Socal Soccer League total team count 2024 by age year

[D8958]

Socal Soccer League Total Teams 2024

		2022​	2023​	2024​	23 to 24 +/-​	2024 format​		2022​	2023​	2024​	23 to 24 +/-​
U9	B2016	15​	180​	323​	143​	7v7​	G2016	6​	101​	165​	64​
	B2015	166​	273​	384​	111​		G2015	95​	157​	214​	57​
	B2014	239​	318​	363​	45​	9v9​	G2014	145​	202​	252​	50​
	B2013	259​	295​	351​	56​		G2013	184​	216​	246​	30​
	B2012	253​	275​	275​	0​	11v11​	G2012	208​	223​	190​	-33​
	B2011	223​	215​	228​	13​		G2011	171​	158​	135​	-23​
	B2010	203​	194​	216​	22​		G2010	187​	168​	185​	17​
	B2009	183​	178​	152​	-26​		G2009	149​	151​	110​	-41​
	B2008	202​	154​	138​	-16​		G2008	170​	130​	87​	-43​
U19	B2007	151​	121​	139​	18​		G2007	128​	98​	106​	8​
	total clubs	144	144	157				144	144	157

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[sigmabody]

I'd think the reduction around high school level is normal and expected, at least in my perception. My son is a 2011, and I've discussed this with a few other parents within the club, re whether or not the kids will continue in club when they are in high school. In my view, this is where it ceases to be worthwhile to continue to pay for club unless your kid is a top-tier player at that point, as (1) you can often get good "exposure" playing for a quality high school team anyway, and (2) at this point you can be reasonably certain that soccer for your kid will only every be recreational, and often that not sufficient justification for the high cost of club soccer.

If my son were starting high school now, it's doubtful we would continue in club soccer, and I strongly suspect that's a large driver in the reduction of teams around that age range.

 

[ColdPizza]

Interesting on the 2011 and 2012 girls losing so many teams....

 

[focomoso]

Interesting on the 2011 and 2012 girls losing so many teams....

Is that the jump from 9v9 to 11v11?

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I'd think the reduction around high school level is normal and expected, at least in my perception.

Yep, that seems normal (# teams going down as you move down vertically into the high school years). What should be more concerning to SoCal is the reduction as you move horizontally right through that data. On the girls side, from the 2012G and older, most age groups lost a significant amount of teams year over year. Several of them lost a third of their teams. The good news is that the youngers have already rebounded significantly, so if all holds as trending the next few years, the olders should be fine.

 

[ColdPizza]

Is that the jump from 9v9 to 11v11?

For the 2012's, yes. Ah, that might make sense since the teams consolidate and grow in number to have enough for 11v11. But why the 2011's?

 

[sigmabody]

It would make more sense to compare "diagonally", that is, the teams with the same age players YoY. The numbers are much more stable in that more indicative comparison (there are a couple years of declines in girls, for example, but overall a clear upward trend). When shifted this way, all age groups for boys is increasing YoY, except one which only decreased by 2.

This is a good example, though, of how statistics can be very misleading, depending on the presentation.

 

[NewbieMama]

Is that the jump from 9v9 to 11v11?

This chart is just for socal soccer league teams right? For G2012 many of the teams moved to ECNL/RL; E64; GA; DPL etc...which would account for some of the drop correct?

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It would make more sense to compare "diagonally", that is, the teams with the same age players YoY. The numbers are much more stable in that more indicative comparison (there are a couple years of declines in girls, for example, but overall a clear upward trend). When shifted this way, all age groups for boys is increasing YoY, except one which only decreased by 2.

This is a good example, though, of how statistics can be very misleading, depending on the presentation.

I'm not sure I follow. Depends on what the table represents, but the horizontal appears to be already "diagonal". The horizontal line for "B2013" shows what the B2013 class looked like in 2022, 2023, and then 2024. It is the same group of boys. The left axis isn't a stable age group, like "U11", in which the diagonal would then show the same group over time. Unless the left axis is actually supposed to be a stable age group, and the labels for B2013 etc. are only true for current state, and wouldn't be accurate for 22, 23, etc.

 

[sigmabody]

I'm not sure I follow. Depends on what the table represents, but the horizontal appears to be already "diagonal". The horizontal line for "B2013" shows what the B2013 class looked like in 2022, 2023, and then 2024. It is the same group of boys. The left axis isn't a stable age group, like "U11", in which the diagonal would then show the same group over time. Unless the left axis is actually supposed to be a stable age group, and the labels for B2013 etc. are only true for current state, and wouldn't be accurate for 22, 23, etc.

