By Matt Smith
Sunday, February 13th, 2011 at 1:43 pm in Boys soccer.
Let me preface this posting by saying that I think every team is a fine team and deserves to be in the playoffs. However, I have to give my thoughts, praises and criticisms of the seeding. Please, don’t take it personally if I don’t agree with where a school is seeded.
Let’s start with Division I.
I don’t like how the EBAL teams are playing each other. We want the playoffs to get new matchups, not for teams to play each other again in the first round. I think it would have been very easy to shift the seeding around to avoid these rematches, and I feel like that should be a priority. One commenter on the last post said that the seeding should be blind, and rematches don’t matter, and I would normally agree, but when they are so messed up to begin with, this sticks out like a sore thumb.
The thing about this season, much like seasons in the past, is the discussion about EBAL teams and non-EBAL teams. That is the argument, and for the committee to setup a situation where these teams don’t get/have to play an EBAL team to reach the semifinals is disappointing, because that is the basis for comparison all year long, and now I feel like it takes away from a large portion of the season.
I am not a big fan of putting so much emphasis on league play. Granada is rewarded with a nine seed, despite going 0-6-4 outside of league. Those games matter! Pittsburg beat Granada, and I think that should reflect in the seeding. Meanwhile a team like Monte Vista, who was consistent all year, is now seeded below Granada.
Note to self for future reference: League finish matters a lot.
California really did get a tough draw. De La Salle, Berkeley and Livermore all on their side. But, as Guillermo Rivas said when I talked to him today, you have to beat the best teams to be the best. He’s got the right attitude.
I do feel badly for Arroyo and Antioch, but those last two spots were really a crapshoot, so I can’t say too much about that.
No. 16 Castro Valley at No. 1 California
No. 9 Granada at No. 8 De La Salle
No. 13 Pittsburg at No. 4 Berkeley
No. 12 James Logan at No. 5 Livermore
No. 15 College Park at No. 2 Newark Memorial
No. 10 Monte Vista at No. 7 San Ramon Valley
No. 14 Richmond at No. 3 Deer Valley
No. 11 Mt. Eden at No. 6 Clayton Valley
In Division II, I have some holes to punch in the committee’s theories. So you’re saying that the BSAL should not be rewarded by seeding St. Mary’s, Piedmont and Kennedy-Richmond so low. But then you said Albany at No. 4, nine spots higher than St. Mary’s. Albany lost to both Piedmont and St. Mary’s this year, and did not run away and hide with the league. Either seed the other teams higher, or Albany lower, because there is so much wrong with this that I need to stop talking about it.
The DFAL got rewarded, and very well should, but raise your hand if you have three wins and a tie against Division I playoff teams. Well, Pinole Valley does. Ten is too low for them. Even me predicting them at nine was too low, but I knew the committee wouldn’t seed them higher. Hayward has wins over San Lorenzo, Mt. Eden and Bishop O’Dowd and has to travel. YV may have stumbled a bit at the end, but overall was a very good team and being seeded ninth makes no sense to me.
But, Alhambra and Dougherty Valley now have a chance to back up their high seeds.
Wow. That’s all I have left.
No. 16 Kennedy-Fremont at No. 1 Campolindo
No. 9 Ygnacio Valley at No. 8 Alhambra
No. 13 St. Mary’s at No. 4 Albany
No. 12 Concord at No. 5 Bishop O’Dowd
No. 15 Kennedy-Richmond at No. 2 Acalanes
No. 10 Pinole Valley at No. 7 Dougherty Valley
No. 14 Piedmont at No. 3 San Lorenzo
No. 11 Hayward at No. 6 Dublin