CSL Club Rankings, Week 2

D

Daniel Miller

SILVER ELITE
Again, these rankings are intended to be purely objective, based solely on points earned by a club per game its teams play. These are the 102 largest clubs in CSL. Each team gets 3 points per win, 1 point per tie, and 0 points per loss. All those points are added together and divided by the number of games a club has played. The result is a single number from 0.00 to 3.00.

Number 1, for the second week in a row, goes to Coachella YSA, with an outstanding 2.29 points per game. The next runners up are Team USA, South Valley, and Central Coast Condors. Those are the only 4 teams to have achieve an average of 2.0 points per game or above. I find it interesting that 3 are from central California. Kudos to these high-performing clubs.

But losers there must also be. Number 102, and the last-place champion for the second week in a row, is Hollywood FC, with a dreadful 0.45 points per game. Its record over 44 games was 4 wins, 32 losses and 8 ties. Also near the bottom were Autobahn, Foothill Storm and South Bay United Academy.

Rank ... Club .............. Points per game
1… Coachella YSA….. 2.29
2… Team USA….. 2.19
3… South Valley SC….. 2.05
4… Central Coast Condors 2.03
5… Apple Valley SC….. 1.93
6… Juggle the World…. 1.92
7… Celtic…. 1.90
8… Oxnard United….. 1.90
9… FC Deportivo….. 1.89
10… P2Ks….. 1.89
11… LA Misionarios….. 1.88
12… Newbury Park SC….. 1.87
13… UIFC….. 1.86
14… Bakersfield Legacy….. 1.85
15… Santa Ana FC 1.85
16… La Mirada FC….. 1.81
17… Boca Jrs…… 1.81
18… Anaheim FC….. 1.81
19… Claremont Stars….. 1.80
20… West Coast Elite….. 1.80
21… Eagles….. 1.79
22… Culver City FC….. 1.76
23… Futbol Foundation of SC….. 1.74
24… Antelope Valley FC….. 1.70
25… Oxnard PAL….. 1.69
26… Total Futbol Academy….. 1.69
27… Canyon FC….. 1.68
28… Santos Laguna SC….. 1.66
29… Southwestern YSC….. 1.66
30… Anahuak Academy….. 1.65
31… Riverside MGFM….. 1.64
32… Desert United….. 1.64
33… Spartans FC….. 1.64
34… Central California Aztecs….. 1.64
35… Empire SC….. 1.63
36… IUSC….. 1.63
37… L.A. Galaxy San Diego….. 1.63
38… Ventura Co. Fusion….. 1.63
39… Newcastle United….. 1.62
40… FRAM….. 1.61
41… California Elite….. 1.61
42… L.A. Galaxy Bakersfield….. 1.60
43… Palm Desert SC….. 1.60
44… United Premier FC….. 1.59
45… CPL-California Premier….. 1.57
46… La Esperanza….. 1.57
47… Santa Monica United….. 1.56
48… Albion SC….. 1.55
49… Downtown SC….. 1.53
50… Wolves FC….. 1.52
51… Coastal Valley SC….. 1.52
52… MSA FC….. 1.51
53… Riverside FC….. 1.50
54… Roadrunners United….. 1.50
55… Simi Valley Premier….. 1.5
56… San Luis Obispo SC….. 1.49
57… Fullerton Rangers….. 1.47
58… La Academia….. 1.46
59… Santa Barbara SC….. 1.45
60… AYSO Challenge….. 1.44
61… AC Brea….. 1.44
62… HG Eagles….. 1.42
63… River Valley Rovers….. 1.41
64… Albion SC OC….. 1.40
65… Rialto Fire….. 1.40
66… IE Surf….. 1.39
67… Crown City United….. 1.39
68… NHB….. 1.39
69… Wolfpack SC….. 1.37
70… Pacific Soccer Club….. 1.37
71… Oxnard Wave….. 1.37
72… Corinthians….. 1.35
73… High Desert Premier….. 1.35
74… BYSC Corona….. 1.34
75… YASC Spartans….. 1.34
76… Simi Valley SC (Eclipse)….. 1.34
77… Valley United….. 1.33
78… FC Golden State OC….. 1.33
79… Milan Academy….. 1.29
80… L.A. Premier….. 1.27
81… Ventura FC… 1.25
82… Hemet Juventus….. 1.25
83… Oceanside Breakers….. 1.24
84… Southwest SC….. 1.24
85… Orcutt United SL….. 1.23
86… FC Long Beach….. 1.23
87… Colton America SC…. 1.23
88… FC Golden State….. 1.22
89… Bacelona California….. 1.20
90… OC Premier….. 1.20
91… L.A. Galaxy CVU….. 1.16
92… North Valley SC….. 1.13
93… Greater Long Beach SC….. 1.06
94… Necaxa USA….. 1.06
95… Xplosion….. 0.95
96… Westminster SA….. 0.92
97… Burbank United….. 0.89
98… FC Man United….. 0.85
99… South Bay United Acad….. 0.81
100… Foothill Storm SC….. 0.76
101… Autobahn….. 0.74
102... Hollywood FC….. 0.45
 
Last edited:
Somebody did this many years ago, but they used a multiplier based on division. Games won at higher division were worth more points. Wins at Premier, Gold, Silver Elite etc.. are much harder to come by then bronze victories.
 
It may have no significance to you. As for me, I use it as a proxy to rank the competitiveness of clubs, because teams that win the most will have the highest average points per game. Every club and DOC sells its own secret sauce for developing competitive teams and players. But I don't care who talks the talk. I want to see who walks the walk. In my opinion, teams that win more are most likely to be the same teams that do the best job of developing teams and players.
 
Strength of a club through out all levels, ages, boys and girls. If I'm reading correctly, if a club had 10 boys teams all win and 10 girls teams all lose, they would get 30 points for the 10 wins, zero points for the girls, and end up with a 1.5 average.
 
socalkdg said:
Strength of a club through out all levels, ages, boys and girls. If I'm reading correctly, if a club had 10 boys teams all win and 10 girls teams all lose, they would get 30 points for the 10 wins, zero points for the girls, and end up with a 1.5 average.
Click to expand...
Yes, you would be correct. The boys would rack up 30 points for their 10 games, and the girls would get no points for their 10 games. The 30 total points divided by 20 games would would average out to 1.50 points per game for the club. That is very near the 1.52 statistical mean in my 102-team model.

In my opinion, this 1.50 ppg number would provide an accurate meta-analysis of the hypothetical club's overall condition. It has a great boys' side and an awful girls' side, describing a club that is right in the middle overall.
 
This is absolutely meaningless. I cannot see how you can base your decision on which club you want to join based on these rankings. First off, it's only CSL. Most of the larger, more competitive clubs reside in SCDSL. Second off, as a previous poster mentioned, bronze wins and gold wins are weighted the same. If a club has all bronze level teams and dominates at that level they falsely get ranked as the "better" club overall than a club that has teams competing at gold and silver elite but might have a few losses on their record. Again, in my opinion, this ranking system doesn't provide any value at all.
 
And many clubs in Coast are are a group of loosely connected teams. Where one team may have a great coach and philosophy, but there's not a DOC dictating a style of play.
 
FreeKick said:
This is absolutely meaningless. I cannot see how you can base your decision on which club you want to join based on these rankings. First off, it's only CSL. Most of the larger, more competitive clubs reside in SCDSL. Second off, as a previous poster mentioned, bronze wins and gold wins are weighted the same. If a club has all bronze level teams and dominates at that level they falsely get ranked as the "better" club overall than a club that has teams competing at gold and silver elite but might have a few losses on their record. Again, in my opinion, this ranking system doesn't provide any value at all.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. I think the table has meaning and statistical significance within the population sampled. True, it does not sample SCDSL teams, and the table would have broader significance if it did. SCDSL does not summarize club wins and losses in a single page like CSL, so it would take many, many hours to compile club records. I don't have enough time to do the research required to add SCDSL teams.

As far as weighting gold vs. silver vs. bronze teams and the like, I don't have time to do that. The CSL club summary page does not partition for different levels, and I don't have time to take every team on 102 clubs and break down their individual records. BUT ... by choosing only the largest 102 clubs in CSL, I believe that most of them have roughly the same diversity in bracketing. This keeps the overall numbers more-or-less in line, although I agree that having perfect bracket-to-bracket comparisons would be better.

HOWEVER, partitioning for bracket levels might not have the effect you expect. Take the top team and the bottom team in the samples:

Coachella YSA has 12 teams. 9 of them are in silver, silver elite or gold brackets. At Gold, they are 5-1-1; at Silver elite they are 8-1-1. Overall, they have better records at these levels than at silver or bronze. If you weighted the gold and silver elite teams with more points, Coachella YSA would actually have higher ppg than it does now, and would have a greater lead in the standings.

Looking at Hollywood FC, it has 20 teams. Only one of those teams is in a gold bracket and that team is winless. It has only two silver elite teams, and both of them are winless. Their silver teams have only 2 wins against 17 losses. They would not benefit by having wins more heavily weighted here. In fact, they would fall further behind in the statistics because all of the non-Hollywood gold, silver elite and silver teams would be gaining additional points because of their weighted wins against Hollywood. In other words, weighting would only make Hollywood, already the worst club in CSL, even worse on the table.
 
Its just data, ours to do what we want with it. Is there huge difference between the CSL and SCDSL? Do they meet in a playoff at the end? Using the top 10 teams from someone else's ranking for girls 2005 we have

1 LAGSB 2005 ELITE 12.28 8 SCSDL Flight 1 20 3 0 103 10 SCSDL Flight 1 1 0
2 SD SURF EGSL ACADEMY 2005 11.79 1 SCSDL Flight 1 17 2 1 68 13 SCSDL Flight 1 2 0
3 SO CAL BLUES 2005 DRALUCK 11.08 10 SCSDL Flight 1 16 3 2 79 17 SCSDL Flight 1 3 0
4 BEACH FC - LB WHITE-R.PEREZ 10.53 5 SCSDL Flight 1 22 3 3 77 21 SCSDL Flight 1 5 1
5 EAGLES 10.35 26 CSL Silver-Elite South 14 2 1 72 10 CSL Silver-Elite South 4 -1
6 STRIKERS FC - OC 2005 EGSL 10.27 14 SCSDL Flight 1 9 2 1 39 11 SCSDL Flight 1 6 0
7 SO CAL BLUES 2005 KALE 9.57 9 SCSDL Flight 1 12 4 3 43 16 SCSDL Flight 1 7 0
8 LAGSD G05 ELITE-GURLEY 9.49 22 CSL Silver-Elite South 15 5 0 59 16 CSL Silver-Elite South 8 0
9 IE SURF G05 PREMIER RB 9.02 11 CSL Silver-Elite South 9 5 4 36 18 CSL Silver-Elite South 9 0
10 LEGENDS FC 05 8.89 16 SCSDL Flight 1 18 4 6 42 15 SCSDL Flight 1 10 0

Is there that much difference between 1 - 5 - 8 - 10? I've watched both up through Flight 2 for SCSDL and Silver for CSL for 2005 girls, and not much of a difference between CSL and SCSDL, although some teams in SCSDL bracketed to high. I"ve heard CSL moves up and down based off previous season while SCSDL chooses where they want their team. Hope to watch some games at Silverlakes this coming weekend and see some the of Tier 1 teams, but my wife may have something to say about that. :(
 
Is there any way to get club pages from previous years on the CSL site? seems to me you used to be able to do it by changing the year in the url but it appears they've changed their site so that doesn't work.
 
Daniel Miller said:
You're entitled to your opinion. I think the table has meaning and statistical significance within the population sampled. True, it does not sample SCDSL teams, and the table would have broader significance if it did. SCDSL does not summarize club wins and losses in a single page like CSL, so it would take many, many hours to compile club records. I don't have enough time to do the research required to add SCDSL teams.
Click to expand...
SCDSL does have all the current records on one page. Copy the page, past to excel, sort by team name, might work.
http://www.scdslsoccer.com/standings/index_E.html?1474390123
 
Daniel Miller said:
In my opinion, teams that win more are most likely to be the same teams that do the best job of developing teams and players.
Click to expand...
Well this is absolutely false. Development of individual players is not based on wins or loses but the end product. Everyone should know this by now.

What club has produced quality players? What club adheres to a certain philosophy from top to bottom to enhance or create such player?

Suppose the wins on your CSL rankings that you've shared are coming by way of kickball?
 
Individual players "can" develop on winning or losing teams. No argument there. When you choose a team for your kid, you should choose the team - not the club - that will help your kid develop and have fun. But how do you find that team? Usually you start by looking for the best clubs in the neighborhood, because those clubs are most likely to have the best teams. How do you choose the best club? Usually by looking at excellence on the field. How do you tell which teams are excellent? Because they usually win.

Stop the BS argument about winning teams who just play kickball. That happens sometimes, but in most cases the teams that are winning are playing a more sophisticated brand of soccer. Losing teams are the ones that usually play kickball.
 
Daniel Miller said:
Stop the BS argument about winning teams who just play kickball. That happens sometimes, but in most cases the teams that are winning are playing a more sophisticated brand of soccer. Losing teams are the ones that usually play kickball.
Click to expand...
According to your rankings you have Coachella listed as #1, but they don't play a sophisticated brand of soccer, far from it. Then you have TFA listed at #26 which just about everyone here can attest to the fact that they play a much better game of soccer than Celtic listed at #7 and #1...

Apparently you're just spewing out meaningless data without much backing other than wins and loses.

Your line of thinking is skewed here.
 
The data is nice to see but it doesn't seem to carry much merit. Am I wrong in saying that going undefeated in Gold or Premier should carry more weight than going undefeated in Bronze?

Also the number 1 team on your list is a Boys only club. You can spin numbers and data to reflect basically anything you want is what your results mean to me.
 
Hmm. Listen to you. This team is sophisticated. That team is not. This team plays a "better game." All of that is purely subjective, and all of it is subject to dispute. Probably some TFA teams play a more sophisticated game than Coachella YSA, ... or Celtic. But I'll bet TFA has some real stinkers, too. How about their last-place 2004 silver north team? I have a feeling that Celtic's undefeated 2004 Gold south team plays a much "better" game.

As I said, my plan is to provide a purely objective club-wide ranking system. You rise or fall based on just one thing: your record. This system may not be perfect, but in my opinion it is better than all others.
 
At first I thought you were trying to post something interesting to get people talking. I was shocked to see you just joined a few days ago. Then I saw the rest of your posts and realized this has less to do with which clubs are the highest and more to do with the fact that Hollywood FC is last. You apparently have an axe to grind with them, so I'm not sure why people are trying to convince you there are better ways to rank clubs. You knew what you were doing when you posted
 
madcow said:
At first I thought you were trying to post something interesting to get people talking. I was shocked to see you just joined a few days ago. Then I saw the rest of your posts and realized this has less to do with which clubs are the highest and more to do with the fact that Hollywood FC is last. You apparently have an axe to grind with them, so I'm not sure why people are trying to convince you there are better ways to rank clubs. You knew what you were doing when you posted
Click to expand...
I haven't been kind to Hollywood, that's for sure. I didn't create the system to expose Hollywood's competitive record. I made an unneeded post about their coaching situation after preparing the ranking system, and that generated some responses. Then I responded. Then others responded. Then I got my back up. I started investigating, and then I responded again. So things spun away from me a bit. That is the nature of online forae, I guess. I can see why people think I have an axe to grind.

To be honest, I don't really have anything against Hollywood, and that was never the purpose of the rankings. I really just want to try to rank clubs objectively, because I am tired of hearing everybody's unproved claims about who is "really" developing players and who isn't. Personally, I think the system is valid for the population sampled and what I am trying to achieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top