# CSL Club Rankings, Week 6, Silver Only



## Daniel Miller (Oct 20, 2016)

Here are the Club Rankings for Week 6 It is for Silver Teams only. The list ranks the competitiveness of club programs (not particular teams) vs. other club programs. CSL has 41 clubs with 5 silver teams or more. Each of those clubs is in the table. A team earns 3 points for a win, no points for a loss, and 1 point for a tie. All the the clubs' silver games have their points tallied, and then divided by the number of girls' games played. The result is the average points per game earned by each clubs' silver teams. Each club ends up with a number between zero 0.00 and 3.00.

As a practical matter, any club that earns 2.00 points per game or above is doing  well.  Any club doing worse than 1.00 points per game is in serious trouble.

The best club is the Eagles, followed by FC Deportivo, Total Futbol Academy, and then LA Misioneros.  Congratulations to these high performing programs.

The worst club is Hollywood FC, preceded by LA Academy, Simi Valley Eclipse and Santa Barbara SC.  These programs are suffering.

Rank Club Teams Points Games Pts/Game
1 … Eagles … 7 … 150 … 65 … 2.31
2 … FC Deportivo … 11 … 219 … 102 … 2.15
3 … Total Futbol Academy … 11 … 211 … 106 … 1.99
4 … LA Misioneros … 5 … 95 … 49 … 1.94
5 … Downtown SC … 5 … 81 … 42 … 1.93
6 … LA Galaxy - CVU … 16 … 226 … 151 … 1.87
7 … South Valley SC … 8 … 101 … 56 … 1.8
8 … FRAM … 13 … 203 … 116 … 1.75
9 … Palm Desert SC … 8 … 131 … 75 … 1.75
10 … Inland Empire Surf … 11 … 183 … 105 … 1.74
11 … Spartans FC … 6 … 104 … 60 … 1.73
12 … Santa Ana FC … 6 … 80 … 48 … 1.67
13 … Anaheim FC … 5 … 76 … 47 … 1.62
14 … NHB … 7 … 110 … 68 … 1.62
15 … AYSO Challenge … 16 … 252 … 147 … 1.61
16 … California Premier League … 6 … 92 … 57 … 1.61
17 … Inland United SC … 6 … 90 … 57 … 1.58
18 … California Elite SC … 5 … 65 … 41 … 1.56
19 … BYSC Corona … 6 … 87 … 58 … 1.51
20 … Celtic … 7 … 82 … 56 … 1.46
21 … FC Golden State … 10 … 118 … 81 … 1.46
22 … Milan Academy … 10 … 133 … 92 … 1.45
23 … Ventura FC … 6 … 84 … 58 … 1.45
24 … OC Premier … 6 … 74 … 52 … 1.42
25 … Fullerton Rangers … 5 … 59 … 42 … 1.41
26 … Coastal Valley SC … 10 … 130 … 93 … 1.39
27 … Colton America SC … 6 … 67 … 48 … 1.39
28 … LA Premier … 8 … 110 … 79 … 1.39
29 … Empire SC … 5 … 61 … 47 … 1.29
30 … AC Brea … 8 … 89 … 71 … 1.25
31 … Santa Monica United … 8 … 85 … 69 … 1.23
32 … Orcutt United … 5 … 52 … 43 … 1.21
33 … San Luis Obispo SC … 8 … 88 … 73 … 1.21
34 … Ventura County Fusion … 7 … 67 … 56 … 1.19
35 … Crown City United … 11 … 110 … 96 … 1.15
36 … Central Calif. Aztecs … 5 … 54 … 48 … 1.13
37     Pacific SC 9 96 85 1.13
38 … Santa Barbara SC … 8 … 86 … 76 … 1.13
39 … Simi Valley Eclipse … 8 … 88 … 79 … 1.11
40 … La Academia … 5 … 40 … 50 … 0.81
41 … Hollywood FC … 8 … 44 … 68 … 0.65


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 20, 2016)

You're the best!! You narrowed this down to silver to keep Hollywood FC in the bottom spot! Good work.

And last week you only ranked girls teams - again, last - but I since don't have a DD I didn't compare the rankings. 

