# CSL Club Rankings, Week 1



## Daniel Miller (Sep 13, 2016)

Wanted to see which *CSL clubs* (not individual teams) had the best overall records.  This is a list of all CSL clubs with 10 teams or more, as near as I could calculate.  There are 100 of them.  On Monday, I took the CSL website club pages to count wins, losses, ties and points *per club*.  Then I calculated points per game (3 pts per win, 1 pt. per tie, 0 pts. per loss).  By my criteria, this tells me which CSL clubs have the most and least competitive programs.  There may be some errors in the numbers, but I did my best.  This is just week one, so the population sample may not be large enough to be be predictive, but it does provide a snapshot of where teams are as of this week.  Hopefully, the formatting will work on this site.  If not, here are the headings:
Club name     No. Teams       Club record      Games played      Points     Points per game

Club Teams Record Games Pts Pts per Game
1 Coachella YSA 12 11-3-1 15 34 2.27
2 Newbury Park SC 13 11-3-2 16 35 2.19
3 Team USA 13 11-3-2 16 35 2.19
4 Albion SC 20 15-11-1 21 46 2.19
5 Anaheim FC 19 19-7-1 27 58 2.15
6 Albion SC OC 17 12-7-7 26 43 2.15
7 Claremont Stars 12 10-4-1 15 31 2.07
8 FC Deportivo 26 19-7-4 30 61 2.03
9 Spartans FC 33 24-11-2 37 74 2.00
10 Rialto Fire 17 7-13-0 20 21 10.5
11 Boca Jrs. 19 14-7-1 22 43 1.95
12 Futbol Foundation of SC 14 10-5-1 16 31 1.94
13 La Mirada FC 12 9-4-2 15 29 1.93
14 Celtic 38 32-16-4 52 100 1.92
15 Juggle the World 10 8-4-1 13 25 1.92
16 Apple Valley SC 20 18-9-3 30 57 1.90
17 Anahauk Academy 12 5-2-2 9 17 1.89
18 Santa Anita FC 10 5-2-2 9 17 1.89
19 Bakersfield Legacy 10 3-3-1 7 13 1.86
20 CPL-California Premier 21 12-7-1 20 37 1.85
21 South Valley SC 18 11-5-4 20 37 1.85
22 LA Misionarios 10 8-5-0 13 24 1.85
23 Roadrunners United 10 7-4-1 12 22 1.83
24 Newcastle United 12 10-6-1 17 31 1.82
25 Empire SC 18 15-9-3 27 48 1.78
26 Oxnard PAL 14 11-8-0 19 33 1.74
27 FRAM 51 34-22-7 63 109 1.73
28 P2Ks 11 4-3-0 7 12 1.71
29 Downtown SC 20 9-6-2 17 29 1.71
30 Riverside FC 19 12-8-3 23 39 1.70
31 L.A. Galaxy Bakersfield 21 16-9-8 33 56 1.70
32 Oxnard United 11 8-5-3 16 27 1.69
33 L.A. Galaxy San Diego 18 12-6-9 27 45 1.67
34 IUSC 24 16-11-5 32 53 1.66
35 La Esperanza 15 10-7-3 20 33 1.65
36 Eagles 28 18-13-5 36 59 1.64
37 Central California Aztecs 21 14-10-6 30 48 1.60
38 Southwestern YSC 15 8-6-3 17 27 1.59
