'04 Girls FBR Rankings - 05-13-13

Soccer Po Boy wrote:

go99 wrote:

Soccer Po Boy wrote:

4DaLuvofTheGM wrote:

Soccer Po Boy wrote:Keep it up BW, I think I have said this before, it's easier to piss and moan about this one than to try to come up with one on your own. I do think there is one thing that 4DaLuv and some others are forgetting here. Dalglish doesn't get the SOS help from playing RASE. And there is only one person to point the finger at for that. Every other game in SDL Platinum was played this year, except that one. Why wasn't there a RASE, DAlglish, LFS round robin on the last day??? I would guess that if Dalglish played us and took the loss, it would bump Dalglish ahead of LFS. And I also think it wouldn't hurt the margin of victory that much. Because I bet LW would take it easy on Dalglish.

You almost got me got up into that (RASE vs DALGLISH) debate Po Boy. I'm just going to laugh on this one!!

Why laugh? A simple Dalglish beating by RASE would fix what you are complaining about.

Or not tying scott or screwing around and loosing to LFS. I believe RASE traded it's Dalglish game for a shot at LFS.

Yeah you're right. I'm sure that's the reason.

No way we could pass at a shot to face the team that was gonna take down RASE. DTS was looking promising and then they went and screwed it up

4DaLuvofTheGM wrote:

Anarchy wrote:

The Real Decoy wrote:

bwgophers wrote:
Now, as I've stated many times before, if there was one change I would like to make to FBR, it would be the ability to apply a sliding weight scale to the age of the result, such that more recent results carry more weight than older results.

Couldn't you just plug the data into an excel sheet and do that? You'd just have to subjectively determine what the older games are worth.

Then do it yourself. If you dont like his rankings dont pay them any attention. The day he stops doing them becuase he's tired of answering to all the objections we will blame all the people like you! Take them as they are. If you have a question look at the previous ranking post and I am sure it was answered the week prior.

Thank you for the time you put into this BW

Why won't you stick your thumb up your azz, pull it out and suck it. One person asking questions about what he or she sees is bad??. I'm sure there have been worst outlash from other parents of where their teams ranking is at.

What he said.
What do you mean, people like me?!
Clearly nothing I said was a complaint or a moan. You don't read good.
Also, it was a legitimate suggestion.

The Real Decoy wrote:

4DaLuvofTheGM wrote:

Anarchy wrote:

The Real Decoy wrote:

bwgophers wrote:
Now, as I've stated many times before, if there was one change I would like to make to FBR, it would be the ability to apply a sliding weight scale to the age of the result, such that more recent results carry more weight than older results.

Couldn't you just plug the data into an excel sheet and do that? You'd just have to subjectively determine what the older games are worth.

Then do it yourself. If you dont like his rankings dont pay them any attention. The day he stops doing them becuase he's tired of answering to all the objections we will blame all the people like you! Take them as they are. If you have a question look at the previous ranking post and I am sure it was answered the week prior.

Thank you for the time you put into this BW

Why won't you stick your thumb up your azz, pull it out and suck it. One person asking questions about what he or she sees is bad??. I'm sure there have been worst outlash from other parents of where their teams ranking is at.

What he said.
What do you mean, people like me?!
Clearly nothing I said was a complaint or a moan. You don't read good.
Also, it was a legitimate suggestion.

You know I probably could have gone easier on you. If you follow the rankings you will see that its the same rodeo every week. This may have been your first time to look and you made a simple suggestion. Not your fault that your post was the one that drew the last straw for me.

People like you = somebody with a "better" idea that BW should try
Everybody has a legitimate suggestion when their team is not ranked where they think it should be

DeLeon has a team in for 11v11 in the PT tournament. Since he doesn't have an actual team on the rankings, how does this come into play?
It's out there - DeLeon and Rosales both use Scott's team and each other's each week and this skews the calcs quite a bit. Based on the current Roster-Gate situation, wouldn't it be easier to just eliminate them from the ranks since team X would be playing "scott-deleon," ranked low, but are really playing a much stronger team of the week?

