Pro/rel, club-centric -- how should youth leagues be organized?

[Anonymous]

The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

OK, here you go. Closed leagues: ECNL U16 girls, the bottom three teams in MidAtlantic division have the following goal difference, -19, -35, -31 (total -85); VPL U16 girls, the bottom three teams have goal difference of -19,-46,-56 (total -111); CCL (not available). Pro/rel leagues, NCSL U16 girls, the bottom three in division 1 have the goal difference -3, -8, -37 (total -48); EDP South Atlantic Blue U15 girls as a proxy (they don't have U16 girls results available), the bottom three teams have goal difference of -7, -9, -18 (total -34). Admittedly, this is a limited sample, but it strongly suggests that that promotion/relegation leagues more balanced than closed type leagues. In this sample, four out of six worst performing teams in the pro/rel. leagues have the end of the season goal difference in single digits (which indicates that they are competitive), while all six bottom teams in the closed leagues have double digit negative goal difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

OK, here you go. Closed leagues: ECNL U16 girls, the bottom three teams in MidAtlantic division have the following goal difference, -19, -35, -31 (total -85); VPL U16 girls, the bottom three teams have goal difference of -19,-46,-56 (total -111); CCL (not available). Pro/rel leagues, NCSL U16 girls, the bottom three in division 1 have the goal difference -3, -8, -37 (total -48); EDP South Atlantic Blue U15 girls as a proxy (they don't have U16 girls results available), the bottom three teams have goal difference of -7, -9, -18 (total -34). Admittedly, this is a limited sample, but it strongly suggests that that promotion/relegation leagues more balanced than closed type leagues. In this sample, four out of six worst performing teams in the pro/rel. leagues have the end of the season goal difference in single digits (which indicates that they are competitive), while all six bottom teams in the closed leagues have double digit negative goal difference.

U15 DIV 1 NCSL GD for the bottom 3:
-24
-22
-24

ECNL Mid Atlantic GD for the bottom 3:
-5
-20
-23

It looks like you hand picked an outlier?

[Anonymous]

^^ I forgot to add a wink to the above post. I’ll dig more into the numbers but your counter is interesting. I think there are some reasons that are non pro/rel for the discrepancy as I dig in some. But, essentially, it boils down to the bottom teams in the ECNL were essentially promoted into ECNL this year and are at this point in time in over their heads.

VPL is probably a better comparison to top division NCSL teams in terms of comparable strength of clubs and teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

OK, here you go. Closed leagues: ECNL U16 girls, the bottom three teams in MidAtlantic division have the following goal difference, -19, -35, -31 (total -85); VPL U16 girls, the bottom three teams have goal difference of -19,-46,-56 (total -111); CCL (not available). Pro/rel leagues, NCSL U16 girls, the bottom three in division 1 have the goal difference -3, -8, -37 (total -48); EDP South Atlantic Blue U15 girls as a proxy (they don't have U16 girls results available), the bottom three teams have goal difference of -7, -9, -18 (total -34). Admittedly, this is a limited sample, but it strongly suggests that that promotion/relegation leagues more balanced than closed type leagues. In this sample, four out of six worst performing teams in the pro/rel. leagues have the end of the season goal difference in single digits (which indicates that they are competitive), while all six bottom teams in the closed leagues have double digit negative goal difference.

U15 DIV 1 NCSL GD for the bottom 3:
-24
-22
-24

ECNL Mid Atlantic GD for the bottom 3:
-5
-20
-23

It looks like you hand picked an outlier?

OK, let go with what you picked, but add VPL U15 GD:

-26
-30
-45

And EDP U15
-7, -9, -18

EDP is by far the most balanced league. For EDP and NCSL there are two teams with single digit goal difference, for ECNL and VPL just 1, so you still have twice the number of more competitive teams among the bottom of pro/rel leagues. Also, NCSL's stats for this age group do not really reflect proper promotion/relegation model because only one of their bottom three teams (Loudoun) earned promotion by finishing second in division 2. The other two teams either had no history with NCSL (Great Falls) or should not have been promoted (ODFC, which finished 6th in division 2 in Spring).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

OK, here you go. Closed leagues: ECNL U16 girls, the bottom three teams in MidAtlantic division have the following goal difference, -19, -35, -31 (total -85); VPL U16 girls, the bottom three teams have goal difference of -19,-46,-56 (total -111); CCL (not available). Pro/rel leagues, NCSL U16 girls, the bottom three in division 1 have the goal difference -3, -8, -37 (total -48); EDP South Atlantic Blue U15 girls as a proxy (they don't have U16 girls results available), the bottom three teams have goal difference of -7, -9, -18 (total -34). Admittedly, this is a limited sample, but it strongly suggests that that promotion/relegation leagues more balanced than closed type leagues. In this sample, four out of six worst performing teams in the pro/rel. leagues have the end of the season goal difference in single digits (which indicates that they are competitive), while all six bottom teams in the closed leagues have double digit negative goal difference.

