MO Soccer Blog

Before we start with soccer stuff, on behalf of all the veterans who may read this and who have served, we all thank you for your service. While there are many of our coaches who have served in the military, we would like to acknowledge St. Charles West coach Matt Dwyer who stepped down after this boys season as he gets ready to deploy to the Navy in March for all of 2022. Best wishes, Matt, and thank you for your commitment to our game and our country!

The past few days have led to some real good insight and thoughts from many people who have checked in regarding the Championship Factor and how it has affected and will impact our game. (An interesting take…with larger districts and the difficulty increasing of winning them, how many private schools will actually be affected? In Class 3 and 4 there were only three private school champions total, while class 1 and 2 had six, so not many private schools will have their totals adjusted next year, thus affecting the amount of movement between classes in theory.) While there is still much to figure out with that particular area, we thought we’d take a quick look at the current playoff format.

With the decision to go back to the larger district sizes, fewer districts and no sectional round for any of the classes, there are some new challenges and processes to consider. One of the biggest so far has been the concern of travel. While MSHSAA’s decision to go back to the larger district sizes (Class 3 and 4 each have eight districts of 8 teams; Class 1 and 2 have eight districts of 5-8 teams, depending on location) is certainly more in line with other sports and does make the district championship more “special” (for lack of a better word) due to its increased difficulty, it does create some challenges, particularly in the smaller classes and in the out-state areas.

An excellent example of this was the Class 4, District 6 that Rock Bridge hosted in Columbia. While it featured four mid-MO teams, it also had one STL area school (Timberland) and three from Blue Springs and Independence. This district/region has always been a difficult one for MSHSAA to create, especially with being limited to the 64 schools in Class 4. Two of the Jeff City schools dropped to Class 3, so there weren’t enough teams here to fill out an 8-team district. Blue Springs won the (very competitive) district, but it came with a price. From Blue Springs coach Mike Palermo, “Blue Springs, for the last two years, has had to travel to Columbia, Missouri to play a district game.  We drove to Columbia to play Fort Osage, who is 2 miles down the road (from us) on a Saturday. Then traveled back to Columbia to play Blue Springs South who is in our backyard.  This game didn’t start until 8:15 getting us home at 12:45 on a Monday night.  Then traveled back down Wednesday for a final. We played three games in Columbia this year getting home well after midnight every night and players having to attend school the very next day.  Last year after winning districts we traveled to Jeff City two days later.  This year after repeating as district champs, we happen to be in the even district and are now traveling to Kickapoo Saturday.  This a lot of traveling for high school kids who are expected to travel late nights and be at school the following day.”

One potential fix to this would be to have the higher seed host the first round games (something that many people provided as a solution), but with that are also potential issues that arise. In some cases, schools don’t want (or can’t host) games. Some fields don’t meet MSHSAA standards or are just not acceptable - especially after a long season of wear and tear. This is particularly true in the smaller classes where acceptable fields (and lights) aren’t always a possibility. This could also stretch an already thin official situation. It is certainly much easier for a district host to run a tournament in one location.

There are some other common sense ways around a situation like Blue Springs (and to an extent, Blue Springs South) had to endure. In Class 1, District 4, the 4 (Fatima) and 5 (Calvary Lutheran) seeds played at the Fatima on Monday, although Borgia was the host. This saved both teams an extra trip to Washington and likely could have been done in the Blue Springs situation as long as all the schools were in agreement. The statement in the MSHSAA soccer manual regarding district play states that “district tournaments shall be scheduled in accord with the committee’s best judgment.”

So, this leads to a bigger issue - that of administrators and committee members not communicating or looking out for the best interest of those involved. In that Borgia district, a plan was made to play the 4/5 game at a closer location and with only one game that night (5 team district), it likely worked out for the best. However, when looking at the rest of that scheduled tournament, the winner of the 4/5 game (Fatima) then played the next night at Borgia vs. #1 seed Tolton, a game that Tolton would win in OT. The championship game was then played the following day, where #2 (and host) Borgia upset Tolton. The real question here is why would a district soccer tournament be played out over three days when the state allows eight days to complete? If a committee decided that, it certainly didn’t seem to consider the well-being of the players (in theory, Fatima could have won the semi and had to play three consecutive nights with two of them being on the road) or the challenges/demands of the game. Instead, Tolton, as a 1 seed, was forced to travel  back-to-back nights to Borgia, a nearly two hour trip. Smaller schools don’t have the luxury of many of the bigger schools of having large rosters, or in some cases, even a JV team to help with the physical demands of playing that many games in a  short period. (The three games in one weekend regular tournament idea is another brutal one for players to endure, but that’s for another post.)

