I actually enjoyed the commentary from Mountainview today. I think by sticking with the cap numbers and colors, he was able to keep a good flow while speaking through the game. My younger kids actually were interested in watching the game because of him.
Also.. do they keep a tally of how many yellow and red cards each coach earns through the tournament? It would be fun to see.
I havenât been able to watch. Are there a lot of yellow and red cards being given?
Not sure.. but I also wonder if some coaches are notoriously more likely than others to test their limits with the refs.
A few years ago futures had a ref who would roll any kid who even got close to talking back to him. One of our players got the ball stolen on the wing. He was Pushed down and kicked under water. Popped up and said, âdamn I got workedâ. He got rolled! However if you are talking back to the ref a yellow is not much of a punishment. I do admire the collegiate few who issue yellow cards for celebrating too much after a goal.
Well, Iâll say it. 8 of the top 12 boys 18s were from Southern California. Many of those started outside the top 12. The seeding was bad this year. The new format for the whole year and superfinals did not create a better product, IMO.
Edit, my bad. They did win their last game.
Minor correction: Lamorinda played well (I was at the game) and won the 11th-place match against Imperial.
Imperial climbed from the 15th seed to play; and eventually lose to; SFWP. The initial seeding of Vanguard, SoCal, Trojan, and Imperial wasnât ideal: but I suppose they should have performed better during the league season.
Overall, only a handful of games ended in blowouts; I think thatâs the best testament to a well-structured three-day tournament: every team faced solid competition right from the start.
Was he the same guy who did the Vanguard / Trojan game today? Classic calls to an improbable last minute. 3 goals in 20 seconds.
Was Lamo 18s a full squad / missing any key players? Having watched them a lot this year, I would have expected a better result.
I donât know the answer. At least, Tristan Tucker, their center, is in Italy with the Youth team.
This is PAC JO qual ranking that Jeff posted:
Boysâ 18u
Based on my observations from this weekend and some of the players missing.
Diablo stronger than Atherton and NorCal
CCU likely the strongest of PAC and wouldâve won against mission today with full roster and the foreign players they will have in JOs.
SF seemed to have several foreign players in Futures based on roster.
It is one weekend so who knows and much can change in JOs.
That said, I think the top 5 teams are a notch above 5-15 .
Two of Lamorindaâs top 18u players are with the youth national team in Italy and therefore missed the Super Finals:
Center Tristan Tucker - (Miramonte Class of 2026, UCLA)
Trent Smith (Miramonte Class of 2027)
CCU"s 16u team was missing two of its top players:
Ellis Culleton (Campolindo Class of 2027, a likely âBig 4â player, perhaps the fastest Class of 2027 player)
Brady Hassett (Miramonte Class of 2027, a likely âBig 4â player, one of his sisters plays for U.C. Irvine and one plays for Cal)
Stanfordâs 16u team was missing perhaps its best player:
Center Hunter Coleman (Menlo Class of 2028, a likely âBigâ 4 player)
Stanford won the 16u age group even without Coleman. The Stanford and CCU 16u teams are the NorCal teams most likely to medal in the boysâ 16u and 18u age groups at the JOs.
Athertonâs 18u team was missing its starting goalie, Murdoch Baker-Matsuoka (SHP Class of 2026). I believe heâs recovering from an injury.
The Futures super finals delivered exceptional organization and high-level competition throughout the event. Most top U18 teams competed without full rosters due to players attending various National Team camps ( Newport was missing 3 of the top players in high school but did not look they missed a beat) there were no major surprise outcomes among the higher seeds.
This new format proved to be significantly more effective than JOs,The current JOs structure not only wastes valuable time for elite teams ( where top-tier teams often coast through the initial two days of competition), but also creates demoralizing experiences for lower-seeded squads who face overwhelming mismatches early in the tournament.
The Futures tournamentâs updated approach better served athletes at all levels by providing more meaningful competition from the outset.
I couldnât agree more!
