Reply to Metro added new tryout dates

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro added new tryout dates"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Metro regional teams are actually pretty good if you look at AES rankings. Metro North and Metro East frequently rank ahead of other travel teams in the region. [/quote]
Metro North has historically been the second best Metro team after Travel.  Their location plus history has allowed them to attract good players.

East has been extremely variable, sometimes good but just as often at the bottom of the Metro teams and the lower third of the region.

South PW and South FX are similar to East but with even more variability across ages and a lower level of performance when they do well.

[b]Central is historically the worst region in terms of performance.  They usually take players that are receiving low level offers from other clubs or no offers at all.[/b]

Generally, no one would consider the Metro regionals expect North close to the performance of other travel teams, unless you count the clubs that travel when they really shouldn’t.  [/quote]
What are regional ranks?

Regional ranks only take into account your performance against other teams in the region, and ignore results from any other matches played against non regional teams.  Also, I believe they also ignore any matches played against teams at a lower or higher age group.

WOW is that some serious MISinformation!  Please, share your source for this?  We have a family member who's coached metro regional teams in last 5 years, (not Central), but they have helped with Central tryouts up to last year and you are SO wrong that they take players getting low level offers or none at all! The line is usually out the door for those coach conferences and most players offered a spot take it on the spot and there is no trend of accepting on the spot then rejecting when the written offer comes in.

But since you said this, please, what is your source for that? You're also wrong about Central usually being on bottom of the regional performance rankings, but anyone can look in AES over the last 4 or 5 yrs to see that for themselves that they're almost never last of Metro's regional clubs. [/quote]

I'm not the person you are responding to, but for fun, I did look at AES from last year, looking only at Metro teams:
18s: 18 Central was lowest rated (44 overall)
17s: no Central team. North was lowest rated (12 overall)
16s: Central was 2nd lowest (77 overall), ahead of South FX (107 overall)
15s: Central was 2nd lowest (76 overall), ahead of East (79 overall)
14s: Central was 3rd lowest (52 overall), ahead of South PW (82 overall) and East (119 overall)
13s: Central was 2nd lowest (28 overall), ahead of South PW (69 overall)
12s: Central was 2nd lowest (28 overall), ahead of East (29 overall)

Based on this, they are consistently on the low end, though not always the *lowest*. I am a data geek by trade and fast with a spreadsheet, so I also combined the results across age groups from last season to derive this:

[b]Branch	Avg Win %	Performance Tier[/b]
Travel	92.9%	        🟩 Elite
North	65.3%	        🟧 Strong
Central	55.7%	        🟨 Moderate
East	        53.9%	        🟨 Moderate
South FX	50.4%	        🟥 Low
South PW	49.6%	        🟥 Low
[/quote]

Wow PP,  you are my new Favorite Poster! This is GREAT! And yeah, you sure did prove my point: While North is definitely consistently the strongest Metro Regional/Select team, Central is literally the next best team (followed very closely behind by East).  It's true, this last season East beat Central in a couple of age groups, so East and Central are very close though Central historically was usually better and ranked higher.

You also proved that the MISinformation PP was wrong that Central is consistently below the Metro South 2 teams.  Though one of those teams last season did really well in a couple of age groups.

I appreciate you PP. DCUM is often a wild ride because when you do know something factual about the topic, and someone else posts utter BS or pure fiction, yes you can speak to the factual truth and see who believes you, but rarely do you actually get data gathered to show the status of the situation. You did that though, thanks! Maybe at least one PP now in these convos will think twice before posing made up stuff as "fact" in a compellingly factual-seeming way ;) [/quote]

Me again, I got so excited I didn't reflect the data shown well.  Central was posed by the BS poster as consistently LAST. That is not true, as stated by this data.  And the last data there shows Metro as 2nd below North (not including Travel in this since this part of convo was about regional teams) with East very close behind.

Overall, Central is on the lower end but literally never last.  That was what I really meant to write, but I got excited and only focused on 2nd data set. And that was incorrect, which I can admit to because I like facts and data too, unlike the "Central is consistently last!" PP.[/quote]
Thanks for the data, love that we can have this discussion based on that. Lets focus on U15-U18 because that's what this thread is about -- the new tryouts for those age groups.

First, we can't use regional ranks.  They are meaningless.  Also, winning percentage only matters when you consider the competition.  An open level team playing in a club tournament will win almost every match, a club level team playing open will lose most.  That's what national rankings take into account. That's why CHRVA only uses national ranks for bid qualification and why it requires at least one open tournament in the region to qualify -- so teams can't play easy schedules and still qualify for bids over much better teams.

Second, lets look over multiple years and compare Metro Central's finishing position relative to the other Metro teams based on those national ranks.