These situations weren’t limited to class 1 and 2. Class 3 Cape Notre Dame made three trips to Mehlville (1:45 on a bus) to play in that district, but at least that tournament started on a Saturday and spaced rest/preparation days in between before Thursday’s final. The reality is that the state is spread out for some and not for others and those in certain areas have to deal with extended travel and late nights. That’s just how it is. Those schools in the cities don’t deal with what those “out-state” do on a regular basis as often times 90 minute bus rides (one way) are the norm in mid-MO, SW, NW, etc.

The point to all of this is that while not necessarily the norm, soccer is often not treated appropriately with regards to what’s best for the players and the game by administrators, and occasionally by even the coaches. The reasons/causes are numerous. Poor communication, for one. (How many coaches had input or knowledge of their district tournament set up? If the answer is more than one, then there is a problem.)

Little or no understanding of the game’s demands and nuances by those with little experience, or in some cases, a lack of interest in the game also play a part. Playing 80 minutes of soccer is much different than 32 minutes of basketball, for example. Football doesn’t play more than one game in a week due to rest, recovery and preparation. To say that soccer players and coaches couldn’t benefit from those same kind of guidelines wouldn’t be accurate, especially if the goal is to have the best play at the end of the year, and not games decided by attrition.

One can look at the Class 4, District 3 tournament that SLUH hosted. It started on the first Saturday and ended on the final Saturday. Eight days to play three matches - all at a very high level. There is little doubt that John Burroughs benefitted from having a period of preparation and rest after upsetting Chaminade on Wednesday and then taking on SLUH Saturday. Regardless of who won that match, there is little doubt that the players from both teams were able to perform at a higher level than if they played the final on Thursday. Now that there is an entire week between districts and quarterfinals (and another six days after that until the finals), there is more time built in to play and likely should be explored at the next advisory board meeting, along with emphasizing to all coaches that a committee should decide what’s best for the games - and if that means Blue Springs and BSS play a final in Blue Springs instead of making a trip to Columbia, then that should be explored, as well.

Not every situation can be neatly fixed, but understanding the game’s demands and putting athletes in the best situations to succeed should not be the top priority. In truth, the finals weekend would be better served by semifinals on Thursday night, 3rd place matches (if at all ) on Friday and Finals on Saturday. Giving the players a rest day, while also giving the coaches a day to prepare for the biggest match of the year would make for a better championship environment and experience for everyone involved. This obviously comes with cost and logistics issues (hotels and time out of school) that could be looked at later, but if just looking at a more ideal scenario, this certainly serves the game and players better than the current model of playing the two biggest matches of the year in less than 24 hours.

A smaller, but still telling example, is the fact that many districts struggle with selecting or even having all district teams. A simple fix that needs to be done by the committee prior to the district even starting, but rarely is unless a coach is willing to spearhead it (and that’s not usually the case). It’s fine if the coaches don’t want to honor/have an all district team (all region and all state are decided by the coaches association), and as long as that is what is decided prior, then there are no issues. The problems occur when these things aren’t addressed by district hosts/committees and then attempted to be fixed after the district ends. Again, this isn’t always the case, but there have been several examples already this year of coaches and AD’s having problems with either selection or having one at all and ultimately it’s the athlete who is affected.

The bottom line is that administrators and coaches need to be the front line for advocating soccer and when those things don’t happen, for whatever the reason, the game suffers. It’s the hope of communications such as these that high school soccer in MO will continue to improve.

We are just a few short days from quarterfinal play - a huge Saturday ahead that at least looks mostly dry (and cool) for games. Tomorrow we will focus on those games and look into a little bit of how the games may unfold.

Comments (0)     

As expected, yesterday’s post regarding MSHSAA’s “Championship Factor” (apologies for using the incorrect term yesterday) elicited several strong responses and, as always when having good discussion, more questions regarding postseason play and private vs. public schools. This has always been a volatile topic and the hope here is that some perspective is provided as we seek to inform the soccer community into a better understanding (not necessarily agreement) of some of the challenges our sport faces.

