High school girls soccer

[HS Harry]

First, it really isn't an issue of field quality, it is more about the disruption to the academic schedules caused by the need to dismiss student athletes 3-4 hours early because of a MIAA sponsored event. I understand why (and also realize that it really isn't a huge deal) but it underscores an all too typical level of hypocrisy by the MIAA. It is also far more common this year than in the past. Probably just the luck of the seeding draws.

As for the advantage (or disadvantage) of poor field quality? The three D2 teams involved (Dracut, Stoneham and Newburyport) certainly cannot be described as poorer districts. The MIAA should have reasonable standards for the fields that are involved in their tournament - an all rounds. That includes a minimum dimension of 110 by 65 and lights. The lights would allow a more appropriate start times to account for the possibility of OTs and PKs. Sorry if that means that schools without appropriate facilities may have to work out a deal for an alternative (for example Bishop Fenwick for Peabody) or give up the home field advantage.

As for the "earning" of home field advantage... please. The MIAA's decision to utilize an ultra-simple seeding method (WP%) takes away any claim that a team "earned" their high seed. D3 is a perfect example of this, where teams that play ridiculously easy schedules benefit over teams with more reasonable schedules. Or how about the flip of a coin to set the seeds for tied teams?

[Unregistered]

First, it really isn't an issue of field quality, it is more about the disruption to the academic schedules caused by the need to dismiss student athletes 3-4 hours early because of a MIAA sponsored event. I understand why (and also realize that it really isn't a huge deal) but it underscores an all too typical level of hypocrisy by the MIAA. It is also far more common this year than in the past. Probably just the luck of the seeding draws.

As for the advantage (or disadvantage) of poor field quality? The three D2 teams involved (Dracut, Stoneham and Newburyport) certainly cannot be described as poorer districts. The MIAA should have reasonable standards for the fields that are involved in their tournament - an all rounds. That includes a minimum dimension of 110 by 65 and lights. The lights would allow a more appropriate start times to account for the possibility of OTs and PKs. Sorry if that means that schools without appropriate facilities may have to work out a deal for an alternative (for example Bishop Fenwick for Peabody) or give up the home field advantage.

As for the "earning" of home field advantage... please. The MIAA's decision to utilize an ultra-simple seeding method (WP%) takes away any claim that a team "earned" their high seed. D3 is a perfect example of this, where teams that play ridiculously easy schedules benefit over teams with more reasonable schedules. Or how about the flip of a coin to set the seeds for tied teams?

Agree with the post HS Harry, but please don't think that more well off communities have the money for fancy facilities. A lot of small suburban and rural towns get no state money and watch their purse strings very carefully, while privates and bigger towns and cities have more money for such things at their disposal. Our team had to give up some home games this year to play on turf because our field has such poor drainage, and they understand that it is probably better to do that than play in 3 inch deep mud. So I agree, the teams deserve to play on the right size fields and without rocks and mud puddles.

[Unregistered]

How are the Globe Top 20 teams fairing in the tournament?

[Unregistered]

How are the Globe Top 20 teams fairing in the tournament?

I was wondering the same thing. I can't find some of the teams in the MIAA brackets though. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks:

1. Andover – OUT
2. Lexington – D1
3. Central Catholic – OUT
4. Winchester – OUT
5. Lincoln-Sudbury – OUT
6. Bishop Feehan
7. Canton
8. Whitman-Hanson
9. Peabody – D1
10. Medfield – D2
11. Marshfield
12. Brockton
13. Shawsheen –D3
14. Duxbury
15. Oliver Ames
16. East Bridgewater
17. Acton-Boxborough – D1
18. Cardinal Spellman – D2
19. Dartmouth
20. Franklin

[Unregistered]

I was wondering the same thing. I can't find some of the teams in the MIAA brackets though. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks:

1. Andover – OUT
2. Lexington – D1
3. Central Catholic – OUT
4. Winchester – OUT
5. Lincoln-Sudbury – OUT
6. Bishop Feehan
7. Canton
8. Whitman-Hanson
9. Peabody – D1
10. Medfield – D2
11. Marshfield
12. Brockton
13. Shawsheen –D3
14. Duxbury
15. Oliver Ames
16. East Bridgewater
17. Acton-Boxborough – D1
18. Cardinal Spellman – D2
19. Dartmouth
20. Franklin

4 of the top 5 teams got bounced in the first round????!!!!

The Globe and the MIAA selection committee should seriously consider going to an RPI type method of ranking teams.