39 Canyon FC 13 7-6-1 14 22 1.57
40 UIFC 28 14-13-1 28 43 1.54
41 Desert United 12 8-7-2 17 26 1.53
42 Colton America SC 14 5-4-3 12 18 1.50
43 Southwest SC 12 6-5-3 14 21 1.50
44 Santa Monica United 36 20-17-9 46 69 1.5
45 Total Futbol Academy 41 19-17-12 48 69 1.44
46 Oxnard Wave 22 10-9-6 25 36 1.44
47 High Desert Premier 18 12-13-0 25 36 1.44
48 Palm Desert SC 18 10-10-3 23 33 1.43
49 Santos Laguna SC 10 5-5-2 12 17 1.42
50 BYSC Corona 34 19-19-7 45 64 1.42
51 Simi Valley Premier 10 5-5-2 12 17 1.42
52 San Luis Obispo SC 14 8-8-3 19 27 1.42
53 Xplosion 15 8-8-3 19 27 1.42
54 AYSO Challenge 81 51-42-19 122 172 1.41
55 California Elite 14 6-6-3 15 21 1.40
56 L.A. Premier 46 25-28-3 56 78 1.39
57 MSA FC 14 8-9-1 18 25 1.39
58 Coastal Valley SC 40 24-26-6 56 78 1.39
59 Riverside MGFM 23 23-12-2 37 51 1.38
60 Santa Barbara SC 31 17-19-6 42 57 1.36
61 Orcutt United SL 14 9-10-3 22 30 1.36
62 Valley United 26 10-11-5 26 35 1.35
63 Culver City FC 11 5-6-1 12 16 1.33
64 Wolves FC 13 5-6-1 12 16 1.33
65 HG Eagles 13 5-5-5 15 20 1.33
66 OC Premier 34 16-20-2 38 50 1.32
67 Oceanside Breakers 12 8-10-1 19 25 1.32
68 River Valley Rovers 17 9-11-2 22 29 1.32
69 IE Surf 67 34-41-9 84 111 1.32
70 Fullerton Rangers 30 15-19-3 37 48 1.30
71 West Coast Elite 10 3-4-0 7 9 1.29
72 Corinthians 30 13-16-5 34 44 1.29
73 La Academia 14 7-9-2 18 23 1.28
74 NHB 20 10-12-7 29 37 1.28
75 Milan Academy 36 18-23-5 46 59 1.28
76 Crown City Un ited 30 16-21-4 41 52 1.27
77 Bacelona California 14 7-10-1 18 22 1.22
78 FC Golden State OC 16 6-8-4 18 22 1.22
79 Antelope Valley SC 12 5-7-2 14 17 1.21
80 Pacific Soccer Club 27 15-22-1 38 46 1.21
81 Simi Valley SC (Eclipse) 29 15-22-6 43 51 1.19
82 FC Long Beach 20 8-12-2 22 26 1.18
83 YASC Spartans 26 11-17-4 32 37 1.16
84 United Premier FC 12 5-8-1 14 16 1.14
85 Hemet Juventus 10 5-8-2 15 17 1.13
86 FC Golden State 59 19-31-12 62 69 1.11
87 Ventura Co. Fusion 21 6-10-3 19 21 1.11
88 Burbank United 11 4-7-0 11 12 1.09
89 Westminster SA 13 4-7-0 11 12 1.09
90 Greater Long Beach SC 12 4-7-5 16 17 1.06
91 L.A. Galaxy CVU 55 18-33-14 65 68 1.05
92 AC Brea 13 12-24-2 38 38 1.00
93 Wolfpack SC 12 2-4-2 8 8 1.00
94 Autobahn 14 4-11-3 17 15 0.88
95 Necaxa USA 15 4-10-1 15 13 0.87
96 Foothill Storm SC 11 5-13-0 18 15 0.83
97 South Bay United Academy 14 2-8-3 13 9 0.69
98 FC Man United 12 3-11-1 15 10 0.67
99 North Valley SC 14 2-8-0 10 6 0.60
100 Hollywood FC 20 2-14-4 20 10 0.50


