Is There a Trend Towards Parity?

Discussion in 'Women's College' started by cpthomas, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. leftout1

    leftout1 Member

    Mar 15, 2010
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Playing with numbers is fun (as is playing with colors and letters)!:cool:
    One thought........do you feel that the "10 YEAR AGO 5 STAR PLAYERS" stood out more because of the scarcity of 4 and 3 STAR PLAYERS out on the field during that same time? If a Hamm, Akers, Milbrett, etc... was 22 today and was just beginning her WNT career, would they end up with the statistics they ended up with during their career? There was a reason the Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game one year and that we haven't had a .400 hitter in baseball since Ted Williams (God rest his head).
     
  2. OMG1

    OMG1 Member

    Feb 9, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    While I understand what you are trying to say. I think your comment about a larger, fast ,skilled player will be better than a smaller, slower player is just a little obvious. For that matter a larger fast skilled player is going to be of more interest than a larger, slower, unskilled player. The point I am trying to relay is that by limiting your choices to the larger girls, for the most part, you are losing a lot of talent. Sure Mia Hamm. etc is below average in size and because she is she was able to interest those younger girls who are not big thus expanding the interest in being an effective participant in the sport. Skill at any size is important. Soccer IQ is what has become more and more important as the quality of youth, college and pro soccer evolves.How mny times do you watch a game and say "why did she do that ? So and so was open on the right . Is it coaching ? Soccer IQ. Why are many schools setting higher GPA ranges for student athletes. Because they learn quicker and better for the most part, irrespective of height.
     
  3. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    Didn't mean to be obvious. I so like it when folks think I'm nuanced. :).

    I take your point. I think the biggest issue for women/girls in any sport (not just soccer) is self-confidence. Each (female) athlete needs to have that cathartic moment when she says: Yo, wait a minute, I could really Do this! It is a tough psychological hurdle for female athletes, and they often seem inclined to raise the bar for themselves by tiny increments. That is why players like Marta are so important to the sport as role models; when they come along they blow the bar away and show a generation of girls: woah, you too could someday hope to be playing like Johan Cruyff-- go for it girl! If that is your point, I stand corrected. Anything that reinforces the idea that talent is where you find it, and that being Good is not about a body type is (IMO) great for women's sports!
     
  4. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I pretty much agree with everything you've said, other than that I'm a Portland fan.

    Although I don't see a trend right now towards "dilution" at the level of the top teams, one thing that might make it a possibility is women's professional soccer. Right now it seems unlikely, but if women's professional soccer were to expand to the extent that there are a significant number of opportunities to play professionally for each year's graduating seniors, I could see top players wanting to spread themselves around more to get more playing time and to be bigger stars on their college teams. That, at least, would be a consideration for them, although they might also opt for schools with very strong talent in order to be playing withing the best overall system as a way to showcase what they can do. And, professional teams might have preferences as to which coaches they play for. I guess it would be great to have to worry about that!

    Soccerhunter, with his "incoming class" evaluation system, might have some insight as to whether teams' incoming classes, at the top levels, are getting diluted or whether the top incoming classes as as strong as ever.
     
  5. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    Yes. The women's game is much better, and there is less spread between average and very good teams. That is why we see far fewer 9-0 games than occurred in the past.

    However, I would add that soccer fans have evolved along with the quality of the game. Fan expectations for female players are much higher than they once were. So while it would be harder for Hamm to make a huge splash today, it is also less acceptable for a relatively unknown player to fail to head/direct a flighted ball, or make an accurate well timed pass to a teammate. Really talented players are as much fun to watch as ever (maybe more!) because they are playing against tougher competition for more modest results, but they are also playing before a more sophisticated and demanding fan base who understand and expect quality soccer.
     