We'll go back to ECNL for a moment here. These are the average goals allowed for the bottom three teams for girls at U15 for the fall season.
ECNL U15 Mid Atlantic (11 teams in the division) 15 games
2.46 GA Avg
2.65 GA Avg
2.9 GA Avg

NCSL U15 DIV 1 (10 teams in the division) 9 games
2.8 GA Avg
2.7 GA Avg
3.2 GA Avg

NPL U15 G (13 teams in the division) 12 games
1.91 GA Avg
3.9 GA Avg
4.9 GA Avg

Now, based on a actual per game average the leagues do not seem quite so far apart especially when one takes into account the number of teams in each league and the number of games played per league season. NPL having 3 more teams in this age group, I would argue that NPLs problem isn't so much a lack of Pro/Rel but that it has to many teams, and those three extra clubs are skewing the competitive balance. NCSL only has ONE Division with more than 10 teams and that is 11 and it is in the last division of the age group. Boys U16 I believe.

But, compared to ECNL, 11 teams but a longer schedule so a better sample size the numbers actually give a slight edge to a closed league.

For extra giggles here is How NPL might look without teams 11-13.
NPL GA Avg for teams 8-10
1.58
2.9
2.1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics on GD for last place teams in pro/rel leagues proves that pro/rel does not categorically eliminate all blowouts, but if the question is whether it reduces the number and frequency of blowouts overall, wouldn't you need to look at more than just the last place teams?

It seems that average GD per game across the division would be a better measure of parity than just looking at the very bottom, or very top for that matter.

The idea that some attempt to use tiered divisions based on competetive history should be made in leagues, just as it is in tournaments, is hardly a radical suggestion.

Sure, but then you would have to then compare to closed leagues like DA or ECNL and the truth of the matter is, there is a finite number of possible wins and losses and they will simply find their natural distribution.

OK, here you go. Closed leagues: ECNL U16 girls, the bottom three teams in MidAtlantic division have the following goal difference, -19, -35, -31 (total -85); VPL U16 girls, the bottom three teams have goal difference of -19,-46,-56 (total -111); CCL (not available). Pro/rel leagues, NCSL U16 girls, the bottom three in division 1 have the goal difference -3, -8, -37 (total -48); EDP South Atlantic Blue U15 girls as a proxy (they don't have U16 girls results available), the bottom three teams have goal difference of -7, -9, -18 (total -34). Admittedly, this is a limited sample, but it strongly suggests that that promotion/relegation leagues more balanced than closed type leagues. In this sample, four out of six worst performing teams in the pro/rel. leagues have the end of the season goal difference in single digits (which indicates that they are competitive), while all six bottom teams in the closed leagues have double digit negative goal difference.

U15 DIV 1 NCSL GD for the bottom 3:
-24
-22
-24

ECNL Mid Atlantic GD for the bottom 3:
-5
-20
-23

It looks like you hand picked an outlier?

OK, let go with what you picked, but add VPL U15 GD:

-26
-30
-45

And EDP U15
-7, -9, -18

EDP is by far the most balanced league. For EDP and NCSL there are two teams with single digit goal difference, for ECNL and VPL just 1, so you still have twice the number of more competitive teams among the bottom of pro/rel leagues. Also, NCSL's stats for this age group do not really reflect proper promotion/relegation model because only one of their bottom three teams (Loudoun) earned promotion by finishing second in division 2. The other two teams either had no history with NCSL (Great Falls) or should not have been promoted (ODFC, which finished 6th in division 2 in Spring).

