DA Boys - Relative Age Effect, Late DOBs/Developers, Bio-banding and the future of US soccer: An information clearinghouse and discussion group

[Kante]

Second post.

Definitions:

A lot of the conversation about this topic tends to blur terms, where phrases can get used interchangeably. So to help with this, here's quick definitions and some background:

Late Developer/Early Developer
Late developers are typically two groups of kids 1) Kids who have late dobs relative to their scheduled year i.e. Oct thru Dec dobs for the Calendar year and May thru July dobs for School Year. 2) Kids who have not matured physically relative to their dob peers i.e. kids who hit puberty/growth spurts late.

Early developers are then the opposite.

Late developers are likely be shorter than their older dob yob peers but are not, by definition, just the short players. A short player may be born Jan 1 and may just be short.

Relative Age Effect (RAE)
Refers to the well-documented social phenomenon where teachers and coaches systematically tend to favor older dob students and players.

Teachers and coaches tend to do this because these older kids tend to react more positively more quickly to teaching and coaching than their younger peers, and it is a reasonable human tendency to focus effort where the most reward is available for the lowest cost.

This accumulated extra support and attention adds up over time to eventually provide these older kids a disproportionate advantage relative to their younger dob peers.

Although RAE has been documented and studied for some time, it became more well-known in the US when Malcolm Gladwell wrote about it in his 2008 book, Outliers.

Here's a wikipedia.org link to Relative Age Effect- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect which includes good background on the subject and goes into more detail on RAE impacts.

Here's an additional link to a solid interview by SoccerAmerica with Tony Lepore (in charge of scouting for US Soccer ) talking about US Soccer and relative age effect - https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...e-relative-age-effect-a-response-from-us.html

Bio-Banding
Bio-banding is best defined by US Soccer: "Bio-banding allows players to be grouped based on their maturity and biological age and not by their chronological age. By doing this, massive swings in maturity that can be seen within the current chronological groupings are removed. By grouping players based on maturity, the physical advantages that early maturing players have when playing against less mature players are reduced."

Basically, players can be evaluated according to physical developmental criteria, and then grouped to compete with their actual developmental peers. This enables later developing players to compete against later developing players, but, just as importantly, it also enables early developing players compete against their physical age group peers.

Absolute height is not a criteria for this grouping but relative height - a player's current height relative to their projected adult height - is.

The impact of active bio-banding can be three fold:

1) Later developing players will be more likely to continue in the system
2) Early developing players will be less likely to plateau and then decline (usually around u17-ish) as their CY age group peers catch up
3) Coaches, families and players will be made more aware of the issue

Here's the link to the initial US Soccer Texas bio-banding event: https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative.

Reports from RedDevilDad say that US Soccer will be holding another bio-banding event in California on January 11-12 in Silverlakes with the following boys clubs: SD Surf, Real SoCal, LAFC and Pateadores.

From a practical point of view, DA clubs can play early developing players up an age group, but only a handful of clubs actually do this systematically, usually it's a one-off or only a handful of games. (TFA 06s playing 05 have been the exception this season).

There is also a rule allowing late developing players who meet certain physical development criteria to play in a younger age group. The rule limits this to two players per team and currently only applies to u14 and u15.

Again, however, only a minority of teams implement this.

Per RedDevilDad, US Soccer is looking at expanding this late developer rule across age groups in 2020-21.
_________

 

[Dargle]

"college recruiting DA..."is a tangent to this thread but is important discussion. (pivoting to from the tangent and away from topic)

Fair point that DA is not the only avenue to college. However, for players aspiring to go to ranked soccer colleges and ranked academic colleges, playing DA for US-based players is a critical /very significant for DA players in the college recruitment process.

Most of this is because DA makes scouting and recruitment simpler/less expensive for colleges (all of whom have limited scouting/recruitment budgets) because:

1) DA is an accepted standard. For example, if an assistant college coach pitches a DA player, the first question is where did they play DA, and if the answer is one of the known clubs then all is good. If an assistant coach pitches a non-DA player then there's more questions/discussions.