Some ideas ... Maybe next week you could rank Hollywood FC last by only the doing number of Gold teams per club? They only have 1 - that's pretty bad! 

Or, looking at the standings, I see their 2003 teams have only 1 win - maybe you could do all the 2003s together so they could be last again? Although there is a 2003 forum for that. 

Anyway, you are doing parents a great service by pointing all of this out. It's difficult to help our children choose a club. Definitely only want to consider winners, no losers. Good work!


----------



## Mystery Train (Oct 20, 2016)

The extremes you are going to in order to troll Hollywood FC is making you look worse than them.  I got no dog in this fight, but dude, let it go.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 20, 2016)

Originally I lumped all teams in all clubs (with 10 or more teams) together.  It happened that Hollywood FC came in last.  That is not my fault.  The data was and is completely objective.  The numbers cannot be rigged.  They are publicly available to everybody, and every reader can do the math for himself.  There are 102 clubs in the group, and Hollywood came in dead last for four consecutive weeks.  How is that my fault?  Yet, Hollywood posters complained, and so did some others.  In their opinion, there was not enough partitioning.  They said that some clubs only have girls (or boys) teams, and this should be reflected in the numbers.  They said that clubs with teams at the silver and higher brackets should be analyzed differently to compensate for higher levels of play.  _*I listened, and I started partitioning*._

So ... two weeks ago I separated out the girls.  Every single club with five or more girls teams was rated. There were 73 teams in the sample.  The numbers could not be rigged.  Yes, Hollywood FC came in last again.  That is not my fault.  

This week I rated silver teams only.  Every club with five or more silver teams was rated.  There are 41 teams in the sample.  The numbers could not be rigged.  And yes, once again, Hollywood FC came in last.

I understand why some of you believe that these rankings are meant to "troll" Hollywood FC.  It is because Hollywood FC has consistently been at the bottom of the performance lists, and those results have been reported, along with the good and bad performances of every other CSL club.  But it is not the umpire's fault if a pitcher throws 24 balls in a row and no strikes.  You should also note that I consistently *praise* teams who are at or near the top of the standings.  I treat everybody based on their record.  That can hardly be called "trolling."

My suggestion for Hollywood FC is that they win more games.  A few more wins here and there, and nobody would notice where Hollywood is on the list.  The only reason they are noticed now is that they *consistently* rank at the bottom of CSL standings, no matter how the samples are partitioned.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 20, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> Anyway, you are doing parents a great service by pointing all of this out. It's difficult to help our children choose a club. Definitely only want to consider winners, no losers. Good work!


I agree that it is very difficult for parents to "choose a club."  The reason it is so difficult is that it is nearly impossible to compare.  Each club talks about how it "develops" its players, and each club spouts a nearly identical philosophy.  So that is no help.  No comprehensive records exist to show exactly how well any club does against other clubs, so that is no help.  No comprehensive list exists showing how much families pay to join a club.

I don't claim that any parent should use my statistical rankings as the sole basis of choosing one club or another for their son or daughter.  That mostly depends on a player's age, skill and ambition, and whether he or she will prosper under a particular coach.

But there is a role that statistical rankings can play.  If a club performs consistently well across all gender and age groups, then that club is likely to be very well managed from top to bottom.  Teams from that club probably have strong retention, play in more competitive brackets and attend better tournaments, and players from that club probably have better exposure and collegiate options.  This is the type of program that has the best outcomes, so why would you not want your son or daughter to find one?

When a club performs consistently poorly across all gender and age groups, then that club is likely to be poorly managed from top to bottom.  It will probably never develop good teams because its best players will move to other clubs, and it will be unable to attract top talent from other clubs.
So why would you want your son or daughter in a poorly performing club?  What are the chances that your son or daughter will have an excellent outcome?  I'd say the chances are slim.

The bottom line is this.  My statistical rankings are not the end-all-be-all for choosing a club for your son or daughter.  But I believe it provides valuable insight to a family who is looking for a program that has consistently good outcomes, and who is trying to avoid programs that have consistently poor outcomes.


----------



## pewpew (Oct 20, 2016)

Mystery Train said:


> The extremes you are going to in order to troll Hollywood FC is making you look worse than them.  I got no dog in this fight, but dude, let it go.


