How do leagues stack up?

[dad4]

That is a great way to look at it. Who cares if the initial investment is different by a few hundred dollars. If you end up going to the same vet, buying the same food, using the same same kennels, the cost of the dog is the same. Claiming that one letter league is more expensive than the other is just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you are traveling outside of your county for league games, and have mandatory post/pre-season events, your soccer costs are likely the same as those participating in the other leagues.

To follow your analogy to its silly conclusion, some breeds have a tendency to accumulate vet bills. Don’t buy the dalmation if you are trying to save money.

Take a look at the game history on Soccer Rankings. If the club’s older teams go to a lot of out of state tournaments, then expect to pay for them as your kid gets older.

 

[Code]

To follow your analogy to its silly conclusion, some breeds have a tendency to accumulate vet bills. Don’t buy the dalmation if you are trying to save money.

Take a look at the game history on Soccer Rankings. If the club’s older teams go to a lot of out of state tournaments, then expect to pay for them as your kid gets older.

We are comparing Leagues in this discussion, not Clubs and Teams. Sorry if my analogy threw off your logic. It would be really cool if Soccer Rankings created a League Comparison section.

 

[dad4]

We are comparing Leagues in this discussion, not Clubs and Teams. Sorry if my analogy threw off your logic. It would be really cool if Soccer Rankings created a League Comparison section.

Someone here did one. On the girls side, ECNL has stronger average teams than GA, which has stronger average teams than ECRL.

Anything below that, and you’re paying someone to tell you how great your kid is. This also applies to the three I mentioned, but to a lesser extent.

I don’t see how you can compare costs by league, though. Even within a league, travel costs can vary widely. One team might do four tournaments and nationals, while another just focuses on league and scrimmages. That’s a difference of several thousand dollars per year.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Someone here did one. On the girls side, ECNL has stronger average teams than GA, which has stronger average teams than ECRL.

Anything below that, and you’re paying someone to tell you how great your kid is. This also applies to the three I mentioned, but to a lesser extent.

I don’t see how you can compare costs by league, though. Even within a league, travel costs can vary widely. One team might do four tournaments and nationals, while another just focuses on league and scrimmages. That’s a difference of several thousand dollars per year.

Also the geography matters.

Different leagues are strong / weak in different areas.

I dont believe "anything below GA a or ECNL" is a bad. Different players grow at different rates. A top NPL or DPL team can be competitive against perceived higher level league teams.

 

[lafalafa]

The $$ money machine wants you believe that leagues "stack" up but in reality it's the players not the clubs, leagues, etc.

Do players get better or improve more in a league vs training or practicing? Some of both but many believe trophies are WON at practice and your just picking them up at any given competition.

All this abc league is better vs xyz is all about marketing and $$ and many parents go for it hook, line, and sinker. Same with tournaments why do you think there's so many in six different flights, because parents want to pay for "winning" that $2 medal and $20 trophy. The don't want to pay if a team is not "winning" and this causes a bunch of unnecessary grief or conflict for players who often get discouraged by their parents because they want to see immediate tangible results not long term growth or development which doesn't have a set timeline.

In the end it's all about the coaching, practicing, training that's more important. Playing time is next priority, the league would be down the list after that, most players not going to have a great season not starting and regular 1.5hr x2-3 sessions a week normally not nearly enough if they have aspirations at the top or highest levels.

 

[socalkdg]

The $$ money machine wants you believe that leagues "stack" up but in reality it's the players not the clubs, leagues, etc.

Do players get better or improve more in a league vs training or practicing? Some of both but many believe trophies are WON at practice and your just picking them up at any given competition.

All this abc league is better vs xyz is all about marketing and $$ and many parents go for it hook, line, and sinker. Same with tournaments why do you think there's so many in six different flights, because parents want to pay for "winning" that $2 medal and $20 trophy. The don't want to pay if a team is not "winning" and this causes a bunch of unnecessary grief or conflict for players who often get discouraged by their parents because they want to see immediate tangible results not long term growth or development which doesn't have a set timeline.

In the end it's all about the coaching, practicing, training that's more important. Playing time is next priority, the league would be down the list after that, most players not going to have a great season not starting and regular 1.5hr x2-3 sessions a week normally not nearly enough if they have aspirations at the top or highest levels.

