'04 FBR Rankings - 04-11-12

"For the '04's FBR currently contains all game results that I could track down for '04's v. '04's ONLY (no games against '03's or '05's are included"

RASE is the 2nd best 04 team based on 5-6 games played more than a year ago with different players?

All this seems a bit pointless.

Great job. Thanks for doing this.

SoftballDad wrote:"For the '04's FBR currently contains all game results that I could track down for '04's v. '04's ONLY (no games against '03's or '05's are included"

RASE is the 2nd best 04 team based on 5-6 games played more than a year ago with different players?

All this seems a bit pointless.

The RASE games that I have included are all from Oct/Nov of 2011. The oldest game being Oct. 9, 2011, almost exactly 6 months old.

If you would like to compile all of the data, including all of the necessary '03 league data that would be necessary to get a meaningful SoS for those games, please be my guest.

As for different players between now and 6 months ago, I have no idea. Academy teams are very fluid, which is why I generally don't like to use data that is more than 3-4 months old. However, for the reasons I stated in my original post, I felt I needed to add data going further back in order to publish an overall ranking for the '04's that I felt was accurate and defensible based on reviewing the game results. It admittedly isn't perfect, but I believe it is pretty good.

I do my best with what I have, and try to be as transparent as possible. Most of the time it's good enough, some of the time, it probably isn't. C'est la vie...

bwgophers wrote:

SoftballDad wrote:"For the '04's FBR currently contains all game results that I could track down for '04's v. '04's ONLY (no games against '03's or '05's are included"

RASE is the 2nd best 04 team based on 5-6 games played more than a year ago with different players?

All this seems a bit pointless.

The RASE games that I have included are all from Oct/Nov of 2011. The oldest game being Oct. 9, 2011, almost exactly 6 months old.

If you would like to compile all of the data, including all of the necessary '03 league data that would be necessary to get a meaningful SoS for those games, please be my guest.

As for different players between now and 6 months ago, I have no idea. Academy teams are very fluid, which is why I generally don't like to use data that is more than 3-4 months old. However, for the reasons I stated in my original post, I felt I needed to add data going further back in order to publish an overall ranking for the '04's that I felt was accurate and defensible based on reviewing the game results. It admittedly isn't perfect, but I believe it is pretty good.

I do my best with what I have, and try to be as transparent as possible. Most of the time it's good enough, some of the time, it probably isn't. C'est la vie...

OK, I stand corrected. You are using 6-7 month old data.

I appreciate all your effort, I truly do. A lot of hard work went into your table.

However, given the usage of such old info (six months is a lifetime in academy soccer) it may be better to just remove any team that doesn't consistently play in it's own age group to get a better representation?

SoftballDad wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

SoftballDad wrote:"For the '04's FBR currently contains all game results that I could track down for '04's v. '04's ONLY (no games against '03's or '05's are included"

RASE is the 2nd best 04 team based on 5-6 games played more than a year ago with different players?

All this seems a bit pointless.

The RASE games that I have included are all from Oct/Nov of 2011. The oldest game being Oct. 9, 2011, almost exactly 6 months old.

If you would like to compile all of the data, including all of the necessary '03 league data that would be necessary to get a meaningful SoS for those games, please be my guest.

As for different players between now and 6 months ago, I have no idea. Academy teams are very fluid, which is why I generally don't like to use data that is more than 3-4 months old. However, for the reasons I stated in my original post, I felt I needed to add data going further back in order to publish an overall ranking for the '04's that I felt was accurate and defensible based on reviewing the game results. It admittedly isn't perfect, but I believe it is pretty good.

I do my best with what I have, and try to be as transparent as possible. Most of the time it's good enough, some of the time, it probably isn't. C'est la vie...

OK, I stand corrected. You are using 6-7 month old data.

I appreciate all your effort, I truly do. A lot of hard work went into your table.

However, given the usage of such old info (six months is a lifetime in academy soccer) it may be better to just remove any team that doesn't consistently play in it's own age group to get a better representation?

If I were to do that for the '04's, then I'd have to remove LP RASE, DT North, Juve Black, DT Doyle, Solar Kennington, Sting Goodman, and Lady Aztecs from the rankings. My guess is that most of the '04 parents would consider that ranking a much worse representation than what I currently publish.

Looks like it's time for RASE to play a few 04 tournaments to try and reclaim the top spot.

More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

MollyHatchet wrote:Looks like it's time for RASE to play a few 04 tournaments to try and reclaim the top spot.

Why don't the RASE, DTN Manchester, DT Doyle and Solar Kennington parents let us know which tournaments they playing in during the next few months?

