CSL Club Rankings, Week 2

Daniel Miller said:
Hmm. Listen to you. This team is sophisticated. That team is not. This team plays a "better game." All of that is purely subjective, and all of it is subject to dispute. Probably some TFA teams play a more sophisticated game than Coachella YSA, ... or Celtic. But I'll bet TFA has some real stinkers, too. How about their last-place 2004 silver north team? I have a feeling that Celtic's undefeated 2004 Gold south team plays a much "better" game.
Click to expand...
Why are you comparing TFA's Silver North to Celtic Gold 04 team? Because you don't know any better that's why.

Why don't you try comparing Celtic Gold 04 game toTotalFutbolAcademy 04 that plays in USSDA?

http://tfba.ussoccerda.com/sam/teams/index.php?team=1643615

The more you post the more you expose your ignorance.
 
God said:
Why are you comparing TFA's Silver North to Celtic Gold 04 team? Because you don't know any better that's why.

Why don't you try comparing Celtic Gold 04 game toTotalFutbolAcademy 04 that plays in USSDA?

http://tfba.ussoccerda.com/sam/teams/index.php?team=1643615

The more you post the more you expose your ignorance.
Click to expand...
I compared those two teams as a response to your ignorant statement about how all TFA teams play a "better game" than all Celtic teams.

Listen, God, and hear my plea. This is metadata. It is not intended to be a perfect team-to-team match, which would be irrelevant to this table. This table is comprised of team data, but used to compare clubs; not teams. You keep playing the same riff over and over. You seem to think that the table should match apples (gold teams) to apples (other gold teams). That is not what this metadata is designed to do.
 
CSL Club Rankings, Week 2

Note the headline above. He posted data and gave basic rankings. From CSL. Not much more to it. Don't like, don't read. Like, read. Use his data and expand on it. Would it be better if broken down to boys and girls? Sure. Not sure I understand the hate. Everything I hear is find a coach you like for your kid, and stick with them. Not much more needs to be said. Doubt anyone is going to choose a club based on these rankings. Just funny when I see people attacking each other on here.
 
Daniel Miller said:
I compared those two teams as a response to your ignorant statement about how all TFA teams play a "better game" than all Celtic teams.

Listen, God, and hear my plea. This is metadata. It is not intended blah blah blah
Click to expand...
You failed again...

You compared the worse of one to the best of other. smh

Don't nobody agree with your retarded line of thinking yet you continue to post anyway.
 
Daniel Miller said:
Hmm. Listen to you. This team is sophisticated. That team is not. This team plays a "better game." All of that is purely subjective, and all of it is subject to dispute. Probably some TFA teams play a more sophisticated game than Coachella YSA, ... or Celtic. But I'll bet TFA has some real stinkers, too. How about their last-place 2004 silver north team? I have a feeling that Celtic's undefeated 2004 Gold south team plays a much "better" game.
Click to expand...

The TFA issue highlights one problem with the definition of "club." In some cases, such as Albion SC and Albion SC-OC or La Galaxy Bakersfield, Conejo Valley, and San Diego, the teams are listed as separate clubs even though they share a common name, uniform, marketing, and, in theory, coaching curriculum. TFA, however, is listed as one club by CSL, even though most of the different locations of TFA other than the flagship TFA, such as TFA-SE LA, TFA-OC, TFA-SGV, TFA-IE etc, are just separate clubs who chose to affiliate with TFA and thy too basically just share a common name, marketing, and, in theory, coaching curriculum. Those separate locations have the same coaches they had before the affiliation. A parent looking at one of the satellite locations would be misled if they thought that that TFA was one big undifferentiated whole.

So, TFA's last place 2004 Silver team is really TFA-SFV, which shares no coaches, facilities, or anything else other than jersey with a TFA team like TFA Pre-Academy 2005 Gold. They generally just pay a fee to use the name and get access to some coaching materials.