[Guest]

I was wondering the same thing. I can't find some of the teams in the MIAA brackets though. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks:

1. Andover – OUT
2. Lexington – D1 - plays 17
3. Central Catholic – OUT
4. Winchester – OUT
5. Lincoln-Sudbury – OUT
6. Bishop Feehan - D1 - plays 20
7. Canton - D2S - Scituate or Somerset Berkley
8. Whitman-Hanson - D1 - Plays 19
9. Peabody – D1 - Concord-Carlisle
10. Medfield – D2 -Old Rochester
11. Marshfield - D1 - NDA, Hingham
12. Brockton - OUT
13. Shawsheen –D3 -Georgetown
14. Duxbury - D2 - plays 16
15. Oliver Ames - D1 - Needham
16. East Bridgewater - D2 -plays 14
17. Acton-Boxborough – D1 - plays 2
18. Cardinal Spellman – D2 - Dedham
19. Dartmouth - D1 - plays 8
20. Franklin - D1 - plays 6

[Unregistered]

1. Andover – OUT
2. Lexington – D1 - plays 17
3. Central Catholic – OUT
4. Winchester – OUT
5. Lincoln-Sudbury – OUT
6. Bishop Feehan - D1 - plays 20
7. Canton - D2S - Scituate or Somerset Berkley
8. Whitman-Hanson - D1 - Plays 19
9. Peabody – D1 - Concord-Carlisle
10. Medfield – D2 -Old Rochester
11. Marshfield - D1 - NDA, Hingham
12. Brockton - OUT
13. Shawsheen –D3 -Georgetown
14. Duxbury - D2 - plays 16
15. Oliver Ames - D1 - Needham
16. East Bridgewater - D2 -plays 14
17. Acton-Boxborough – D1 - plays 2
18. Cardinal Spellman – D2 - Dedham
19. Dartmouth - D1 - plays 8
20. Franklin - D1 - plays 6

reinforces that the globe ranking are not very useful pre-tournament as there are very few cross-comparisons for these teams given league/division schedules. also not very useful post-tournament...we can all read the brackets to see winners and semi-finalists.

[Unregistered]

First, it really isn't an issue of field quality, it is more about the disruption to the academic schedules caused by the need to dismiss student athletes 3-4 hours early because of a MIAA sponsored event. I understand why (and also realize that it really isn't a huge deal) but it underscores an all too typical level of hypocrisy by the MIAA. It is also far more common this year than in the past. Probably just the luck of the seeding draws.

As for the advantage (or disadvantage) of poor field quality? The three D2 teams involved (Dracut, Stoneham and Newburyport) certainly cannot be described as poorer districts. The MIAA should have reasonable standards for the fields that are involved in their tournament - an all rounds. That includes a minimum dimension of 110 by 65 and lights. The lights would allow a more appropriate start times to account for the possibility of OTs and PKs. Sorry if that means that schools without appropriate facilities may have to work out a deal for an alternative (for example Bishop Fenwick for Peabody) or give up the home field advantage.

As for the "earning" of home field advantage... please. The MIAA's decision to utilize an ultra-simple seeding method (WP%) takes away any claim that a team "earned" their high seed. D3 is a perfect example of this, where teams that play ridiculously easy schedules benefit over teams with more reasonable schedules. Or how about the flip of a coin to set the seeds for tied teams?

So is it an issue of field quality or not? If its not field quality, why the protracted post on minimum standards and lights, which many school districts cannot afford in this economy regardless of your rather narrow minded view of how tax payer dollars should be spent.

The seeding issue is a totally separate issue. I agree the MIAA should use a more subjective seeding system that factors in strength of schedule. The private schools are able to use that system for NEPSAC playoffs and it is an easy fix that requires no additional funding to an already bloated MIAA administration.

I also think folks on this Forum are far too deferential to you in general. I don’t doubt that you know the game and watch a whole lot more high school soccer than the rest of us, but your track record in picking which teams will succeed is pretty mediocre (actually downright lousy this year) and some of your posts are far more critical of teams and the talent level of the players than is necessary in my opinion. So I am less inclined to give you a pass when you make a comment that I don’t agree with - like taking away home playoff games from schools with fields that don’t meet your exacting standards. However, I am sure your legion of fans on this Forum will come to your defense on this issue as well.

[Guest]

reinforces that the globe ranking are not very useful pre-tournament as there are very few cross-comparisons for these teams given league/division schedules. also not very useful post-tournament...we can all read the brackets to see winners and semi-finalists.

The biggest problem I see with the top 20 is that there's four sections with three divisions. The top 20 is any combo of those three divisions, focusing almost primarily on North and South. It can never be accurate for the whole state. I'm sure it's enjoyed by the most common globe readers- Boston,North and South, which is why it's there in the first place. Much like you can find a top six in most wicked local websites that focus on the few schools in the area, no matter what division.

[Unregistered]

I am not sure why you are attacking HSH for just having an opinion. i think everyone who gives an opinion or insight into anything on this forum is rare, and thats why it is respected. Most people on this thread just use it as an opportunity to bring others down. She just offers up her opinion to discuss, no need to attack.