  6. BruBru

    BruBru Member

    Nov 7, 2011
    2011Stanford (25-0-1)1-0DukeKennesaw, Ga.2010Notre Dame (21-2-2)1-0StanfordCary, N.C.2009North Carolina (23-3-1)1-0StanfordTexas A&M2008North Carolina (25-1-2)2-1Notre DameCary, N.C.2007Southern California (20-3-2)2-0Florida StateTexas A&M2006North Carolina (27-1)2-1Notre DameCary, N.C.2005Portland (23-0-2)4-0UCLATexas A&M2004*Notre Dame (25-1-1)1-1 (2 ot, pk)UCLACary, N.C.2003North Carolina (27-0)6-0ConnecticutCary, N.C.2002Portland (20-4-2)2-1 (2 ot)Santa ClaraAustin, Texas2001Santa Clara (23-2)1-0North CarolinaSMU


    Looking at championships since 2001:

    Champions: Carolina, Notre Dame (6), West Coast (5)
    Finalists: East Coast (6), West Coast (5)

    Considering the years before 2001 (NC domination), it is clear that the game is becoming more balanced, at least for the talent distribution at the top programs. Most probably, the balance will continue to remain, but it will be nearly impossible for Notre Dame, North Carolina, or anyone to repeat such a stretch. As a newbie to college soccer, I think the next few seasons will be quite interesting for North Carolina, as several programs seem to be recruiting at/near their level, including several within their conference, and they've even lost one significant recruit (and rumor has it a 2nd) for the 2012 class.

    And now, here's to hoping that the Final 4 (I know, another thread) sites will have better geographical distribution. San Diego is a great place to host soccer!
     
  7. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    Sure hope they have a plan for next year to keep pointy ball out of the stadium so the pitch is playable by tournament time.
     
  8. SCUFANTASTIC

    SCUFANTASTIC Member

    Aug 31, 2009
    Club:
    FC Gold Pride
    Here's an indication of a trend towards parity.

    Santa Clara most goals scored in a season 109 in 24 games, 4.54/game (1999)
    North Carolina most goals scored in a season (NCAA) 112 in 21 games, 5.33/game (1982)

    Not to suggest that these are the most ever scored, just selecting two programs that have historically been pretty good/great.

    Stanford, undefeated in 2011, scored 73 goals in 26 games, for a 2.81/game avg. The two prior years, in which they lost one game each year, they scored 75 and 80 goals.
     
  9. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    Thanks for this research. I have taken the liberty of breaking it down into 5-year periods, and it is even more clear.

    80-84 ..... 3.4
    85-89 ..... 4.2
    90-94 ..... 3.0 (inc 3 consecutive undefeated seasons. UNC's most dominate time. Mia Hamm era.)
    95-99 ..... 5.2
    11-04 ..... 7.8
    05-09 ..... 11.2

    My observation is that we have now reached as much parity as we will see in terms of present day scheduling. In other words, the top teams that are frequently scheduling each other to keep RPIs high have by now established the pattern. And with half or more of all games decided by one goal or less, this is as much parity as one sees in the professional leagues in Europe and around the world. Looking ahead, I don't see the number of 1-goal-or-less games moving substantially over 11 in a 20 game season. We have arrived. This is what parity has come to look like. There may be anomalies like Stanford and perhaps UCLA whose ability to recruit a substantial portion of the national youth team each year will set them apart, but like UNC this will eventually end as the pool of good players expands.

    Beyond the top 20 or 25 NCAA teams, parity will advance down through ranks due to the increasing numbers of top girl soccer athletes who will matriculate over the years.

    Can others weigh in? Do other teams show this trend? Is this a useful statistic as one more indicator that "parity" is arriving and may not look like what we think it should?
     
  10. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    Given all of the statistical approaches (re-read all of the great posts on the first page above) serving to start to define how "parity" in women's college soccer is moving forward, some subjective observations have popped out for me this season so far.

    Never before in my memory have I seen such a high percentage of games that have involved high pressure defense. This tactic used to be Anson Dorrance's calling card (and often ridiculed.) In recent weeks I have seen many other teams now using this tactic to good advantage. Does this imply a parity of more skilled players that can pull this off?

    My second subjective observation these last four weeks is: Yes! There are more skilled players everywhere! It is especially obvious to me in the short passing game. In my memory, only the top 5 to 10 teams could engage in sharp, close-in, productive, one-touch, short passing around defenders. This year I have seen just about every team engaging in this tactic. (Some with more success than others.)

    I am thrilled to subjectively see confirmation of CP's (and others) statistics. Parity and higher quality soccer is advancing!
     
  11. Enzo the Prince

    Sep 9, 2007
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Interesting point. Firstly, I think the reason Anson has been ridiculed for playing this way is that he relies on an incredible number of substitutions to do it. He made 9 subs in the first half yesterday against Notre Dame. Then again, he recruits incredibly well, so has enough depth to pull it off. I'd say it's been successful!