First, some clarification. The term “recruiting” was used yesterday with regards to the perception by some (hence the use of quotation marks around the word) that private schools have better results because they are able to recruit better players, etc. (The actual line: “ What’s ‘fair' with regards to competition isn’t always just argument of private schools ‘recruiting’ to win in sports.”) In no way was that meant to be an insinuation that all (or any) private schools recruit and therefore that’s the only way they win. However, it IS a common argument often heard in the private vs. public school matter from those looking to explain WHY private schools tend to have better results - especially in soccer (as yesterday’s numbers would indicate). More than anything the “recruiting” line was used to dissuade that notion and certainly not meant as an insult to the private schools who often get targeted as “recruiters” instead of the more realistic scenario - private schools often have very good coaches who remain at that school (always a key factor in any school’s success) and are located in areas where club (off-season) development is better than others. Additionally, playing off season (club) soccer has unfortunately become an expensive proposition in America, which has impacted our game on many levels, and often benefits those who are better equipped to pay for schooling, training, etc.

Many of the top private schools have coaches who have been at their respective schools for many years. CBC’s Terry Michler, Chaminade’s Mike Gauvain and John Burroughs’ Alan Trzecki come to mind as coaches who have managed continued success and are arguably some of the best coaches in the country, let alone state. In fact, speaking with them is a true lesson in humility, knowledge and class. Before that, long-time coaching legends Vince Drake, Ebbie Dunn, Greg Vitello, Chris Lawson and others stayed successful by staying put and providing positives to the game. Coach Michler has likely forgot more about soccer than most will ever know and he likely said it best (paraphrased here) when it comes to the comparison of any soccer programs - whether private vs. public, small vs. large, city vs. out-state, etc: “Everyone has issues to deal with. No school is exempt from that. They may be different issues, but to each situation, there are going to be challenges. How you deal with them is what matters.”

So, when dealing with the real issue at hand and the topic of yesterday - what IS the “fairest” way to make a state playoff? MSHSAA’s Championship Factor is its latest attempt and one made with the intent of leveling the private vs. public field as best it can (much like what it did in 2002 with the 1.35 multiplier). These factors placed upon private schools came from the MSHSAA membership - not from the people of MSHSAA intent on “punishing” schools for having success, even though to some, it may feel like being successful means punishment. The Championship Factor (CF) was actually steered by administrators from private schools. The point of yesterday was to explain this latest impact on our game and one that likely won’t be able to be understood for a few years.

One interesting tidbit (and playoff stat of the day) to keep in mind with the competitive factor of the classes this year. In each of class 1-3 there were seven (by rankings) upsets. In Class 4 alone, there were 17. Only 9 of the 32 playoff teams repeated from 2020 which would lend some strength to the argument that the CF allowed different/more schools a chance to advance, but that’s likely too early to tell…just some things to consider.

One of the biggest takes so far from comments received (and even prior to all of these posts) is the question of why public schools aren’t subjected to the same formula as private schools. Simply put, the CF is an attempt to balance out the main difference between public and private school enrollment opportunities. Basically, public schools have enrollment boundaries and students attending come from within those boundaries. Private schools often encapsulate several school districts (especially if located in the bigger cities, which most in MO are) within that school’s allowed radius (something else that MSHSAA has done over the years - dropping the radius size from which students can attend a private school).

For example (and this is just to help illustrate a possible scenario and not meant as an arguing point directed at anyone)…Essentially, a student living in public school District X in St. Louis has multiple options to attend (if willing to pay, meet entrance requirements, etc.) several other private schools within a certain radius. Thus, the advantage, in theory, goes to a private school. Billy is a good player and wants to play with his club mates but Billy lives in District X. Private school Y has an an outstanding tradition of producing high level players who then have better opportunities to play after high school or maybe just have a more challenging academic program and Billy wants to go to the Ivy League. Several of Billy’s friends are going to play at School Y and want Billy to go there, too. Billy leaves School X to go to Y. School X coach is upset because he has lost a quality player. Coach Y had nothing to do with the “recruiting” but has gained another top level player because Billy can afford to pay to attend the school and is willing to drive 25 minutes across the city (and likely right past school X) for that experience to play with his buddies or focus on a specific educational path or belief. This is a main difference in private and public. Tommy at public school Z can’t decide to go school X, because he is bound by the school lines and still be eligible to play without meeting certain requirements set by MSHSAA. There have been more than a few state champion athletes who played in MO but resided in other states - in many sports, not just soccer, and they all likely went to private schools seeing that no public school boundaries are outside the state.

So, the argument of putting the CF on all schools (not just private) doesn’t help the perception that public and private are in the same boat. Most states have some form of “leveling” in order to make the two groups as even as possible. Virginia has separate state tournaments (one for private, one for public), for example (something no one really wants here, at least for the health of our state athletics). Illinois uses a CF similar to what we do. This isn’t just a MO issue and both the multiplier and CF (and even, to some extent the creation of a fourth class for soccer when the numbers didn’t support it) were designed to make the postseason as “fair” as it could possibly be, with regards to enrollments and now, the success of the programs historically.

