# CSL Club Rankings, Week 2



## Daniel Miller (Sep 19, 2016)

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


----------



## forsomuch (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## God (Sep 19, 2016)

What does all this even mean? I don't get the significance.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


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.


----------



## FreeKick (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


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.*


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## Bubbles (Sep 19, 2016)

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.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 20, 2016)

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.


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


----------



## God (Sep 20, 2016)

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.


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?


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

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 (Sep 20, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> 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


It could work, but it would take many hours.  And there would be more calculations.  Too much work for me, but you are welcome to take a stab at it.  I think the information would be valuable.


----------



## God (Sep 20, 2016)

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.


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.


----------



## zags77 (Sep 20, 2016)

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.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

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.


----------



## madcow (Sep 20, 2016)

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


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

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


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.


----------



## God (Sep 20, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> 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.


 Why are you comparing TFA's Silver North to Celtic Gold 04 team? Because you don't know any better that's why.

Why don't you try comparing Celtic Gold 04 game toTotalFutbolAcademy 04 that plays in USSDA?

http://tfba.ussoccerda.com/sam/teams/index.php?team=1643615

The more you post the more you expose your ignorance.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

God said:


> Why are you comparing TFA's Silver North to Celtic Gold 04 team? Because you don't know any better that's why.
> 
> Why don't you try comparing Celtic Gold 04 game toTotalFutbolAcademy 04 that plays in USSDA?
> 
> ...


I compared those two teams as a response to your ignorant statement about how all TFA teams play a "better game" than all Celtic teams.

Listen, God, and hear my plea.  This is metadata.  It is not intended to be a perfect team-to-team match, which would be irrelevant to this table.  This table is comprised of team data, but used to compare *clubs*; not teams.  You keep playing the same riff over and over.  You seem to think that the table should match apples (gold teams) to apples (other gold teams).  That is not what this metadata is designed to do.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 20, 2016)

*CSL Club Rankings, Week 2*

Note the headline above.  He posted data and gave basic rankings.  From CSL.  Not much more to it.  Don't like, don't read.  Like, read.   Use his data and expand on it.  Would it be better if broken down to boys and girls?  Sure.   Not sure I understand the hate.  Everything I hear is find a coach you like for your kid, and stick with them.  Not much more needs to be said.  Doubt anyone is going to choose a club based on these rankings.   Just funny when I see people attacking each other on here.


----------



## God (Sep 20, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> I compared those two teams as a response to your ignorant statement about how all TFA teams play a "better game" than all Celtic teams.
> 
> Listen, God, and hear my plea.  This is metadata.  It is not intended blah blah blah


You failed again...

You compared the worse of one to the best of other. smh

Don't nobody agree with your retarded line of thinking yet you continue to post anyway.


----------



## Dargle (Sep 20, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> 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.


The TFA issue highlights one problem with the definition of "club."  In some cases, such as Albion SC and Albion SC-OC or La Galaxy Bakersfield, Conejo Valley, and San Diego, the teams are listed as separate clubs even though they share a common name, uniform, marketing, and, in theory, coaching curriculum.  TFA, however, is listed as one club by CSL, even though most of the different locations of TFA other than the flagship TFA, such as TFA-SE LA, TFA-OC, TFA-SGV, TFA-IE etc,  are just separate clubs who chose to affiliate with TFA and thy too basically just share a common name, marketing, and, in theory, coaching curriculum.  Those separate locations have the same coaches they had before the affiliation.  A parent looking at one of the satellite locations would be misled if they thought that that TFA was one big undifferentiated whole.  

So, TFA's last place 2004 Silver team is really TFA-SFV, which shares no coaches, facilities, or anything else other than jersey with a TFA team like TFA Pre-Academy 2005 Gold.  They generally just pay a fee to use the name and get access to some coaching materials.

Moreover, even within TFA, the top 2004 team is in the US Development Academy, not CSL, so it wouldn't be included in this list.  It also has one location in SCDSL (TFA-WLA, which affiliated with TFA after it's FCLA predecessor had already entered SCDSL).  So, this ranking has trouble with clubs entering teams in multiple leagues (FC Golden State is another for which that issue applies).

I should add that a club ranking like this is exactly why teams engage in quasi-merger affiliations.  They hope to mislead consumers into thinking the results and style-of-play of the top club to which they associating will translate in to the teams of the location they are joining, even though very little has actually changed substantively.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 20, 2016)

Thanks for the info Dargle.  Informative, well written, not insulting.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

Dargle makes valid points.