[Unregistered]

keep an eye out for Chelmsford

They have a good coach. In essence it was her team last year which won the D1 States. Even more apparent now after seeing the new coaches production in year 2. Her inexperience really revealed itself.

[Unregistered]

I was wondering the same thing. I can't find some of the teams in the MIAA brackets though. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks:

1. Andover – OUT
2. Lexington – D1
3. Central Catholic – OUT
4. Winchester – OUT
5. Lincoln-Sudbury – OUT
6. Bishop Feehan
7. Canton
8. Whitman-Hanson
9. Peabody – D1
10. Medfield – D2
11. Marshfield
12. Brockton
13. Shawsheen –D3
14. Duxbury
15. Oliver Ames
16. East Bridgewater
17. Acton-Boxborough – D1
18. Cardinal Spellman – D2
19. Dartmouth
20. Franklin

The last of the top 5 is out! AB2-1Lex. AB 2-0 at half time, Lex scored one late in second half. Handfull of yellow cards, very physical.

[HS Harry]

So is it an issue of field quality or not? If its not field quality, why the protracted post on minimum standards and lights, which many school districts cannot afford in this economy regardless of your rather narrow minded view of how tax payer dollars should be spent.

The seeding issue is a totally separate issue. I agree the MIAA should use a more subjective seeding system that factors in strength of schedule. The private schools are able to use that system for NEPSAC playoffs and it is an easy fix that requires no additional funding to an already bloated MIAA administration.

I also think folks on this Forum are far too deferential to you in general. I don’t doubt that you know the game and watch a whole lot more high school soccer than the rest of us, but your track record in picking which teams will succeed is pretty mediocre (actually downright lousy this year) and some of your posts are far more critical of teams and the talent level of the players than is necessary in my opinion. So I am less inclined to give you a pass when you make a comment that I don’t agree with - like taking away home playoff games from schools with fields that don’t meet your exacting standards. However, I am sure your legion of fans on this Forum will come to your defense on this issue as well.

As someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight, I like to go to Tournament games that feature good hard play, decent officiating, at a site that features a full sized field and at a time that is both reasonably convenient for spectators - and doesn't mandate early dismissal for players. Is that really too much to ask of the MIAA? As for being to critical? I don't think I have ever posted something specifically negative about an individual player. In my assesment of teams and their chances for success in the tourney, I guess it is negative to say that I don't think a team will win and why.

This year I have repeatedly said that there is greater parity than ever before. I have also said that this is in part because the best teams are not as good as in previous years. That is my opinion and you are welcome to your own. No one was picking Chelmsford to beat Lincoln Sudbury and very few would have picked North Andover over Andover. In retrospect the Chelmsford tie with Peabody (albeit aided by poor offiviating) was an indication that they had the ability to deny a quality opponent the win and get it to PKs. I congratulate them and generally think that those types of Cinderella stories are great for the tournament. Will they win the Title? I doubt it but they are one game closer.

Finally, spare me the taxpayer garbage. If a system is unwilling to expend the money to build quality athletic facilities that is certainly their purogative, but that doesn't mean that there should be no standards for tournament sites. That is just common sense. Stoneham and Dracut are unacceptable venues for the tournament. They are small, poorly maintained and unlighted. Again that is my opinion, which is not shared by the MIAA, and probably never will be. Funny though, they do have such standards for the football playoffs (all rounds) and routinely "remove the home field advantage" to guaranty their gate reciepts!!

[Unregistered]

They have a good coach. In essence it was her team last year which won the D1 States. Even more apparent now after seeing the new coaches production in year 2. Her inexperience really revealed itself.

I must respectfully disagree. To prove my point keep watching the years to come !!! I would say that win was luck and if you continue to disrespect the New coach, Be prepared to hear more on the old one

[Unregistered]

The d2 bracket is shaping up to be all about the Midd. Right now there are two Middlesex teams in the semis. No great surprise about Stoneham over Danvers and Arlington really wasn't that big of an underdog to emerge from a weaker part of the bracket. I really like Belmont over Newburyport, although we do have the disadvantage of Belmont travelling early to a poor field up in the 'Port. Put those two teams on a full-sized nuetral turf feld and I think the Marauders win by two, but the home cooking will give the Clippers a chance. Dracut / Gloucester is a pick-em, although I will once again give the advantage to Dracut who is at home (another example of an early game on an awful field). That is three of four QFs being played at 2pm on terrible fields. Shame on the MIAA, the players deserve better. Understand that a 2PM game means that players are dismissed before 11am to account for trainer time, travel and warm-ups. Then you get to place like Stoneham or Dracut and find the facility itself is sub-par.

Belmont gets bounced out.