Rankings Opinion from Us Youth Soccer

Coaches Blog




Sam's Blog is a bi-weekly addition to the US Youth Soccer Blog. Sam Snow is the Coaching Director for US Youth Soccer.




Ranking youth players is often more than a number

Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Sam Snow
Recently an online registration company announced it will begin to rank U9 to U11 teams. Right up front here’s my take on that – bad move! Fortunately the soccer public responded immediately and loudly against such a move. From our Men’s National Team head coach to Soccer America magazine to state and club coaches the pushback was strongly against the ranking of such young teams.

I am sure though that many adults will jump at the chance to have their U12 and younger teams ranked. Why? Bragging rights and revenue streams. Those are the only two reasons that otherwise reasonable adults would sell out the kids. Not to mention stalling the growth of the game in the USA.

The players will have been sold out since they will be robbed of the incentive to improve. After all, why have a growth mindset and a strong work ethic when you’ve been told you’re number 1 in the nation at the tender age of ten. Good soccer coaches, administrators, moms and dads know that to help young players improve their skills you praise their effort not the outcome. [Read the book Mindset by Dr. Carol Dweck for more information on the growth mindset.]

Players are already disrupted in their development continuum by jumping from club to club. Rankings at such young ages will exacerbate the problem. This outcome will happen when soccer club customers (parents) quickly change from club A to club B as soon as club B goes up in the rankings with their U9 to U1_ teams. Buyer beware! Choosing the right soccer club for young players (consumers) is more complicated than picking your new refrigerator. Yet many parents will research the new fridge more thoroughly than the club; even though the development of a young soccer player is far more complex than the features on a refrigerator.

The aspect of the decision to offer national rankings for U9 to U11 teams being about money is obvious. The registration company will only rank teams in the events with which the company is affiliated; i.e., creation of a revenue stream.

A club that buys into ranking systems is also looking for a deeper revenue stream. They hope that by achieving a high ranking they’ll attract more players (consumers) along with their parents (customers). Let’s be clear, rankings have nothing to do with player development.

Rankings themselves are dubious at best. The only ranking that can be valid is one in a league with head-to-head competition. Even the FIFA rankings of national teams are a guessing game. No national team coach thinks the world rankings are absolute. I spent six years on the NCAA Men’s Soccer Committee. At the end of the college soccer season we had to rank teams to sort out the post season bids for the NCAA national championships. We considered head-to-head competition, common opponents and strength of schedule. We had three different mathematical formulas to help with those evaluations. We had six to eight hour long conference calls to sort it all out. Ranking college teams who hadn’t played each other wasn’t easy. And this was evaluating teams with adult players on them, not children’s teams.

In short, ranking preteen teams is not only a fruitless effort; it can be one that hinders the healthy growth of players and clubs. Just say NO to rankings!


What is your opinion on rankings? Are 9-year-olds too young? What about 13-year-olds? We want to hear from you, so let us know what your feelings are about ranking youth players by commenting on this article.

+1; such a great article. Best line: "Let’s be clear, rankings have nothing to do with player development".

By featuring a ranking system to the pre-select crowd, all Gotsoccer has done is fuel the hyper-competitive parents that live vicariously through their kids.  If your daughter is playing in U9 or U10 and they are not playing on a "highly ranked" team, then the aforementioned parents might say, "I want my daughter to play on a top team for her development, so why stay on this poorly ranked team?"

I would argue, is it more important for your daughter to play on a great team at U9 or U10, or to potentially develop into a great player while not playing on a great team.  There are many beneficial lessons that young players learn from losing and overcoming adversity.  Marginal players from top teams that go against the grain can move to lower quality teams and significantly improve their confidence and playing time.  Future soccer starlets are being groomed on lesser teams, because some coaches could truly care less about W's & L's at U7-U9.  I agree that rankings can matter going into qualifying, but even then, what is the end goal?  To each his own.

In my opinion, Sam's article is spot-on.  Ranking academy teams doesn't help with my daughter's development in any capacity.  As Sam so perfectly pointed out, "good soccer coaches, administrators, moms and dads know that to help young players improve their skills you praise their effort not the outcome".

I think he doth protest too much. This is America. Our culture is competition. We rank everything.

I don't think a national ranking based purely on W/L and # of tournaments played does anything for development of 9/10-year-olds, but who contends rankings have anything to do with development in the first place?

Rankings show you which teams are best at winning games. Period. You need to watch the games to see how they win. Some teams develop and still win, some develop and lose, many don't develop at all.

