This one is well accounted for because everything is based only on team-to-team results. If a team plays up, they will be playing against teams with higher starting scores which will be reflected in their results.
Youth Soccer Rankings ?
- Thread starter dawson
- Start date
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Yep, that's exactly right. The ratings are independent of age. A team of a certain age gets a rating. If that team plays up a year, they still have the same rating - and they are still the same team. If that team plays up 2 years, they still have the same rating. It's expected that the teams they will be playing in the higher ages will, on average, have higher ratings themselves - so if the team playing up does well against them, their own rating will improve.
The only way this works though is if the team names used for a single team remain consistent. In most cases, they do, for league play and for major competitions. If the "2011B Firecrackers" play up in the 2010 bracket, they are still named the "2011B Firecrackers", while playing in that bracket. In the app - they remain in the 2011 age group, because the team is defined as a 2011 age team. If it turns out that the team is really playing 2010 brackets exclusively - you can just change the team profile in the app to 2010 if you choose, so you can see how that team is ranked with other teams in the 2010 age group. Or it can stay a 2011 team if it really is made up of 2011 kids, and it just plays up occasionally. Changing the age has zero effect on the rating for the team - the ratings occur just due to the opponents the team has and the relative performance against them.
The issue that can come up though, is if the coach/mgr submits the team to a tournament, and calls the team "2010B Firecrackers Tournament version (2011)" or anything else that is substantially different than the original team name of "2011B Firecrackers". If the tournament system doesn't have a field to enter in the GotSoccer/GotSport team ID, and the team name is a one-off, it gets pulled in as a new team - and now there is an unranked team in the standings tied to those specific tournament results. The coach, manager, or anyone else with a Pro account can find those results once they are pulled in, and assign them to the main "2011B Firecrackers" team if they are pretty sure that the results are actually from that same team.
Soccer Dad & Ref
SILVER ELITE
I’m confused. Aren’t the rankings and ratings only meant for within that age bracket?
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
That's not correct. The ratings are on a single scale across all age brackets. A 2010 boys team rated 45 and a 2011 team rated 45 would be expected to be dead even if they played each other. And a 2010 boys team rated 45 and a 2011 girls team rated 45 would also be expected to be dead even. A 2010 team rated 45, playing a 2011 team rated 40, would be expected to win a typical game by 5 goals.
Now since these ratings are adjusted continuously by teams playing each other, the relative differences in rating within an age group are almost certainly more accurate, than the relative differences between different age groups, if teams rarely (if ever) actually play each other across the particular age difference. Saying that a 2006 team ranked 52 would be a 2013 team ranked 31 by 21 goals is a bit silly for any number of reasons. It might be by 10 goals, it might be by 150 goals if the older team was going for the world record - it's a silly hypothetical that wouldn't actually happen in the real world.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Blowouts and lack of cross-play seem to be a feature of closed leagues. Other than Southwest, the top team in each division is in their own little silo.
On the girls side, the top ranked team in most of the age groups is winning their league games by an average of 6 goals or so.
It’s like watching Bayern in Bundesliga. The league games don’t tell you anything. The real information comes when they leave their small pond. (Nationals, Surf cup, Jefferson Cup, etc.)
younothat
PREMIER
Youth soccer rankings are a trivial pursuit for adults basically, kids just want to play the game.
My players have generally always been on "top ranked" teams by the end of the season(s) but don't really matter to them.
It really goes down to coaching and the environment,” the league you play in whatever is was/is: DA, ECNL, MLS-next it doesn’t really matter as much as the coaching and environment, Pseudo titles and rankings don't play the games.
As long as you have a good influence, coaches, and a good mentor that you believe in and buy into their philosophy, methodology, and the environment that they are creating a player can get better, improve and benefit for that environment.
Beyond Youth , Coaches rankings would seem to be predictable but its always a moving target and they either do those infrequently or the committees are limited numbers which sometimes produces a bias to the more established or well known programs.
Being in the top 10 matters in college NCCA for post season berths and the competition is pretty fierce and of course it helps with recruiting a bunch since players are attracted to "winning" programs.
Have fun with it, spot trends or whatever but rankings are trivial and many teams play the same limited set several times and its very geo bound. If you want to worry about the rankings, don't' sweat the youth ones, Plenty of time for that later in college or after.
Good youth coaches generally don't need rankings to tell them or objectify how a team or players are doing, they should know and make the adjustments accordingly
My players have generally always been on "top ranked" teams by the end of the season(s) but don't really matter to them.
It really goes down to coaching and the environment,” the league you play in whatever is was/is: DA, ECNL, MLS-next it doesn’t really matter as much as the coaching and environment, Pseudo titles and rankings don't play the games.
As long as you have a good influence, coaches, and a good mentor that you believe in and buy into their philosophy, methodology, and the environment that they are creating a player can get better, improve and benefit for that environment.
Beyond Youth , Coaches rankings would seem to be predictable but its always a moving target and they either do those infrequently or the committees are limited numbers which sometimes produces a bias to the more established or well known programs.
Being in the top 10 matters in college NCCA for post season berths and the competition is pretty fierce and of course it helps with recruiting a bunch since players are attracted to "winning" programs.
