How do leagues stack up?

[SurfSupDude]

You're right, there are any number of ways to present the differences in league. One of the common ways that was done before, is taking the average rating, of all teams that were assigned per league. This helped leagues that had a limited top to bottom spread, and hurt leagues that had a large spread. For example, an average NPL team is somewhere near the midpack of NPL 2 (assuming ECNL-RL, NPL1, NPL2, NPL3), while the average MLS N team is somewhere in the middle of MLS N. The top RL team vs. the average NPL 2 team is going to be expected to be a blowout, while the top MLS N team vs. the midpack MLS N team is expected to be a win, but not nearly the difference implied.

Another way to compare, is to ask the question - how do the top teams in league A vs the top teams in league B stack up, and the way this could be done is choosing the top 10 teams by league. Of course - if a league only has 9 teams total, that means all of them and an average of them would show pretty weak, as the top 9 teams in league would include both the top teams as well as all of the bottom teams. Some would say that league that has less than 10 teams in it state-wide is already weak - but that's a different discussion. A potential fix might be to only take the top 10% of teams rather than the top 10, but for a league that has 300 teams, that's comparing 30 teams against another league where the top 10% means less than 1 team. Top 10 seems like the better choice of the two, given only those 2 options - but in either option, the disfavored league would complain about the results.

One of the things that this type of view does show pretty clearly, is that the top teams in several leagues, are much closer together, than the earlier comparison of average teams in league. It is answering a different question, "How would one top team do against another", rather than "How would an average team of League A stack up against an average team of League B". Both questions have value, but maybe the first is a better way to compare leagues, maybe some disagree.

Drilling into the league descriptions to see which teams went where would end at least some of the questions about what each league represents, and confirming that the team association / league association jives with local understanding. It's quite possible now that the underlying data has issues, especially if the particular league is harder to identify - and while it would be good to know how it was done - it would also be good to just know the top 10 teams, so there would be inherent validation over the data, and therefore much of the results.

All of this becomes irrelevant when comparing one specific team against another specific team, where their ratings can be compared directly, and a probability between the two can be compared and displayed. It will always be more accurate in predicting which team might best the other on the day, rather than comparing the leagues they play in to make the same type of inference.

I manually pulled the top 9 G09 GA teams in SoCal (that is, all GA teams in SoCal) and the top 9 G09 NPL teams in SoCal. The average GA rank was slightly lower (better) than the average NPL rank. Which would seemingly contradict the graphic, even though they were quite close.

But then I realized that I accidentally pulled the G10 data.

I might pull the #s for G09 tomorrow and try again.

 

[Larzby]

NL PRO takes top teams from other states that compete under the USYS umbrella and has their own national championship series from it. It consists of top qualifying teams from California from NPL, Elite 64, CSL Premier, and California Regional League to compete in USYS National Championships. NL PRO is the top flight of this championship series. The non E64 teams go through a regional playoff (ie Far West Regionals) on their pathway to the national championships.
View attachment 19228

Thanks. Wow, a whole extra layer of confusion I didn't know about.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I manually pulled the top 9 G09 GA teams in SoCal (that is, all GA teams in SoCal) and the top 9 G09 NPL teams in SoCal. The average GA rank was slightly lower (better) than the average NPL rank. Which would seemingly contradict the graphic, even though they were quite close.

But then I realized that I accidentally pulled the G10 data.

I might pull the #s for G09 tomorrow and try again.

There is no separation between norcal and socal. If you are trying to recreate the graphic, you need to pull all 2009G GA teams in California, which shows at least 14 with recent games, looking at name alone, and take the top 10. You also need to take the top 10 teams from NPL state-wide. Using the same methodology on a subset doesn't show much, and is misleading to what you are trying to say (choosing top 10 of a subset of 9 will be incorrect on its face).

 

[Larzby]

You can't really base it on team names alone. Many NPL teams do not include "NPL" in their team names. In fact, one ("So Cal Blues Call DPL Fly" in SR) is even listed as a DPL team by its name in SR. But if you look at the sources for that team, you will see a lot of "NPL" results.

Look here (GotSport ) for a list of actual SoCal NPL teams per SoCal NPL Fall League standings.

I don't see the "Call DPL fly" team you are talking about, but when you take out the well-known teams, there's not enough mis-identification that could have skewed things that far. So unless there's some significant league cross-over situation that I'm unaware of, as mentioned above, the data needs to be drilled down into because it doesn't match what is shown on SR.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I don't see the "Call DPL fly" team you are talking about, but when you take out the well-known teams, there's not enough mis-identification that could have skewed things that far. So unless there's some significant league cross-over situation that I'm unaware of, as mentioned above, the data needs to be drilled down into because it doesn't match what is shown on SR.

He's looking at the 2010 teams instead of the 2009s. Here's that team, with DPL in their name, though the game history is entirely SoCal league at the NPL level.



