Rankings App

[Anonymous]

Thoughts? Is it realistic?

[Anonymous]

Better than counting gotsoccer points which can overweight teams who play a bunch of tournaments.

[Anonymous]

Depends on the age. If it is for anything below u13 then clubs have different priorities as far as winning goes. Even beyond team philosophy, I have seen very inconsistent reporting of scores for games in the u12 and below groups. I know of one club a couple years ago that never reported so the only results in the bracket were loses or ties because winners report and the one club never did. They were a big club’s second team and sat at the bottom of their bracket on paper but in reality they were second I think (NCSL division 2 or 3).

[Anonymous]

It's pretty good to estimate future results when two teams have a history of common opponents. It is also good to group teams into buckets according to the rankings: teams 1-20 in the nation are very good and are likely to beat teams ranked 50+, and so on. But the ranking and the difference between the team ranked 53 and 62 for example, might be meaningless.

[Anonymous]

I bought the full version "Soccer Rankings" about a year ago and I think it's very good. We played about 40 games last year and it was about 80% accurate with rankings and predictions.

Also, I think tournaments use it to seed teams.

It pulls data from a variety of sources.

I agree it is better than GotSoccer Points which has more extreme data points.

[Anonymous]

is it perfect no. Is it the best tool out there right now? yes. By Far better than USA Rank or Got Soccer that ward "points" based on events you play in.

You can debate is team a ranked better than team b. but it will do a good job of telling relative ranking of teams you might play in a showcase or tournament. i.e, if you are ranked in the 200s and you play a team ranked in the 400s, you are likely to win; if you play a team ranked in the 100s, you are likely to lose.

[Anonymous]

Here is some good evidence. I just looked at teams playing in the girls ECNL finals starting tomorrow - should be some of the best teams in the country right?

Choose U15 (2010s) as an example. And yes they are. Teams are ranked in Soccer Rankings as follows:
#1
#2
#4
#5
#7
#10
#11
#13

[Anonymous]

Value = >0

[Anonymous]

Its quite good for getting a handle on a team and your ballpark chances of winning.

There is absolutely nothing else close

[Anonymous]

Once you understand how it ranks teams you'll agree that its the best option. Not perfect but the best.

What affects rank is the number of goals teams score that is more or less than theyre expected to score against other teams. Consistently score more than expected and your ranking goes up. Consistently score less and your ranking goes down. Consistently score the expected number of goals and nothing happens to ranking.

As you can see this can be applied against amy two teams . However the more or less the teams play each other defines how accurate the expected number of goals will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is some good evidence. I just looked at teams playing in the girls ECNL finals starting tomorrow - should be some of the best teams in the country right?

Choose U15 (2010s) as an example. And yes they are. Teams are ranked in Soccer Rankings as follows:
#1
#2
#4
#5
#7
#10
#11
#13

Yes but it's somewhat circular. The wins that those teams had in the last few weeks to get to the finals helped to boost their current rankings. In other words they are ranked high BECAUSE they are in the finals. Still, the rankings are useful as a blunt instrument just don't think there is a meaningful difference between the #1 and #13 ranked teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is some good evidence. I just looked at teams playing in the girls ECNL finals starting tomorrow - should be some of the best teams in the country right?

Choose U15 (2010s) as an example. And yes they are. Teams are ranked in Soccer Rankings as follows:
#1
#2
#4
#5
#7
#10
#11
#13

Yes but it's somewhat circular. The wins that those teams had in the last few weeks to get to the finals helped to boost their current rankings. In other words they are ranked high BECAUSE they are in the finals. Still, the rankings are useful as a blunt instrument just don't think there is a meaningful difference between the #1 and #13 ranked teams.

The ranking app doesnt care about finals. All the matters is if a team scores more or less than the expected number of goals.

[Anonymous]

Yes - it's extremely useful when you are going to random tournaments. It's 1000000x better than gotsoccer (if anyone EVER quotes gotsoccer, immmediate ignore)

I paid with "free" google play credits before Jeff Cup, but I'll plop down $10 next year because I find it very informative being able to quickly look up every previous match. Does any of this matter? No, but for such a small amount, it gives you some pretty nice insights.

[Anonymous]

To the - "is it realistic" - it's almost shockingly accurate. It helps that soccer has low scoring games, but it predicts the correct winner and score shockingly close most games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is some good evidence. I just looked at teams playing in the girls ECNL finals starting tomorrow - should be some of the best teams in the country right?

Choose U15 (2010s) as an example. And yes they are. Teams are ranked in Soccer Rankings as follows:
#1
#2
#4
#5
#7
#10
#11
#13

Yes but it's somewhat circular. The wins that those teams had in the last few weeks to get to the finals helped to boost their current rankings. In other words they are ranked high BECAUSE they are in the finals. Still, the rankings are useful as a blunt instrument just don't think there is a meaningful difference between the #1 and #13 ranked teams.

The ranking app doesnt care about finals. All the matters is if a team scores more or less than the expected number of goals.

Yup, and that's why it's better among other reasons. One of those reasons is the app developer is obsessive with fixing incorrect results and responding to feedback.