After 10 shooters you start to repeat shooters. You can also use players off the bench as part of your 10 in college. They do not need to have been in the game at all.
Thanks NV - I knew about the bench part - still remember UCSB men switching goalkeepers for penalties in the title match a few years back and losing to Indiana. I did not know about restarting after 10. Any idea why that is? I suppose if you can use bench players it doesn't matter.
Normally, as in FIFA, they are treated as one of the 11 and have to take their turn if it goes that far.
Wash keeper took the 9th shot for the Huskies, as far as I can tell, the Portland keeper did not shoot
Man, am I disappointed that Portland is out. Not only do I believe that they are one of the top 4 teams in the nation, I really wanted to see them in person this year! Bummer.
Losing and being out of the tournament on PKs is tough. Pilots struggled to score against good teams this year...this costs them.
I'm still in shock. I figured if UCLA didn't quite have it this year, Portland was a team I wanted to see in the Final Four. I'm glad to see there are others here at BigSoccer who appreciate Portland even if they're not someone's team. We really have great fans of the women's game here. I admit I'm not always quite so gracious and generous towards all the teams that should be admired for their quality of play - one team in particular. Since I'm a UCLA guy, you're allowed two guesses... But they have a great coach who I really admire... (that's a clue). And not a yelling type either (that's another clue)... And I sure love some of their players when they're on the national team... (that's plural so that's another clue...) But they seem to win just fine without me ( a final clue). Yeah, if I can be generous to USC and their women's soccer team, I really could be as generous to North Carolina and that dratted 3-4-3...
And a fair result (I was there). Hoyas were much better than the Terrapins in the first half. Terrapins came back in the second, but not well enough to get past Georgetown.
Three seeds traveled, three seeds lost to a team on their home field. Screw job, especially for a team like Wake Forest that would have been hosting Washington with a legit shot at making the quarters. Hell of a reward for winning the ACC
Nobody is more stunned than Pilot fans. we were hoping this was the year, and all the pieces seemed in place. but soccer is the cruelest of sports. the best team doesn't always win, especially against rival programs. I have decided I hate shootouts... You just tip your hat to the winner and wish them luck going forward. The Huskies did what they needed to do. Good luck to them in the next round. All we can do now is reload for another try, and watch what is turning out to be a great tournament.
People always hate penalties when they don't advance with them and are indifferent towards them when they do. As was said earlier, soccer can be a cruel game and that is part of the fascination and draw to the game-part of the addiction. Penalties are an integral part of the game and the best way to end and decide a match that HAS to have a team advance (notice I did not say WINNER). What to we want 4 more extra time periods with dead legs chances of injury? Penalties expose all of the skills requisite to soccer, technical skill, nerves, fitness, goalkeeping etc.
I think we can all agree ,that we would rather see a game end in regulation, than from shots being taken from the penalty spot. I do hate to see a game go to penalties.(Hatch, I had to leave and hit the send key) Winning in PK's is as much luck as it is skill. How often do we see a keeper make a great save? How often does the "kicker" take a bad shot? I watched the Big East men's final yesterday, UofL's keeper made one good save and the Providence players took 2 bad kicks, in PK's. UofL wins. Were they the better team? Probably, definitely, but yesterday Providence gave them every thing they wanted. I feel that the better coached team will generally win, even in PK's. JMO
One of the problems about penalties, is that it puts the loss on one persons shoulders usually and it makes no difference what you say to that person to try and make them feel better.
For years it's been set your watch by the fact that a very small handful of teams will make the College Cup final four...it'll be interesting to see that plays out. Anybody see a rough road or tough match-up for any of the brackets? Stanford would be very deserving of a shot at the title if they can make it past conference foe UCLA and then possibly FSU. Look for FSU to have the chance of knocking off the #1. The old Portland bracket should now be called the BC/WVU, odds are which ever one makes it out of the sweet 16, makes the College Cup. UC Irvine is our "Butler" the last mid-major maybe the magic continues and the make the big run, much easier now that Portland is out of the picture. Same with the old Maryland bracket should be the winner of UVA/Ohio St; kind of expect UVA to stroll in. The Hoyas would be a nice surprise. And in the last bracket, isn't it compelling that Notre Dame visits UNC since ND is one of the few teams to have success beating UNC in the tournament. OK ST has slipped through the tournament quietly, maybe they have the ability to sneak attack the winner of the Irish vs. Tarheel show down.
Hoyas Deserved their win over Maryland. I was at the game. Hoyas Had more shots, more shots on goal, and more corner kicks than maryland did. It was a great game and I'm so proud of our girls. Maryland is a great team, but georgetown had more oppurtunities in this game hitting the cross bar several times.
JMO, but the team that wins usually deserves it. If you can't/don't finish your opportunities, then you don't deserve to win.
For almost any sport with a tournament, it is all about "which team showed up today." Coaches and fans have lamented forever that "they just were not their best today," or alternately, "the opposition was just "in the zone" today... I've never seen them play so well." (Or more likely, "the refereeing was so biased today...") The problem with a single elimination format is that a potentially superior team can be eliminated anywhere along the line. Only baseball seems to understand this....with double eliminations at the college level and the professionals going 3 of 5 then 4 of 7 to decide the winner. But then they can do this because the game does not demand the physical output that soccer does, and except for the pitcher, there is no recovery time required. (Hey...how 'bout doubleheaders for college soccer? Test the bench!) Putting it bluntly, I'd bet my money that this year Portland could dominate a series against Washington, or that UCLA or Santa Clara could pick off Stanford every now and then in a series were it played. You just don't want that loss to be in the tournament. So it comes down to coaching. Which coaches are more successful at getting their teams to play to potential for an important, increasingly challenging 6-game run? (John Wooden!) The teams that can consistently get "up" for each successive match and not experience a "down" game where it "just doesn't click" will win the tournaments. Not necessarily the strongest teams in a given year. Such is the nature of tournaments and it gives all of the underdogs hope and makes for excitement. (Who'd want a tournament where the outcome was absolutely assured?) That's why you play the games. Right, Georgetown? Washington?
As an addendum to the above.... Experts have their polls, experts plus math do the RPI (and then "adjust" it some more.) So we "know" who the best team is supposed to be. (Boooring!) Tournaments, then are about bragging rights, excitement, the revenge of the underdog, "upsets", and all that goes into proving the "experts" right or thumbing your nose at their pontifications. Tournaments in this sense are quintessentially American. Rough and tumble, anti-authority. We all may "know" who the best team was, but "National Champion" and bragging rights trump all that and, for the FAN*, are what the interest and excitement of sport is mostly about. Bring it on. *For the participant, in addition to the above, I'm all about noting the fabulous potential for life lessons of discipline, sacrifice, teamwork, work ethic, and winning and losing gracefully (plus fitness) as well.
Yes, well said. This is what the excitement and interest in sports is about. The one defense I'll offer for ratings is this - you need them for tournament selection and seeding. In turn, we look then for validation that the rating system seems reasonable. But upsets are part of the sport. That's a key thing I like about an Albyn Jones type approach - it consciously acknowledges that upsets are part of the game and seeks to find a rational way of incorporating that into the rating system. Hence, the validation is not simply that the favored team beats the underdog, but that a favored team wins X % of the time where there is a Y difference in ratings.