Moreover, even within TFA, the top 2004 team is in the US Development Academy, not CSL, so it wouldn't be included in this list. It also has one location in SCDSL (TFA-WLA, which affiliated with TFA after it's FCLA predecessor had already entered SCDSL). So, this ranking has trouble with clubs entering teams in multiple leagues (FC Golden State is another for which that issue applies).

I should add that a club ranking like this is exactly why teams engage in quasi-merger affiliations. They hope to mislead consumers into thinking the results and style-of-play of the top club to which they associating will translate in to the teams of the location they are joining, even though very little has actually changed substantively.
 
I've thought about this for a bit now and have come to the conclusion that its not a very useful metadata to turn into information this early in the season. The reason being that it highly dependent on bracket and the schedule thus far as some have mentioned. There are many instances, where a less competitive team is matched up with a very competitive team in the first couple of weeks. Also, a large club may have 2~3 teams in the same bracket at the higher end (Gold/Premier) so naturally, they knock each other out lowering the average for the club.

My sense is just because one can create the data, it doesn't mean that its useful or valid to interpret into an information that helps make any decision. Its very much the case of garbage-in, garbage-out type of data.

Once the season is done, then it may have value in that some of the early transient conditions will have dampened out and probably will be a trend of which club has more winning teams than another.

That said, that data is quite useless to most parents since we select coaches and teams, and not clubs when we consider where to place our kids. A clear example is how often do you see/hear a coach moving from club A to club B and the team follows because of the coach. There are plenty of examples of this.

I think it would be more meaningful metadata, if the data was sliced by age (year), gender, and number of team per club at that age. This would result in which clubs perform better at what age group, across their teams in the age group, for boys or girls. We know heuristically that some clubs have better youngers programs than olders and vise-versa. Clubs with older DA almost always have a deeper non-DA teams with quality because those didn't make the DA teams are place onto a higher tier teams, whereas clubs without older DA tend to lose all older quality players. I don't have a DD playing so don't know about the girls side but I suspect the similar argument can be made for ECNL and soon DA for them too.

The last thing is the business side of club soccer. When you look at any club, the largest number of teams are found in younger ages. Many reasons including attrition takes place in olders but really, the parents optimism never runs short supply. From U-little to U13 or so, clubs will take on as many kids as possible fielding some teams that really don't belong on rec fields much less on club fields. So if your data sliced by age group, it will show which team field most teams in any given age group and how well they perform at the age group. The argument of development and not winning focus goes away when you stack the years together because one would expect the winning percentage to increase with age, if the players are actually developing, or not (remember that development is for what reason? Ultimately to win more games and championships at older ages).

Ok sorry, wrote too much. Do what you want with the data. Just don't confuse everyone for more that what it is..... Cheers!
 
I appreciate the effort to create these rankings and at least it has stirred up some conversation, but the rankings have absolutely no meaning - you might have just as well put the clubs in alphabetical order.

First, as others have said - Bronze does not equal Gold. Even you have said the only reason you haven't included bracketing in your data is because 'you don't have the time'. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME to create an analysis that makes sense so you just put one out that is meaningless???

Again, I am not trying to be a jerk, but there is just no statistical significance to your numbers. Besides bracketing differences, what about clubs that have only a few teams? Furthermore, the data set of one week or two week renders this literally meaningless in and of itself. Perhaps if you looked at club performance over 3 or 4 years it would start to have some value.

Sorry but this is worthless.
 
RocketFile said:
I appreciate the effort to create these rankings and at least it has stirred up some conversation, but the rankings have absolutely no meaning - you might have just as well put the clubs in alphabetical order.

First, as others have said - Bronze does not equal Gold. Even you have said the only reason you haven't included bracketing in your data is because 'you don't have the time'. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME to create an analysis that makes sense so you just put one out that is meaningless???

Again, I am not trying to be a jerk, but there is just no statistical significance to your numbers. Besides bracketing differences, what about clubs that have only a few teams? Furthermore, the data set of one week or two week renders this literally meaningless in and of itself. Perhaps if you looked at club performance over 3 or 4 years it would start to have some value.