One other factor that many forget or don’t realize when it comes to the state playoffs is that the MSHSAA system is not designed to have the “best” teams reach the playoffs, or even the final four. It’s not set up to be the English Premier League. MSHSAA’s goal is to have regional representation based on the number of schools within those regions. More schools in STL likely means more STL teams , but in almost every year there will be schools from KC, SW/Central, SE, NW who reach the playoffs. It goes without saying that many times the two best teams in the state (rankings, MPR, etc.) often play in a district final because the best soccer comes from that particular area. Westminster and Whitfield had that happen this year. The cries come out every year to “seed the region and make the best tournament possible.” That’s one way of looking at it and would certainly be fun in the same sense of how most of our pro and college sports are run, but logistically (and philosophically, from MSHSAA’s standpoint), it is not likely to happen. Even “relegating and promoting” teams within the classes based on past success or "unsuccess" (how is that decided, for example?) is a tricky subject to handle and doesn’t fit in with MSHSAA’s philosophy, whether one agrees with it or not.

Logistically, the issue comes with travel, especially in the smaller classes. Using the MPR from this year and just looking quickly at Class 1, Brentwood (5 seed) would have to travel to Maryville (4 seed) for a quarterfinal - over 5 hours away. Fair Grove (6) would travel to Festus to play St. Pius (3), which is almost 3 1/2 hours. In Class 2, Perryville would host Harrisonville - 5 hours (at least) by bus. Even class 4 would have Jackson going 4+ hours to play Kickapoo. None of these are good situations for those teams and fans having to travel. There are still going to be some extended bus trips (again, particularly in the smaller classes) this weekend, but keeping the quarterfinals as is based on geography eases some of those issues and more importantly (to MSHSAA, anyway) brings teams from different geographic regions into the final four.

Playing quarterfinals at neutral sites could be a possibility (and done in the past), but one of the things MSHSAA has found (based on conversations held during the annual Soccer Advisory Board meetings) is that it’s better to have host schools for playoffs. They are better attended (at least for one school) and tend to do better financially. Also, finding neutral sites has long been an issue - MSHSAA has often struggled (and basically had to beg at times) to find places willing to host, especially if the school is no longer alive in the playoffs. MSHSAA several years ago went to having the host school coming from whatever district number based on the year. (This year’s host schools are the odd numbered districts because 2021 is an odd number. It goes to even numbered next year.) Most coaches on the advisory board over the years have heard this discussion and most lean toward school’s hosting - no neutral sites until the final four. (While we are at it, the finals selection site is up for bid every few years and has been played outside of STL Soccer Park before, BUT the overwhelming choice by coaches, in particular, is to play the finals at Soccer Park due to its facilities, history and environment. Other places have bid before, but have not been able to provide what Soccer Park has offered and hopefully will continue to offer.)

**NOTE: the Soccer Advisory Board meetings at MSHSAA in early December often discuss the current issues the sport faces and in theory, every coach has an opportunity to bring anything up to the committee for discussion/implementation. Coaches are chosen to represent each region and vote for changes based on how their region would choose. In theory this is great practice, but there are flaws. 1) There are often not a good balance of small/large, public/private coaches on the board at any one time and 2) many coaches either don’t participate with their region rep OR even get the information to participate.**

While the discussion on the state of the playoffs could likely continue (with valid and interesting points from all sides), we are left with what we have for now. An imperfect system because of exactly what Coach Michler said above - we have so many school environments that differ greatly across the state. 224 boys programs all with their own problems, advantages, strengths and weaknesses. Finding that perfect system for everyone isn’t likely going to happen, but gaining some perspective on it can help the people who care for it continue to strive to make it as best as it can in the future.

Coming up…a breakdown of Quarterfinal Saturday.

Comments (3)     

November 9 - The Success Factor and a little background of the state playoff system

In yesterday’s post, we used the phrase, “Two years after incorporating a Success Factor aimed at leveling private school dominance,” which arguably could have been worded a little differently with regards to the intent of the post. In any case, that phrase and a reader’s comment regarding that portion of the blog has led to today’s topic - the Success Factor.