Identifying what league teams are in isn't an exact science, for one thing some play in multiple leagues over time. Sure - MLS teams are probably pretty easy to identify as MLS, and perhaps ECNL as well, but other than that there has to be some set of algorithms/rules to determine which league best fits. Using name only is quick and easy (though often incorrect), while digging in to each team (10 teams by however many leagues is the end result, and is a small fraction of the number of teams that need to be validated), probably isn't scalable.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

In that team's specific case ("So Cal Blues Call DPL Fly 2010G"), that team is only named that because they registered for December 2023's Coronado Holiday Cup as "So Call Blues SC Blues DPL Fly 2010". Prior to that data source, this team would have been named So Cal Blues NPL Fly, and probably will be again once the new games come in from the spring season. SR is typically going to take the most recent data source as the proper name, and if anyone has concerns about their naming (assuming they are assigned to the right club), they should to take it up with the organizer of the event that is posting the schedules/results on gotsport and everywhere else. If in this case it truly is a separate team, someone should remove those results from that team and the name will correct itself - but as far as I can tell there is no DPL team, and this is probably the same team entity.

 

[Larzby]

He's looking at the 2010 teams instead of the 2009s. Here's that team, with DPL in their name, though the game history is entirely SoCal league at the NPL level.

View attachment 19239

Identifying what league teams are in isn't an exact science, for one thing some play in multiple leagues over time. Sure - MLS teams are probably pretty easy to identify as MLS, and perhaps ECNL as well, but other than that there has to be some set of algorithms/rules to determine which league best fits. Using name only is quick and easy (though often incorrect), while digging in to each team (10 teams by however many leagues is the end result, and is a small fraction of the number of teams that need to be validated), probably isn't scalable.
[/QUO

I see that I failed to note that there are GA teams in NorCal. So when you look at the top 10 GA teams in all of CA, the 10th best team is ranked 57th in SR.
The top 10 ECRL teams are all within the top 46 on SR.
There are only 6 other teams in that range that are not ECNL/GA/ECRL/DPL, and mostly towards the bottom of that range, so how does NL PRO and NPL both end up higher than GA and ECRL? Like was mentioned above, it could only happen if there are ECNL, ECRL, GA or DPL teams that also play in NPL or NL PRO and the analysis is showing that, whereas the SR ranking is not.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Right, in that knowing which teams went into each league would either validate the league rankings, or confirm that there is a problem with the selections and/or math. For the top 50 teams in California 2009G, a quick look (and best guess in a few cases), shows this:

ECNL: 21
ECRL: 10
GA: 7
DPL: 8
E64: 2
NPL: 1
Coast: 1

Rank it however one likes, but in this view it goes ECNL>RL>DPL>GA>E64>NPL>Coast

All of this roughly in the same order of rankings as well, though if the average of GA/DPL were taken, GA would probably show as higher than DPL, as their 7 seven teams in top 50 are generally higher than DPL's 8 teams in top 50. I don't see how NL Pro fits in here, and it would be interesting to see the teams that are chosen in the data set., which would probably answer most of the questions that people have.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It looks like USA Sports Statistics just posted the same chart, but for national rankings rather than just California. This has same methodology, in choosing the top 10 teams in each league, rather than the older methodology of taking the average of the entire league. Age used is the same 2009 group. Will likely trigger the same questions about NPL vs. ECNL-RL, National League Pro, etc.

 

[socalkdg]

On the girls side nothing is close to ECNL. If you can afford it, drive to it, play on it, your kid likes it, get 75% playing time and like the coach, choose ECNL. If not, choose any of the others.

 

[Carlsbad7]

It looks like USA Sports Statistics just posted the same chart, but for national rankings rather than just California. This has same methodology, in choosing the top 10 teams in each league, rather than the older methodology of taking the average of the entire league. Age used is the same 2009 group. Will likely trigger the same questions about NPL vs. ECNL-RL, National League Pro, etc.

View attachment 19242

My only question is why is GA listed on the Boys side as a league?

 

[Carlsbad7]

On the girls side nothing is close to ECNL. If you can afford it, drive to it, play on it, your kid likes it, get 75% playing time and like the coach, choose ECNL. If not, choose any of the others.

What this chart is saying is that playing for the top 10 girls ECNL teams nationally makes sense.

What if your kids ECNL team loses week after week. Does it still make sense to be cannon fodder for the better ECNL teams?

This is the problem with data, some people don't understand math + jump to conclusions that aren't correct.

 

[dad4]

What this chart is saying is that playing for the top 10 girls ECNL teams nationally makes sense.

What if your kids ECNL team loses week after week. Does it still make sense to be cannon fodder for the better ECNL teams?

This is the problem with data, some people don't understand math + jump to conclusions that aren't correct.

I took a look at the 2010s for southwest.

The ECNL distribution is shifted about 2 goals up from the GA distribution.