2) DA, a couple of times a year - showcase and play-offs - aggregates all the DA players in one location for matches, which significantly reduces travel costs for scouting and recruiting

3) DA mandates game video, and certain standards for game video, and makes that video available via HUDL. This may seem inconsequential, but player videos are key to the recruitment process.

In the UCLA example that was referenced, here's the 2019-20 roster:

View attachment 6024

Am assuming you're referencing the two players from Santa Monica United.

First of all, good on them for making it to UCLA. Any player who gets to that level deserves a ton of kudos.

Second, looking at the roster and doing the math, more than 85% of the UCLA roster either played DA or played internationally.

So, while, yes, DA is a not a requirement for US-based players to get into college soccer, again, it's fair to say that playing DA gives DA players a significant advantage in the college recruitment process.

Unfortunately, there's a ton of college level players - like Rincon and Soria - playing outside the DA system for any number of reasons, capable of college level academics, who go unseen and unrecruited.

(pivoting away from the tangent and back to topic)

One bit of context for the two players from Santa Monica United. Great players who definitely developed outside the DA system with some great local coaches at both club and high school (they both played at Culver City HS). Soria played a ton this year with UCLA because of an injury to one of the center backs. Nevertheless, both players played for Santa Monica College after high school. So, they are more an advertisement for the Juco route as a second chance for non-DA players than for the proposition that you can go to high level D1 soccer programs straight from your local club.

 

[Edouble]

I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.

I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.

 

[66 GTO]

What about the June,July dob
Those never have advantage either way...

 

[Kante]

w/ the DA CY year, June/July and Nov/Dec have it the toughest.

u13 thru u19 Aug thru Oct tend to still be benefitting from RAE when the cut-off was still the school year.

 

[Kante]

I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.

a key is the coaches forcing the players to talk. man on, time, turn left, turn right, back, etc.

player communication, or lack of it, is straight out on the coaches.

if the teammates don't talk, the younger players take the hit disproportionately.

sort of shocking at DA, but lots of players don't communicate they way they should, particularly u15 and below. The lesser teams are usually the biggest culprits.

 

[66 GTO]

w/ the DA CY year, June/July and Nov/Dec have it the toughest.

u13 thru u19 Aug thru Oct tend to still be benefitting from RAE when the cut-off was still the school year.

And June and July were getting shafted
And current CY still no advantage

 

[focomoso]

I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.

I remember reading about this re. hockey and the conclusions were that the NHL as a whole had more early-in-the-age-group (ie, older relative to their piers) players, but the all-star team (or maybe it was Team Canada) had more late-in-the-age-group players which would support your theory.

 

[messy]

I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.

Well now that he's turned 7, maybe he'll get stronger.

 

[Kante]

Here's a link to the upcoming USSDA bio-banding event which will be happening this weekend in Norco. On the boys' side, Real SoCal, SD Surf, LAFC and the Pateadores were selected to participate.

U.S. Soccer Hosting Second Bio-Banding Event as High Performance Department Expands Initiative to Further Support Player Development

Event Will Feature Four Boys’ and Four Girls’ Development Academy Clubs in Biologically-Banded Games; Clubs Will Each Field Two Teams Arranged by Biological Maturity

www.ussoccer.com

Here's a link to solid FAQ document from USSDA on bio-banding:

Bio-Banding - FAQ.docx | Powered by Box

ussoccer.app.box.com

Short version on bio-banding is that it's an effort to match up younger players - for boys u13 thru u16-ish - with other players who are at a similar stage in physical development i.e. late developing players are matched w/ late developing players and, just as importantly, early developing players are matched w/ early developing players.

Late developing can mean either players who are later entering puberty than average for their age and/or players born later in the year. Early developing can mean either players who entered puberty earlier than average for their age and/or players born early in the year.

Here's USSDA's description:

"Bio-banding allows players to be grouped based on their individual maturity and biological age rather than chronological age alone. This process removes the massive swings in maturity that can be seen with normal chronological age-groupings in youth sports. By putting players together based on maturity, the physical advantages that early-maturing players have in comparison to less-mature players are reduced and allow for optimal development for both early- and later-developing players...