MSHSAA started utilizing  the new procedure for classifying schools in 2020 in all sports, after using a standard 1.35 multiplier to all private and charter schools since 2002. Basically, sport success factors into classification rather than just enrollment, which then affects each individual sport within a private school, rather than a blanket enrollment over the entire school. Basically, a school with a strong soccer program will have its classification pushed up, while the same school’s basketball program that hasn’t had the same success won’t be affected. Private schools are judged on a points system over the previous six years and then classified accordingly. For more on the specifics, you can look here:
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/high-school/mshsaa-members-vote-out-private-school-multiplier-in-exchange-for-postseason-success-factor/article_fc2bd80c-946e-11e9-a649-2fc3f75282fc.html.

An anonymous reader commented, “‘Two years after incorporating a Success Factor aimed at leveling private school dominance….' is an assertion that needs fact-checked. Inquire with MSHSAA in regards to the total number of championships (all sports) non-public versus public. To date, one will find that approximately 70% of championships come from public schools.”

While this statement is assumedly true (we didn’t analyze all of the other sports state champions for transparency sake), it is misleading with regards to soccer - which is obviously where our focus lies in this blog. In dealing with soccer (and not all sports), one would find that a much higher percentage of state championships come from the private schools, especially with regards to the percentage of private schools vs. public schools who are participating. Looking at boys soccer only (girls is similar, but we'll use Boys Soccer stats for this purpose), there have been 116 state champions crowned in MO history and 20 of them have been public schools despite nearly 80% of schools participating being public. That's a 17% public championship clip which has only been boosted by the addition of a 4th class seven years ago. (From 1968- 2014, only 9% of state champions were from public schools.) Since then 12 of the 28 champions have been public - a much better rate (43%), but still not in line with the other sports. With the 2020 implementation of the Success Factor 3/4 of the 2020 champions were public, which does line up with the MSHSAA stats referenced above, albeit in a small sample size. We will truly have to wait to see how this changes anything over the course of the next few years, but this year’s nine private schools in the final 32 certainly are fewer than last year’s 12 out of 32. For reference sake, in 2019, the last year of the 1.35 multiplier, there were 15 private schools left in the final 32, with 12 of them in Class 1 and 2. Essentially what the new Success Factor is intended to do is push more of the successful private schools up a class or two each year until their success is, in theory, diminished by having to play larger schools and push other schools without success down. John Burroughs’ run this year marks the first example of a school dealing with a a two-class jump (the most allowed) and having success despite the higher level of competition. Guadalupe, the Class 2 championship team in 2019, also advanced in Class 3 this year.

A look at the state championship format over the years also supports our statement from yesterday. The first MSHSAA state soccer championship took place in the 1968-69 school year and was essentially just a local STL tournament because that’s where the schools were located that had soccer. (Several of the early championships were actually played in the winter as MSHSAA had designated the soccer season to run during the winter months…yikes.) For 16 years there was only one class and one champion (except the 1977 co-championship year that ended in a 2-2 draw between St. Thomas Aquinas and Bishop DuBourg) and 13 of the 17 (77%) champs were from the private school ranks - all in STL. The first non-STL to even reach the final four was the 1984 Smith-Cotton squad that finished 4th.

In 1985 a second class was added and that would stay the format for 17 years and 35 more champions (1991 saw another co-champ in the large class). 30 of the 35 (86%) champs were private schools, with 34 from the STL area. Doug McLagan’s1996 Blue Springs squad was the first “out-state” (non-STL) team to win a title when it upset CBC 1-0 in the finals. During that 17 year window, schools from the other portions of the state began to make appearance in the final four. Smithton went back-to-back to the final four in 1985-86 (no 3rd place games were played then) and the mid-MO area had its first participant in 1987 when Rock Bridge made it as a small school. The Springfield area broke into the scene when Glendale’s 1991 team advanced, finishing 4th.

The 1.35 multiple came into play in 2002, which also coincided with a third class being added to boys soccer with the recent surge of new program being added to the mix. The three class system lasted 12 years and produced 36 champions - EVERY ONE a private school. Rockhurst won four titles from that period, Cape Notre Dame three, Springfield Catholic two and Pembroke Hill one, with the rest all coming from STL.

In 2014 a fourth class was added, despite not reaching the established number of programs needed in MSHSAA’s by-laws. A petition was circulated and got enough signatures to be added to the ballot and officially voted in for the 2014 season by membership schools. The main push behind it was from (now sized) Class 3 teams who had been classified with the bigger schools and didn’t think playing against the larger private schools (in particular) was "fair." The fourth class has certainly increased these schools chances of winning titles. In fact, all seven state champs in Class 3 since the 4th class was added have been public schools from essentially the same geographic area. The quarterfinal match Saturday between Ft. Zumwalt South and Rockwood Summit features the last three Class 3 champs and could possibly lead to a fourth this year. Webster Groves (2) and Parkway Central also have class 3 titles in that period - all four schools are located within close distance to each other.