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

As simple as your solution sounds on paper, the methodology and the math just doesn't work that way. If I am going to be consistent with the methodology, I would have to add in the full league results from '03 EAL Silver, '03 SDL, and '03 DIAL Silver. Not just the games that the '04 teams have played in those leagues, but all of the '03 v '03 games from those leagues as well.

If I did it any differently, I'd be using an inconsistent methodology that would introduce additional subjectivity into the data. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the effort involved in going down either of those paths is not worth the marginally "better" results that I "might" get.

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

As simple as your solution sounds on paper, the methodology and the math just doesn't work that way. If I am going to be consistent with the methodology, I would have to add in the full league results from '03 EAL Silver, '03 SDL, and '03 DIAL Silver. Not just the games that the '04 teams have played in those leagues, but all of the '03 v '03 games from those leagues as well.

If I did it any differently, I'd be using an inconsistent methodology that would introduce additional subjectivity into the data. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the effort involved in going down either of those paths is not worth the marginally "better" results that I "might" get.

You wouldn’t even have to add all of the 03 scores. Simply assign a rating to the TIERS of each of these teams and use that based on the current FBR results of the 03 group. You will only have 4 ratings, tier 1, 2, and 3, and 4. All of the 03 teams in each tier would get the exact same rating.

There is plenty of subjectivity entered into the process by going back 12 months.

Anyhow, again I am not suggesting you do anything as it will even out overtime and it is like I said, 90% accurate.

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

As simple as your solution sounds on paper, the methodology and the math just doesn't work that way. If I am going to be consistent with the methodology, I would have to add in the full league results from '03 EAL Silver, '03 SDL, and '03 DIAL Silver. Not just the games that the '04 teams have played in those leagues, but all of the '03 v '03 games from those leagues as well.

If I did it any differently, I'd be using an inconsistent methodology that would introduce additional subjectivity into the data. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the effort involved in going down either of those paths is not worth the marginally "better" results that I "might" get.

You wouldn’t even have to add all of the 03 scores. Simply assign a rating to the TIERS of each of these teams and use that based on the current FBR results of the 03 group. You will only have 4 ratings, tier 1, 2, and 3, and 4. All of the 03 teams in each tier would get the exact same rating.

There is plenty of subjectivity entered into the process by going back 12 months.

Anyhow, again I am not suggesting you do anything as it will even out overtime and it is like I said, 90% accurate.

1) Haven't had time to put together an '03 FBR yet.

2) Again, not how it works. Doesn't matter what Tier/Weight I assign to the '03 opponents, unless I have games by each of RASE's '03 opponents against MULTIPLE other teams in the '04 database (same goes for DT North, DT Doyle, etc., etc.), the SoS calculation will be improperly skewed. If you have a copy of FBR, I'll send you the current ranking file for the '04's. You can try it out for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

As simple as your solution sounds on paper, the methodology and the math just doesn't work that way. If I am going to be consistent with the methodology, I would have to add in the full league results from '03 EAL Silver, '03 SDL, and '03 DIAL Silver. Not just the games that the '04 teams have played in those leagues, but all of the '03 v '03 games from those leagues as well.

If I did it any differently, I'd be using an inconsistent methodology that would introduce additional subjectivity into the data. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the effort involved in going down either of those paths is not worth the marginally "better" results that I "might" get.

You wouldn’t even have to add all of the 03 scores. Simply assign a rating to the TIERS of each of these teams and use that based on the current FBR results of the 03 group. You will only have 4 ratings, tier 1, 2, and 3, and 4. All of the 03 teams in each tier would get the exact same rating.

There is plenty of subjectivity entered into the process by going back 12 months.

Anyhow, again I am not suggesting you do anything as it will even out overtime and it is like I said, 90% accurate.

1) Haven't had time to put together an '03 FBR yet.

2) Again, not how it works. Doesn't matter what Tier/Weight I assign to the '03 opponents, unless I have games by each of RASE's '03 opponents against MULTIPLE other teams in the '04 database (same goes for DT North, DT Doyle, etc., etc.), the SoS calculation will be improperly skewed. If you have a copy of FBR, I'll send you the current ranking file for the '04's. You can try it out for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

No worries, I get what you are saying.

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:More than 6 months is a long time but I do see the dilemma. I think it is mostly accurate except for having TX Spirit teams above Dalglish and DT South. I know DT South beat TX spirit North 4-2 a few weeks ago but then South is probably also being punished for its rash of tie games and 1 point losses suffered after the sudden late season coaching change to Adames in the Fall.