2025
15: 6th out of 6 teams (#4159)
16: 5th out of 6 teams (#3604)
17: No Team
18: 5th out of 5 teams (#1983)

2024
15: 6th out of 6 teams (#2863)
16: 6th out of 6 teams (#3262)
17: No Team
18: 3rd out of 5 teams (#1680)

2023
15: 3rd out of 6 teams (#1636)
16: 5th out of 6 teams (#2924)
17: No Team
18: 3rd out of 6 teams (#1281)

In 2025, Metro Central's three teams finished last, last and next to last out of all of the Metro teams.  In 2024 Central's teams finished last, last and 3rd out of 5th.  The last year Metro Central was really competitive compared to other Metro teams was 2023, and that year their teams were still in the middle to bottom part of the rankings.

For the previous two years, based on National ranks, 4/6 Metro Central teams were last in ranking across all Metro teams in their age group.  A fifth one was next to last.[/quote]

"First, we can't use regional ranks.  They are meaningless."  LOL PP, thanks for saying this early on so we know to dismiss whatever comes next. You made a lot of effort there to justify your original erroneous comments.  You're still not fooling us, but if it makes you feel better, cool, you do you ;)[/quote]
The question of national vs. regional rankings has been covered extensively in many other threads here.  No tournaments use regional rankings for seeding, they all use national rankings.  CHRVA bids uses national rankings for acceptance--EVEN THOUGH IT IS A REGIONAL ONLY TOURNAMENT--into the bid tournament and does not use regional rankings.  Without the additional information provided below, its enough to know that when tournament seeding and bid entrances are being determined, national ranks are used.  And FYI -- national rankings are also used for seeding any qualifier tournaments, national competititons and any out of region tournament where a CHRVA team participates against other teams from a different region.  If all the Metro teams registered for the same division in the same tournament they would be seeded based on their national rank -- and Metro Central would have been seeded last 7/11 times.

[b]What are regional rankings?[/b]
Regional rankings only take into account the games played against other teams in the region.  Regional rankings suffer from multiple data problems, including small data set issues and strength of schedule bias.  AES rankings are power weighted by direct competition -- if you play a few matches against weak competition and win you are ranked high.  If you play a lot of matches against tough competition you can be ranked lower.  And if you never play a good team but win all your matches against poor performing teams you will be ranked well above your actual performance.

For example, GO Volley 15 N went 5-0 against regional teams, ranking 9th in the region with 100% win rate.  Based on National rankings they were 24th, ranking #1283 with a 43% win rate.  In other words, they played in a lower level regional tournament and won it (hence the 5-0 record) but when they play in higher level tournaments they lose more than half of their matches. None of their other matches were against CHRVA opponents. Same thing for PSVBC (11-0) - 14th in region, 100% win rate, but 60% win rate nationally, #1595 rank and ~30th in region. If I rank of either of them on just regional play they would show up as "ELITE" with 100% win rate and equal to Metro Travel in the table with the colors above.  No one believes that either team are a Metro Travel level team, or anywhere close.

[b]Why are national rankings better?[/b]
They aren't perfect, but they are the standard for comparison now. Generally, a team ranked higher in national rankings is expected to win against a lower ranked team.  The closer the ranking difference the closer the match is expected to be.  Losing to a highly ranked team in a close match will actually improve your ranking.  Beating the 6000th team in the country can actually hurt it if you don't win by a large margin.  This is why national rankings are generally used for seeding -- they incorporate more data and are much more predictive of team performance in tournaments.

All of this is summarized from other threads, with recent examples thrown in.

TLDR: Tournaments don't uses regional rankings for seeding, CHRVA bids don't use them to determine qualification.  Its easy to get an artificially high or low regional ranking due to small data set issues.  And the consensus on every thread on this board that national rankings are much more indicative of performance than regional rankings.
[/quote]

I'm the newbie who asked, and it's possible you did answer my original question, but honestly I don't see the answer.  I didn't ask "Why are national rankings better than regional?"  What I DID ask is: "Why would the ORDER of ranking (who's 1st, 2nd, 47th, etc) change when comparing regional teams based on national vs. regional?

So please break it down a little bit more for those of us newer to all this (and btw I don't care how Central shows up in all this, but since that's the team this part of conversation was focused on, that's the data shared in the way that makes me ask this): If you take this data:

"I'm not the person you are responding to, but for fun, I did look at AES from last year, looking only at Metro teams:
18s: 18 Central was lowest rated (44 overall)
17s: no Central team. North was lowest rated (12 overall)
16s: Central was 2nd lowest (77 overall), ahead of South FX (107 overall)
15s: Central was 2nd lowest (76 overall), ahead of East (79 overall)
14s: Central was 3rd lowest (52 overall), ahead of South PW (82 overall) and East (119 overall)
13s: Central was 2nd lowest (28 overall), ahead of South PW (69 overall)
12s: Central was 2nd lowest (28 overall), ahead of East (29 overall)"

This person seems to understand the assignment and is showing how Central compared to the other Metro regional teams.  IF you do this exact same data based on Regional rankings vs. National rankings, we all understand that your actual rank will be very different, but the "Central is the worst & East is usually 2nd after North" poster seems to say the order of these teams compared to each other CHANGES when you use national rankings. So staying with this example, is Central somehow always last if you use national rankings, even though in this dataset they were never last?

Is that the case?  If so, why or how is that true?

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics