPORT/PROTECT those "FEW" schools that will probably be the dominant teams no matter what the format may be!!! It insures that the "Cinderella" team will NEVER gain an advantage over the "BETTER" team and in fact, will always have a "DISADVANTAGE" entering "The Tournament".

What can we do? ANY change will come down to convincing the Athletic Directors who in turn would have to convince the SCHSL to make meaningful changes. Why would an Athletic Director at "Last Place" Region Team "Whats-a-mattaU" High School care about protecting the top teams in some other region ???!!!!! In NCAA Basketball that is why there are two "Also Ran" tournaments in addition to the NCAA. That is why in NCAA football we continue to have end of the year "Bowl Games" even if teams are not selected for the championship spots! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO OFFER FOR ALL THE SCHOOLS????

Another "thread" on the forum is highlighting the USL "Academy Tournament". Another attempt to "highlight" (group, take) the best players and send them in one direction. Anybody following the NCAA bribery scandal for NCAA basketball? For me it's all tied together. How does that affect high school soccer? If your goal is not to "highlight" high school soccer then you are merely riding the "down hill slide" to where soccer will no longer be needed in the high school athletic landscape!!! "ELITE CLUB SOCCER" is trying to replace "Club Soccer" .... high school soccer isn't even a variable in their equation for what soccer should be.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO?

Do nothing, leave it alone, don't draw any negative attention to soccer. The athletic directors already see soccer as an "inconvenience" and the sport WITH THE MOST EJECTIONS! (Let's try to explain that to them one more time !!!! )

Run tournament with only Regional Champions. Play home & away in the 1st round. Neutral site "knock-out" after that. (Want to get REALLY crazy ... at the same time run a simple "Challenge Cup" knock out format tournament for anyone else that wants to play in end of season competition and schools will allow them.)

Depending on size of the "classification" ... World Cup format tournament. In 5A ... 32 teams break down to groups of four (4) .... 4 group winners advance into quarters, semis, Final Championship. Spread tournament out over three (3) weeks (2 games per week). Group of four (4) round robin guarantees each team 3 games (great for that year that you can't win it, but want the experience for following season). Play group double headers (OFFICIALS WILL LOVE THIS, they only want to show up if they are getting two (2) paychecks anyhow!). Lower seed does not get to host; 2nd seed hosts 1st round, 3rd seed hosts 2nd round, 1st seed hosts 3rd set of games. NOTE: WE ACTUALLY RAN OUR "SECTIONAL" TOURNAMENT IN MY 1ST COACHING LIFE BEFORE STATE TOURNAMENT WAS IMPLEMENTED AND DICTATED THE FORMAT (LARGER STATE .... MANY, MANY MORE SCHOOLS.)

You play the regions to get all involved, but to make the payoffs you have to go beyond that and play tournament and out of region opponents to prove you deserve to be in the playoffs.

You seen the top 16 upper and lower state and play it off.

Need proof it works? 2A and 1A do it every year.

Addendum from the coach who previously supplied some thoughts on this matter:

Forgot one item in my previous email.

Simplest 1st step and a compromise to changing from Pre-determined slots to seeding:

keep regional allotments
seed 1st place regional finishers in seeded spots #1 - 4 (if
there are four regional winner spots)
then seed all 2nd place finishers #5 - 8, 3rd # 9-12, 4th - wild-card #13 - 16

Keeps integrity of what is already in place, but does allow for some "power" adjustment.

Does probably increase travel.

Almost any seeding criteria/priority will work.