All coaches and parents recognize that young soccer players develop their physical attributes at different rates. However, the significant effect that this can have on athletes’ ability to reach their full potential has always been difficult to understand and account for,” Hicks said. “With bio-banding, there is a scientifically accurate, applicable and assessable way to support all clubs, coaches and players in creating an optimal environment to thrive and develop regardless of maturity level.”

 

[Kante]

so credit where credit is due.

LAFC, in a first team friendly on 1/25 at the Banc of California stadium in front of almost 20,000 fans against top Uruguayan side - Penarol, gave five u17 academy players a decent number of minutes playing w/ the first team.

First into the match were Eric Duenas and Christian Torres both entered in the 1st half and played 31 minutes.

Duenas is particularly notable because he is an 04 biobanded player with a mid-October dob who started less than 1/3 of the matches in 2017-18 w/ LAFC's u14 team.

The next year, in 2018-19, he played down an age group w/ the u14s in five matches as a biobanded player.

In 2019-20, he then emerged as an every match starter for the u17 academy, and, obviously, LAFC considers hime one of their top prospects.

Here's 2016 vs 2020 (in pink i.e. not Vela) Duenas pics that LAFC tweeted out this morning. As they say, Dream Big. Work hard. And don't tell anyone tell you can't do it.

 

[Kante]

Posted a slightly different version of this in the 03/04 thread but it's pretty applicable to this thread so will post here as well.

Recap/Background:
LAFC had a good 3-2 win over a tough RSL team the weekend of 3/1.

Todd Saldana, the LAFC TD, tweeted out congrats (fair) but then went on to write "I’ve given them (ed note: LAFC u17) the task of being the youngest team (by a large margin) in every game & always up for the challenge..never used as an excuse."

The Issue:
LAFC seems to have recruited a disproportionate number of Jan/Feb DOB players for while now across all their teams.

For example, almost 60%of LAFC's u15 team was born in Jan/Feb (fyi, most of this data is from old rosters when USSDA used to list DOBs on the team roster which they stopped doing in November-ish 2018-19).

For context, the next oldest u15 SoCal team is RSL with 34% of the team roster being born in Jan/Feb. LAG is 22% Jan/Febn DOBs.

One of the impacts of LAFC doing this is that, in SoCal, in order to compete w/ LAFC, other clubs, anecdotally, seem to be more actively recruiting older/early developer DOB players to a greater degree than before LAFC emerged as a force in 2017-18. (This is possible to check but haven't checked yet.)

So, for late in the year SoCal DOB/late developers, who already had it pretty tough breaking into DA teams, LAFC made it tougher.

Ok, life is not fair. Fine.

But to then have LAFC's TD - who is very aware of the relative DOBs for his teams vs other teams and the benefit of having older players in the u12 thru u17 DA age groups - go into passive/aggressive "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"-esque mode to say, rephrased, "no excuses but ... our team is the youngest 'by a large margin' in every game.." Yeah, no.

The RSL - LAFC Match
Doing a weighted average of player DOB x % minutes of played, LAFC's average player age on the field for the match against RSL was March 24, 2004.

Running the same numbers for RSl, their weighted average age on the field for the match was August 14, 2003.

So LAFC was about, on average, about eight months younger than RSL.

So, absolutely good for the LAFC players for the win.

What's the Impact/Context of Younger vs Older Players in u17?
There was great example back in November when LAG played the Pats two weeks in a row.

In the first match, LAG played a youngers line-up (LAG has 33 players listed by USSDA on their team roster and it's split almost 50/50 03s and 04s) with average age of Feb 3, 2004.

The Pats, who's team roster is mostly 03s, had an average age of Sept 7, 2003 (which is relatively young for DA). Netted out, LAG was five months younger than the Pats and the score was 4-0 Pats.

The next weekend LAG and Pats played again. This time the LAG average age was October 29, 2003 (still pretty young for u17), and the Pats average age was Sept 16, 2003. So pretty even age wise. Result was a 1-1 tie.