Girls U15 2004 EDP South Atlantic Blue (8 teams in the division) 6 games.
GA AVG
2.28
2.66
3.5

ECNL U15 Mid Atlantic (11 teams in the division) 15 games
2.46 GA Avg
2.65 GA Avg
2.9 GA Avg

NCSL U15 DIV 1 (10 teams in the division) 9 games
2.8 GA Avg
2.7 GA Avg
3.2 GA Avg

NPL U15 G (13 teams in the division) 12 games
1.91 GA Avg
3.9 GA Avg
4.9 GA Avg

So, when compared in the same fashion to the others, accounting for number of games played and calculating GA on a per game average, no EDP is not tighter than the rest.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think this is the case, but do any leagues actively try to seed teams into divisions at the beginning of the year through a period of inter-squad scrimmages? It seems like there is enough of a difference in team performance year to year to keep the pro/rel mechanism from actually working. I think this is at least part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCLS and EDP will move underperforming teams to a more appropriate level of competition, although they don't always do things perfectly. In CCL and VPL, the same teams will be used as punching bags year after year. You also have to look at the reasons behind the NCSL or EDP statistics. NCLS U16 division 1, for example, has two teams (Alexandria and ODFC) with big negative goal difference. They will most likely be moved down next season. ODFC was moved up to division 1 directly from division 3 in which they finished 2nd with plus 10 goal difference. Alexandria finished 5th in division 2 the previous season with plus 2 goal difference so I am not sure why they were promoted. I think these teams belong in division 2. If NCSL stuck to the traditional pro/relegation model and promoted ODFC to division 2 rather than division 1 and kept Alexandria in division 2 until they finished in the top two places, then these two teams would have had a different experience in division 2. The NCSL and EDP have not achieved perfection, but I suspect that Alexandria and ODFC U16 teams will have a more positive season next year.

The point is promotion/relegation does not in fact change the competitive balance. Every division at every age level has blowouts. The only thing that changes is who is getting blown out.

And the reason is simple, somebody has to be in last place, always.

Go through the U15 and above NCSL Fall standings and point to one last place team with more than 2 wins. Never mind I already did it.

NCSL B/G U15, U16, U17, U19

31 last place teams combined for a grand total of 14 wins. 18 teams went the season without a single win. One last place team achieved a 2 win season and that team was in the lowest division in their age group. Who is in last place doesn't matter because there will always be a last place. Supposedly sorting the teams based on their success or lack there of does not in fact improve competitive balance. The goals against ratios stay pretty much the same regardless of age or division.

So based on the data, pro/rel does not solve inequity in talent. Which actually makes a lot of sense, these aren't efficient markets, they are fairly static soccer teams over the course of a year at least.

What problem do we solve with pro/rel if blowouts aren't avoided. Messaging egos?

Had to respond here -- I feel like CCL and VPL are massaging egos. Especially for the technical staff, which can go spend all day watching the A teams and ignoring the rest of the club.

Hahahaha. Maybe! But the problem is the data don’t support the pro/rel leagues making a difference. Those clubs and coaches appear to be self selecting their A teams on par with pro/rel schemes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is the case, but do any leagues actively try to seed teams into divisions at the beginning of the year through a period of inter-squad scrimmages? It seems like there is enough of a difference in team performance year to year to keep the pro/rel mechanism from actually working. I think this is at least part of the problem.

While the stated sample size in the previous U15 examples is small the reality is pro/rel versus a closed league alone will not fix blowouts.

Hell, right now Fulham is sitting in last place in the Premier League with a GA Avg/game of 2.53. On a per game basis they are only doing better than 9 of the 12 U15 teams sampled in this thread. The only reason pro leagues even have Pro/Rel is to provide incentive to keep teams playing competitively through as close to the completion of the season as possible. When a championship is decided on league points and not a playoff system it is crucial that all teams remain as competitive as possible for as long into the season as possible in order to ensure that a championship or a Champions League birth is not unfairly earned because a team is tanking late in the season.

There are no such motivations for youth soccer for Pro/Rel to mean a thing. There is no incentive to tank, or to fight either. It is just kids playing soccer and no matter how it is rigged there will always be a team in last place and they will likely have lost by a lot over the course of the season.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem too is that the leagues themselves might not be entirely impartial when it comes to creating division structures. For example, one of our teams was promoted to division 1, having finished 2nd place in D2 (tied in points with 1st place). They even had us placed in division 1 when the division structure was announced on social media. After that, a couple teams dropped down from a “higher” league (I believe CCL/VPL), and our team was suddenly back in Division 2. Surprisingly, no announcements were made on social media or via email that this would be happening. We were not the only team to be affected by this reshuffling. You might see a team that didn’t even finish in the bottom 2 get relegated 2 divisions. Or a team that finished in midtable getting promoted. Sometimes it can be nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:So if I'm hearing correctly, the argument here is that you can never have balanced games, so why even try?

Because common sense dictates you'll get more balanced games with pro/rel than you will with a fixed set of teams. Unless you do a really, really good job picking the teams in that fixed set.

