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?

Honestly I think we throw around Pro/Rel because it makes us seem smart and stylish. If it is done that way in Europe then it must be the way. The main problem the typical European league structure, talent concentration and identification are all much more tightly integrated. Also, Pro/Rel is really mainly for a pyramid of a professional league structure. It is much easier for a professional club to develop a deep and talented academy that naturally concentrates the talent because there is a much different goal at the end for players who make and play in say Man U's Academy.

But we tend to forget the overall professionalism as well as the culture and training in Europe that makes the biggest difference. And lets not forget the rumors of a European Super League that would essentially create a Champions League level of a closed league structure. The super clubs know who they are and they want to bake their own private pie in model of leagues like our NFL, NHL etc. So while we think we need Pro/Rel to change the quality of our game we might just be chasing the remnants of just a evolutionary stage in soccer and we may have been ahead of the curve already and didn't even realize it.

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?

^^^meant massaging!

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?

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.

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 combined goal differential between the 04 girls NCSL division and the 05 EDP divisions last place teams are:

195 GF and 959 GA.

Promotion/Relegation does not end blowouts.

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.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Tempted to ask at what CCL or VPL club you coach.

Anyway -- no system is going to be perfect because teams change so much from year to year. In a club-centric league, the last-place teams simply get worse because everyone quits, and the only they can compete with anyone is to bring in more clubs to join them at the bottom. It's basically a pyramid scheme. At least the pro/rel system provides some separation. Imagine if the top D1 team played all the D6 teams.

In that U9 game, the winning team scored at least 20 goals. Want to tell me how anyone developed in that game?

And what crystal ball would you use to sort a competitive division at U9?

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Tempted to ask at what CCL or VPL club you coach.

Anyway -- no system is going to be perfect because teams change so much from year to year. In a club-centric league, the last-place teams simply get worse because everyone quits, and the only they can compete with anyone is to bring in more clubs to join them at the bottom. It's basically a pyramid scheme. At least the pro/rel system provides some separation. Imagine if the top D1 team played all the D6 teams.

In that U9 game, the winning team scored at least 20 goals. Want to tell me how anyone developed in that game?

And the kids on a relegated team tend to stay put?

30 U14 Boys EDP Divisions. If you add up the total number of wins for all the last place teams in each of the EDP U14 divisions the combined total is 8 wins. Out of 30 teams 22 teams went without a win.

The point is, there is just not enough parity and predictability in youth soccer for promotion/relegation to bring any true sense of competitive balance.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Breaking out a new topic so we can discuss without swamping the FCB thread or any other. Enjoy.

Good. I say every single team should face promotion or relegation. There should be no guaranteed placement in any league.

Why?

My argument would be that teams need to find the right level of competition. If they're dominating a league, they should move up. If they're getting crushed, they should move down.

Beats the hell out of TDs insisting they need to drive four hours to find comparable teams when there's a comparable team 15 minutes away.

How does that help the individual player develop? If Pro/Rel was so beneficial to developing players then why does NCSL not use it at the younger ages?

The individual player would be properly challenged instead of scoring cheap goals against overmatched competition.

True story: I saw a U9 game that was ridiculously out of hand. The goalkeeper could barely play a goal kick out of the box, and the other team just swarmed to pounce on it. (This was before the buildout line.) Goal kick, shot, repeat. Goal kick, goal, kickoff, swarm, shot, repeat. The coach did nothing to change it up. The PARENTS were pissed. They were yelling at their kids to drop back, spread out and play some damn soccer. One parent told me later the coach didn't know what he was doing.

But the moral of the story is that those teams shouldn't play again. NCSL should do more tiering than they do.

They don't have to do literal pro/rel. Some leagues in California simply have three divisions. Initially, the coach and club pick the division they think is best. If the results aren't what they expect, they move up or down.

Two U9 teams should never play again because a kid at U9 was stuck in goal and sucked at it? Ok

Here are the records of the last place teams at U15 in NCSL:
Division 1
0-7-2 5GF 29GA

Division 2
1-6-2 6GF 25GA

Division 3
0-9 4GF 39GA

Division 4 (Only 6 teams)
1-8 4GF 29GA

Exactly where did promotion/relegation end blowouts?

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Breaking out a new topic so we can discuss without swamping the FCB thread or any other. Enjoy.

Good. I say every single team should face promotion or relegation. There should be no guaranteed placement in any league.

Why?

My argument would be that teams need to find the right level of competition. If they're dominating a league, they should move up. If they're getting crushed, they should move down.

Beats the hell out of TDs insisting they need to drive four hours to find comparable teams when there's a comparable team 15 minutes away.

How does that help the individual player develop? If Pro/Rel was so beneficial to developing players then why does NCSL not use it at the younger ages?

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Breaking out a new topic so we can discuss without swamping the FCB thread or any other. Enjoy.

Good. I say every single team should face promotion or relegation. There should be no guaranteed placement in any league.

Why?

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Breaking out a new topic so we can discuss without swamping the FCB thread or any other. Enjoy.

Good. I say every single team should face promotion or relegation. There should be no guaranteed placement in any league.