----------



## mirage (Sep 20, 2016)

I've thought about this for a bit now and have come to the conclusion that its not a very useful metadata to turn into information this early in the season.  The reason being that it highly dependent on bracket and the schedule thus far as some have mentioned.  There are many instances, where a less competitive team is matched up with a very competitive team in the first couple of weeks.  Also, a large club may have 2~3 teams in the same bracket at the higher end (Gold/Premier) so naturally, they knock each other out lowering the average for the club. 

My sense is just because one can create the data, it doesn't mean that its useful or valid to interpret into an information that helps make any decision.  Its very much the case of garbage-in, garbage-out type of data. 

Once the season is done, then it may have value in that some of the early transient conditions will have dampened out and probably will be a trend of which club has more winning teams than another. 

That said, that data is quite useless to most parents since we select coaches and teams, and not clubs when we consider where to place our kids.  A clear example is how often do you see/hear a coach moving from club A to club B and the team follows because of the coach.  There are plenty of examples of this.

I think it would be more meaningful metadata, if the data was sliced by age (year), gender, and number of team per club at that age.  This would result in which clubs perform better at what age group, across their teams in the age group, for boys or girls. We know heuristically that some clubs have better youngers programs than olders and vise-versa.  Clubs with older DA almost always have a deeper non-DA teams with quality because those didn't make the DA teams are place onto a higher tier teams, whereas clubs without older DA tend to lose all older quality players.  I don't have a DD playing so don't know about the girls side but I suspect the similar argument can be made for ECNL and soon DA for them too.

The last thing is the business side of club soccer.  When you look at any club, the largest number of teams are found in younger ages.  Many reasons including attrition takes place in olders but really, the parents optimism never runs short supply.  From U-little to U13 or so, clubs will take on as many kids as possible fielding some teams that really don't belong on rec fields much less on club fields.  So if your data sliced by age group, it will show which team field most teams in any given age group and how well they perform at the age group.  The argument of development and not winning focus goes away when you stack the years together because one would expect the winning percentage to increase with age, if the players are actually developing, or not (remember that development is for what reason?  Ultimately to win more games and championships at older ages).

Ok sorry, wrote too much.  Do what you want with the data.  Just don't confuse everyone for more that what it is..... Cheers!


----------



## RocketFile (Sep 20, 2016)

I appreciate the effort to create these rankings and at least it has stirred up some conversation, but the rankings have absolutely no meaning - you might have just as well put the clubs in alphabetical order. 

First, as others have said - Bronze does not equal Gold. Even you have said the only reason you haven't included bracketing in your data is because 'you don't have the time'. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME to create an analysis that makes sense so you just put one out that is meaningless??? 

Again, I am not trying to be a jerk, but there is just no statistical significance to your numbers. Besides bracketing differences, what about clubs that have only a few teams? Furthermore, the data set of one week or two week renders this literally meaningless in and of itself. Perhaps if you looked at club performance over 3 or 4 years it would start to have some value.

Sorry but this is worthless.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

RocketFile said:


> I appreciate the effort to create these rankings and at least it has stirred up some conversation, but the rankings have absolutely no meaning - you might have just as well put the clubs in alphabetical order.
> 
> First, as others have said - Bronze does not equal Gold. Even you have said the only reason you haven't included bracketing in your data is because 'you don't have the time'. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME to create an analysis that makes sense so you just put one out that is meaningless???
> 
> ...


I'm not sure you understand how the table works.  You are correct to say that bronze does not equal gold, and you are correct that such bracketing divisions are not specifically partitioned.  But that does not mean they are not considered.  And I would point out that the table does* not *include clubs with only "a few teams."  The table only considers clubs with 10 teams or more, of which there are 102.  

Once again, the table assumes that all clubs of that size or larger have a reasonably similar distribution of teams bracketed in gold, silver, bronze, etcetera.  So a club with an overall better record, is likely to have a better record in each of those brackets.

One more time.  The table is not perfect.  But it is purely objective and produces a clean number measuring the overall competitiveness of clubs competing in the same gaming league against one another.  Some of you have complained, but who has created a better or more accurate table?


----------



## RocketFile (Sep 20, 2016)

I understand how the table works. It is garbage in garbage out. There is no value in the output at all. It is not a large enough sample size. The assumption that clubs have a similar distribution of teams bracketed in various flights is inaccurate. The fact that no one has created a better table does not make this table worth anything. It is not representative of club strength or of anything. Useless.


----------



## RocketFile (Sep 20, 2016)

Albion is 'ranked' #48 - they have 20 teams - 11 Premier, 6 Gold, 3 Silver elite, 0 Silver, 0 Bronze
Team USA is 'ranked' #2 - they have 13 teams - 0 Premier, 2, Gold, 1 Silver Elite, 4 Silver, 6 Bronze


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 20, 2016)

RocketFile said:


> I understand how the table works. It is garbage in garbage out. There is no value in the output at all. It is not a large enough sample size. The assumption that clubs have a similar distribution of teams bracketed in various flights is inaccurate. The fact that no one has created a better table does not make this table worth anything. It is not representative of club strength or of anything. Useless.


OK.  The table is useful to me but useless to you.  I have no problem with that.


----------



## Hank Walker (Sep 21, 2016)

The nerve of this guy to simply compile a data set that provides a factual representation of CSL clubs' W/L records. He thinks he can just give us a totally objective snapshot of club results that we are free to appreciate, or not appreciate, as we choose?  To click and read, or ignore and dismiss from the leisure of our couch? He deserves every petulant insult he gets and every narrow-minded flogging that comes his way. Maybe next time he'll think about what he's done here and compile a data set that is more to the liking of those that wouldn't know the first thing about how to compile data.


----------



## GKDad65 (Sep 21, 2016)

Bless your hearts, you folks have way too much time on your hands.


----------



## RocketFile (Sep 21, 2016)

Hank Walker said:


> The nerve of this guy to simply compile a data set that provides a factual representation of CSL clubs' W/L records. He thinks he can just give us a totally objective snapshot of club results that we are free to appreciate, or not appreciate, as we choose?  To click and read, or ignore and dismiss from the leisure of our couch? He deserves every petulant insult he gets and every narrow-minded flogging that comes his way. Maybe next time he'll think about what he's done here and compile a data set that is more to the liking of those that wouldn't know the first thing about how to compile data.


Hank you are just wrong. First, the initial responses tried not to be insulting - I jumped in when I just couldn't stand the madness as an analytical person anymore and it is only when the numbers were defended, again, and I was told I didn't understand the table that I upped my criticism. Second, the data set isn't just wrong it is misleading by implying that there is some sort of relevant 'analysis' derived from the data set - there isn't. As I said in my first post - I appreciate the effort - but blanketing these numbers in the cloak of objectivity and facts doesn't make them right or useful in any way and acting like they are is misleading. These forums tend to create debate at times, sometimes harsh, not just kudos and congratulations - buck up.


----------



## midreams (Sep 21, 2016)

Its interesting info. Thank you, Daniel. 

Take it for what it is (or isnt) and move along.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Sep 21, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> OK.  The table is useful to me but useless to you.  I have no problem with that.


@Hank Walker, I'm not sure you've followed the plight of Daniel....the sole purpose of his "table" is to attack a small, yet developing Club that he was allegedly relived of his coaching position from a year or 2 ago.  His 1st 15 posts have been framed to directly or indirectly desparage this club.  Just go thru any thread with Hollywood FC in the title and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Sentient Being (Sep 22, 2016)

Daniel Miller, thank you for doing this. I know it is a lot of work, trust me, I have done this kind of thing before and it is a ton of time number crunching and setting up the formulas on your spreadsheet.  I absolutely agree that this has value.  Dont listen to all the negative feedback.  In the end.. everybody on here knows it is about wins and loses in CSL...  CSL does not care about the quality of  play on the field nor is their any emphasis on coaching pedigree or license achievement... it's promotion and relegation...  wins and loses.   And that is what you are showing is here..
So thanks again for the hard work..it's an enjoyable table.


----------



## Sentient Being (Sep 22, 2016)

I did not bother to read through all of the posts, but now I see that you have a history with Hollywood FC and hopefully there is no agenda attached to your table.   I am sure that all of your data is true and is not slanted to disparaged or help any clubs.


----------



## ALT_Dad (Sep 23, 2016)

Thanks for the interesting data.  To the point of others, it would be better if there was weighting for higher level wins vs bronze.  Is it possible to add a point for silver and silver elite wins and two points for gold and above wins?  Though it would blow up the 3 point standard, it may bring more meaning to the tables and quiet some detractors.  Just a thought...