Obviously, only one example, but a pretty striking example with widely different results, with an average player age difference of just four months being a significant variable btw the two matches.
_______

So, again, give credit to the LAFC players for their result against a very good RSL team.

But Mr. Saldana, please simmer down w/ this "youngest team by a wide margin" stuff. Have heard this repeatedly from the LAFC DA talking about their u17 team this year. It actually is an excuse, and pretty hypocritical given the age advantage LAFC teams have had/do have when competing against single year age group teams i.e. u13 thru u15.

Hopefully, LAFC will start looking longer term than just building their academy brand by getting wins this year in DA to actual player production, which would mean bringing in and developing players who are going to the best players at age 17, 18 and 19, and these players are not necessarily the player who matches at u13, u14 and u15.

Older should not confused with better. And way too often, right now, in the US, particularly, it is and it's negatively affecting the whole development pyramid.

But maybe, just maybe, things will start changing. Here's a quote on this subject from a Soccer America interview w/ the new u15 US Soccer Head Coach:

"They might be the same age, but physically one can seem two years older than another. Some are over-developed physically and some under-developed. A player might not be physically ready right now, but one in two or three years when the physical aspect evens, he might be one of the top players. At FC United, a lot of our teams at the younger ages are under-sized. Because we're judging them as soccer players, knowing that at some point they're going to grow. My staff and I and our scouts recognize that there's so much physical change to come..."​

Here's the link to the full interview: https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...-15-boss-gonzalo-segares-on-his-path-fro.html

Many high potential players will be Jan/Feb DOBs, but odds are that there's a lot other players out there - up to 25% of the potential player pool - not getting a shot.

And it's not just the right thing to do, it's also good business.

Running the numbers, effectively mining the full set of Q4 DOBs for high potential players is a huge arbitrage oppty right now that's being missed across the US. But, like all arbitrage opportunities, it won't last forever, because someone at some point will figure it out. And whoever figures it out first, will receive the most benefit.(The guys in Carson seem to be on this track btw ...)

In a short time, LAFC has built up a significant influence on the SoCal - and the national - youth soccer environment.

If LAFC leads, others will follow. Mr. Saldana, your thoughts?

 

[SoCal23]

Posted a slightly different version of this in the 03/04 thread but it's pretty applicable to this thread so will post here as well.

Recap/Background:
LAFC had a good 3-2 win over a tough RSL team the weekend of 3/1.

Todd Saldana, the LAFC TD, tweeted out congrats (fair) but then went on to write "I’ve given them (ed note: LAFC u17) the task of being the youngest team (by a large margin) in every game & always up for the challenge..never used as an excuse."

The Issue:
LAFC seems to have recruited a disproportionate number of Jan/Feb DOB players for while now across all their teams.

For example, almost 60%of LAFC's u15 team was born in Jan/Feb (fyi, most of this data is from old rosters when USSDA used to list DOBs on the team roster which they stopped doing in November-ish 2018-19).

For context, the next oldest u15 SoCal team is RSL with 34% of the team roster being born in Jan/Feb. LAG is 22% Jan/Febn DOBs.

One of the impacts of LAFC doing this is that, in SoCal, in order to compete w/ LAFC, other clubs, anecdotally, seem to be more actively recruiting older/early developer DOB players to a greater degree than before LAFC emerged as a force in 2017-18. (This is possible to check but haven't checked yet.)

So, for late in the year SoCal DOB/late developers, who already had it pretty tough breaking into DA teams, LAFC made it tougher.

Ok, life is not fair. Fine.

But to then have LAFC's TD - who is very aware of the relative DOBs for his teams vs other teams and the benefit of having older players in the u12 thru u17 DA age groups - go into passive/aggressive "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"-esque mode to say, rephrased, "no excuses but ... our team is the youngest 'by a large margin' in every game.." Yeah, no.

The RSL - LAFC Match
Doing a weighted average of player DOB x % minutes of played, LAFC's average player age on the field for the match against RSL was March 24, 2004.

Running the same numbers for RSl, their weighted average age on the field for the match was August 14, 2003.