    High pressure defense/midfield play has always been effective, at every level. It's just hard to keep your players fresh and healthy if you play that way. It's hard for a European professional team to pull it off over the course of a 9-month season, with 3 subs per game, but even at the women's college level, you pay a price, especially when you have 3 games a week or at conference tournaments. It just takes a lot out of the players. But can more of them pull it off today? Definitely.
     
  12. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    WHAT PARITY LOOKS LIKE.....

    The above 6 posts paint one picture of what increased parity in women's college soccer is looking like. In terms of the increasing percentage of single goal wins or tie games, balance of teams winning championships, etc. There are other markers, both statistical and anecdotal, that have been pointed out earlier in this thread and elsewhere. More and more talent is reaching deeper down into the ranks of women's college soccer teams. All of this discussion about parity in the last few years is painting a picture that is not what some expected to see or what others think that parity should look like.

    That all being whatever it is, I am also interested to see what these trends are producing in the fan's psyche. Another aspect of parity is watching how fans react to changes in the landscape and in particular in terms of their feelings about the objects of their affection. The fact of the matter is that increasing parity produces more "upsets" when the favored teams have an "off" day and the underdogs rise to the occasion. This seems to produce some serious angst in fans. Last year in mid season, and especially the year before, Anson Dorrance came under some serious criticism and his previous long record as a coach meant nothing in the face of a series of losses proving to some that he didn't understand the game of soccer anymore. Stanford, who spent much of the previous 4 seasons ranked #1 and had the best wining percentage of any team in the country has taken hits from fans when a game or two has not gone well. Some players are taking heat and Paul Ratcliffe is almost portrayed as a lucky impostor when the team looses a few. For the past few years some fans of Florida State have alternately praised or wondered about the coaching ability of Mark Krikorian or the passiveness of some players. Notre Dame's recent (and temporary, I suspect) results-stumble has created some fan action, but mostly from fans of other ACC teams as they feel compelled to haze the new kid on the block. Even at Portland, where most of us see a fan heaven where good will abounds from all quarters, evidenced just a little quesioning a few years ago as a few fans politely wondered if Garrett Smith might possibly be utilizing some of his payers out of their most effective positions.

    So this is what parity looks like from a fan's emotional point of view. No longer is it simply a matter of supporting your own team and railing at the few big dogs for their perceived faults and unfair advantages. The progress of parity seems to produce a few other feelings in the dark corners of fans' hearts.
     
  13. soccerevolution

    soccerevolution New Member

    May 26, 2013
    Akron making it to the men's college cup a few years back is an example of parity. UNC Charlotte making it to the men's finals speaks to parity in the men's game. When you get a mid-major in the women's college cup regularly, then you can speak of parity. This however, is not the only factor to guage for parity in the game, just as the statistics thrown out thus far aren't the only factors in judging parity. Just because UNC isn't winning it every year, doesn't mean there's parity in the women's game. The women's game is far from it.
     
  14. orange crusader

    May 2, 2011
    Club:
    --other--
    Due to Title IX, comparing Men's and Women's D1 soccer parity based on the success of mid-majors in the NCAA tournament isn't a valid comparison. There are 327 Women's teams compared to 203 Men's teams; there are many large, well-known schools that have Women's teams, but don't have Men's teams. For example, all SEC schools have Women's teams, but only two have a Men's team. Also, the scholarship limit for Men is 9.9 versus 14 for Women.

    There are many ways one could try to measure parity, but the relative success of Men's vs. Women's mid-majors in the NCAA tournament would be very far down the list.
     
  15. WellOiledMachine

    WellOiledMachine New Member

    Apr 14, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Any sort of parity in the women's college soccer game is subjective. Years ago, UNC could pick and choose from among the limited number of really good female soccer players, or grab most of them, and end up with another NC. With the emergence of consistently good teams like Notre Dame, Stanford, UCLA, Portland, FSU, et. al. over the years, parity IS better because there are more teams capable of fielding good or very good teams due to the fact that there are more very good players to choose from. Obviously, they won't/can't all choose the same school (but Stanford is trying). However, the schools mentioned above (and a few others) will still draw the majority of the top players each year. Before, it was UNC. Now, it's not ONLY UNC.