I would probably limit results to 6 months and then consider more carefully the tiers of 03 opponents that the 04s are playing. For instance, are the 04s playing mostly 3 and 4 tier 03 teams or 2nd tier 03 teams ect?

All in all it looks 90% good which is probably the best you can expect when the first two tiers are just not playing enough games against each other, especially in tier 1.
Thx for keeping up with this.

I actually agree with you that based on the recent Head-to-Head results, LP Dalglish and DT South should be swapped with the Tx. Spirit teams, but at the the end of the day, you are really only talking about 2 slot move, and if you put all 4 of those teams in a round robin tourney bracket, you would probably have a bunch of very competitive games.

The part of the calculation where both Tx. Spirit teams are getting an advantage is in Strength of Schedule. Tx. Spirit Red because they played in SDL last fall against the 5 of the top 8 teams. Tx. Spirit because they played 4 very competitive games against Top 12 teams in Nov. tourneys. Plus, they have draws against DT North Deleon, LP Keegan who are both ranked higher than they are.

If we get some tourneys in May where a majority of the 7 teams I listed above play against other '04 teams, then I will have enough "recent" game data that I will be able to drop the fall results and get something more representative of the current state of the '04's.

As for adding the '03's, it's just not going to happen. Too much time and effort for too little overall benefit.

I didn't mean adding the 03s, I meant consider the weighting of the tiers in the 03 group for which the 04s are playing. In other words, tier 2 04 teams are dominant of tier 4 03s and competitive with tier 3 where tier 1 04s are dominant of tier 3 in 03s and competitive of tier 2 in 03s.

Anyhow, if you do nothing this should balance out over time. Over the next 6-12 months I think we will see more consolidation of top teams into similar leagues.

As simple as your solution sounds on paper, the methodology and the math just doesn't work that way. If I am going to be consistent with the methodology, I would have to add in the full league results from '03 EAL Silver, '03 SDL, and '03 DIAL Silver. Not just the games that the '04 teams have played in those leagues, but all of the '03 v '03 games from those leagues as well.

If I did it any differently, I'd be using an inconsistent methodology that would introduce additional subjectivity into the data. Again, I feel pretty strongly that the effort involved in going down either of those paths is not worth the marginally "better" results that I "might" get.

You wouldn’t even have to add all of the 03 scores. Simply assign a rating to the TIERS of each of these teams and use that based on the current FBR results of the 03 group. You will only have 4 ratings, tier 1, 2, and 3, and 4. All of the 03 teams in each tier would get the exact same rating.

There is plenty of subjectivity entered into the process by going back 12 months.

Anyhow, again I am not suggesting you do anything as it will even out overtime and it is like I said, 90% accurate.

1) Haven't had time to put together an '03 FBR yet.

2) Again, not how it works. Doesn't matter what Tier/Weight I assign to the '03 opponents, unless I have games by each of RASE's '03 opponents against MULTIPLE other teams in the '04 database (same goes for DT North, DT Doyle, etc., etc.), the SoS calculation will be improperly skewed. If you have a copy of FBR, I'll send you the current ranking file for the '04's. You can try it out for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

No worries, I get what you are saying.

We're cool. Trust me, if I thought there was a relatively simple way to handle it, I'd be doing it.

To be quite honest, the whole thing is a complete waste of time. So many teams in different leagues and playing different age groups..... data cannot truly be computed. And to add to the mess, teams like Juve 04 can play with 03 players and get credit for beating an 04 team. Wow... what a train wreck

Black Sheep wrote:To be quite honest, the whole thing is a complete waste of time. So many teams in different leagues and playing different age groups..... data cannot truly be computed. And to add to the mess, teams like Juve 04 can play with 03 players and get credit for beating an 04 team. Wow... what a train wreck

Buzz kill

FriscoSoccer05 wrote:

Black Sheep wrote:To be quite honest, the whole thing is a complete waste of time. So many teams in different leagues and playing different age groups..... data cannot truly be computed. And to add to the mess, teams like Juve 04 can play with 03 players and get credit for beating an 04 team. Wow... what a train wreck

Buzz kill

No worries. My wife tells me that I'm world class when it comes to wasting time...

Like 'em? Great! Enjoy 'em.
Hate 'em? Great! Ignore 'em.

No skin off my back either way.

Just let BWGoph get some more game data in...and you'll be very impressed with how accurate these rankings turn out to be.

He did this same set for the 01G...the rankings were VERY close to how the top 30 teams wound up in LHGCL.

Thanks for doing this! Always loved seeing the latest FBR back in the Fusion Navy days!

bwgophers wrote:

FriscoSoccer05 wrote:

Black Sheep wrote:To be quite honest, the whole thing is a complete waste of time. So many teams in different leagues and playing different age groups..... data cannot truly be computed. And to add to the mess, teams like Juve 04 can play with 03 players and get credit for beating an 04 team. Wow... what a train wreck

Buzz kill

No worries. My wife tells me that I'm world class when it comes to wasting time...

Like 'em? Great! Enjoy 'em.
Hate 'em? Great! Ignore 'em.

No skin off my back either way.

WTF!!! Help me to understand here. So you are saying if I had a team and we only played the top 25 teams and happen to pull off two wins, am I still considered a top 25 team???? I saw a team with a 2-11-3 record ranked #25. There is no legit Man or Computerized system will have any team with that type of record still in Top 25 regardless of who they played. Once your losses exceed way more than you wins, you have to
D
R
O
P..... Something is not addind up here..

I appreciate the rankings that anybody tries to put together in any age group. It's a thankless task that opens you to fire from every angle. Don't really care where we're ranked, it's interesting. I guess the only slight issue I have is with the strength of schedule thing where a team gets points for getting beaten by a highly ranked team. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you could put a team of squirrels out there to get beaten every week in the highest division but they shouldn't get any points unless they gets some ties or wins in there. Anybody can get their butt beat by the better teams, it doesn't mean you're a good team. If the #4 team beats you 5-0, it doesn't matter if you are the #10 team in DFW or the #55 team, you shouldn't be getting points for it. Give points for merit, not for getting your butt kicked.

Therein lies the rub.

How do you differentiate between a team that is 10-0-0 and each defeated opponent is a "top 20" team...versus a team that is 10-0-0 and playing in PSA? Strength of schedule.

This ranking is not perfect, and BWG does not claim it to be. It's merely for the dad's/mom's to discuss, argue, and have fun with.

As BWG has stated many times over the last few years, this system is a rolling data-based ranking system. Seems like it's usually a six-month window. As a roster changes, the team's results change...then you'll see a slow change in that team's rankings.

This is basically the start of the FBR for 04G. It will take another 2-4 months of data before the rankings start to really reward those teams that continue to have success and really punish those teams that merely show up and play good teams...while losing most every game.

Again, just like RPI in college basketball and BCS in college football, the FBR is NOT perfect. However, in my experience, it's far and above better than the alternatives.

4DaLuvofTheGM wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

FriscoSoccer05 wrote:

Black Sheep wrote:To be quite honest, the whole thing is a complete waste of time. So many teams in different leagues and playing different age groups..... data cannot truly be computed. And to add to the mess, teams like Juve 04 can play with 03 players and get credit for beating an 04 team. Wow... what a train wreck

Buzz kill

No worries. My wife tells me that I'm world class when it comes to wasting time...

Like 'em? Great! Enjoy 'em.
Hate 'em? Great! Ignore 'em.

No skin off my back either way.

WTF!!! Help me to understand here. So you are saying if I had a team and we only played the top 25 teams and happen to pull off two wins, am I still considered a top 25 team???? I saw a team with a 2-11-3 record ranked #25. There is no legit Man or Computerized system will have any team with that type of record still in Top 25 regardless of who they played. Once your losses exceed way more than you wins, you have to
D
R
O
P..... Something is not addind up here..

Been over this numerous times. Have solid data with the '01's to back up the system. In the upcoming months, I'll be able to add solid '02 data into the mix. Pretty sure with what I'm seeing so far that the '02's will support the same conclusions.

Read post #27 from the following thread to get a better idea... https://www.txsoccer.net/t9512p15-jan-20-fbr-updated

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. '04's probably aren't as accurate YET, but I doubt they are that far off.

wolf2.0 wrote:I appreciate the rankings that anybody tries to put together in any age group. It's a thankless task that opens you to fire from every angle. Don't really care where we're ranked, it's interesting. I guess the only slight issue I have is with the strength of schedule thing where a team gets points for getting beaten by a highly ranked team. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you could put a team of squirrels out there to get beaten every week in the highest division but they shouldn't get any points unless they gets some ties or wins in there. Anybody can get their butt beat by the better teams, it doesn't mean you're a good team. If the #4 team beats you 5-0, it doesn't matter if you are the #10 team in DFW or the #55 team, you shouldn't be getting points for it. Give points for merit, not for getting your butt kicked.

Agreed. You are what your record says you are. You may lose 2-0 or 6-0 and in both cases have been dominated in a game. To get points for losses SOS or not is coddling. I'm glad you put in the time to put the rankings together for our amusement.