Expansion

[RandomSoccerFan]

I didn't comment on whether you asked a reasonable or unreasonable question. You made a statement, that all the leagues had teams in the top 50, and you even saw some ECNL teams lower than that, implying that all leagues were equal. It was clear what you were doing, and it was just as clear for the reader to point out the actual rating/ranking of teams in the leagues.

Whether GA or ECNL will expand to the central valley probably just depends on the teams that can be developed there, and whether there are enough committed players that would join a somewhat expensive travel club team. Neither SoCal nor NorCal wants to commute for hours out there for games every weekend, so there probably has to be a nexus of enough kids and enough teams to support local play in the area. There's a push for less travel at both the NL and RL level, and I can't imagine GA parents are excited about more hours in the car (or on a plane). Anything that makes that worse is probably not a good bet, while anything that makes that better, is an improvement for any league.

 

[Orangeteam]

My question still stands. Northern Central Valley players are known for driving into SF to play for clubs like MLVA. Will GA adding South Valley Surf push ECNL into bringing on some of the central valley clubs?

There are some unique hurdles
Most of those teams after about U13 struggle to fund an age only team so they have to combine ages to create teams. There is a pipeline issue.

As to the travel comment. That's a tricky one.
There are 3 SUSC girls who play for their 08 team for SUSC, and for Deanza (ECNL) and Silicon Valley (GA). All 3.
SUSC is an ECNL-RL club for a few age groups so it may have changed bc I dont know if you can play ENCL and RL at the same time.
The kids were not practicing with those clubs, they just showed up to play in games.
The deal with some of those clubs is the central valley would feed them.. Its actaully closer for them to go play at Davis or San Juan but San Juan and Davis require you to be at practice weekly. San Juan has kids who travel in from Reno for over a decade and they do it 3x per week.

There are a few kids who have been suspended from their clubs and had no other choice but to travel. Not sure if that counts.

None of these new badges on the uniform changes the number of kids playing in that area, and it doesn't change the total number of kids you can put together to form a top team. It changes the overpriced sweatshirt you buy.

WIth SUSC being an RL team already there a chance. But if you look at their website they tap out at the 2008 age group right now.

 

[chipmonk]

You think GA bringing on South Valley Surf will force ECNL to bring on some of the central valley MLVA + other feeder clubs?

No.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I didn't comment on whether you asked a reasonable or unreasonable question. You made a statement, that all the leagues had teams in the top 50, and you even saw some ECNL teams lower than that, implying that all leagues were equal. It was clear what you were doing, and it was just as clear for the reader to point out the actual rating/ranking of teams in the leagues.

Whether GA or ECNL will expand to the central valley probably just depends on the teams that can be developed there, and whether there are enough committed players that would join a somewhat expensive travel club team. Neither SoCal nor NorCal wants to commute for hours out there for games every weekend, so there probably has to be a nexus of enough kids and enough teams to support local play in the area. There's a push for less travel at both the NL and RL level, and I can't imagine GA parents are excited about more hours in the car (or on a plane). Anything that makes that worse is probably not a good bet, while anything that makes that better, is an improvement for any league.

One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.
Thomas Sowell

Regarding The Central Valley + soccer. I agree with your assessment. I also dont think parents will have unlimited
money to spend on travel, showcases, tournaments, etc. It will be interesting to see how GA addresses this. If all games were SoCalish and parents coukd drive to all the league games it might work. This is why I mentioned dropping the AZ teams from the Southwest confrence. BTW Ive heard rumors that ECNL is planning to do something similar. I would assume to cut down on the amount of travel for SoCal patents.

 

[#girldad]

This is why I mentioned dropping the AZ teams from the Southwest confrence. BTW Ive heard rumors that ECNL is planning to do something similar. I would assume to cut down on the amount of travel for SoCal patents.

Drop the the Las Vegas Heat, too. Complete waste of time and money to go to Vegas for one game.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.
Thomas Sowell

I assure you that you're talking to the wrong guy about statistics basics, but you're just going to have to trust me.

Regarding The Central Valley + soccer. I agree with your assessment. I also dont think parents will have unlimited
money to spend on travel, showcases, tournaments, etc. It will be interesting to see how GA addresses this. If all games were SoCalish and parents coukd drive to all the league games it might work. This is why I mentioned dropping the AZ teams from the Southwest confrence. BTW Ive heard rumors that ECNL is planning to do something similar. I would assume to cut down on the amount of travel for SoCal patents.

If everyone agrees that it's absurd to travel for hours to play teams of the same level (or worse) as those you can play within a 20-30 min drive, eventually things sure seems like things should sway in the direction of "more travel = bad". But we've all seen the same thousands and thousands of parents trekking their kids all over the country for "high-level soccer/basketball/hockey/football/baseball/volleyball/other random youth sport", and it only got this way because people were willing to pay for it and people were making money by having them do it. I'd want to think that it could be sorted out with the suggestions that have been put forward by just about anyone stepping back and looking at the aggregate problem, but the individual incentives certainly don't seem to have aligned that way over the past decade or two.

Re: Central Valley, it's probably too early to say if this South Valley Surf change means there is now more of a draw for additional competitive teams there, or if the movement is still mostly those that want to play with better-known clubs driving west each week to do just that.

 

[Zeke]

GA expansion in CV is probably good for GA without really impacting ECNL.

ECNL has been adding teams who can immediately compete in the top half of ECNL. Until CV has a club that fits that description, I’d be surprised if ECNL expands there.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Current scoreboard...

1. GA was Promoted by US Soccer
2. GA added Liverpool FC International Academy (CA)
3. GA added SYC
4. GA added Revolution
5. GA added Seattle Celtic
6. GA added Westside Metros FC
7. GA added South Valley Surf
8. GA added KC Scott Gallagher

1. ECNL added Colorado Rush
2. ECNL added Nationals
3. ECNL added Ukies

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

Embarrassing hardly, when I look at the top 50 girls teams in CA (at all the different age groups) I see a mix of ECNL, GA, NPL, DPL, E64 and ECRL. I also notice several ECNL teams ranked higher than 50 in CA.

For Girls 2010 of the top 20 in the nation 18 are ECNL. 2 are GA and I will continue to argue the GA rankings are skewed as they never play ECNL teams and if they do they are definitely not top 10 ECNL teams. There shouldn't even be a discussion on where the talent is for at least that age group. I do however think GA is a great option as they get just as many scouts to their events.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

For Girls 2010 of the top 20 in the nation 18 are ECNL. 2 are GA and I will continue to argue the GA rankings are skewed as they never play ECNL teams and if they do they are definitely not top 10 ECNL teams. There shouldn't even be a discussion on where the talent is for at least that age group. I do however think GA is a great option as they get just as many scouts to their events.

I just don't believe that the GA rankings are skewed any more or any less than any other teams using that same methodology. The system is only trying to optimize 1 number, predictivity, and the inputs are all of a single type, game performances judged only by points on the board, over time. Predictivity is measured/calculated over thousands and thousands of games very frequently, and the goal is nothing other than to keep that number as high as possible. Picking out individual teams or even clubs to try and see which play others more or less, and judging the performance between those matchups manually, is just always going to be subject to individual biases and selection issues.

The intrinsic validity of the rating for any single team, to a reasonable extent, can be seen within the game history of that team. Going back several months, if there are games marked Green, the team performed significantly better than their current present-day rating. If there are games marked Red, the team performed significantly worse than their present-day rating. If there are mostly games with the normal black text, those games show that the team performed right around their current rating that game.

 

[Carlsbad7]

For Girls 2010 of the top 20 in the nation 18 are ECNL. 2 are GA and I will continue to argue the GA rankings are skewed as they never play ECNL teams and if they do they are definitely not top 10 ECNL teams. There shouldn't even be a discussion on where the talent is for at least that age group. I do however think GA is a great option as they get just as many scouts to their events.

You realize you're argument could be positioned exactly the opposite way.

GA + other league teams might think that ECNL teams are artificially high because they only play each other.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Current scoreboard...

1. GA was Promoted by US Soccer
2. GA added Liverpool FC International Academy (CA)
3. GA added SYC
4. GA added Revolution
5. GA added Seattle Celtic
6. GA added Westside Metros FC
7. GA added South Valley Surf
8. GA added KC Scott Gallagher

1. DPL added Idaho Inferno
2. DPL added Agusta Arsenal

1. ECNL added Colorado Rush
2. ECNL added Nationals
3. ECNL added Ukies

1. ECRL added Lonestar

 

[Carlsbad7]

I have to admit Lonestar made an odd choice going from 2 GA teams to ECRL.

We'll see if they're given 2 ECRL teams.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I have to admit Lonestar made an odd choice going from 2 GA teams to ECRL.

We'll see if they're given 2 ECRL teams.

Remember, Texas already has two levels of ECRL, both USC and Texas, so there are multiple spots to place teams appropriately. And if the higher ECRL team is dominant for a season, odds are an ECNL invite is forthcoming.

The ECNL Girls is excited to announce the addition of Lonestar SC to both the ECNL Regional League - Texas and the ECNL Regional League - USC for the 2024-25 season, fully aligning the club at multiple levels within the ECNL pyramid.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Remember, Texas already has two levels of ECRL, both USC and Texas, so there are multiple spots to place teams appropriately. And if the higher ECRL team is dominant for a season, odds are an ECNL invite is forthcoming.

I highly doubt Lonestar will get promoted out of ECRL. Lonestar only has two good age groups 2010 and 2007.

I have a feeling moving over to ECRL was more about keeping the doors open and making it harder for Sting to recruit their players away.

 

[VanMan]

Current scoreboard...

1. GA was Promoted by US Soccer
2. GA added Liverpool FC International Academy (CA)
3. GA added SYC
4. GA added Revolution
5. GA added Seattle Celtic
6. GA added Westside Metros FC
7. GA added South Valley Surf
8. GA added KC Scott Gallagher

1. DPL added Idaho Inferno
2. DPL added Agusta Arsenal

1. ECNL added Colorado Rush
2. ECNL added Nationals
3. ECNL added Ukies

1. ECRL added Lonestar

A few thoughts...

1. Not sure I would call GA becoming a direct member being "Promoted by US Soccer." They filled out some paperwork and, according to the rules, they were eligible for admission. US Soccer gets another dues paying member. It offers exactly zero advantage for member clubs or their players over the setup that ECNL has with USCS. I think it could be a marginal improvement to their bottom line since they're cutting out the middleman and/or they see value with a direct seat on the Youth Committee (or it's all just marketing), but from a player's perspective, it really is meaningless.

2. I find myself wondering if the additions by the leagues are in preparation for subtractions. Certainly the GA PNW division has two clubs that are well underperforming and could likely be moved out. I can think of one socal club that will be pulling out of DPL for non performance reasons, there very well may be others.

3. I think it was you that suggested that Lonestar was losing teams to Sting? This may be related to why they got an RL spot instead of NL. They likely get spots in both RL TX and RL NTX/USC (third tier), but who knows, maybe they can justify two RL programs.

4. You forgot about GA adding Oregon Premier.

5. "Scoreboard" implies winners and losers. Are you really suggesting that or is this really more of "Tracker"?

 

[Carlsbad7]

Tracker...

1. GA was Promoted by US Soccer
2. GA added Liverpool FC International Academy (CA)
3. GA added SYC
4. GA added Revolution
5. GA added Seattle Celtic
6. GA added Westside Metros FC
7. GA added Oregon Premier
8. GA added South Valley Surf
9. GA added KC Scott Gallagher

1. DPL added Idaho Inferno
2. DPL added Agusta Arsenal

1. ECNL added Colorado Rush
2. ECNL added Nationals
3. ECNL added Ukies

1. ECRL added Lonestar

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I highly doubt Lonestar will get promoted out of ECRL. Lonestar only has two good age groups 2010 and 2007.

I have a feeling moving over to ECRL was more about keeping the doors open and making it harder for Sting to recruit their players away.

You may certainly be correct; much depends on how they perform at the current (new level). FWIW, their 2014G shows 11th in country, 2012G is 10th, and their 2010G is 21st. As individual teams, they seem incredibly competitive right now. But years other then these are significant step down.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I find myself wondering if the additions by the leagues are in preparation for subtractions. Certainly the GA PNW division has two clubs that are well underperforming and could likely be moved out. I can think of one socal club that will be pulling out of DPL for non performance reasons, there very well may be others.

Bring on the subtractions although that would likely be the kiss of death for clubs.

The former GA commissioner Lesle Gallimore is now the GM for OL Reign. She was probably getting annoyed by the GA Pacific Northwest Conference and lobbied internally for changes. This is why we're seeing all the action up there even with not so good (compared to other location) clubs.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

You realize you're argument could be positioned exactly the opposite way.

GA + other league teams might think that ECNL teams are artificially high because they only play each other.

If GA teams were beating the NL teams when they played heads up then I would agree with your statement but that's not the case.

 

[Carlsbad7]

If GA teams were beating the NL teams when they played heads up then I would agree with your statement but that's not the case.

If what you're describing happened or if it didn't happen is calculated into the results and reflected in the rankings. As was defined by RandomSoccerFan if you're seeing a team mostly beating opponents by more than expected they're ranking would likely go up. Converse for the opposite.

What you're experiencing is your own bias. This is why your intuition isn't aligning with the results.