Get ready folks

[RandomSoccerFan]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

 

[Orca10]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

View attachment 24165

View attachment 24166View attachment 24171View attachment 24169
View attachment 24167View attachment 24170View attachment 24168

We homeschool our kids, so mine are able to pop into the backyard and kick the ball against the wall a lot. Not anytime they want, but definitely a lot more than kids at school. I’m pretty sure this alone is a big factor as to why my kid has been one of the players on his team who has developed most over the past year.

Now, add in focused, daily training at optimal times from coaches who are likely on par with the best that non-academy clubs can offer, add in nutrition and fitness training which I assume they get. The kids are already great players.

To your comment, if they aren’t turning out the best teams, they’re probably bad at their jobs.

 

[NorCalDad]

I was bored. Here's what some of the data looks like. They are all closer at the 2012B level, but show significantly larger separation by 2010B. Top level of NPL (ECNL-RL) actually pips ECNL at the 2010B age level by SR average, but both are weaker by quite a bit than MLS N. At the MLS N level, the academy teams are so much stronger than the others. Which shouldn't be surprising to most. The players on the academy teams pay nothing, and most are in online school so they can train daily with the team. Quakes practice starts at 9:30 AM on weekdays, which probably isn't conducive to a "normal" high school experience. They ought to become the best teams - because if they weren't, what's the point?

View attachment 24165

View attachment 24166View attachment 24171View attachment 24169
View attachment 24167View attachment 24170View attachment 24168

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

I have a younger younger playing and this summer went to a big tournament that was both boys and girls.

I immediately noticed how many more MLSN affiliated club boys teams there were compared to anything else. I would imagine that this is why you're seeing MLSN wins over other league affiliated clubs.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I went through the same exercise as you did. A 1.72 delta in SR vs 1.53 is pretty dang close. The ranking deltas show a similar impact. What I'm saying is that over the last year and a half to two years, more "better" players are going to MLSN teams out of the gate and a lot of older players (U15 and older) are moving to MLSN clubs. Ultimately I'm saying the deltas weren't as wide historically and that there's been this pretty significant movement towards MLSN. This is why I wish I had access to all of the SR data -- would love to put some graphs together.

I'm not really looking at NPL as that's a harder one to compute giving how many tables there are and that they vary pretty wildly at the younger ages. That said, I do think for some of the bottom clubs in ECNL they should consider just doing NPL. I think it's pretty disingenuous to do otherwise -- unless they're in some kind of massive transition period (new DoC, new methodology, etc).

I do think if you combine that with the CalNorth run X2 leagues and the GA partnership....this could become a ECNL/NorCal vs MLSN/GA/CalNorth battle. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But I digress -- we're way off topic now.

Agree with some, but not necessarily with all. For one thing, Norcal ECNL Boys is not good (defined as elite, top percentile, or whatever metric is chosen). It is roughly equivalent to NPL, without all of the costs and restrictions of ECNL. Anyone who is serious about the sport has already made the move the MLS N. Anyone who hasn't, is instead wasting their money and time. It's not only the bottom ECNL teams that should consider NPL, the top teams would still have a challenge in NPL, let alone mid-table and below. There aren't enough kids available to support multiple "top" leagues, all intended to be high quality. X2 is just another league that will split the available talent between itself, ECNL, NPL, or even EA.

I'm not sure the deltas are wider now than they were 2-3 years ago, it seems they've always been that way for U15+. It does seem that they used to be closer for the first U13 year, and now even at that age there is a more measurable difference.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I'm not sure the deltas are wider now than they were 2-3 years ago, it seems they've always been that way for U15+. It does seem that they used to be closer for the first U13 year, and now even at that age there is a more measurable difference.

(Quoting myself as I hit the 4-min timer.)

What is new is all of the teams calling themselves "Pre-ECNL" in the U11-U12 ranges, and maybe that's why the ratings separation is starting a little earlier.