----------



## ALT_Dad (Sep 24, 2016)

A great microcosm example of this is CCU SoCal academy that is an all girls club currently within Crown city United. The six teams have 9 wins and 3 losses and none of the teams are in bronze divisions.  This would result in a score of 2.25 for the small club using the model above (CCU average of 1.39).  Using my example above, they have 8 games in gold and above with 6 wins and 4 games in silver/silver elite with 3 wins and 1 loss.  Weighting gold + with 5 points and silver/elite with 4 points, they have 75% of a weighted average of 4.67 points available for a weighted average score of 3.5.  This is a very small sampling, but it shows the possibility.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 24, 2016)

CCU SoCal Academy teams have performed very well both this year and last.  They definitely increase CCU's points-per-game in my table.  If CCU Socal Academy were a stand-alone club, it would not be included in my table because it does not have 10 teams or more.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 25, 2016)

ALT_Dad said:


> Thanks for the interesting data.  To the point of others, it would be better if there was weighting for higher level wins vs bronze.  Is it possible to add a point for silver and silver elite wins and two points for gold and above wins?  Though it would blow up the 3 point standard, it may bring more meaning to the tables and quiet some detractors.  Just a thought...


I might try a little partitioning this week.  Maybe I will separate out the girls and boys teams.  Or Maybe I will separate the gold level teams.  So there might be two tables sitting side-by-side.  One for all clubs and teams, and perhaps one for just girls, or just golds ... something like that.

While my system of giving each team 3 points for a win is not perfect, neither is a system giving extra weight for wins at different levels.  Start with the lowest ages, the 2008s through 2007s.  I don't believe there are any gold, silver elite or silver levels for girls at these ages, at least for girls.  I believe the boys have a silver bracket for the 2007s.  For girls, there are no gold or silver elite brackets at the 2006 age group, either.  

Now look at the older ages.  There are almost no bronze-level teams from the 1997 through the 2001 years.  About 80-90% of all teams are bracketed at silver and above.  

The statistical result is as follows:  A club with a lot of older teams will always earn more points per game than a club with a lot of younger teams.


----------



## ALT_Dad (Sep 25, 2016)

Your tables are a lot  like college football rankings... it creates a fun discussion every week!


----------



## pewpew (Sep 25, 2016)

Did anyone notice in post #9 the OP put in bold print how HFC is the worst club in CSL? He already tried slamming that club in another thread he started and went thru all the effort to post some meaningless table of stats here in an effort to slam that club AGAIN. Funny how the mods deleted that thread. Instead of spending all that useless time to post this crap...seek help dude. Really.
And as I posted before..my kid doesn't play for HFC..I just got tired of DM bashing them in the previous thread he started and felt the need to speak up. Please don't encourage him about how great his table of useless/meaningless info is when the real agenda behind it is to slam HFC.
Heck..even once the Pres. from HFC got wind of the topic on this forum he created an account to log in and give a legit response of what his club is doing.


----------



## lvnsocr (Sep 26, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> I might try a little partitioning this week.  Maybe I will separate out the girls and boys teams.  Or Maybe I will separate the gold level teams.  So there might be two tables sitting side-by-side.  One for all clubs and teams, and perhaps one for just girls, or just golds ... something like that.
> 
> While my system of giving each team 3 points for a win is not perfect, neither is a system giving extra weight for wins at different levels.  Start with the lowest ages, the 2008s through 2007s.  I don't believe there are any gold, silver elite or silver levels for girls at these ages, at least for girls.  I believe the boys have a silver bracket for the 2007s.  For girls, there are no gold or silver elite brackets at the 2006 age group, either.
> 
> ...


FYI - There is a Silver Elite in Boys 07 and Gold in Boys 06


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 26, 2016)

pewpew said:


> Did anyone notice in post #9 the OP put in bold print how HFC is the worst club in CSL? He already tried slamming that club in another thread he started and went thru all the effort to post some meaningless table of stats here in an effort to slam that club AGAIN. Funny how the mods deleted that thread. Instead of spending all that useless time to post this crap...seek help dude. Really.
> And as I posted before..my kid doesn't play for HFC..I just got tired of DM bashing them in the previous thread he started and felt the need to speak up. Please don't encourage him about how great his table of useless/meaningless info is when the real agenda behind it is to slam HFC.
> Heck..even once the Pres. from HFC got wind of the topic on this forum he created an account to log in and give a legit response of what his club is doing.


Not a fan of any bashing from anyone.   It is interesting that the chart showed HFC as the lowest, and the Pres. comes onto these boards and says they are making changes to the program to improve.  So while the chart has room for improvement, in this case it had some accuracy.

Like all charts, from the NFL, college, or High School rankings, to the great charts being used to rank some of the girls 2004 and 2005 teams, I like them all.  Fun to discuss, fun to learn more about the great game of soccer.  If we all remain adults, and remember it is a game, we can enjoy ourselves even when we aren't on the pitch.


----------