Have fun with it, spot trends or whatever but rankings are trivial and many teams play the same limited set several times and its very geo bound. If you want to worry about the rankings, don't' sweat the youth ones, Plenty of time for that later in college or after.
Good youth coaches generally don't need rankings to tell them or objectify how a team or players are doing, they should know and make the adjustments accordingly
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Where are you seeing this? I just looked at all the age groups in Girls (California), and while that is mostly the case for some of the youngers (2011 and younger), by the time they get to 2010 it's just not the case at all. The very top girls team in the state (2010) looks like this for past 20 games:
1-0, 1-0, 3-2, 5-0, 1-0, 3-1, 9-0, 6-0, 7-0, 4-1, 3-0, 2-0, 8-1, 1-0, 6-0, 9-1, 2-2, 6-1, 0-2, 5-1, 2-0
Going older to the 2009, 2008, and beyond, they all look similar. If at one point in time - it looked like blowouts were both happening often, and being over-rewarded by this algorithm - that's certainly not what the ratings are showing now.
Maybe, but this shouldn't stay that way for long, or forever. If a team is blowing away other lesser teams in their own pond, they should have a higher rating that corresponds to that. The ratings are driven by results - there is no magic to them. If it turns out they are a "fake" 48, and when they go to a large tournament against a "real" 48, they get shellacked - their rating will be affected significantly, which then in turn affects all the ratings over time back at the pond. The more crossplay over time - the less the drift; the less crossplay - the higher chance of a closed pond having ratings that are not calibrated well with other ponds.
Yes, and Yes. But it's adults that are choosing where their kids should play, it's adults choosing what leagues and tournaments their teams pursue, it's adults choosing/accepting how to be bracketed in those tournaments, and it's adults dealing with other adults when managing a team long-term for success of its players, the teams, and the club as a whole.
Effective ratings help those adults with useful information about all of those decisions, and they can highlight when those decisions are being made poorly. It's certainly not the only useful information - it's just data. A good coach vs. a bad coach, and ultimately choosing what coach/org is best for your child throughout their youth soccer career, has many, many factors that all need to be understood and evaluated over time.
What I'm seeing with this app + club rankings is that Tournaments that host teams from different clubs (Surf Cup, etc) is the most risk/reward for leagues/clubs.
Considering the way clubs setup closed leagues to guarantee results logically it would make sense that they do the same thing with Tournaments. Meaning GA clubs would only do GA tournaments, ECNL clubs would only do ECNL tournaments, etc
Just a matter of time before GA/ECNL make a rule that member clubs only play in approved Tournaments with teams in their associated league.
Considering the way clubs setup closed leagues to guarantee results logically it would make sense that they do the same thing with Tournaments. Meaning GA clubs would only do GA tournaments, ECNL clubs would only do ECNL tournaments, etc
Just a matter of time before GA/ECNL make a rule that member clubs only play in approved Tournaments with teams in their associated league.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
You may very well be right, and that would be a shame. Then comparing teams in different leagues turns into an argument at the bar where you're convinced your hockey team is better than their badminton team. 
On a separate but related note, the club rankings are likely going to change significantly soon as well. Turns out that allowing 5 out of 7 teams in that competitive age area means that it will filter for clubs that only have 5 teams in the top 5 ages. The top National clubs, and even some of the top State clubs in large states like California become ones that simply don't have any 2011 and 2012 teams. Having those lower aged teams lowers the overall average of the club enough to make a large difference in the rankings - even if their top 5 teams are the same as comparable clubs, or even better. Averaging in zeros for clubs that don't have teams at that age level hurts the ranking so much that the club drops so far below clubs with all teams, that the ranking is unusable. He's working on something to adjust between these two extremes, so we'll see what it comes up with next.
On a separate but related note, the club rankings are likely going to change significantly soon as well. Turns out that allowing 5 out of 7 teams in that competitive age area means that it will filter for clubs that only have 5 teams in the top 5 ages. The top National clubs, and even some of the top State clubs in large states like California become ones that simply don't have any 2011 and 2012 teams. Having those lower aged teams lowers the overall average of the club enough to make a large difference in the rankings - even if their top 5 teams are the same as comparable clubs, or even better. Averaging in zeros for clubs that don't have teams at that age level hurts the ranking so much that the club drops so far below clubs with all teams, that the ranking is unusable. He's working on something to adjust between these two extremes, so we'll see what it comes up with next.
Agree. Also think shutouts should count more as well. I'll take a 2-0 win over 4-2 win. Still lots of fun to follow.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Check out the separate offensive and defensive ratings that are given to teams now on the app - it helps take into account the differences that you've laid out. A team that wins 4-2 consistently isn't the same team that wins 2-0 consistently, which I think is your point - and it's an accurate one. This app made by the same guy who developed YSR, and it's based on the same mechanisms and principles - but it's changed and improved in a number of different ways. Even if some of the criticism of YSR in past years was 100% valid - all of that doesn't translate into problems with the app currently. It might have some of the same ones, and it might even have new ones.
Look outside of Southwest. Other regions get more blowouts, and it shows up in the rankings.