The fourth class did allow for some new programs to make final four (and championship game) appearances, but did little to break up the private school dominance in the smaller classes. Twelve of the last 14 (86%) class 1 and 2 champs have been private schools, despite making up only about 30% of those classes. Only one Class 2 public school program has won a title (Perryville ’14) and only one Class 1 team (Southern Boone ’20). SBC dropped into class 1 (likely for just a year) due to the new Success Factor having a greater impact in the beginning of its implementation, but are now back with Perryville in Class 2. Perryville is hoping to add a second title this year as the overall #2 MPR team.

As mentioned, the Success Factor will likely need to be in place a few years before any kind of analysis can be done on the impact of it and it will be interesting to see if the current six-year scoring method will be kept. Several concerns have already been voiced from throughout the state that six years is too long and “punishes” (for lack of better word) kids who would have been in elementary school when the school was having success. A recent example of Sedalia Sacred Heart (enrollment 62) playing up in Class 3 last year due to a run of success in Class 1 a few years back. The Gremlins dropped to Class 2 this year and didn’t advance in the playoffs either year. Others have wondered as to why public schools aren’t included in this formula, as well.

MSHSAA is in a tough spot here because classifications need to be done (they are now done yearly, as opposed to the past when it was a two-year cycle) and looking at each sport’s success within a school truly isn’t feasible. The private vs. public debate has long raged on not only in MO, but in most other states. What’s “fair” with regards to competition isn’t always just a simple argument of private schools “recruiting” to win in sports. The fact of the matter is that there are certain sports where private schools have had more success than publics (soccer is certainly in that category, along with some of the “country club” sports - tennis and golf, for example). Most likely that success comes more from the surrounding areas of the school. Athletes in STL, KC or Springfield, for example, have a much bigger environment to play competitively than what the out-state schools do. More/better club training and competition, plus a rich history in STL (easily one of the top cities in the country with regards to soccer history and environment) provide a different playing level than what athletes farther away from those areas do. It’s also a bit of a numbers game - 224 boys programs competed this year, with well over half of those schools located in a fair proximity to STL or KC that have ample training opportunities, better facilities and stronger competition year round.

In any case, the 2021 version of the state playoffs will certainly provide more examples and data that will likely impact the playoff system in the years ahead. The Success Factor is more than likely a flawed system in some aspects and beneficial in others. Truly finding a way to provide a “fair” playing field in MO soccer will certainly be at the topic of future debate.

Comments (6)     

Playoffs - Week 1 Update (11-8)

Only two matches since our last update, but both deserve a great amount of attention as the first week of the postseason ended with a bang.

We’ll start in St. Louis with the Class 4 District 3, where #3 seed John Burroughs (21) pulled off the biggest Missouri Power Rankings (MPR) upset of the entire tournament (so far) with a 1-0 decision over #1 SLUH (2 overall) on Saturday on the Jr. Bills home field. The result (SLUH’s MPR total of +1.03 was the biggest difference of all 39 MPR upsets) capped an incredible week for the Bombers, a perennial MO state power in the lower classes but moved up to the new Success Factor. JB opened the week by taking out #6 Pattonville and then stunned #2 Chaminade (3 overall) 1-0 in the semifinals. Winning one against a Metro Catholic Conference school in a week is notable, but to topple two in the same district speaks volumes of the program Coach Alana Trzecki has built. SLUH had also been ranked national (#29 Max Preps) and was considered a serious challenger for this year’s title after an outstanding regular season. The Bombers, with an enrollment of 333 (boys and girls) not only competed with the bigger enrollments of SLUH (1482 when adjusted to account for an all boys school), Chaminade (824, same as SLUH with regards to being all boys) and Pattonville (1438), but managed to advance from one of the most competitive and challenging districts in the state at any class. Last season, its first in Class 4 after the Success Factor, the Bombers were eliminated as the #1 seed in the first round of districts by #4 Kirkwood. 2020 was the first time JB hadn’t qualified for the playoffs since 2010, but all of those were in the smaller classes. The Bombers have won four state titles since 2008, but a 2021 Class 4 title would certainly be at the top of that list should they pull it off.

Friday’s lone game also had major historical significance as the state’s current longest postseason streak was snapped at 11 years when #3 Christian (27) used a long distance OT strike to take out #1 Southern Boone (12) 1-0 in Class 2, District 4 at Winfield. Christian is the lowest ranked MPR team in any class remaining and its win comes on the heels of eliminating #2 Fulton in penalties Wednesday. Southern Boone (+.560 in MPR), up to class 2 after winning the state title in Class 1 in 2020 with 15 seniors, failed to advance for the first time since losing a district final in 2009. For some perspective, the Eagles had been district champions for 4,021 consecutive days.