Exactly. Go away troll!! You can try and spin this any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were sniffed out before you started doing your weekly rankings when you were posting your other nonsense about HFC. The time you spend to post all of this info about all of these clubs just so you could post that HFC is in last place tells me you still have a serious grudge against that club. Why not spend that useless time doing something helpful. Volunteer at a local shelter, use your  super-soccer knowledge and coach a local rec. team or something. 
Your suggestion is for HFC to win more games and nobody will notice. How about you stopping posting this crap and nobody will notice either.


----------



## God (Oct 21, 2016)

Daniel Miller, you're getting a little faggy about this whole HFC thingy is all I'm saying.

Not one gave a fuck about them even before you brought them up pussy.


----------



## madcow (Oct 21, 2016)

I'm looking forward to your Silver Elite, Gold and Premier rankings.

I'll wait...


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

pewpew said:


> Exactly. Go away troll!! You can try and spin this any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were sniffed out before you started doing your weekly rankings when you were posting your other nonsense about HFC. The time you spend to post all of this info about all of these clubs just so you could post that HFC is in last place tells me you still have a serious grudge against that club. Why not spend that useless time doing something helpful. Volunteer at a local shelter, use your  super-soccer knowledge and coach a local rec. team or something.
> Your suggestion is for HFC to win more games and nobody will notice. How about you stopping posting this crap and nobody will notice either.


No, I wasn't "sniffed out."  The President of Hollywood said he "thought" I might be a former Hollywood FC "disgruntled employee," but he admitted he did not know.  I can assure I am not.  I hold no "grudge" against the club. 

All I am doing is posting accurate information about many, many clubs, which allows comparison.  That is all.  Nothing more.  I had not made a single comment about Hollywood since week #2 of the season.  The only reason I mentioned Hollywood in this thread is because jrcaesar complained that Hollywood kept coming in last, suggesting that I manipulated the samples. 

*Hollywood FC is being treated in exactly the same way as every other club in the sample.*  I'm sorry if the comparison makes the club look bad.  That is not my fault.  If the club wants to look better, then it should start winning more games.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

God said:


> Daniel Miller, you're getting a little faggy about this whole HFC thingy is all I'm saying.
> 
> Not one gave a fuck about them even before you brought them up pussy.


When people start swearing and name-calling, it means they have nothing legitimate to say.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

madcow said:


> I'm looking forward to your Silver Elite, Gold and Premier rankings.
> 
> I'll wait...


Thanks for the support.  I will try to do some of that next week, time permitting.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 21, 2016)

It's important for new posters (who read this discussion forum) to understand that you are selectively choosing tables to continue to belittle the children at Hollywood FC.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> It's important for new posters (who read this discussion forum) to understand that you are selectively choosing tables to continue to belittle the children at Hollywood FC.


JrCaesar, that is completely false, and if that is your best argument, then you are not the man I thought you were.  We can disagree about the utility of my statistics, but let's do it without the sham argument that ranking clubs somehow belittles kids.  If that were the case, then we should stop keeping score at games, because losers would be "belittled."  And we should not keep standings, either, for the same reason.

For the record, I am certain that players at Hollywood FC are just as good, and have just as much potential as the kids who play at every other club. 

I have not mentioned, much less belittled a single child at any club.  I have never once named a child, described a child, given a child's uniform number, described the play of a child, or done anything else to identify or belittle a child.  I have not even identified any team that any particular child plays for. These are *club-wide* statistics.  No team or child is *ever* mentioned.

How could anyone blame kids for the performance of an entire club?  If a club performs poorly on a club-wide scale, *that reflects the management ... not the kids.*


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 21, 2016)

It would be one thing to just post rankings. It's another to call out, to quote your posts:

"the worst club"
"LOSERS"
"the last-place champion for the second week in a row"
"Hollywood, already the worst club in CSL, even worse on the table"
There are no other posts in this forum that do this to children's teams. (Although, tbf, there are many who don't like certain clubs, but they describe why.)


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

JrCaesar, now you are quote-mining, and that is unworthy of you.  You are looking at quotes from many weeks ago, and posting snippets taken out of context.  Yes, those were negative comments about Hollywood FC as a club.  What you don't mention is that they were made *after* people from Hollywood FC and others said negative things about me.  I responded in kind, and it made me appear biased against the club.  I should not have done that.  Again, not one player has ever been mentioned.  Not one "childrens' team" has ever been mentioned, so if you want to maintain your own credibility, you should stop saying so.