If you shift each subsequent year "down one", then the chart reads across as the number of club teams per the same child ages. For example, the 2010 kids in 2022 are the same age as the 2011 kids in 2023, and the 2012 kids in 2024. It's basically looking at U11, etc., rather than by birth year. This is much more representative of the overall change in club teams over time, since it tracks per child age ranges, and not where kids naturally transition away from club soccer (as is evident in the OP's chart, where as kids get into HS a lot move away from club soccer).

If you track SoCal teams per child age range, they are almost all increasing YoY, for boys and girls. To me, at least, this is more interesting data than a chart which more/less shows mainly when the drop-offs naturally occur per age ranges. But I suppose both views are valid; it just depends on interpreting the data correctly.

 

[sigmabody]

For example, I would speculate that many people would read the OP's chart, and conclude that there is some issue with players exiting soccer as players per side of field size increases, or similar, where that is not at all supported by the actual data. However, the presentation of that data might give that false impression (whereas looking at the same data, but organized by age range rather than birth you, would not lead one to that false conclusion). That's what I meant by potentially misleading data presentation.

 

[sigmabody]

Same for similarly false conclusions about kids moving to other new leagues, changes in league structures, etc., and/or the other false conclusion that the SoCal league is losing players overall. A good presentation and organization of data can go a long way toward helping people not reach false speculations and/or conclusions which are not supported by the data at all.

 

[Brav520]

For the 2012's, yes. Ah, that might make sense since the teams consolidate and grow in number to have enough for 11v11. But why the 2011's?

expansion from the invite only leagues , ecrl2, DPL open , and GA to some degree

 

[Brav520]

I don’t think so cal league cares about 11v11

The monopoly they have over 7v7 and 9v9 is the moneymaker .

Im shocked by how small to midsize clubs have 3-4 teams in these age groups , hell they’ll probably add a flight 5 next year

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

If you shift each subsequent year "down one", then the chart reads across as the number of club teams per the same child ages. For example, the 2010 kids in 2022 are the same age as the 2011 kids in 2023, and the 2012 kids in 2024. It's basically looking at U11, etc., rather than by birth year.

You may certainly be correct - but then the label shown on the left of the chart is incorrect. B2013 for example, only equates to B2013 if you are looking at the 2024 column. It can't also be B2013 for the 2023 column or the 2022 column.

(B2013 in 2024 is U11, B2013 in 2023 is U10, B2013 in 2022 is U9)

 

[D8958]

It would make more sense to compare "diagonally", that is, the teams with the same age players YoY. The numbers are much more stable in that more indicative comparison (there are a couple years of declines in girls, for example, but overall a clear upward trend). When shifted this way, all age groups for boys is increasing YoY, except one which only decreased by 2.

This is a good example, though, of how statistics can be very misleading, depending on the presentation.

Yes, you discovered my evil plan to mislead with data.
I intentionally made it difficult to look diagonally down the chart.
Now that I have been found out, I must make amends.

 

[D8958]

For the 2012's, yes. Ah, that might make sense since the teams consolidate and grow in number to have enough for 11v11. But why the 2011's?

Yeah, even with the diagonal analysis, g2011 is low.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Yes, you discovered my evil plan to mislead with data.
I intentionally made it difficult to look diagonally down the chart.
Now that I have been found out, I must make amends.

View attachment 22020

And now I've completely lost my mind (quite possible), or you've done the diagonals in the wrong direction.

 

[Ljohnso8]

On the G side as the 2012 have aged up to 11vs11 there was quite a few clubs changing mergers and affiliations in the pursuit of the E64 league and then there is the creation of ECNL RL SoCal league. My theory is the ECNL RL SOCAL league was to combat the flight to E64 but I could be wrong?

 

[D8958]

And now I've completely lost my mind (quite possible), or you've done the diagonals in the wrong direction.

So the Diagonals reveal the snapshot. For example, when the girls from the 2011 year went from 9v9 to 11 v11, there were 158 teams formed. The G2012 are moving from 9v9 to 11v11 right now, 2024, and they have enough players to form 190 teams.

The diagonals allow for comparison of different age years at the same point in the overall cycle.

What the first table displays is interest/participation history for the individual years. That was what interested me more, who is getting more or less excited about playing soccer. I put in the 11 v 11, 9v9, 7v7 markers as reminders to be taken into account.