So LAFC was about, on average, about eight months younger than RSL.

So, absolutely good for the LAFC players for the win.

What's the Impact/Context of Younger vs Older Players in u17?
There was great example back in November when LAG played the Pats two weeks in a row.

In the first match, LAG played a youngers line-up (LAG has 33 players listed by USSDA on their team roster and it's split almost 50/50 03s and 04s) with average age of Feb 3, 2004.

The Pats, who's team roster is mostly 03s, had an average age of Sept 7, 2003 (which is relatively young for DA). Netted out, LAG was five months younger than the Pats and the score was 4-0 Pats.

The next weekend LAG and Pats played again. This time the LAG average age was October 29, 2003 (still pretty young for u17), and the Pats average age was Sept 16, 2003. So pretty even age wise. Result was a 1-1 tie.

Obviously, only one example, but a pretty striking example with widely different results, with an average player age difference of just four months being a significant variable btw the two matches.
_______

So, again, give credit to the LAFC players for their result against a very good RSL team.

But Mr. Saldana, please simmer down w/ this "youngest team by a wide margin" stuff. Have heard this repeatedly from the LAFC DA talking about their u17 team this year. It actually is an excuse, and pretty hypocritical given the age advantage LAFC teams have had/do have when competing against single year age group teams i.e. u13 thru u15.

Hopefully, LAFC will start looking longer term than just building their academy brand by getting wins this year in DA to actual player production, which would mean bringing in and developing players who are going to the best players at age 17, 18 and 19, and these players are not necessarily the player who matches at u13, u14 and u15.

Older should not confused with better. And way too often, right now, in the US, particularly, it is and it's negatively affecting the whole development pyramid.

But maybe, just maybe, things will start changing. Here's a quote on this subject from a Soccer America interview w/ the new u15 US Soccer Head Coach:

"They might be the same age, but physically one can seem two years older than another. Some are over-developed physically and some under-developed. A player might not be physically ready right now, but one in two or three years when the physical aspect evens, he might be one of the top players. At FC United, a lot of our teams at the younger ages are under-sized. Because we're judging them as soccer players, knowing that at some point they're going to grow. My staff and I and our scouts recognize that there's so much physical change to come..."​

Here's the link to the full interview: https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...-15-boss-gonzalo-segares-on-his-path-fro.html

Many high potential players will be Jan/Feb DOBs, but odds are that there's a lot other players out there - up to 25% of the potential player pool - not getting a shot.

And it's not just the right thing to do, it's also good business.

Running the numbers, effectively mining the full set of Q4 DOBs for high potential players is a huge arbitrage oppty right now that's being missed across the US. But, like all arbitrage opportunities, it won't last forever, because someone at some point will figure it out. And whoever figures it out first, will receive the most benefit.(The guys in Carson seem to be on this track btw ...)

In a short time, LAFC has built up a significant influence on the SoCal - and the national - youth soccer environment.

If LAFC leads, others will follow. Mr. Saldana, your thoughts?

Excellent analysis!! I have 2 boys, one born in February and the other in October. You can clearly see the difference with my October son. He plays for a top team, however it seems like he is always battling against himself and his body which are trying to catch up with others born in the 1st part of the year.

 

[Kante]

Excellent analysis!! I have 2 boys, one born in February and the other in October. You can clearly see the difference with my October son. He plays for a top team, however it seems like he is always battling against himself and his body which are trying to catch up with others born in the 1st part of the year.

have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.

 

[SoCal23]

have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.

have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.

My February son was offered at LAFC and my October son was asked to come train for further analysis. The one from October constantly says, "If I was only born 2 months later, everyone would want me!" It's very true, and to your point, that is a HUGE problem.

 

[Soccer1Bball5]

Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts

 

[watfly]

Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts

Brilliant article. This should be mandatory reading for all coaches, DOC's and administrators. Unfortunately, it's not likely to get past their egos of they know best. This is why we need to eliminate our bias towards RAE (at the end of the day the month you were born in has zero impact on your ability as a mature soccer player)

A couple quotes struck me as so spot on:

"Coaches in evaluating players tend to look at the wrong things. Coaches are looking at the physical execution of a task and assuming it is the most important thing. But, as Denis Berkamp so elegantly said, "before every action is a thought." The decision is more important than the execution, and perhaps the perception is more important than both."