    If parity means that each year there are 10-15 schools realistically capable of winning the NC, then I would say that parity may have indeed arrived in women's college soccer. But, the reality of it is that, right now, there are only a handful of teams that have a real shot at it year in and year out. That is, consistently. And, in my opinion, many of the top players go to these schools because of the academics AND the opportunity to experience the thrill of winning a national championship. I don't see this changing anytime soon. I don't think true parity is here yet but I think it is evolving. Just my two cents.
     
  16. soccerevolution

    soccerevolution New Member

    May 26, 2013
    Your argument contradicts itself in regards to scholarship limit. Wouldn't having less scholarships available make it harder to achieve parity?

    Ok, lets look at other factors.

    Over the last 10 years:

    -50% of the championships have been won by UNC
    -100% of the college cup's have had a participant from the PAC 12
    -30% of the college cup's have had 50% of the final four from the PAC 12
    -90% of the college cup's have had at least 1 participant from the ACC
    -40% of the college cup's have had 50% of it's final four from the ACC, (in 2011 75% of the field was the ACC)


    Recurring Appearances by school:
    -FSU 6, UNC 6, Notre Dame 5, Stanford 4 (consecutive appearances), Penn State 3...
    That means that for more than half of the last 10 years, the same schools are in the final four

    Conference representation (# out of last 10 years):
    -PAC12, 10
    -ACC, 9
    -Big East, 7
    -Big 10, 4
    -WCC, 2
    -Ivy, 1
    -SEC, 0

    There is no parity if a "power conference" like the SEC can't even get to the college cup in the last 10 years. You can talk about parity in the ACC and Parity in the PAC 12, but you can't talk parity over women's college soccer. Not legitimately anyway.
     
  17. soccerevolution

    soccerevolution New Member

    May 26, 2013
    Corrections,

    -100% of the college cup's have had a participant from the PAC 12 ( Should be 90% instead of 100%)

    -PAC12, 10 (Should be 9 instead of 10)
     
  18. bigsoccerdad

    bigsoccerdad Member

    Dec 30, 2010
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    This is an intriguing string that seems to have a long life. I have a simplier theory...some schools could rise to the top by saving their recruiting budget and spending their 14 full rides scholarships in one year, spilling over to a second year, and have a really strong starting lineup if they recruit right. I speculate we will see this happen more often, as more players are looking to recoop the money that has been spent on youth soccer. So in theory, a university who really buys a strong group of players, creating a dream team, could make some noise in the post season, even if they can't maintain it over time. I see the recruiting success of colleges changing...it gets harder for players to join a team without money, just to be part of a top twenty program. With more players taking the soccer game seriously (ECNL commitment may be the cause), a guarantee of money and star treatment might win over players to top 30-75 teams.
     
  19. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Even if we had an agreed on definition of "parity," I don't think anyone could make the case that Division I women's soccer has reached a high level of parity. The subject of this thread, however, is whether there is a
    "trend towards parity," not whether there is parity. Looking at the teams that have won national championships over the last 15 years or so, the following charts -- notwithstanding the Stanford chart -- provide at least some suggestion that there is a trend "towards" parity. The charts cover teams' entire Division I (or equivalent) soccer history and are current through the 2012 season. They include regular season and NCAA tournament games.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    Well done, CP! The trends indeed seem to be clear. Parity is pretty steadily advancing. Whether it is here yet is an entirely different question and I think that most would say "no."

    I wouldn't worry about Stanford's divergence too much. It's only been in the last 6 or 7 years that they've really focused on women's soccer and have been highly successful with recruiting hugely talented teams. So I would expect to see the trend shown by your statistics. Which certainly supports bigsoccerdad's emphasis on recruiting as a marker.

    Indeed, I do not believe that it possible at this point (and especially with Big Soccer personalities!) to agree in a clear definition of what parity should look like so to make it possible to measure when we have arrived.

    I think that:
    1.) the definition of parity has to be developed realistically (not purely theoretically).
    2.) the definition of parity will likely be unique to each sport and setting.
    3.) teams (and fans) who think that their team should be able to compete better will perceive that parity has not arrived. Whereas
    4. Highly successful teams and their fans will be more likely feel that parity has arrived.
    5. Is it possible to have parity, and then to loose it?

