Has anyone here ever dealt with tournament rankings where a team could still be ranked higher than a team that beats them?

For example, we had 7 regular season games in a division of 8 teams. Our team had a 4-3 record (4th in wins-losses) going into the tournament, but beat the 3rd ranked team, yet they still were awarded 3rd Place because their overall wins-losses was 7-3, while ours was 6-4.

IMO, that defeats the whole purpose of even having a tournament, or am I not understanding something here?

It all depends on who is doing the rankings / seedings. In some tourneys the coaches will vote - the majority of the ones we played were done that way.

Others can be seeded by the AD or the coach running the tourney and you can probably figure that their team will get a break on where they are ranked or who they will face. JMO

If you are ranked 4th and have a record of 4-3, but have beaten the 3rd ranked team then you must have lost to someone below you as well. So by your theory, they should be above you. I have seen overall record used a lot. It helps eliminate tie scenarios. Like the first place team losing to the third place team, while the second place team has beaten the first and third, but lost to the seventh and eighth. It is just easier to go with overall records and then use a tie breaker system. Now if you had the same records and had beaten them in your only head to head matchup, then I would agree that you should be above them. Also some of our teams have travel issues to contend with, and it makes more sense if the 4th place team would have to travel 100 miles, to make them a 5th place team and have them travel 10 miles.

We only lost to the top 3 teams during the regular season. My view is that if the rankings are based on total wins-losses, then winning the most games becomes more important than improving as a team. For young players, most teams are made up of varying skill levels all the way down to beginner and it's a real testimony to these kids' determination along with the coaching philosophy when a team improves to a level where they can beat a team that has a better overall record.

I enjoy coaching when I know that I'm making a difference and actually teaching my players something they can take with them beyond the season instead of focusing on simply winning the most games in a season. We had only two practices before our first game and were limited to one practice a week, so it's a difficult decision for coaches to either coach to win every game vs. teaching the players fundamentals that will carry them farther in the long run.

"We had only two practices before our first game and were limited to one practice a week, so it's a difficult decision for coaches to either coach to win every game vs. teaching the players fundamentals that will carry them farther in the long run."

I would hope that it wouldn't be a difficult decision.... I would like to think that you are coaching to help the kids improve.... Ws are a by product of a sound fundamental team.... and your rewards come when they can move up to the next level and be successful. JMO