"Talent is not technical, or fast players, but super communicators, social geniuses, kids who think, see and move and make plays. (BTW--"Communication" is not a bunch of shouting, it is non verbal, quiet and fast)."

Anecdotal but last week my son played an U13 DA team (i.e. 12 year olds) that had an average height of probably 5'6''-5'7" with smallest kid about 5'2". The average height of our players is maybe 5'0" (on average they're probably the smallest in our league). Average height for a 12 year old boy is 4'11. I have a hard time believing that kids only 5'2" and larger showed up to their tryouts, and that there weren't shorter kids that were more skilled and smarter than the players they chose. One kid weighed over 200 pounds, which is nearly the same weight of 3 of our players put together. This team was the poster child for RAE bias. Not saying these kids weren't skilled, they were, but holy cow. Our kids surprisingly hung with them and were either tied or ahead until the 34th minute until getting smoked the 2nd half, in part due to wearing our kids down with their size.

 

[jayjay]

My 03 is born in December and is a late bloomer (3 years per bone age test)... it's been rough. Finally back in the average height, muscle mass (testosterone) range of the team.

 

[foreveryoung]

Hopefully, LAFC will start looking longer term than just building their academy brand by getting wins this year in DA to actual player production, which would mean bringing in and developing players who are going to the best players at age 17, 18 and 19, and these players are not necessarily the player who matches at u13, u14 and u15.

Totally agree with your points. And yet you compile and post the weekly results and standings, with detailed analysis, for all the DA age groups. Do you not think that is perpetuating a focus on getting wins? If building a winning team at the youth level is not the goal, why would you care to even know the standings? By your comments, the teams that are not doing well in the league this season may actually be developing the better players as they are looking long term and not just about current performance abilities. Sincere question by the way. Not trying to be an a-hole.

 

[Kante]

Totally agree with your points. And yet you compile and post the weekly results and standings, with detailed analysis, for all the DA age groups. Do you not think that is perpetuating a focus on getting wins? If building a winning team at the youth level is not the goal, why would you care to even know the standings? By your comments, the teams that are not doing well in the league this season may actually be developing the better players as they are looking long term and not just about current performance abilities. Sincere question by the way. Not trying to be an a-hole.

Fair question. The u13 and u14 standings are easy to do, are interesting to folks and someone will do them anyway. But, agreed, not terribly meaningful, except for Sept/Oct when DA is making decisions about who will play who in the showcases.

The items that are posted weekly are 1) the predicts for the weekend's upcoming matches, and then 2) the actual results vs the predicts.

The predicts are intended to help folks have context for the match their boys are about to play, and, hopefully, help folks focus less on "did we win or lose?" and more on "did we do better than expected?" i.e. "are we improving or not?" Point being here to encourage/enable folks to focus on the team's progress/development, not just the win/loss record, and to help in a way that is engaging for the parents (i.e. will be used).

Second, The Algo that produces the predicts also give families a fact-based way (These are the GS%, GD% and GD% tables that published every now and again) to independently evaluate the clubs' ability to develop the boys ie to ask and answer the question "Are the trend lines over time going in the right direction or not? Is what we're doing working or not? Are our boys getting better relative to their peers or not? Given the resources going in - $, time, energy - put into DA, some way to evaluate some ROI for all that seems appropriate.

The actuals vs predicts are to hold the predicts accountable in a public way.

Obviously, if the predicts are not accurate, they are not valuable. So every week, the predicts are evaluated against the actual results, and folks can decide for themselves if the predicts are meaningful/helpful or not.

Occasionally, notes are also added both to the predicts and to the actuals vs predicts. This is done to make the predicts a bit more interesting/engaging, recognize forward progress, point out when things have one a little sideways, ask questions of forum members and generally prompt discussion.

Hope that helps!