----------



## NVDaggers (Oct 21, 2016)

These posts are certainly created by Robert Woodbury, the coach fired by Hollywood FC last spring. I have no doubt about it. Maybe he's not posting them so he can say he isn't but he is definitely writing them. He is a weird guy, who hangs around the fields of all our clubs and has notes on just about every girl in the southern california area. Total weirdo. Some of our parents wanted us to call the cops on him last year because they thought he was stalking their girls. 

It's sad because he's an awful coach and the girls from our clubs and others would never have considered going to his teams, but there he was week after week. I used to feel sorry for him, but not anymore. 

I bet a lot of you have seen him too:  http://www.robertcwoodbury.com/ (There is a picture of him on here)

But here's why I don't feel sorry for him. I've been coaching and working with kids for over 20 years. Worked with hundreds of coaches and thousands of kids. These posts, this anger, thirst for revenge - whatever you want to call it - has the maturity of a 6th grade boy. He is Donald Trump.  

He is everything that is wrong about youth sports.  

I think it's great that so many of us have put him in his place, but to be honest he has no place.  The site should ban him. 

Here is what will happen. He'll contact the site and demand they take this down. Or he'll delete this thread so this post disappears, which if he was Daniel Miller and not Rob Woodbury would be an odd thing to do.

And if you stand by your "research" then tell us who you are Daniel Miller. Where do you coach, where does your kid play, what is your real name? You won't, because you are Rob Woodbury hiding behind an anonymous website. 

Grow up. Your probably 70 years old, not much time to get to that next phase of your development.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

NVDagger, you are another Hollywood poster, no doubt.  But you got the wrong guy.


----------



## NVDaggers (Oct 21, 2016)

Who are you then Rob? Stand behind your words. If you are so neutral you have nothing to be ashamed of. 

Never happen. Because you are just a sad pathetic man.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 21, 2016)

No, NVDagger, I am not the person you think I am.  But that does not mean I will identify myself for your benefit or anyone else's.  I don't see you using your real identity, either.


----------



## toucan (Oct 21, 2016)

This is Robert Woodbury. I am not the statistician.. I was not fired at Hollywood.  I  quit.  Anybody who wants to can look at my teams records when I was at Hollywood. Of my last six teams when I was there 5 earned promotions. The president of the club had his daughter on my team for over two years until I quit. Until that day he raved about the quality of the teams I coached and his daughter's happiness on the team. Another vice-president of this Club had his daughter on my team for two full years until I quit. I am still on good terms with that person and over that entire period he did nothing but Rave about how well our teams did and how much fun his daughter was having and what a good coach he thought I was. I enjoyed my time at Hollywood FC up until the time that I quit. Prior to quitting I had made many requests to Hollywood SC to be paid the many thousands of dollars of overdue coaching fees i had been promised but not paid. I had to sue the club and that dispute is still pending. Except for that i wish Hollywood and everyone who plays there the very best in the future.  Please excuse the typos. This is dictated to the phone.


----------



## NVDaggers (Oct 21, 2016)

Funny that Rob knew about this so fast. 

Yeah, your Daniel Miller. Maybe your wife posted for you or some technicality, but it's you.


----------



## Mystery Train (Oct 21, 2016)

Hey @NVDaggers, don't sweat Mr. Miller, or Rob, or whatever his name is.  His creepy obsession with HFC and the absurd effort he takes to shroud his trolling in this quasi-weekly ranking system (which nobody asked for in the first place) is obvious to everyone on the forum.  The only way to handle trolls is to put them on ignore.  Normally I avoid commenting directly to such people, but the fact that he changed his rankings to only the Silver teams just to keep HFC in the big, red-letter-loser font was just too rich to pass up.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 21, 2016)

Mystery Train said:


> Hey @NVDaggers Normally I avoid commenting directly to such people, but the fact that he changed his rankings to only the Silver teams just to keep HFC in the big, red-letter-loser font was just too rich to pass up.


^^^Exactly.^^^


----------