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 13, 2016)

Appreciate the creativity and effort.  Not sure this measures what you want it to.  At a minimum, you should consider weighting points by bracket level, or it will favor overachieving clubs who bracket their teams too low, or good new clubs working their way up from Bronze. Is a club with a .700 win percentage  playing mostly Bronze more competitive than one with all level teams, including Premier, at .500?


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 13, 2016)

Dos Equis said:


> Appreciate the creativity and effort.  Not sure this measures what you want it to.  At a minimum, you should consider weighting points by bracket level, or it will favor overachieving clubs who bracket their teams too low, or good new clubs working their way up from Bronze. Is a club with a .700 win percentage  playing mostly Bronze more competitive than one with all level teams, including Premier, at .500?


You're not wrong.  But there are good reasons to avoid partitioning for bracket levels or inserting Bayesian probabilities.  First, I don't have the time for it.  Second, I believe that almost all clubs of 10 teams or more end up with roughly the same distribution of teams in various brackets.  Third, the process of choosing additional weights and probabilities necessarily requires me to use my own biases in setting up the parameters.  I wanted this table to be derived from the simplest, most unbiased, and most objective data available.


----------



## Overlap (Sep 14, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> Wanted to see which *CSL clubs* (not individual teams) had the best overall records.  This is a list of all CSL clubs with 10 teams or more, as near as I could calculate.  There are 100 of them.  On Monday, I took the CSL website club pages to count wins, losses, ties and points *per club*.  Then I calculated points per game (3 pts per win, 1 pt. per tie, 0 pts. per loss).  By my criteria, this tells me which CSL clubs have the most and least competitive programs.  There may be some errors in the numbers, but I did my best.  This is just week one, so the population sample may not be large enough to be be predictive, but it does provide a snapshot of where teams are as of this week.  Hopefully, the formatting will work on this site.  If not, here are the headings:
> Club name     No. Teams       Club record      Games played      Points     Points per game
> 
> Club Teams Record Games Pts Pts per Game
> ...


you know,.... we'll be expecting weekly updates right?


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 14, 2016)

Overlap said:


> you know,.... we'll be expecting weekly updates right?


Umm ...  I'll get back to you on that.  Maybe every few weeks.  Depends on how much time I have.


----------



## soccerobserver (Sep 14, 2016)

Thanks Dan The Man...typo in #10 but very interesting Nonetheless ...but how is it useful ? Why measure wins but not development at all? Kickball is way easier at u littles and can lead to nice W/L records and a false reality at ulittle. Then when the kids get older the teams and players that have "developed" crush the kick ballers and as a result many of those Titans of Kickball  teams fold...kick balling themselves into oblivion...


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 14, 2016)

soccerobserver said:


> Thanks Dan The Man...typo in #10 but very interesting Nonetheless ...but how is it useful ? Why measure wins but not development at all? Kickball is way easier at u littles and can lead to nice W/L records and a false reality at ulittle. Then when the kids get older the teams and players that have "developed" crush the kick ballers and as a result many of those Titans of Kickball  teams fold...kick balling themselves into oblivion...


The reason to measure "wins" instead of "development" is that development is not measurable.  What constitutes development?  Number of passes?  Kids dribbling the ball?  Kicking it harder than the next kid?  Clever corner kick sets?  Long throws?  Every one of those things requires "development."  But every parent and coach has a different idea of what "development" means. 

My experience tells me that every coach and DOC tells you that he or she is all about "development."  Look on any club's website and it will say the same thing.  But many coaches and DOCs use the term as a way to excuse the poor performance of their teams.  Why can't Johnny's team win?  "Because Johnny's coach is working on development; only bad coaches have winning teams because they don't care about development."  How can you tell if Johnny's team is "developing?"  Well, they must be developing, because Johnny's coach and DOC tell you so.

I believe that winning is the only objective measure of whether teams are "developing" or not.  Teams that are developing get better, and therefore win more games.  Teams that win more games move on to play against better competition.  Other good players are attracted to winning teams.  Practice intensity increases because players have to compete for positions.  Parents prefer winning teams, so there is a better overall sideline attitude.  

So I only measure how well a club's teams actually perform.  In my opinion, this provides the best evidence of how competitive a club is, and how well its players and teams are "developing."


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 14, 2016)

soccerobserver said:


> Thanks Dan The Man...typo in #10 but very interesting Nonetheless ...but how is it useful ? Why measure wins but not development at all? Kickball is way easier at u littles and can lead to nice W/L records and a false reality at ulittle. Then when the kids get older the teams and players that have "developed" crush the kick ballers and as a result many of those Titans of Kickball  teams fold...kick balling themselves into oblivion...


I would also point out that if a club has great u-littles who only play kickball, but underperforming olders who only play kickball, then the statistical model of points earned per game is still valid.  That club will rack up points at the younger ages but will regress to the mean when the older teams are counted in.  The overall competitiveness of the club should be about the same either way.


----------



## mahrez (Sep 14, 2016)

Did you use the club pages as a reference
https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2016&CLUB=972&Send+Form=Go!

15 Juggle the World. The logo is nice & what a name.

Might be apples to oranges clubs like above only had bronze teams for example.  More difficult to get points as you move up all the way to potentially premiere.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Sep 15, 2016)

mahrez said:


> Did you use the club pages as a reference
> https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2016&CLUB=972&Send+Form=Go!
> 
> 15 Juggle the World. The logo is nice & what a name.
> ...


Yes, that is where I obtained the information, current as of Monday last.


----------