I wish there were a ranking with more soccer related criteria than W/L, and I wish the gotsoccer algorithm wasn't so heavily weighted towards east and west coast teams that play tons of gotsoccer tourneys and less league play.

But until we have better rankings, the rankings we have serve their purpose.

How did topdrawer become a juggernaut? Ranking players.

What does most every ODP state or NT coach do to establish their pools? Rank their players.

What was the recipe for anson during all those years UNC won everything in sight? He ranked and charted nearly every activity the players did to make them compete - "competitive cauldron".

Rankings aren't going anywhere, and attributing lack of development to ranking sites is ridiculous. Rank the coaches nationally on well they develop if you want to see rankings impact development.

The problem is not that we are competing, and the problem is not that we are ranking, even at the younger ages.

The problem is that we are using the wrong metric to measure "success". We measure success by goals scores vs goals allowed.

Everything I hear is about how at younger ages, it is possible to score more goals, and thus win more games, by utilizing and emphasizing attributes (i.e. inequities in speed, size, strength) that do not necessarily translate to long-term success in the sport at older ages.

There is one simple fix to that. Change the metric. Start using a metric (or metrics) that reward development of the attributes that ARE key to long term success in the sport (touch, skill, passing).

Use THOSE metrics (i.e. time of possession) to determine which team Wins or Loses the game. I guarantee you that magically, people will start to celebrate those teams that win those contests, and people will flock to coaches who can consistently develop those skills in players, and shy away in droves from the ones that can't. Keep league standings for W-L based off of that metric, and heck, I'll even create an FBR to rank the best teams in NTX at it.

You'll be amazed at the quality of players we would develop if we emphasized and measured the CORRECT attributes through competition.

Standings and rankings of this (kept in proper perspective, of course), would only serve to enhance our prowess in this area.

Agreed 1000% BW! I've had that vision for a while, but easier said than done.

bwgophers wrote: and heck, I'll even create an FBR to rank the best teams in NTX at it.

Feel free to start with the 06's. thanks

4-3-3 wrote:Agreed 1000% BW!  I've had that vision for a  while, but easier said than done.

There is a format already in place. US Soccer includes items such as "style of play" and "training" in it's formula that evaluation of the Development Academy teams. Of course, they also have a team of scouts that attend EVERY SINGLE GAME for the entire season to actually watch the games. The eyeball test is very much under-appreciated part of the process.

Here's a thought that will likely go nowhere, but when has that ever stopped me before...

Create a "hybrid" league for the younger ages.  Like today, each game has 2 halves.  However, play each half under different rules/scoring.

One half is a traditional soccer game where the object is to score more goals than your opponent.
One half is "keep away".  No goals are used, and the object is to maintain possession of the ball for more time than your opponent does.

Each half is worth 2 pts. in the league standings.  If you win the "goal" half, you get 2 pts., draw you get 1 pt., lose you get 0 pts.  Same goes for the "possession" half, 2 pts. if you win possession, 0 pts. if you lose possession, 1 pt. if you tie possession (calculated down to the second).

Since the likelihood of ending up with an exact tie to the second in possession is pretty slim, the importance is by default tilted more in favor of the team that wins the possession half.  However, it does not eliminate the importance of being able to score goals, or prevent goals from being scored (which are clearly important aspects of the game, even at the younger ages), but it does reduce the importance of goals vs. possession in the overall result (which is what I hear everyone screaming about when it comes to "development" vs. "winning").

The final standings for the league should be determined by total points, but you can display separate team W-L records for the goal half and the possession half.  This will give people even more insight into the strengths of a team/coach/club.  The best teams will do well in both aspects of the game.  Some teams will have a much better goals W-L record than possession W-L record (and vice-versa)... hmmm... what does that say about that team/coach, and which team do I want my DD to potentially be a part of???

That all sounds very complex. We should just keep it simple and rank my team #1 and move on:shock:  

I could, but then I'd be accused of over-promoting teams like RASE '04 that obviously only care about winning over development.  

4-3-3 wrote:I think he doth protest too much. This is America. Our culture is competition. We rank everything.

I don't think a national ranking based purely on W/L and # of tournaments played does anything for development of 9/10-year-olds, but who contends rankings have anything to do with development in the first place?  

Rankings show you which teams are best at winning games. Period. You need to watch the games to see how they win. Some teams develop and still win, some develop and lose, many don't develop at all.