And if you follow the rankings as much as you say you do, you would be well versed on the fact that bw and I have had many public conversations, and that you, too, would know the sliding weight scale is an issue he'd like to tackle.. so suggesting a solution shouldn't have been any sort of straw for you. Maybe a twizzler straw.

TatonkaBurger wrote:

Soccer Po Boy wrote:

4DaLuvofTheGM wrote:Huh? Taco who??

Ahhhhh...you're drunk. That explains it. Go home and sober up buddy.

Exactly, I was agreeing with Anarchy. To argue with BW and this system over one single spot, both spots being under the almighty RASE 04, is just petty and ridiculous. Let BW do what the rest of us enjoy looking at the with the FBRs. Sure, asking a question is fine but don't attack the guy and his software. Find something else to attack, like cheating coaches.

"To argue with BW and this system"

Too "Not" debate BW's system is similar to this commercial..

Well I don't see the point of arguing his system unless you are willing to get off your ass and do something better. Besides if your team isn't as high as you think it should be then stop losing

And play tougher competition.

A little forum history lesson that may bring some interesting context into the recent debate over the '04 FBR Rankings the past couple of weeks...

When the '01's were in U9, there was a forum user named Hobbitt who published a mathematical based rankings called the "Power Rankings" for the '01's.

There was another, very outspoken forum user named mslater (a.k.a. Slata), who frequently took issue and challenged Hobbitt's power rankings, often getting into knock-down drag-outs over the rankings. I may have the exact details incorrect, but I believe that Slata's biggest issues with the Power Rankings was that the PR limited it's history to the last 10 games played by a team, irregardless of whether those 10 games covered the previous 3-4 weeks, or the previous 6 months for a team, and PR DID use a sliding weight factor that was game based, not time based, and he did not like that approach.

It got to the point where Slata went out on his own, searching for a SW package and stumbled upon footballrankulator.com. He dropped down his $30, purchased the FBR software, started playing around with it, and sometime, in late Spring of U9, he published the very first FBR rankings on the forum.

Slata specifically set up FBR to "correct" what he felt we some of the big flaws in the PR, and also, to place different emphasis in different areas that he felt were important.

Fast forward a few months to fall of U10 for the '01's. Slata got to a point where he felt he couldn't keep up with publishing FBR on a regular basis. In steps BWGophers with an offer to help out (little did I know what I was getting myself into at the time ).

Slata had already started a dialogue with the FBR programmers to get several "improvements" implemented. Over the next 6 months, Slata and I literally spent hundreds of hours tweaking, testing, discussing, arguing, refining, cajoling the programmers at FBR, and then tweaking, testing, and arguing again, until Feb. of 2011, when we got an FBR version that had roughly 90% of our requested changes implemented, and we finally settled on the current formula that has been unchanged since.

Our original goal was to come up with the "BEST" ranking system. What I learned through the process (I think Slata learned it also, but I won't speak for him), is that there is NO "BEST" ranking system, and the best that you can do, is put together a ranking system that you can defend based on actual game results.

As it turns out, for the most part, FBR and PR were in pretty good agreement. However, there were always a small handful of teams where there was significant disagreement (i.e. >10 spots) between FBR and PR. The '01's also compiled and published a weekly Top 25 human opinion poll. We ran all three rankings side-by-side, and also compiled them into a "BCS" ranking, right up to LH QT for the '01's. When we compared all 3 ranking systems to each other in terms of predicting the QT results for the '01's, it was an absolute wash. All 3 of the rankings got 8/11 week 1 qualifiers correct, 17 or 18 out of 20 total D1 qualifiers correct, and either 26 or 27 of the 30 total qualifiers correct.

So... what are the key takeaways from this little history lesson???

1) FBR was created as a result of someone on the forum having a disagreement with an existing ranking system. Sound familiar? If you don't like the message from FBR, please, by all means, go create your own alternative ranking system that places emphasis in a different area than FBR does. Publish your results for everyone to see, get your voice heard, but be prepared to defend it from all angles.

2) FBR has been fully vetted. Unfortunately, there are really only 3 or 4 people out there who truly know how much time and effort was invested in developing, refining, testing, re-testing, and re-re-testing the approach, calculations, and output. That's cool though, and I realize that there will always be new users to this forum who are new to FBR, and unaware of the history and time invested and the long-term validation of the output. The questions that I get on a weekly basis are no different from the questions I've been getting for nearly 3 years now. I try to be as patient and objective as possible when I respond. Sometimes I'm more successful at that than others.

3) There is no "BEST" ranking system out there, only different versions of "VERY GOOD" ranking systems. As long as the ranking system/methodology is well thought out, based on sound reasoning and/or mathematics, and is reasonably objective, they will all have roughly similar accuracy.

By the way, if you think I've ever had a knock-down, drag-out with anyone on this forum over FBR, you should have seen some of the PM and e-mail exchanges that went back and forth between Slata and I behind the scenes. Trust me when I say that you folks got nuthin on SlataHata ...and by the way, Slata and I are still good friends to this day and regularly chat on the sidelines on those occasions when our DD's are playing at similar locations/time. Slata is still out there on this forum on a regular basis, just lurking and posting under a new username these days...

It seems that the biggest discrepancies are caused by 'old results'. Since academy soccer is so fluid and teams can be completely different in even a month or so with the addition or loss of just 1 or 2 kids, recent results should be given greatest weighting IMO.
I believe there was one very odd ranking where DT Scott was #1 and RASE was #8. A few days later RASE thumped DT Scott 7-0.
Also, Dalglish has beaten LFS by 5-1 and 3-0 in the past couple of weeks and yet they are a lesser team apparently.
Not a perfect system but always appreciated for the talking points y'all produce!

If this is the problem with these rankings, then DTS should be complaining they aren't ahead of Dalglish.

SoftballDad wrote:It seems that the biggest discrepancies are caused by 'old results'.

Here's the rub on that... implementing a sliding weight scale actually will NOT improve the overall accuracy of the FBR output. However, what it would do, is make the week-to-week movement of teams follow more logically along the lines of the most recent results, and would thus eliminate roughly 80% of the questions that I get on a weekly basis.

Trust me when I say that if there was an easy, time efficient way to implement the sliding weight scale, either directly into FBR, or manually via Excel, I'd be doing it.

Actually I have the BEST ranking system. It is contained on the Watson super computer running in the basement at Blue Sky. I just can't disclose it to you. It's how we figure out when and where to shift the Dalglish Sweeper and assorted RASE girls for maximum effectivness

go99 wrote:Actually I have the BEST ranking system. It is contained on the Watson super computer running in the basement at Blue Sky. I just can't disclose it to you. It's how we figure out when and where to shift the Dalglish Sweeper and assorted RASE girls for maximum effectivness

..and to figure out which key players to pluck off of other teams..lol As evidenced at Kick It, a couple of nice new additions.

I don't care what ranking system is used, I just want to know the calculations so we can manipulate the system (outside of winning every game)!

KnKsDad wrote:

go99 wrote:Actually I have the BEST ranking system. It is contained on the Watson super computer running in the basement at Blue Sky. I just can't disclose it to you. It's how we figure out when and where to shift the Dalglish Sweeper and assorted RASE girls for maximum effectivness

..and to figure out which key players to pluck off of other teams..lol As evidenced at Kick It, a couple of nice new additions.

Wouldn't know about kick it 3v3. But I only know a handful of players in the 04's that we could actually use on our team and haven't seen them out yet.

go99 wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:

go99 wrote:Actually I have the BEST ranking system. It is contained on the Watson super computer running in the basement at Blue Sky. I just can't disclose it to you. It's how we figure out when and where to shift the Dalglish Sweeper and assorted RASE girls for maximum effectivness

..and to figure out which key players to pluck off of other teams..lol As evidenced at Kick It, a couple of nice new additions.

Wouldn't know about kick it 3v3. But I only know a handful of players in the 04's that we could actually use on our team and haven't seen them out yet.

I guess that means your DD wasn't there at kick it, or perhaps you weren't. But that is beside the point. Interesting response you give about there only being a handful of 04's that you could actually use. That must be just your personal opinion. Your coach must feel differently or what's the point of the recruiting efforts? I ask that question with the recognition that some of it is probably not recruiting, but just wishful parents hoping to get a favorable look.

KnKsDad wrote:

go99 wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:

go99 wrote:Actually I have the BEST ranking system. It is contained on the Watson super computer running in the basement at Blue Sky. I just can't disclose it to you. It's how we figure out when and where to shift the Dalglish Sweeper and assorted RASE girls for maximum effectivness

..and to figure out which key players to pluck off of other teams..lol As evidenced at Kick It, a couple of nice new additions.

Wouldn't know about kick it 3v3. But I only know a handful of players in the 04's that we could actually use on our team and haven't seen them out yet.

I guess that means your DD wasn't there at kick it, or perhaps you weren't. But that is beside the point. Interesting response you give about there only being a handful of 04's that you could actually use. That must be just your personal opinion. Your coach must feel differently or what's the point of the recruiting efforts? I ask that question with the recognition that some of it is probably not recruiting, but just wishful parents hoping to get a favorable look.

Nope we weren't. And yes as always, that was my personal opinion based on how you see girls come in. I know many feel that "my dd could play there and just chooses not too" The reality is most can't and are in the way. Again thats my opinion based on observation. As far as the coach and recruting goes, he is DOC and his job is to bring as many kids into the club as possible. So he has a bigger job than just our team. But it would seem that he wouldn't have to do much recruiting we have more than enough finding their way. So if he is ponding the pavement recruiting then he is not doing it right. To the tx Spirit girls parents and the DTS C Ronaldo we are having a open practice at blue sky so come check it out and see the difference and lets get you fitted for a brand new rase jersey.

To the tx Spirit girls parents and the DTS C Ronaldo we are having a open practice at blue sky so come check it out and see the difference and lets get you fitted for a brand new rase jersey.

LMAO!! You buck wild!!

to the dads bring your DD out and I'll buy the beer

How does the rankings work?

Solar Chelsea Blue 03 lost in the championship game 2 weeks ago at Prime Time. They beat our girls in the Carey invitational for the championship this weekend. They won 4 games and lost 1, with 9 goals scored and 2 goals against. They also beat the team in the semi-final game that they lost to in the championship game the week before. However, they DROPPED in your standings. My daughter is GUEST playing for a few teams and Solar is the next one we were looking at. If I just went off your rankings and did not actually SEE them play some VERY GOOD soccer over the last few weeks I would not Guest with them. Somebody really screwed them around in the rankings

new2soccerdad wrote:How does the rankings work?

Solar Chelsea Blue 03 lost in the championship game 2 weeks ago at Prime Time. They beat our girls in the Carey invitational for the championship this weekend. They won 4 games and lost 1, with 9 goals scored and 2 goals against. They also beat the team in the semi-final game that they lost to in the championship game the week before. However, they DROPPED in your standings. My daughter is GUEST playing for a few teams and Solar is the next one we were looking at. If I just went off your rankings and did not actually SEE them play some VERY GOOD soccer over the last few weeks I would not Guest with them. Somebody really screwed them around in the rankings

Seriously

You are looking at FBR to determine who to guest with and coming on here to complain about the rankings? Hate to say it- but helps you understand why coaches care so much about the rankings and often forfeit development for wins- it is because of ignorant parents like this.

new2soccerdad wrote:How does the rankings work?

Solar Chelsea Blue 03 lost in the championship game 2 weeks ago at Prime Time. They beat our girls in the Carey invitational for the championship this weekend. They won 4 games and lost 1, with 9 goals scored and 2 goals against. They also beat the team in the semi-final game that they lost to in the championship game the week before. However, they DROPPED in your standings. My daughter is GUEST playing for a few teams and Solar is the next one we were looking at. If I just went off your rankings and did not actually SEE them play some VERY GOOD soccer over the last few weeks I would not Guest with them. Somebody really screwed them around in the rankings

Again, they lost to an 04 team in the PT championship game.

PDub wrote:

To the tx Spirit girls parents and the DTS C Ronaldo we are having a open practice at blue sky so come check it out and see the difference and lets get you fitted for a brand new rase jersey.

LMAO!! You buck wild!!

LW already sent an e-mail to the spirit girls parents last year and they declined.

^ one of the two best players didn't decline one player to go.