The top ECNL team is a little over 2 points ahead of the top GA team.
The median ECNL team is a little over 2 points ahead of the median GA team.
And the bottom ECNL team is a full three points above the bottom GA team. (GA has a slightly wider spread.)

That shift is about half as large as the spread between the top and bottom teams in each league. So a top half GA team is similar to a bottom half ECNL team, but plays considerably weaker opponents.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

That seems to match the national #'s for 2009s. Whether measured from the top 10 in league (best teams), or the average of all in league, there is a ratings difference of roughly 2 goals. It still doesn't answer the personal question of whether it's better to be on a losing ECNL team or a winning GA team, as both options certainly have pros/cons.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I took a look at the 2010s for southwest.

The ECNL distribution is shifted about 2 goals up from the GA distribution.

The top ECNL team is a little over 2 points ahead of the top GA team.
The median ECNL team is a little over 2 points ahead of the median GA team.
And the bottom ECNL team is a full three points above the bottom GA team. (GA has a slightly wider spread.)

That shift is about half as large as the spread between the top and bottom teams in each league. So a top half GA team is similar to a bottom half ECNL team, but plays considerably weaker opponents.

ECNL Southwest also has 4 out of the 10 top g2010 teams in the nation. You could probably get similar results comparing ECNL Southwest vs other ECNL Regional leagues.

I do agree that it's problematic that GA Southwest bottomfeeders are bad and should be relegated. There's a couple of DPL clubs that could replace them and provide a higher level of competition. Or maybe an ECNL club will switch over to GA for perceived wins.

 

[dad4]

ECNL Southwest also has 4 out of the 10 top g2010 teams in the nation. You could probably get similar results comparing ECNL Southwest vs other ECNL Regional leagues.

I do agree that it's problematic that GA Southwest bottomfeeders are bad and should be relegated. There's a couple of DPL clubs that could replace them and provide a higher level of competition. Or maybe an ECNL club will switch over to GA for perceived wins.

Other than SE, I suspect you'll get roughly the same results no matter which region you pick. ECNL will be about 2 points ahead of GA.

That only tells you which league has stronger competition. Which league is best for your kid is a completely different question.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Other than SE, I suspect you'll get roughly the same results no matter which region you pick. ECNL will be about 2 points ahead of GA.

That only tells you which league has stronger competition. Which league is best for your kid is a completely different question.

I don't believe it will be as stacked at ECNL Southwest vs whoever but who knows I haven't looked at the data that way.

National top 50 ECNL G2010 = 35 teams
National top 50 GA G2010 = 11 teams

From a numbers perspective alone ECNL G2010 has a 2 to 1 the number of top 50 teams GA does.

Unfortunately, the prize with Pay to Play isn't being the highest ranked team nationwide. The end goal is positioning your kid in front of college recruiters.

The question is does GA's 11 top 50 ranked teams get as many looks as highly ranked ECNL teams? You can say that ECNL pulls in 5 million times the number of recruiters. But most colleges attend both ECNL and GA events. Unfortunately, someone has to lose and someone has to win at events. Do you get more looks as a highly ranked ECNL team that loses at ECNL recruiting events to ECNL superteams or do you get more looks being an equivalently ranked GA team winning at GA events?

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

ECNL is expected to be several goals better than GA across every individual region, just as it is several goals better nationally. ECNL gets more recruiters by person no matter how the math is done. The end result is more ECNL players are recruited per capita than GA, fully taking into account the differing sizes of the leagues.

The assumption that someone will be noticed more easily on a winning GA team rather than a losing ECNL team is just that - it's an assumption that isn't shown by any of the numbers.

None of this means by any stretch that ECNL is the only way to get a recruiters attention, and none of it guarantees anything by individual.

 

[Carlsbad7]

ECNL is expected to be several goals better than GA across every individual region, just as it is several goals better nationally. ECNL gets more recruiters by person no matter how the math is done. The end result is more ECNL players are recruited per capita than GA, fully taking into account the differing sizes of the leagues.

The assumption that someone will be noticed more easily on a winning GA team rather than a losing ECNL team is just that - it's an assumption that isn't shown by any of the numbers.

None of this means by any stretch that ECNL is the only way to get a recruiters attention, and none of it guarantees anything by individual.

Isn't this the exact conversation we had last year around this time? It's obvious people have an an investment in one league or another + they're not going to change their views.

Last year the conversation fizzled out with "See you at Surf Cup". I suggest fast forwarding to this instead of wasting time going back and forth discussing perspectives that won't change.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Isn't this the exact conversation we had last year around this time? It's obvious people have an an investment in one league or another + they're not going to change their views.

Last year the conversation fizzled out with "See you at Surf Cup". I suggest fast forwarding to this instead of wasting time going back and forth discussing perspectives that won't change.

People are going to continue to deny reality for as long as they wish.