2013 Landmark Conference Women's Soccer Championship
Top four seeds qualify for postseason
|Semifinals: Nov. 6, 2013 (at highest seeds)|
|No. 3 Drew at No. 2 Juniata||DR 3-2 (2OT)
|No. 4 Moravian at No. 1 Scranton||SCR 1-0
|Championship: Nov. 9, 2013 (at Scranton)|
|No. 3 Drew at No. 1 Scranton
||TIE 1-1 (DR 4-3 PK)
2013 Landmark Conference
Women's Soccer Champions
|Landmark Women's Soccer Championship History|
In the event two (or more) teams
tie in the conference standings, the following procedure shall be
used to determine seeding for the championship:
1. Head-to-head record amongst all tied teams in contests that count toward the conference standings
2. Comparison of tied teams’ records against remaining teams in conference standings in descending order (starting at No. 1)
3. Goal differential in matches played amongst tied teams, with a maximum differential of three goals per match
4. Goal differential for tied teams in all conference matches played, with a maximum differential of three goals per match
5. Lowest goals allowed total in play that counted toward the conference standings
6. Head-to-head record against common non-conference opponents at same site
7. Head-to-head record against common non-conference opponents at different site
8. Coin flip (or similar random action)
Application of Tie-Breaking Procedure
In a tie of more than two teams, tie-breakers shall be applied in descending order until a team or a group of teams have gained an advantage and the initial tie has been broken. Teams shall be seeded accordingly based upon where they rank within the group of tied teams. If a sub-group (or groups) of tied teams are created by applying tie-breaking criteria to the original group, the tie-breaking process begins anew for the sub-group (or groups) until all teams can be seeded.
In a tie of more than two teams, when a random action is used to break the tie, the tie-breaking process shall begin anew starting with the first criteria (head-to-head) once one team has gained the advantage.
In the event of multiple ties in the standings, the ties will be broken in descending order, unless a lower seeded tie can be broken by using the first criteria (head-to-head). When comparing tied teams against positions lower in the standings which are also tied, those “lower tied positions” shall be considered as a “single position” for purposes of comparison, unless those “lower tied positions” were broken through head-to-head comparison.
If two or more groups of teams are tied, the seeding for one group of tied teams, even if determined by a random action, shall be considered for tie-breaking purposes for any remaining groups.