More info from last week to come tomorrow, but a few other odds and ends…

** Two years after incorporating a Success Factor aimed at leveling private school dominance, there are 23 public school teams and 9 private schools left in the playoffs. Six of those private schools are in Class 1 and 2.

** District seeds were correct 153/189 times for a success rate of 80.95%. The MPR was correct on 150/189 (79.37%), but one could argue that another game would go to the MPR favor due to Mehlville’s win over Cape ND. Mehlville was only the 2 seed after losing a coin flip.

** All four #1 overall teams in each class advanced.  Only Class 1’s top 4 teams advanced, but Class 2 wouldn’t have had the chance as three of the top teams were all in the same district. Guadalupe’s upsets of both Pembroke Hill and Platte Co. qualified as the biggest upsets in Class 3, but also showed how competitive that district was.

** The central part of the state certainly struggled last week, as only borderline central areas Smithon and Laquey in Class 1 continued. This marks the first year in a long time (1995?) where a Columbia/Jeff City/Mid-MO area team didn’t at least advance from a district.

 By class - geographic regions:
Class 1: 3 STL, 1 SE, 2 SW, 1 NW and 1 Central/Sedalia.
Class 2: 3 STL, 1 SE, 1 SW, 2 KC, 1 NW (Chillicothe, which is also borderline central, but advanced from the NW)
Class 3: 4 STL, 2 SW, 2 KC
Class 4: 3 STL, 3 KC, 1 SE, 1 SW

**Much to discuss this week as coaches begin work on selecting all region squads, which will likely be released sometime next week. We will have some previews of the big quarterfinal Saturday ahead as well as some other topics relevant to MO soccer.

Comments (2)     

Nov. 5 Postseason Update

Hard to argue with district soccer week not being the best week of the season. Local rivalries, epic battles, new champions and the emotions built up from something that started (officially, anyway) over three months ago all lead to a lot of fun with the sport. Next Saturday’s Quarterfinal Day arguably has bigger stakes, but the familiarity of most of the teams playing in district finals gives many of the games an extra special edge. Thursday action saw 19 finals - all involving a number one seed, but only 12 survived. Crazy, but that’s what makes soccer considerably more unpredictable than most other sports and obviously adds to the postseason intrigue of our game.

Before we get into the recaps, here are some numbers first…

After Saturday, there will have been 189 playoff games (updated from the incorrect 190 yesterday).

So far, District seedings have been accurate 154 out of 187 (82.4%). MPR (Missouri Power Rankings) has been accurate 150 out of 187 (80.2%). Teams with a +.500 MPR score have won 181 of the 187 matches so far, with both finals left to play (tonight and tomorrow) have scores above that .500 threshold.  (Southern Boone is +.560 over Christian and SLUH is +1.03 over John Burroughs.) In other words, teams who have a stronger than .500 MPR score over the opponent have won 96.7% of the time.

Note: this will be the last blog of the week, but we hope to fill up next week’s lack of games with some material in preparation for the quarters next Saturday and some other areas that impact MO high school soccer.

Thursday recap:
 Class 1
The smaller schools were mostly status quo, with four of the five #1 seeds winning comfortably. The big shocker of the night was #3 Fair Grove’s (14) elimination of #1 College Heights (8), 4-0 at College Heights. Fair Grove advances for the second time in school history (2018) and one year after winning only 5 games. Overall #1 Lutheran St. Charles had an easy go of it in Canton for the week, winning both games by a combined 12-0 margin and advance for a second straight year, third overall. Smithton (2) also advanced, but with a tight 2-0 win over Knob Noster. It was the third win over Knob Noster this year. Knob Noster is in its 6th year and equalled its best season with 8 wins, while Smithton remains the state’s only undefeated team (23-0) and makes the playoffs for the second consecutive year. St. Pius (Festus) (3) also rolled to its 14th state playoff appearance but first since 2017 with a 3-0 win over DuBourg (11). In a mild upset based on MPR, but not by seeding, Brentwood (10) topped Gateway Sciences (7) 4-2 to make its second appearance in the playoffs and first since 2017.

