- Mar 28, 2016
- 164
- 18
My DD's team hosted a 7 team tourney this weekend. There was a 3 game round robin followed by a knockout round.
Because of the uneven number of teams, my DD's team had to play a 4th RR courtesy game that would not count against their standings. This game would not count against my DD's team, but would be the 3rd game for their opponents.
Prior to this game we were 3-0 with a great plus/minus. Our opponents were 2-0. The first seed would get a buy for the initial round of playoffs.
For seeding purposes, the first tie-breaker was head-to-head.
The opposing team claimed that if they beat us and went to 3-0, they would get the first seed because they win the head-to-head. Our team claimed that we have already played our 3 RR games and that this was simply a courtesy game to us and that it should not have the head-to-head designation on it.
The tournament director talked (and argued) with both coaches for around 15 minutes before the game. It was decided that the game would count for the head-to-head seeding purposes.
Do you think that this was the correct ruling?
Because of the uneven number of teams, my DD's team had to play a 4th RR courtesy game that would not count against their standings. This game would not count against my DD's team, but would be the 3rd game for their opponents.
Prior to this game we were 3-0 with a great plus/minus. Our opponents were 2-0. The first seed would get a buy for the initial round of playoffs.
For seeding purposes, the first tie-breaker was head-to-head.
The opposing team claimed that if they beat us and went to 3-0, they would get the first seed because they win the head-to-head. Our team claimed that we have already played our 3 RR games and that this was simply a courtesy game to us and that it should not have the head-to-head designation on it.
The tournament director talked (and argued) with both coaches for around 15 minutes before the game. It was decided that the game would count for the head-to-head seeding purposes.
Do you think that this was the correct ruling?