How’s the 2023-24 season going?

[TeamDadJokes]

You say you see that all the time - but you've never been able to provide a single example. In this case you believe TH 2010G ranking is inflated based on the teams they are seeing. OK - unless there is more head-to-head competition people can continue to believe their own perceptions and misperceptions to their heart's content - and nobody can ever prove them wrong. The flip side is it's just as hard to prove themselves right.

So which teams in SoCal (It apparently happens "all the time"), enjoy a high rating that they haven't "actually earned" since they are sand bagging tournaments?

Hint: in this case it will be pretty easy to disprove if an example is ever provided. You can just look in SR for the last 6-12 months of games, and clearly see which games were overperformed vs. the team's rating, and underperformed vs. the team rating. The more games that are way off of predictions, the more likely something is up with their performance vs. their actual capability. If there aren't many game like that - it's clear this would be a false accusation.

I’m not going to call out a team for sandbagging so I will not cite examples. I get it, you want the soccer rankings app to be 100%. I use them often but those who are familiar with the age group and know who showed up with their roster and who had help and who plays lower end brackets to get hardware. It’s always changing.

It’s ok for there to be some type of variance of accuracy in any application or algorithm, that’s normal. Scientist would agree, mathematicians and even physicians would say to be skeptical and challenge everything until it’s proven to be Law. This app isn’t Law. There’s going to be some faults, and that’s ok. When you say Top Hat is #2 in the country and the only team we can use to cross compare results is Charlotte SA ECNL who they tied 1-1 I don’t put them at #2 in the country. Maybe top 10, maybe top 20, but not #2. Sorry.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I’m not going to call out a team for sandbagging so I will not cite examples.

So it happens "all the time", you just can't think of one or don't want anyone to show how your perceptions don't match the mathematical reality. Got it. Here are the top 20 California teams. Which ones are gaming how they enter tournaments to effectively adjust their rating as you are accusing? 4 screenshots are 2010G California, 2010G US, Club CA (G), and Club US (G).

I get it, you want the soccer rankings app to be 100%.

Nope. But the same folks who continue refuse to understand why their team isn't ranked higher tend to be the same folks who want to discount it entirely. The way they do that is by saying "Yes, seems OK in general, but since the teams don't actually play each other I'm going to substitute my own biased judgement when convenient and nobody can prove otherwise". No ratings app is going to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. But the better one is, the more likely it is that a team with a higher rating will beat a team with a lower rating. Of course individual games are going to go differently than expected. Of course those variations are going to adjust the ratings of teams up and down. And of course when the ratings between two teams are close - the likelihood of picking the right winner, bottoms out at a coinflip.

As everyone is aware, there is no award for showing up #1 in these ratings, #20 in these ratings, or #2478 in these ratings. Inherently, they don't mean anything. The only thing they represent is that based on past game performances, this is how they would be expected to perform in future game performances. If the performance then differs from the rating, the rating continues to adjust up and down with every game. Keep in mind much of the value of a system like this is for predictions against teams that haven't played each other before recently (or ever). It's what gives it value - compared to just looking at an individual league standings table. That league table is completely sufficient if the belief threshold is that teams must see each other directly before a prediction can be considered real - it just doesn't do much good when looking forward to tournaments against teams that aren't in the same league/geography/direct game history.

It’s ok for there to be some type of variance of accuracy in any application or algorithm, that’s normal. Scientist would agree, mathematicians and even physicians would say to be skeptical and challenge everything until it’s proven to be Law.

Yes, completely true as stated. But many instead interpret it to mean "Scientist would agree, mathematicians and even physicians would say to be skeptical and challenge everything until it’s proven to be Law. it matches my own prior beliefs."

This app isn’t Law. There’s going to be some faults, and that’s ok. When you say Top Hat is #2 in the country and the only team we can use to cross compare results is Charlotte SA ECNL who they tied 1-1 I don’t put them at #2 in the country. Maybe top 10, maybe top 20, but not #2. Sorry.

And that's the ballgame. If you're never going to believe the results unless you can point to teams that have played each other directly, this isn't a resolvable discussion, and you misunderstand and/or don't value the primary benefit of what you're looking at. And in this particular case - until TH 2010G plays SW CA teams - minds aren't going to be swayed.

 

[TeamDadJokes]

So it happens "all the time", you just can't think of one or don't want anyone to show how your perceptions don't match the mathematical reality. Got it. Here are the top 20 California teams. Which ones are gaming how they enter tournaments to effectively adjust their rating as you are accusing? 4 screenshots are 2010G California, 2010G US, Club CA (G), and Club US (G).

View attachment 17795View attachment 17796View attachment 17794View attachment 17797



Nope. But the same folks who continue refuse to understand why their team isn't ranked higher tend to be the same folks who want to discount it entirely. The way they do that is by saying "Yes, seems OK in general, but since the teams don't actually play each other I'm going to substitute my own biased judgement when convenient and nobody can prove otherwise". No ratings app is going to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. But the better one is, the more likely it is that a team with a higher rating will beat a team with a lower rating. Of course individual games are going to go differently than expected. Of course those variations are going to adjust the ratings of teams up and down. And of course when the ratings between two teams are close - the likelihood of picking the right winner, bottoms out at a coinflip.

As everyone is aware, there is no award for showing up #1 in these ratings, #20 in these ratings, or #2478 in these ratings. Inherently, they don't mean anything. The only thing they represent is that based on past game performances, this is how they would be expected to perform in future game performances. If the performance then differs from the rating, the rating continues to adjust up and down with every game. Keep in mind much of the value of a system like this is for predictions against teams that haven't played each other before recently (or ever). It's what gives it value - compared to just looking at an individual league standings table. That league table is completely sufficient if the belief threshold is that teams must see each other directly before a prediction can be considered real - it just doesn't do much good when looking forward to tournaments against teams that aren't in the same league/geography/direct game history.



Yes, completely true as stated. But many instead interpret it to mean "Scientist would agree, mathematicians and even physicians would say to be skeptical and challenge everything until it’s proven to be Law. it matches my own prior beliefs."



And that's the ballgame. If you're never going to believe the results unless you can point to teams that have played each other directly, this isn't a resolvable discussion, and you misunderstand and/or don't value the primary benefit of what you're looking at. And in this particular case - until TH 2010G plays SW CA teams - minds aren't going to be swayed.

Here’s an example: Florida Premier plays in a very weak division. They’re blowing teams out constantly. Eventually they worked their way up to #2/#3 in the rankings? Anyhow, come ECNL playoffs they get to play top teams. Now they’re ranked #13. I think Top Hat is in a similar situation.

No need to get offended. Same thing happens in high school football. Every year some Texas team is ranked top 5 until they play Mater Dei or Bosco and then they end up somewhere between rank 10-20 after getting “smacked around”

 

[Carlsbad7]

Here’s an example: Florida Premier plays in a very weak division. They’re blowing teams out constantly. Eventually they worked their way up to #2/#3 in the rankings? Anyhow, come ECNL playoffs they get to play top teams. Now they’re ranked #13. I think Top Hat is in a similar situation.

No need to get offended. Same thing happens in high school football. Every year some Texas team is ranked top 5 until they play Mater Dei or Bosco and then they end up somewhere between rank 10-20 after getting “smacked around”

You obviously have a perspective + plan to stick with it.

I've seen HT and most of the top Socal G2010 teams play + I'm telling you that they're competitive.

I don't put much faith in the ranking app either especially when there's limited data. But, in this case it's true + TH is very good.

Personally I want a top G2010 Socal team to go out there and play TH because I know the game would be a coinflip as to who would win. Having some egos put in place would be fun to watch.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Here’s an example: Florida Premier plays in a very weak division. They’re blowing teams out constantly. Eventually they worked their way up to #2/#3 in the rankings? Anyhow, come ECNL playoffs they get to play top teams. Now they’re ranked #13. I think Top Hat is in a similar situation.

As far as I can tell, you've shared a completely accurate description of FP's rating moves. They had a quite high rating, they played some harder teams in playoffs, and it knocked them down a bit. It certainly doesn't take much to go from top 5 to top 20, when you consider there are thousands of teams in the same data set.

No need to get offended. Same thing happens in high school football. Every year some Texas team is ranked top 5 until they play Mater Dei or Bosco and then they end up somewhere between rank 10-20 after getting “smacked around”

Makes sense, and is probably how it should work. Perhaps TH 2010G is in this position. Perhaps not.

But that's not exactly how I am (was?) interpreting the accusation a few posts up. It seemed that you had teams in mind - that are quite good, and are already playing in these top brackets - but then sandbag tournaments at lower levels to run up the score and artificially inflate their rating. I do think people believe this (based on reading this board and others). I do think that people incorrectly believe that this would be way more effective, than it actually turns out to be. (At least in SR. In GS it's much more likely, with their tournament bonus scoring method, and is a more valid criticism).

 

[TeamDadJokes]

You obviously have a perspective + plan to stick with it.

I've seen HT and most of the top Socal G2010 teams play + I'm telling you that they're competitive.

I don't put much faith in the ranking app either especially when there's limited data. But, in this case it's true + TH is very good.

Personally I want a top G2010 Socal team to go out there and play TH because I know the game would be a coinflip as to who would win. Having some egos put in place would be fun to watch.

I think we totally agree btw. I think Top Hat is really good too. Been following the team for a bit but I haven’t seen them play in person. I follow the app and contribute a lot to it actually. And before that I used to contribute and follow the website Mark had. So I don’t want anyone to get it twisted, I am a fan of the app and what Mark has done. Like you, I’d like for them to play a SoCal top 5 team to give their standing validity. But hey, I don’t have a horse in the race here. My DD isn’t ECNL or GA, I’m just a follower of the age group and have been since we first started club soccer.

 

[TeamDadJokes]

As far as I can tell, you've shared a completely accurate description of FP's rating moves. They had a quite high rating, they played some harder teams in playoffs, and it knocked them down a bit. It certainly doesn't take much to go from top 5 to top 20, when you consider there are thousands of teams in the same data set.

View attachment 17801View attachment 17802



Makes sense, and is probably how it should work. Perhaps TH 2010G is in this position. Perhaps not.

But that's not exactly how I am (was?) interpreting the accusation a few posts up. It seemed that you had teams in mind - that are quite good, and are already playing in these top brackets - but then sandbag tournaments at lower levels to run up the score and artificially inflate their rating. I do think people believe this (based on reading this board and others). I do think that people incorrectly believe that this would be way more effective, than it actually turns out to be. (At least in SR. In GS it's much more likely, with their tournament bonus scoring method, and is a more valid criticism).

No worries, I had a feeling it was misinterpreted so I wanted to clarify in a way that was benign

 

[Zeke]

So which teams in SoCal (It apparently happens "all the time"), enjoy a high rating that they haven't "actually earned" since they are sand bagging tournaments?

Hint: in this case it will be pretty easy to disprove if an example is ever provided. You can just look in SR for the last 6-12 months of games, and clearly see which games were overperformed vs. the team's rating, and underperformed vs. the team rating. The more games that are way off of predictions, the more likely something is up with their performance vs. their actual capability. If there aren't many game like that - it's clear this would be a false accusation.

It took me about four minutes to find a team whose tournaments and showcases look a lot better than their league performance.

I wouldn’t call it sandbagging. It probably has more to do with us- parents expecting trophies and the club trying to keep parents happy. But the team certainly gets a SR bump from the 7-0 scores on their record.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It took me about four minutes to find a team whose tournaments and showcases look a lot better than their league performance.

I wouldn’t call it sandbagging. It probably has more to do with us- parents expecting trophies and the club trying to keep parents happy. But the team certainly gets a SR bump from the 7-0 scores on their record.

And evidently infinite minutes to still post it - as the clock is still running. The issue isn't whether teams enter tournaments at lower levels to get medals - let's agree that there are silly teams and coaches (supported by silly parents) that do exactly that. The hypothesis is that doing so will give them a noticeably higher rating/ranking in SR than they would have otherwise by playing tournaments more closely aligned to their existing rating / typical league game.

That's what can be verified or disproved by looking through that same game history for that team - and if in all of the sandbagging (and 7-0 games), did it cause the predictions for any/many of their other games to be off. The accusation is that it does. My belief is that when people look into it - they will see that it's just not the case.

 

[SurfSupDude]

As far as I can tell, you've shared a completely accurate description of FP's rating moves. They had a quite high rating, they played some harder teams in playoffs, and it knocked them down a bit. It certainly doesn't take much to go from top 5 to top 20, when you consider there are thousands of teams in the same data set.

View attachment 17801View attachment 17802

I watched the Surf v Fl Premier game and it was a complete mismatch. 5-2 was WAY closer than the actual matchup. I walked away thinking, “This is the 13th best team in the country?”

Of course, it was a single game. But still.

On the same hand, I watched MVLA’s opening game in SD and they didn’t look that great either. My key takeaway was that 15 played like a younger Ally Sentnor. And that they were probably rusty or just not totally on that day.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I watched the Surf v Fl Premier game and it was a complete mismatch. 5-2 was WAY closer than the actual matchup. I walked away thinking, “This is the 13th best team in the country?”

Of course, it was a single game. But still.

On the same hand, I watched MVLA’s opening game in SD and they didn’t look that great either. My key takeaway was that 15 played like a younger Ally Sentnor. And that they were probably rusty or just not totally on that day.

Makes sense, thanks. As far as I can tell, Surf is predicted to beat Florida by 2. They ended up beating them by 3. But if you look at the specific game percentages, it does give a pretty good picture about what's likely to happen. Surf has a 64% chance to win, 16% chance to tie, and FP has only a 20% chance to win - Surf is over 3 times as likely to walk off the field smiling. It's a significant difference.

It is pretty cool when two top teams battle it out and they both look strong enough to take it depending on the smallest of margins. But I imagine it's also pretty common that a really, really good team can make a top (but lesser) team seem quite ordinary.

I realize that SR should probably be a smaller part of the soccer experience for me and the family compared to just enjoying the ride wherever and however it goes - but the universe sometimes conspires. I hadn't even loaded it up to see what the predictions were for some friendlies today, as it wasn't even clear which actual teams would be on the opposing side. After confirming the team identity (large club, many teams, names changing season to season), I did put in the prediction once home this evening. Turns out we were expected to win 6-1. Which was good to hear, since we won 6-1.

 

[Zeke]

And evidently infinite minutes to still post it - as the clock is still running. The issue isn't whether teams enter tournaments at lower levels to get medals - let's agree that there are silly teams and coaches (supported by silly parents) that do exactly that. The hypothesis is that doing so will give them a noticeably higher rating/ranking in SR than they would have otherwise by playing tournaments more closely aligned to their existing rating / typical league game.

That's what can be verified or disproved by looking through that same game history for that team - and if in all of the sandbagging (and 7-0 games), did it cause the predictions for any/many of their other games to be off. The accusation is that it does. My belief is that when people look into it - they will see that it's just not the case.

When I said some teams get a bump because they enter weak tournaments, all I meant was their ranking might be #12 instead of #15 or #18. It’s the same boost FP gets, but smaller.

You’re right that the predictions won’t change much. It won’t mess you up if you’re using SR to make tournament brackets.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I watched the Surf v Fl Premier game and it was a complete mismatch. 5-2 was WAY closer than the actual matchup. I walked away thinking, “This is the 13th best team in the country?”

Of course, it was a single game. But still.

On the same hand, I watched MVLA’s opening game in SD and they didn’t look that great either. My key takeaway was that 15 played like a younger Ally Sentnor. And that they were probably rusty or just not totally on that day.

My experience has been that the Florida teams are good but not great. This is why Top Hat is able to clean up against them.

Something that people out here don't understand about TH is that they have 2 GA teams. The top GA team has "Gold" tacked onto their team name. Top Hat plays both teams like a single talent pool choosing top players for tournamants. This along with being the primary club in a city that's an island for soccer is why they're able to do well.

Big funnel, naturally athletic players, main club in town, 2 top teams, good coaching, good club, and no real competition from other local clubs poaching players.

I'll step down from the TH soapbox now + beating a dead horse. I just get annoyed when Socal parents try and disparage a club they don't understand.

ECNL should allow top clubs to have 2 ECNL teams per age group. It's silly that teams are being artificially limited when they could field 2 competitive top level teams.

 

[SurfSupDude]

I'll step down from the TH soapbox now + beating a dead horse. I just get annoyed when Socal parents try and disparage a club they don't understand.

Agreed. Last month, our daughter attended two UNC womens’ soccer camps. I walked away thinking two things: Soccer in SoCal is really good (she didn’t look lost among many older players). And. There are a lot of good players around this country.

ECNL should allow top clubs to have 2 ECNL teams per age group. It's silly that teams are being artificially limited when they could field 2 competitive top level teams.

Not sure how they manage this but NCFC has two ECNL teams. Their top ECNL team is NC Courage. Their second ECNL team is NCFC ECNL.

Also, SDSC Surf has boys ECNL teams. Not sure how that works with SD Surf also having ECNL teams.

*exiting stage left now after putting my naïveté on full display with this post*

 

[SurfSupDude]

^ that is…North Carolina FC Youth ECNL

 

[Carlsbad7]

Agreed. Last month, our daughter attended two UNC womens’ soccer camps. I walked away thinking two things: Soccer in SoCal is really good (she didn’t look lost among many older players). And. There are a lot of good players around this country.


Not sure how they manage this but NCFC has two ECNL teams. Their top ECNL team is NC Courage. Their second ECNL team is NCFC ECNL.

Also, SDSC Surf has boys ECNL teams. Not sure how that works with SD Surf also having ECNL teams.

*exiting stage left now after putting my naïveté on full display with this post*

I think the way they make it work is that technically theres 2 clubs (on paper) but they but use the same name and "wink" "wink" are seperate entities.

What I'm suggesting is that ECNL drop the artificial gatekeeper + let high level clubs have 2 top teams (without having to play the paperwork game). The reason ECNL doesn't allow more than 1 top team is traditionally in soccer true academies can only have 1 top team. Since ECNL (and GA) aren't real academies it means top clubs could field more than 1 top team. As long as both teams are competitive what's the difference?

 

[rainbow_unicorn]

Having two teams per club for ECNL is dumb...would have to kick out clubs to prevent too many teams being in the league/watering down talent. This would result in clubs having even more power and sway as gatekeepers. ideally US Soccer should have forced ECNL and DA/GA to work together and create a unified top league (with secondary regional league).

 

[Carlsbad7]

Having two teams per club for ECNL is dumb...would have to kick out clubs to prevent too many teams being in the league/watering down talent. This would result in clubs having even more power and sway as gatekeepers. ideally US Soccer should have forced ECNL and DA/GA to work together and create a unified top league (with secondary regional league).

The reason 2 ECNL teams for top clubs isn't occurring is because bigger/better clubs would take out smaller/worse clubs.

Here's an example. If Surf was given 2 ECNL teams Sharks ECNL likely wouldn't exist. Or maybe Sharks would exist but some GA team in the San Diego area wouldn't exist.

Youth soccer clubs aren't true academies where there's a pool of players and coaches pick the top talent out of the pool before every game.

In GA the clubs that have 2 GA teams tend to do very well. Usually one team is better than the other. The better team tends to win the league + the "worse" team tends to come in middle of the pack. If ECNL would allow 2 teams I'd expect similar results.

 

[Veritas]

The reason 2 ECNL teams for top clubs isn't occurring is because bigger/better clubs would take out smaller/worse clubs.

Here's an example. If Surf was given 2 ECNL teams Sharks ECNL likely wouldn't exist. Or maybe Sharks would exist but some GA team in the San Diego area wouldn't exist.

Youth soccer clubs aren't true academies where there's a pool of players and coaches pick the top talent out of the pool before every game.

In GA the clubs that have 2 GA teams tend to do very well. Usually one team is better than the other. The better team tends to win the league + the "worse" team tends to come in middle of the pack. If ECNL would allow 2 teams I'd expect similar results.

There just isn’t enough good talent to have an extra ecnl team per club. The competition would get watered down for sure. The RL system would fall apart or drop a level. There wouldn’t be good RL players left

 

[Carlsbad7]

There just isn’t enough good talent to have an extra ecnl team per club. The competition would get watered down for sure. The RL system would fall apart or drop a level. There wouldn’t be good RL players left

I agree ECRL sucks especially for clubs that field winning ECRL teams that would actually be competitive at the ECNL level.

 

[CharlieMurfee]

Could clubs go back to having a DA (GA) and an ECNL team? Like someone said, the RL would suffer, but it’s interesting to think about.