    With regard to this last point, college men's basketball is an interesting example. The college game had been around since the 1890s and one can argue that there was true parity for about 40 years up until the initiation of the national tournaments in the late 1930s. In those early years, it was college clubs who organized games with each other. Some had paid adult coaches (Naismith himself at Kansas starting in the late 1890s) and some were purely student run with perhaps a faculty advisor. Strength of teams was basically random and little schools commonly beat big schools and vice versa. But very quickly in the 20th century there were some superstar teams, notably Phog Allen's teams at Kansas and Amos Alonzo Stagg's teams at Chicago. Can one say that "parity" was lost because a few teams were easily better then most of the rest? So what would be the definition of "parity"?

    National championship tournaments started in 1937 with the NAIA, the NIT followed in 1938, and in 1939 the NCAA. I do not know enough history to say when recruiting and money started to be seriously involved but it was clear that Adolph Rupp was attracting many good players to Kentucky in the 1930s and beyond. But looking at the winners of those tournaments in the 1940s and 1950s, there were a lot of small and large colleges we don't hear from any more. Was it "parity" to have 16 different winners between 1940 and 1960, and the championship games involved varied schools like LaSalle, Stanford, CCNY, Kansas, Holy Cross, Kentucky (4 times), OK A&M (2x with Henry Iba), Indiana, Wyoming, Dartmouth, North Carolina, NYU, Baylor, Wisconsin, Georgetown, Bradley, Seattle, San Francisco, Ohio State, etc. etc. You get the point. Was this true "parity"? If so, did John Wooden ruin it all when he was as dominant as North Carolina women' soccer, winning 10 of 12 NCAA basketball tournaments with a 7 year streak in the middle? Was there then no parity for those years? Was it lost? Was it unfair that Wooden could recruit the best players for that time period?

    All these questions are germane to the question of how "parity" might eventually be defined in women's soccer. It really is an elusive target.
     
  21. hykos1045

    hykos1045 Member

    May 10, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Independence
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How about a stat indicating how more games overall are being decided by one goal and fewer are being decided by 3 goals or more. Is there such a trend?
     
    ref17 repped this.
  22. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    Well, if you are willing to define "parity" as: in any given year there are at least 3 teams that might beat UNC for the NCAA NC, I'd say we are there. However, my definition of parity would be more like: there are 10~15 teams that are the Big Names, fighting it out each year, and another 10~15 teams that might have a Cinderella season and go all the way. I'd say it is obvious that women's soccer is far from that threshold.

    There remains a huge gap between the top five teams in any year and teams 15~20. Also, excepting UNC, the programs lack consistency and staying power. That may be changing, but I will believe it when Stanford, FSU, and Notre Dame can demonstrate that they will not go the way of U Conn.
     
  23. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How's this. It shows a slight but not great trend:

    [​IMG]
     
    hykos1045 repped this.
  24. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    I have a great respect for CPThomas and his analysis, however, I question whether goal differential is really a good metric for soccer parity? The "best team" doesn't always win; bad teams can capture a win or a tie by bunkering after a lucky early score; great teams may play their reserves to the detriment of the final score; etc...

    I think a much better metric might be: how tight is the RPI among the top 20 teams, or how often do the teams in the top 20 swap spots among the top five?
     
  25. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think goal differential shows something, over a course of years, but it doesn't say a lot. To me, the chart I posted doesn't say anything obvious, it was just a response to a question and it was easy to prepare from the database I've accumulated. I think the earlier charts about goals for and against top teams, over those teams' histories, are a better indicator. The UNC chart, in particular, certainly indicates they aren't able to dominate the way the once could. But, at best they only indicate there is a trend towards parity and they don't say there is parity or how close parity is. And, of course, we don't really have an agreed on definition of parity.

    As an aside, what strikes me most about the top teams charts is that those teams have a history of very good goals against averages. Maybe a good measure of parity would have something to do with how many teams have a goals against average of <=X?

    I doubt that the tightness of the RPI is going to be a measure of parity. I believe the spread is going to be pretty much the same from year to year. On the other hand, maybe you have something with the frequency of the top 20 achieving spots among the top 5.
     

Share This Page