Class 2
Only three matches on the slate last night, but two of them were classics. In District 7, #1 Harrisonville (21) outlasted #2 Barstow (26) 4-3 in 2OT in a battle of teams under .500 for the season. Anytime seven goals and a golden goal final happens, there is no other choice but to have been entertained (and likely drained) if you got to see this one. Coach Dan Coleman’s Wildcats squad survived back to back OT games as the #1 seed and will play in the playoffs for the 4th time in five years, 8th overall. A tough end for Barstow. In District 2, #2 St. Mary’s (11) edged #1 Affton (7) 2-1 in OT. St. Mary’s is one of the more storied programs in the state and will be making its 34th appearance and back to back after a four year hiatus. #1 Excelsior Springs (9) had no problem with #2 Marshall (10) in its 4-0 final win. Excelsior Springs returns to the playoffs for the third time and one year removed from winning only 5 times last year.

Fun fact about all three of these games: none of the teams had played each other in the regular season prior to the finals and despite being in the same district.

Class 3
Five finals last night and all were close, none were closer than in District 2, where #1 Ladue (6) and #2 Webster Groves (15) played an epic final. Tied 1-1 after regulation, the game went to penalties. Needing a stop on the 5th kick to extend the match, WG’s GK made a huge save, but Ladue’s GK answered with a stop on kick #6 to set up Ladue’s game-winner from a freshman into the lower right corner that set off a wild celebration. It’s worth the look to see the highlights on YouTube (Gateway Sports Venue). Ladue had its run of eight straight playoffs snapped last year, but are back for appearance #10.
In the District 1 final, #2 Mehlville (3) opened a 2-0 halftime lead on its home pitch and held on for a 2-1 win over #1 Cape Notre Dame (5). Mehlville advances for the 12th time in history, but first since 2017.
#1 overall and defending state champ Ft. Zumwalt South broke the recent spell of underdog city rivals winning by slipping past a determined Ft. Zumwalt East (20) squad 2-1. South wins its 8th consecutive district and tops FZE for the third time this season, with each result getting closer than the opening 4-0 win.
In District 6 at Bolivar #1 Neosho (8) broke loose from a 1-1 tie with the host team Bolivar (19) to get a 3-1 championship win. The Wildcats advance for the 5th consecutive year and 7th overall.
The District 7 match in Warrensburg featured two Independence teams separated by just over three miles. #2 Van Horn (21) upset #1 William Chrisman (10) 2-1 to claim its 4th straight playoff appearance and fifth overall. The win flipped the score from the teams’ earlier match.

Class 4
Three of the #1 seeds fell last night in Class 4. It’s hard to rank the bigger upset, but the two that stand out on night took out two of the arguably best programs in the state. #2 Marquette (6) stunned #1 CBC (4) 2-1 with two late second half goals on a night where Coach Chris Kenny also was inducted into the St. Louis Soccer Hall of Fame (Congrats, CK!). Likely tough to come down from that night! Marquette reaches the playoffs for the 7th time.
#2 Liberty (Wentzville) (13)’s 2-1 win over #1 St. Dominic (11) wasn’t much of an upset based on MPR (.03 separated the two), but it was the first ever win for Liberty in its 8-year history over perennial nationally ranked Crusaders and certainly qualifies as a milestone night for Coach Tony Luedecke and his squad. This marks playoff #2 for the Eagles.
In District 8, #2 Park Hill (23) edged #1 Liberty (7) 1-0 to advance. Liberty had beat PH twice in the regular season, but it’s always tough to beat a similar team three times. Park Hill returns to the playoffs for the 14th time and after a third place finish in 2020.
District 1 #1 Jackson (19) had to travel to Vianney (36) for its 2-1 win. Last year’s surprise Class 4 champs no doubt gained some experience and confidence from that run as they look to defend.
District 5 #1 Kickapoo (10) ended a great run from #6 Carthage (30) 3-0. The Chiefs win their 20th game and make their 14th playoff appearance, but first since 2017. Carthage had topped the 2 and 3 seed as hosts.
Overall #1 Rockhurst eliminated #3 Lee’s Summit West (8) 3-1 to advance for the 40th time, the most by any program in the state. Rockhurst is looking for its 8th title and has been a postseason participant every year since 1980 with the exception of 1983 and 2011 - an incredible feat.

Two matches left to be played…
Tonight
Class 2, District 4 in Winfield where #1 Southern Boone (12) takes on #3 Christian (27) in an early 3:00 start. SBC has a .560 MPR advantage.

Saturday
Class 4
#1 SLUH (2) hosts #3 John Burroughs (21) at 1:00. The Bombers will look to pull off another stunner after getting by #3 overall Chaminade in the semis on a PK and a solid defense. SLUH has a +1.03 MPR advantage.

Comments (0)