Look at soccer rankings. Beach's and Legends ECRL teams would be upper half in SW ECNL. The talent is there.I agree ECRL sucks especially for clubs that field winning ECRL teams that would actually be competitive at the ECNL level.
Look at soccer rankings. Beach's and Legends ECRL teams would be upper half in SW ECNL. The talent is there.I agree ECRL sucks especially for clubs that field winning ECRL teams that would actually be competitive at the ECNL level.
See what I'm talking about?Look at soccer rankings. Beach's and Legends ECRL teams would be upper half in SW ECNL. The talent is there.
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.
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?
See what I'm talking about?
Big ECNL Clubs that could handle 2 top teams per age group are being forced to hold back primarily so they don't put smaller ECNL clubs out of business. Additionally, not being able to field 2 top teams forces players to drive long distances just to play on a high level team. Or they can choose to play locally on a lower level ECRL team.
A 7-0 score will only give the team a bump if they performed better than expected, which would cause the score to be reflected in green. If a score was predicted to be 7-0, and the result was 7-0 or within 2 GD, it would not really bump up the team much, and the score will be represented in black. If the score was predicted to be 4-0, and ended 7-0, they will get a bump, and they should, because they outperformed their prediction.
There are plenty of examples of teams winning by 5-1 and still having the SR move down (score in red). That is what makes SR accurate, you can't really effect the ratings much by sandbagging, or avoiding playing certain teams; the teams actual game results compared to the predicted results (team ratings) is what causes a change. It is easy to see if a teams rating/rank is incorrect; they will have many results in green and/or red in a short amount of time. If most of the results are in black, the rating is very close to being accurate.
I agree, as long as there is promotion and relegation determining who is really fielding a top quality team. Let a club have 5 teams in the GA/ECNL, as long as the level of play is consistent. The only sure way to do that without involving club/league politics that I know of is promotion/relegation.
Academically/mathematically this makes sense, if each team could be considered a separate entity to be judged fairly on its own. But in practice there would be a ton of implementation problems, mainly around making sure that the rosters are locked and a superclub with 5 teams can't just manipulate rosters as desired to protect their lower teams from relegation as the season goes on. Limiting clubs to 1 team makes that type of manipulation much harder.
I’ll guess the reverse. Teams which had high GD last year will start this year with some green for league play.A 7-0 score will only give the team a bump if they performed better than expected, which would cause the score to be reflected in green. If a score was predicted to be 7-0, and the result was 7-0 or within 2 GD, it would not really bump up the team much, and the score will be represented in black. If the score was predicted to be 4-0, and ended 7-0, they will get a bump, and they should, because they outperformed their prediction.
There are plenty of examples of teams winning by 5-1 and still having the SR move down (score in red). That is what makes SR accurate, you can't really effect the ratings much by sandbagging, or avoiding playing certain teams; the teams actual game results compared to the predicted results (team ratings) is what causes a change. It is easy to see if a teams rating/rank is incorrect; they will have many results in green and/or red in a short amount of time. If most of the results are in black, the rating is very close to being accurate.
This is only the second summer of cross-play data being added to the teams algorithm since the new App and data sets were started just over 1.5 years ago. When the App started, you could see that team ratings were initially set by the teams year group and league association. As soon as cross-play started last summer, team movement in rankings was constant and significant. Things stabilized throughout the league season, and then started a lot of movement again during this summer, but not nearly as significant as last summer. I think the within leagues ratings of teams is very strong, due to all of the league data over the past year. The cross-league comparison was probably a bit off coming out of league this year, but with play-offs, finals, and summer tournaments, I suspect the rankings accuracy is going to be even better now. We will probably see a lot less red and green results throughout the next year.
It's both, local kids needing to travel for competition because XYZ club isn't interested in them and kids without a high level option that need to travel to ABC club for better soccer. Having a limited number of ECNL/GA teams benefits clubs + hurts players because there's less high level competition available.I think the exact opposite is happening. There are more players are driving into these top clubs from out of the area than there are driving away, because there is no local high level options. We should be expanding the top league options, not concentrating them into clubs that already control the market. Give some outlier club ECNL or GA access and they will field competitive teams within a few months. Like everyone says, all clubs are recruiting guest players all the time. Most of the top teams are running 22+ player rosters, and a lot of talent is still overflowing to the ECRL/DPL/NPL/E64 teams, because there are not enough teams in the top leagues for the amount of talent. The way the ECNL/GA gatekeepers have set up and syphoned all the top players is self-fulfilling to prevent competition for their customers. Place an ECNL/GA club into the Mission Valley area, and there would be a completely competitive club in no time, with minimal effects on the existing ECNL/GA teams. The ECRL/DPL/E64 teams would take a hit though, but eliminating some of these secondary letter leagues would actually be a step in the right direction.
Interesting topic. I’ve always wondered why there are a few ECNL clubs that have been gifted two teams. Concorde Fire, FC Stars, Michigan Hawks, PDA, Real Co, SLSG, Sting Dallas all have two listed for the same city. In some cases, like Sting, they’re not even the strongest club in their area. I’ve always just assumed it was a power play of some kind. Anyone know?
Adding teams does not add high level competition. It gives you more, weaker opponents.It's both, local kids needing to travel for competition because XYZ club isn't interested in them and kids without a high level option that need to travel to ABC club for better soccer. Having a limited number of ECNL/GA teams benefits clubs + hurts players because there's less high level competition available.
Promotion / Relegation is the ideal but allowing top ECNL clubs to have more than 1 top team is a bandaid solution that bridges the gap between clubs as they exist today + what people really want which is Pro/Rel.
ECNL added teams to help create the NorCal conference. It gave us shorter travel, and was a good idea overall. But the added teams were not competitive.
Year | # of NorCal ECNL boys teams in top 20 (CA) | # in top 50 (CA) |
2010 | 1 | 5 |
2009 | 0 | 4 |
2008 | 1 | 8 |
2007 | 1 | 5 |
2006 | 1 | 6 |
You could argue the same thing with Solar now. They played one SW ECNL team and lost to them but they are ranked higher overall than the SW team that beat them.I guess we can agree to disagree. I think any top 5-10 California team would beat Top Hat. This notion of “getting smacked around” is delusional especially when they haven’t played anyone of merit.
it’s very possible Solar hasn’t been as strong as they were at the Youngers but their competition results show that they are where they belong beating DKSC multiple times with their last meeting ending 4-1 (DKSC who has played numerous SW NL teams we can compare from). They lost to an Eagles team that peaked early in the season that was top dog for a quick flash until they weren’t. Eagles should have went to Virginia but unfortunately they didn’t get the chance and lost to eventual national champions Koge.You could argue the same thing with Solar now. They played one SW ECNL team and lost to them but they are ranked higher overall than the SW team that beat them.
Using your logic top Socal teams should have attended TH's big tournament they just held.As I was saying.. and these weren’t even top 5 NL teams
View attachment 17876