Extra touches and training are very important. Many teams in Coast or SoCal only had practice twice a week while ECNL/GA are at 3 times a week. Right there is 50% more touches. Being a keeper my daughter had her 2 practices a week with her team, but then supplemented that with 2 keeper training practices outside the club so she was going 4X a week. Interesting many of our girls from club were actually better after the High School season since they were practicing 4x a week for their High Schools.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Extra touches and training are very important. Many teams in Coast or SoCal only had practice twice a week while ECNL/GA are at 3 times a week. Right there is 50% more touches. Being a keeper my daughter had her 2 practices a week with her team, but then supplemented that with 2 keeper training practices outside the club so she was going 4X a week. Interesting many of our girls from club were actually better after the High School season since they were practicing 4x a week for their High Schools.

Many are also doing futsal which is quadruple the number of touches as field in the same amount of time.

As long as players can switch between futsal and field (the way you play is slightly different) all is good.

 

[Code]

Someone here did one. On the girls side, ECNL has stronger average teams than GA, which has stronger average teams than ECRL.

Anything below that, and you’re paying someone to tell you how great your kid is. This also applies to the three I mentioned, but to a lesser extent.

I don’t see how you can compare costs by league, though. Even within a league, travel costs can vary widely. One team might do four tournaments and nationals, while another just focuses on league and scrimmages. That’s a difference of several thousand dollars per year.

Your right. That was kind of what my weird analogy was getting at. Comparing registration costs of the various leagues doesn't account for the true cost associated with playing in letter leagues. The costs add up due to travel expenses for league games and events, and that is universal regardless of which letter league it is. So, one league isn't necessarily more expensive than the other. But one team vs. another is, relative to the two specific teams, not the league.

 

[SoccerFan4Life]

E64 on the 09 girls side has several top teams (top 3) that can beat most ECRL and some ECNL teams. The rest are at ECRL and below. Elite 64 will continue to get stronger because there’s so many players that cannot make the drive to join the top 2 leagues. The problem with e64 is the cost is almost the same and that’s an issue for an unproven league. Top talent but will they get the visibility from college scouts as the other top 2 leagues.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It would be really cool if Soccer Rankings created a League Comparison section.

That could be pretty useful. Could have it report nationally, or could filter by state - as the first response to any question about league strength is always "It varies by location", even if in the vast majority of cases it really doesn't. I know Mark publishes them occasionally, but I don't know what it takes on the back end to get the data usable for this. For something like MLS Next, a simple team name filter is more than good enough to identify almost all teams, but it's not as straightforward for some of the other leagues. One way could be to have the primary/secondary leagues a team is in show up as a visible data field in the team profile, and allow for editing/choosing it if it is incorrect. And certain (most?) game data sources could have a league assigned to them on import, and as they are assigned to a team - that league data is assigned to that team - so the initial entry and most updating would be automated at scale.

 

[Carlsbad7]

What I think would be more important than simply showing which league is "better" would be to show the top teams, middle teams, and lower teams. Per age group, per league, and separated by each geography.

This is what parents really need to see when making a decision on which team/club to play for.

 

[Code]

What I think would be more important than simply showing which league is "better" would be to show the top teams, middle teams, and lower teams. Per age group, per league, and separated by each geography.

This is what parents really need to see when making a decision on which team/club to play for.

Isn't that basically what Soccer Rankings is right now? It would be nice if we could filter out NorCal and SoCal geography as it is a lot of teams, and the regions administer their Leagues differently. It is easy to just type GA or NPL into the search bar on SR, as most teams include this in the team name, and it provides a ranked list with of the teams in the league. The Club Tab allows us to see if their is consistency with the top teams at the clubs. Knowing what the level of play is in a certain league has mostly been subjective up until recently. The SR App is making it possible to assess leagues with data, which I like. The average quality of competition is just as important as the quality of coach, teammates, and available fields for practice and games.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

What I think would be more important than simply showing which league is "better" would be to show the top teams, middle teams, and lower teams. Per age group, per league, and separated by each geography.

This is what parents really need to see when making a decision on which team/club to play for.