Sorry but this is worthless.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you understand how the table works. You are correct to say that bronze does not equal gold, and you are correct that such bracketing divisions are not specifically partitioned. But that does not mean they are not considered. And I would point out that the table does not include clubs with only "a few teams." The table only considers clubs with 10 teams or more, of which there are 102.

Once again, the table assumes that all clubs of that size or larger have a reasonably similar distribution of teams bracketed in gold, silver, bronze, etcetera. So a club with an overall better record, is likely to have a better record in each of those brackets.

One more time. The table is not perfect. But it is purely objective and produces a clean number measuring the overall competitiveness of clubs competing in the same gaming league against one another. Some of you have complained, but who has created a better or more accurate table?
 
I understand how the table works. It is garbage in garbage out. There is no value in the output at all. It is not a large enough sample size. The assumption that clubs have a similar distribution of teams bracketed in various flights is inaccurate. The fact that no one has created a better table does not make this table worth anything. It is not representative of club strength or of anything. Useless.
 
RocketFile said:
I understand how the table works. It is garbage in garbage out. There is no value in the output at all. It is not a large enough sample size. The assumption that clubs have a similar distribution of teams bracketed in various flights is inaccurate. The fact that no one has created a better table does not make this table worth anything. It is not representative of club strength or of anything. Useless.
Click to expand...
OK. The table is useful to me but useless to you. I have no problem with that.
 
The nerve of this guy to simply compile a data set that provides a factual representation of CSL clubs' W/L records. He thinks he can just give us a totally objective snapshot of club results that we are free to appreciate, or not appreciate, as we choose? To click and read, or ignore and dismiss from the leisure of our couch? He deserves every petulant insult he gets and every narrow-minded flogging that comes his way. Maybe next time he'll think about what he's done here and compile a data set that is more to the liking of those that wouldn't know the first thing about how to compile data.
 
Hank Walker said:
The nerve of this guy to simply compile a data set that provides a factual representation of CSL clubs' W/L records. He thinks he can just give us a totally objective snapshot of club results that we are free to appreciate, or not appreciate, as we choose? To click and read, or ignore and dismiss from the leisure of our couch? He deserves every petulant insult he gets and every narrow-minded flogging that comes his way. Maybe next time he'll think about what he's done here and compile a data set that is more to the liking of those that wouldn't know the first thing about how to compile data.
Click to expand...

Hank you are just wrong. First, the initial responses tried not to be insulting - I jumped in when I just couldn't stand the madness as an analytical person anymore and it is only when the numbers were defended, again, and I was told I didn't understand the table that I upped my criticism. Second, the data set isn't just wrong it is misleading by implying that there is some sort of relevant 'analysis' derived from the data set - there isn't. As I said in my first post - I appreciate the effort - but blanketing these numbers in the cloak of objectivity and facts doesn't make them right or useful in any way and acting like they are is misleading. These forums tend to create debate at times, sometimes harsh, not just kudos and congratulations - buck up.
 
Daniel Miller said:
OK. The table is useful to me but useless to you. I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
@Hank Walker, I'm not sure you've followed the plight of Daniel....the sole purpose of his "table" is to attack a small, yet developing Club that he was allegedly relived of his coaching position from a year or 2 ago. His 1st 15 posts have been framed to directly or indirectly desparage this club. Just go thru any thread with Hollywood FC in the title and you will see what I mean.
 
Daniel Miller, thank you for doing this. I know it is a lot of work, trust me, I have done this kind of thing before and it is a ton of time number crunching and setting up the formulas on your spreadsheet. I absolutely agree that this has value. Dont listen to all the negative feedback. In the end.. everybody on here knows it is about wins and loses in CSL... CSL does not care about the quality of play on the field nor is their any emphasis on coaching pedigree or license achievement... it's promotion and relegation... wins and loses. And that is what you are showing is here..
So thanks again for the hard work..it's an enjoyable table.
 
I did not bother to read through all of the posts, but now I see that you have a history with Hollywood FC and hopefully there is no agenda attached to your table. I am sure that all of your data is true and is not slanted to disparaged or help any clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top