I wish there were a ranking with more soccer related criteria than W/L, and I wish the gotsoccer algorithm wasn't so heavily weighted towards east and west coast teams that play tons of gotsoccer tourneys and less league play.

But until we have better rankings, the rankings we have serve their purpose.



How did topdrawer become a juggernaut? Ranking players.

What does most every ODP state or NT coach do to establish their pools? Rank their players.

What was the recipe for anson during all those years UNC won everything in sight? He ranked and charted nearly every activity the players did to make them compete - "competitive cauldron".

Rankings aren't going anywhere, and attributing lack of development to ranking sites is ridiculous. Rank the coaches nationally on well they develop if you want to see rankings impact development.

Ranking 9 year olds is idiotic and, as mentioned in the article, is done because the parents requested it...the kids couldn't give a rats rear about 'rankings'...their moronic parents do. Your post is borderline stupid for trying to defend this idiocy.

tornado11 wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:I think he doth protest too much. This is America. Our culture is competition. We rank everything.

I don't think a national ranking based purely on W/L and # of tournaments played does anything for development of 9/10-year-olds, but who contends rankings have anything to do with development in the first place?  

Rankings show you which teams are best at winning games. Period. You need to watch the games to see how they win. Some teams develop and still win, some develop and lose, many don't develop at all.

I wish there were a ranking with more soccer related criteria than W/L, and I wish the gotsoccer algorithm wasn't so heavily weighted towards east and west coast teams that play tons of gotsoccer tourneys and less league play.

But until we have better rankings, the rankings we have serve their purpose.



How did topdrawer become a juggernaut? Ranking players.

What does most every ODP state or NT coach do to establish their pools? Rank their players.

What was the recipe for anson during all those years UNC won everything in sight? He ranked and charted nearly every activity the players did to make them compete - "competitive cauldron".

Rankings aren't going anywhere, and attributing lack of development to ranking sites is ridiculous. Rank the coaches nationally on well they develop if you want to see rankings impact development.

Ranking 9 year olds is idiotic and, as mentioned in the article, is done because the parents requested it...the kids couldn't give a rats rear about 'rankings'...their moronic parents do. Your post is borderline stupid for trying to defend this idiocy.

Thats a decent post but I wouldn't rank it with the elite level of post.

tornado11 wrote:Ranking 9 year olds is idiotic and, as mentioned in the article, is done because the parents requested it...the kids couldn't give a rats rear about 'rankings'...their moronic parents do. Your post is borderline stupid for trying to defend this idiocy.

You throw around a lot of inflammatory words (stupid/idiotic), but you didn't make any decent points. Can you do any better?

First, the rankings are clearly not meant for the kids.

Second, gotsoccer didn't do this because parents wanted it. It is a business. They thought they could create additional revenue streams.

Third, I didn't defend ranking 9-year-olds only based on W/L. I'm on record (for years) as saying we need to change the criteria on which we rank. The jist of my post was that rankings aren't going anywhere, and whether you like it or not, this focus on sifting and stratifying everything is American culture. Don't shoot the messenger.

Fourth, kids are ranked by coaches at just about every age group. Soon as a kid shows up on a competitive team, she is being evaluated and compared to her peers. Any competitive club with multiple teams is ranking the players to determine which kids will play on which teams.  Yes, there are other factors that play into it, but it's naive to believe 9 year old competitive players (in any sport) aren't already ranked in some capacity. So a coach making a massive issue about the danger of ranking doesn't make sense to me. Coaches are the chief rankers with the most impactful ranking on a kid.

Fifth, there is no solid argument I've seen to date that shows how ranking hinders development. The claim parents will move their kids because of rankings doesn't qualify....it  happens routinely at u8/u9/u10 and gotsoccer hasn't ranked those ages. The claim coaches can't focus on development because rankings force them to win holds no sway. That's a choice any coach makes based on his/her own principles. Those that choose to be a slave to winning would do so with or without the existence of rankings.    

I'd love you to spend a little mental energy to refute any of the 5 points with something other than name calling. It might take a bit more effort than obnoxious, never ending cheerleading for your favorite UNC player.

THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST!

I find first place to be overrated in general. I prefer 3rd or 4th place and sometimes 15th or 16th. At a national level 568th or 725th are also good as they have a good "ring" to them.

Shelby427 wrote:
THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST!

I find first place to be overrated in general. I prefer 3rd or 4th place and sometimes 15th or 16th. At a national level 568th or 725th are also good as they have a good "ring" to them.

The 666th team must have a manifest destiny type plan ahead of then.