I think Super Finals is a wonderful event. I can see both sides of this. Seeding is imperfect, and likely always will be to some degree. Especially when looking at qualifiers from three regions (Socal, Norcal, TX). Texas is very hard to determine where they deserve to be. For a team to go 0-4 or 0-5 and their last game when winless is for 11th place is irregular in sport in general. And a team with several more wins can get no better than 13th. I can see how the 13-16 teams would feel. With the rosters changing so much from qualifying rounds to super finals it seems we should let it all just play out. The beautiful part of Futures are the divisions that already account for the horrible round 1 JO games. If you get in D1 you should have the same opp as all D1 teams. You already spent 5 weeks earning the spot so play it out would be my approach. Again, Futures does a wonderful job and I am not being critical of the event. I just see both sides of this argument.
I love this point. There are only 24 teams in the tournament. To guarantee 8 of the top 12 spots to teams before the tournament starts is flawed when the seeding is so imperfect and maybe always. Top 4 I could maybe get behind). To say that losing to a top team early is deflating is countered by, never having a chance to play them is equally deflating. Day 2 at JOs is highly competitive. Few teams coast through day 2. Day 1 can be lopsided, true. Superfinals is basically day 2 and beyond. I doubt anyone would advocate for this same format starting on Day 2 at JOs. Great tournament and the best teams won, no doubt.
Great points from both, and I should clarify - I wasnât suggesting JOs should adopt the Futures format. The seeding challenges youâve highlighted are very real, especially when trying to balance teams across different regions with varying levels of competition.
My perspective is that Futures and JOs serve different purposes. JOs will always have its place as the traditional championship tournament with its inclusive structure. However, I believe weâre witnessing the early stages of Futures evolving into the premier elite competition.
The streamlined format, higher baseline level of competition, and elimination of those inevitable early-round mismatches create a tournament environment that better serves top-tier teams. As college coaches and scouts increasingly recognize Futures as the place to see the best teams compete at their highest level, it will naturally gain more prestige in the elite circles.
Both tournaments can and should coexist successfully - JOs maintaining its role as the grand championship with broad participation, while Futures becomes the proving ground for elite teams. The seeding imperfections you mention are part of what makes sports compelling, but Futures minimizes the impact of those early-round blowouts that donât benefit anyone involved.
I quickly compared the 2024 JOs 18U Championship (48 teams) to the Futures Super Finals 18U Division 1 (24 teams).
Using a few key measures, the FSF appears to be better structured, with tighter games, fewer games per team, and smaller ranking differentials between final placement and seeding.
What I really dislike about JOs is that the first day is mostly redundant, and teams often play three games in a single day, which is extremely taxing on the body and unhealthy, especially in 90-degree weather.
*Disclaimer: This is based on a small sample from one year, and there may be a few errors.
Futures Super Finals 2025 18U D1
To compare to JOs: The âerrorâ in seeding was the same about 25% when I defined an âerrorâ as a shift in ranking of 5 places or more.
This is achieved with much less games per team and tighter more competitive games throughout the entire tournament.
It seems the better comparison is to JO Platinum since that is essentially where Futures SF starts.
I agree, but the way JO is structured the first day or two games split between Platinum (top 24) and Gold (bottom 24).
I think it depends on how you view it. Futures actually starts way before super finals. 5 weekends of games in SoCal. So you are ignoring that in the data. Also, platinum does not exist until day 1 is complete, so I disagree that Day 1 is Gold versus platinum. Day 1 is essentially week 1-5 of Futures prior to SF. Granted you may not see a ton of movement but you do see it. JO is just a ranking based on prior year for a zone, not even the same team as you know. I am not sure why the data for Futures ignores 5 weeks of qualifying, but JO data set does not. That is why I would suggest normalizing the data by starting at Day 2, which is day 1 of platinum. If your team is a perennial Top 10 I get why the POV would think day 1 is Plat vs. Gold, but itâs not. All of D1 is essentially Plat for JO based on format.
curious to know when futures folks knew they would change the format for FSF and whether they advised all the clubs before league play was happening because clearly league play became a lot more important with this new format. New format allowed top 8 to lose two games on day 1 and still play into at quarterfinals while team 9-20 had to win first three games to get into the quarterfinals.