Right - there are a number of ways the data could be shown. Separating teams by state is already there - the split between some states north/south was removed compared to GS because it's quite wonky figuring out where too many teams should actually sit by town - compared to the state field that is easy to pick up in almost all game sources. But for League data, it could show average rating, top rating, and bottom rating, and keep those fields calculable as state filters were applied. Then anyone trying to gauge a specific team could easily see where that rating stands by league & by geography. Keep in mind filtering by league and by state is only useful across a small handful of very large states - in most cases it's actually more states per league, so filtering league strength down within a single state might only show 1 or 2 ECNL, 1 or 2 GA, 1 MLS Next, etc.

 

[focomoso]

And certain (most?) game data sources could have a league assigned to them on import, and as they are assigned to a team - that league data is assigned to that team - so the initial entry and most updating would be automated at scale.

I think this would be the best option because the data sources are directly connected to their league. You pick the most recent league that a team has data from, excluding tournaments.

 

[El Padre Antonio]

Great thread and lots of great information on here. I just read that Lesle Gallimore has left the GA and will now be the General Manager for the OL Reign. Definitely did a great job for them and wishing her continued success in her career.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I think this would be the best option because the data sources are directly connected to their league. You pick the most recent league that a team has data from, excluding tournaments.

Right - but it also needs to take into account that many teams play in multiple leagues, sometimes even concurrently. A team needs to either be able to be linked to more than one league, or it would vacillate to the latest game entry each time. A single team doesn't play in multiple age groups (when it does it's still the same team entity), or multiple states, so it's a slightly different data model for league data. Using only the last one each time would potentially affect league ratings. Whether it would be enough to make any difference in the overall league ratings would depend on how many teams that would apply to, compared to how many teams that are clearly tied to a single league over the past relevant time period. Done well, this wouldn't only be a listing of the top 6-8 "letter leagues", but it could be a useful league comparison at a more granular level (For example, showing the relative strength between NorCal Premier and CalNorth in 2023)

 

[focomoso]

Right - but it also needs to take into account that many teams play in multiple leagues, sometimes even concurrently. A team needs to either be able to be linked to more than one league, or it would vacillate to the latest game entry each time. A single team doesn't play in multiple age groups (when it does it's still the same team entity), or multiple states, so it's a slightly different data model for league data. Using only the last one each time would potentially affect league ratings. Whether it would be enough to make any difference in the overall league ratings would depend on how many teams that would apply to, compared to how many teams that are clearly tied to a single league over the past relevant time period. Done well, this wouldn't only be a listing of the top 6-8 "letter leagues", but it could be a useful league comparison at a more granular level (For example, showing the relative strength between NorCal Premier and CalNorth in 2023)

Makes sense for non letter leagues, but for the letter leagues I'm familiar with, there isn't much moving around.

 

[CoachReed68]

Isn't that basically what Soccer Rankings is right now?

It would be nice if there was an app that would rank individual players on technical ability, because the current apps rank Winners and Losers, and lead people into believing that players on Winning teams are technically superior than others. Do parents want their kids to be technically great, or great only in Win-Loss record with regard to teams and tournaments? College scouts want great players, not player who merely have the most plastic medals taped to their bedroom walls.

 

[Code]

It would be nice if there was an app that would rank individual players on technical ability, because the current apps rank Winners and Losers, and lead people into believing that players on Winning teams are technically superior than others. Do parents want their kids to be technically great, or great only in Win-Loss record with regard to teams and tournaments? College scouts want great players, not player who merely have the most plastic medals taped to their bedroom walls.

Q: If a professional player is technically great but has a poor win-lose record what does that make them?
A: Relegated.

 

[Carlsbad7]

It would be nice if there was an app that would rank individual players on technical ability, because the current apps rank Winners and Losers, and lead people into believing that players on Winning teams are technically superior than others. Do parents want their kids to be technically great, or great only in Win-Loss record with regard to teams and tournaments? College scouts want great players, not player who merely have the most plastic medals taped to their bedroom walls.

How would ranking individual players even be possible?

Soccer is a team sport. To win it takes a mix of goal scorers, defenders, not losing posession, ability to work together, having an amazing goalie, etc etc etc.

You prob could rank goal scorers by number of goals + assists. Goalies could be ranked by shots on goal vs number that went in. But how would it work for everyone else?

Reality is that top teams have good players in all positions because that's what it takes to win. This is why number of team wins is a good indicator of individual talent.

 

[rainbow_unicorn]

You can only rank individual players if you are tracking in-depth stats (like Opta) on a consistent basis across all players. That ain't happening for youth soccer .