Common sense says exactly that but I’ve just posted the results of last place teams in two age groups over 34 different teams in pro/rel age groups and leagues. The reality is, such a structure did little to curb blowouts at every competitive level in the age groups.

In my cited examples the last place teams won just 10 total games over 34 teams. That is about 10 wins over roughly 306 games. There is a reason why at the professional ranks Leicester was a 5000:1 shot to win the Premier league. Promotion rarely sticks and promotion rarely leads to continued growth and development. The team centric nature can hold some kids back from changing teams because the coach wants to keep his winning team together. There is little to no vertical movement within the club and the only pyramid that is developed is parents looking over the standings to identify the specific team they should tryout for next.

This type of model simply turns players into free agents simply looking for winning teams and not quality coaches or programs.

I get that you want to reduce travel and there is enough quality teams in the region to do so but pro/rel is not the ticket for that.

This is a thoughtful response -- thanks.

I think it's safe to say, though, that most clubs and most teams will have a few parents looking elsewhere. The top players on top teams may be looking at the DA or ECNL. If you're on a last-place team in CCL or VPL, you'd be foolhardy not to look at other options.

I'm glad you see reducing travel as one of the goals here. But let's say we put all the non-DA teams in Northern Virginia in one big pool. Wouldn't we want to have some sort of tiering system so we don't have a State Cup champion playing a team that struggled in ODSL Division 3?

My issue with the club-centric leagues is that they create artificial tiers. CCL can at least argue that it has a lot of the traditional powers -- though now a lot of those clubs are entering their top teams elsewhere. With VPL, there's simply little evidence that the overall strength of the league is better than anything around it. EDP at least seems to offer some discretion -- at the very least, teams come and go depending on their needs.

Keep the leagues as they are. Introduce open dates, like DA does, to schedule 2-3 "external games". Have the top four teams in CCL, VPL, NCSL play each other as a sort of Champions League style State Cup. the difference is a State Cup birth is earned not just applied for.

For U15 Girls there are likely over 80 teams in the greater metropolitan area. This is just to many teams to really tackle via pro/rel anyways. BUT the top teams should face each other more often than the occasional Jeff Cup 2 hours away when here they might be neighbors.

This should also cover any competitive discrepancies as well. The reality is the difference between a middling CCL , VPL and top Division NCSL team isn't that great anyways.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think this is the case, but do any leagues actively try to seed teams into divisions at the beginning of the year through a period of inter-squad scrimmages? It seems like there is enough of a difference in team performance year to year to keep the pro/rel mechanism from actually working. I think this is at least part of the problem.

While the stated sample size in the previous U15 examples is small the reality is pro/rel versus a closed league alone will not fix blowouts.

Hell, right now Fulham is sitting in last place in the Premier League with a GA Avg/game of 2.53. On a per game basis they are only doing better than 9 of the 12 U15 teams sampled in this thread. The only reason pro leagues even have Pro/Rel is to provide incentive to keep teams playing competitively through as close to the completion of the season as possible. When a championship is decided on league points and not a playoff system it is crucial that all teams remain as competitive as possible for as long into the season as possible in order to ensure that a championship or a Champions League birth is not unfairly earned because a team is tanking late in the season.

There are no such motivations for youth soccer for Pro/Rel to mean a thing. There is no incentive to tank, or to fight either. It is just kids playing soccer and no matter how it is rigged there will always be a team in last place and they will likely have lost by a lot over the course of the season.

But what would happen if Torquay United were playing in the Premier League?

You need tiers of some kind. You wouldn't put Bethesda's U15 DA team against Small Club United's C team.

What we have now are tiers decided as much by club politics as by any sort of standard. The DA *generally* has the best clubs in the country because the standards are so stringent, and ECNL also has done well selecting its clubs. But is VPL significantly better than the top NCSL teams? For that matter, is CCL better than the top EDP division, which is now the US Youth Soccer regional league?

I would say that the top teams in VPL and CCL are significantly better than the top teams in NCSL. Beyond the top 4 teams or so in CCL or VPL no, there is no real difference between the teams in the different leagues. And that is why if you rolled them all together into NCSL it wouldn't fundamentally change the competitive nature or the overall outcomes in NCSL now. This is assuming only the top division of NCSL though.

[Anonymous]

If you took 10 teams of equal ability and they all played each other in a 9-game season, you would still end up with a top finisher and bottom finisher. However, the scores might be close.

A game with a differential of 3 goals I would call within range.

The goal of breaking the teams up into divisions is that you try to even up the competition level. It's almost impossible to do this in any sport at any level, not just soccer.