It doesn't quite wash out. The average pond rating will be about right. But the distribution of that rating within the pond will be off. The big fish has a fake 48 (real 46), but the little fish have fake 38s (real 40).
A small amount of cross play doesn't quite fix this. The overrated teams lose a bit when they underperform at Jefferson Cup. Underrated teams gain a bit when they overperform at some lesser tournament. The fake 48 becomes a 47. The fake 38 becomes a 39. Then you have another 9-10 league games, and the fake 48 and fake 38 return.
Still a great system. But take it with a grain of salt whenever you see a string of 6-0 and 12-0 games against lower ranked teams.
Top 2010G RL team is losing ranking despite being undefeated because the algorithm is predicting they have to win their games 7-0 and 5-0 on a consistent basis. Scores are going to be low when opponents are stacking 10/11 in the box the whole game.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I see what you're saying, but I think I'm looking at the exact same data you describe and making a different conclusion. Within that pond, in that context, nothing is fake. If there are blowouts from big fish to little fish - that difference is representative of actual games between those fish (sorry, little fishies). The average pond rating doesn't really matter. If that pond continues to play among each other for a month or two - there is nothing fake about the relative ratings within pond.
Now if you take that numerical rating and bring said big fish to a separate tournament (say, a great lake?), and it is made clear that the pond rating was way off, there will be an effect. I take your point, that the effect isn't significant enough - that if the vast majority of the games remain back in the home pond and there just isn't enough cross-play to move the needle, the pond ratings will correspond accurately to performance at home pond - but are less meaningful as applied outwards. For it to be significantly incorrect through - it turns out that the average pond rating wouldn't be about right. It was set too high / too low, or it drifted too high / too low. Pond-based big fish aren't getting a "fake" rating due to some ponds being blowout rich - they are getting a "fake" rating due to not enough fish on fish competition with other ponds to sort things out over time.
But regardless of the actual math differences - it does illustrate the larger point. These particular ratings are more accurate if they are fed a bunch of relevant data, and are less accurate if they have too little relevant data. Using them to see the ratings of an upcoming tournament or league game that you're actually entering - it may surprise you how accurate it can predict good games and bad games, strong competition and weak competition. Using them to compare ratings across teams and leagues that have nothing at all to do with each other, and there is a bunch more wiggle room.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I'm assuming a lot here, but looking at the data of what I think you're referring to - I don't see the issue. Here are the standings for the RL G10 Mojave group. I've added a column to that spreadsheet, with the current rating as of today:
The rating tracks to the standing in the conference almost exactly. There are small nuances between #4 & #5 and #8 seems a little low, but in general - it maps pretty closely. Which makes sense, the ratings come from the performance in games. But more importantly - if you look at the history for the #1 team, and look back on their last 20 games, the app clearly shows that they performed exactly as expected 18 times, and underperformed twice. That's a ringing endorsement that the rating that they have corresponds to the results they are seeing because, again, it's circular. They get the rating that they perform at, and they perform at the rating they get. Now look forward, to see what's likely to happen in their next two games. They should beat HB Koge by about 2 goals, and they should beat Pateadores by about 4. Will they do that in either? Who knows. But the app gives them a 62% chance of winning against HB Koge, a 16% chance of tieing, and a 22% chance of losing. Against Pateadores, they have a 78% chance of winning, a 9% chance of tieing, and 13% chance of losing.
So the question is, is that 41.00 low compared to what it could be if they played outside the conference with more challenging teams? Who knows. #1 team in the state is showing a 45.47 in ECNL, and Slammers RL is showing a 41.00 as the #25 team in the state. Considering two months ago they lost 4-1 to Beach ECNL (43.44), and 2-1 to Slammers ECNL (42.39), it doesn't seem terribly off at all to me.
I am not sure how team rating would help parents decide whether they should find another club for their child or not. The coach and club may care for marketing and perhaps even coach evaluation but not very useful for parents.
If the team is rated very high but your kids are playing 20% of the time, how does it matter?
Whether the team has high or low rating, I think any child should move to different team after 1 year of playing less than 50%.
If the team is rated very high but your kids are playing 20% of the time, how does it matter?
Whether the team has high or low rating, I think any child should move to different team after 1 year of playing less than 50%.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I'm not sure that a rating alone is the strongest signal, or even a strong signal, about whether an individual player should leave the team they are on.
I agree completely. If you're not getting enough playing time for an extended period - it doesn't matter how good the team is, the player isn't getting any benefit of it, and isn't improving themselves at a sufficient rate to change the situation. It's likely time to find another team.
On the other end of the bench, if the player is the lone star or one of the few clear stars on a team - with more than sufficient playtime - yet the team isn't improving, and there's nowhere appropriate to move up in the club; it may be time for that player to find another team as well.
When either of those players is looking for a new place - the quality of the team/club/coach/cost/logistics are all a factor, and knowing how all of those compare to their peers seems useful.
You don’t use ratings to find a team to play for. You use ratings to find a team to play against.
If your team is a 37 and the other team is a 37, it’s probably a decent game. Worth setting up the scrimmage.