Socal named as Operator for National 1 League

SoccerDr. said:
Shankbone, your post highlights what's wrong with the "club based" system; teams don't play one another, nor do they play teams from outside their "closed" league. You are guessing at who the best teams are. Club based teams fear playing teams in open leagues like CSL because losing brings down the curtain that they are often charging too much. The ecosystem needs reimagining to allow the opportunity to identify the best players, teams, coaches, and clubs, not just to guess.
Click to expand...
Well ranking 8U age to 12U is hilarious to me also! I can understand ranking starting in HS as a serious thing - you have to have something to go by. But the rankings start at 8U! U15-U19 lets check it all out and goof on it.

Girls in socal the orange county clubs have a huge talent pool to draw from and ambitious parents will drive. That is the ecosystem currently. Not guessing about the very best teams!
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
Anyone classifying SR rankings as "guessing" at how a particular US youth soccer team performs, doesn't have the first clue about how to judge the relative strength of soccer teams - strength being defined as a higher-ranked team expected to beat a lower-ranked team in a game.
Click to expand...
60% of the time, SR works every time. 🤣
 
It will pick the correct winner, between two rated teams, (if the game results in a winner) ~85% of the time currently across all games. (A higher-ranked team is expected to beat a lower-ranked team). For the very youngest, it is running well over 90% accuracy. Meaning it's going to pick the wrong winner about 1 in 6 times, or for the youngest teams - 1 in 10 times. It is least accurate (sometimes down to 75%), for the very top teams in the country, whose games tend to have both fewer goals, closer scores, and more of a relative effect of randomness in each game.

If you shoot them a note, they are pretty open about sharing all of the detailed predictivity results, and will even run simulations on their actual data if you do have a specific question.

IMO, from a spectator's perspective, the most interesting games to watch are often the ones that defy the prediction, and the underdog comes out on top. Every player certainly hopes to win their upcoming match, regardless of what anyone's prediction may be.
 
I hope no one cares about these rankings as a point of pride or bragging rights. but ranking U8 to U12 teams does have a purpose. With so many teams of such a diverse ability out there, this app is the best tool to aid in the quest for competitive games. No point in setting up scrimmages against teams outside 100 ranking spots. Nor is it wonderful going into a tournament in a too high or too low division - nor playing in a too weak or too strong a league.
I keep an eye on the ranking as it helps to see how the team is performing against what (if ranked properly) are better, weaker or similar teams. It guides what tournaments we target and what divisions to apply for in those tournaments. You get a handful of spring games and a few summer tournaments before the fall league starts. .The worst seasons have been in leagues too weak (or strong). A .500 record (give or take) is the sweet spot
 
shankbone said:
Well ranking 8U age to 12U is hilarious to me also! I can understand ranking starting in HS as a serious thing - you have to have something to go by. But the rankings start at 8U! U15-U19 lets check it all out and goof on it.

Girls in socal the orange county clubs have a huge talent pool to draw from and ambitious parents will drive. That is the ecosystem currently. Not guessing about the very best teams!
Click to expand...
Rankings have been driven by the need to create relevance; if teams played one another, everyone would know where teams fell in the peaking order. But because teams next to each other never play because they are in different leagues, the rankings thrive. It is more important for coaches and teams in less recognized leagues as the rankings give them a credible story. Playing on the field is the ultimate test, but many teams avoid exposing themselves to this test. Agree, rankings below 14 years is just a money grab
 
sigmabody said:
Not my choice, certainly. The club views EA/EA2 as the only pathway to get MLSN, which is their goal (according to the staff, smaller clubs cannot get higher than ECNL-RL on the "other path", because ECNL proper is jealously gated by the larger/founding clubs as their money maker, since players must move to those clubs to advance past a certain level on that path). The club sees MLSN as viable over time, as it's less "old boys club" than ECNL apparently, and the only way to advance to that is through EA/EA2.

... which sucks for the current players, since they have to suffer the real negative impacts of the messed up league situation. It is what it is, though, for the players who are not good enough to (or have other motivations not to) make the leap up and to a big-name club now.
Click to expand...
You call it jealous gated, I call it a brilliant business model. MLS next is taking the Coach approach by flooding the market with coach bags, ECNL is taking the Hermes approach, staying exclusive.
There is no scholarship for college, no pathway to the pro, all we are doing is playing for bragging rights. Personally I think the Hermes approach works better in this market we call US soccer.
 
Jamisfoes said:
You call it jealous gated, I call it a brilliant business model. MLS next is taking the Coach approach by flooding the market with coach bags, ECNL is taking the Hermes approach, staying exclusive.
There is no scholarship for college, no pathway to the pro, all we are doing is playing for bragging rights. Personally I think the Hermes approach works better in this market we call US soccer.
Click to expand...
And then you wonder why womens college teams get beat 3-0 by u14 boys.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Sorry the u14 Crossfire boys beat University of Wash women's team 2-1. (not 3-0)

This is what you get with the "Hermes" approach.
Click to expand...
I am only saying given the soccer environment in this country, it’s the approach that makes business sense. Not saying it’s right or wrong.
In U8, our boys were already beating U11 girls, not sure why it’s a surprise u14 young men entering puberty could beat a college women’s team.
 
Jamisfoes said:
I am only saying given the soccer environment in this country, it’s the approach that makes business sense. Not saying it’s right or wrong.
In U8, our boys were already beating U11 girls, not sure why it’s a surprise u14 young men entering puberty could beat a college women’s team.
Click to expand...
Its definitely not a surprise with the hermes approach youth clubs take with womens soccer. This is why people generally dont think as highly about womens sports. Could you imagine suggesting we take a hermes approach to boys/mens sports? People would laugh in your face.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Its definitely not a surprise with the hermes approach youth clubs take with womens soccer. This is why people generally dont think as highly about womens sports. Could you imagine suggesting we take a hermes approach to boys/mens sports? People would laugh in your face.
Click to expand...
Ask any MLS next HD parents, would they rather have the B team called “MLS next AD” or just “EA” like it was before.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I was very clear. A highly recruited college womens team lost to a boys team of 14 year olds. 14 year olds are typically freshman in high school.
Click to expand...
These aren't your typical 14 year old boys from the HS down the street. Crossfire 2nd best in state, Sounders MLS academy being the best. These boys are taller and faster on average. I think it's good that UW women's team plays the boys to give them good competition in the spring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top