They are now saying 6-10 games against rated teams. I thought it used to say 5-8, but I could be misremembering. I have seen teams show a rating with as few as 5 games in their history, but it often takes more. The reason it varies and isn't a single number to point to is it likely depends on how the team is performing against its competition. If it is extremely consistent, it is probably fewer games as a threshold. If it is inconsistent, it probably takes a few more games before the app is satisfied that their rating is statistically valid. Link to FAQ which answers most of the expected questions. Right now it looks like 2013G Eclipse RL has only 2 games in its history, and only 1 of them is vs. a team that has a rating - the other one is also unrated. So it's going to take a little while for the team to get enough rated games, unless it is determined that it really is the same as one of the existing unranked teams and they should be merged to combine existing results.
I do see 2013 and 2012 Eclipse RL girls in this upcoming Socctoberfest schedule this weekend. The 2013s are playing in the 2012 bracket so that might add a few qualifying matches under their belts.
It looks like they tied for 4th (vs. Galaxy 2013G Aspire). It's strange, the schedule won't display any of the pool games, and only shows the last bracket game. I'd imagine SR may be able to load it, but may not be able to load any of the prior games unless I'm missing something on the website.
Sometimes when tournament results aren't available publicly, they will provide a spreadsheet of results to him for it to be loaded. Some tournaments are good about it and really want their results up in SR, others couldn't care less.
I was at that tournament, the Galaxy teams had their GA girls playing to help out, as well as the eclipse 2012 team. Not really sure much can be gathered from playing against older girls who would not normally be playing or helping the aspire/rl teams.
that is not accurate Galaxy didnt have any GA players helping. The 2012 GA team had games this past weekend. The 2012 RL team had 2013 NL players helping out.
After yesterday I think my observation that Inter has bypassed Eclipse as the best ECNL team at the oldest group holds. Inter beat Eclipse 3-1 and Rockford wet the bed against Nationals losing 8-2. I guess the fact Rockford got two is a relative achievement as they are averaging less than a goal per game for the season. So right now for Illinois Inter is the stud in 8th place, Eclipse is the Jan Brady in 11th and Rockford should be be demoted to IWSL in 14th with a .16 points per game, luckily the Iowa team is winless and MTA hasn’t started yet.
To quote Michael Scott, "well well well, how the turntables...." Inter looks pretty strong, and just a year or two ago they were the worst in their division. Inter's coaches should be commended, I think they have a nucleus of long time members they have developed which should be the name of the game. I know they added a few talented Evolution girls over the years but it looks to me like Inter raised their level too. So is Galaxy-GA #1 and FCU-GA in the 3 spot?
Almost. Galaxy GA is #1, but Eclipse is now showing #3 while FCU is showing #4. They are only a hundredth of a point off between each other, so it could shift for almost any reason daily.
Your schtick is getting old. I thought you got tired of it a few years ago. I, and anyone else with a phone, can tell you which teams in IL are expected to beat other teams in IL today. They can also tell you which clubs have the strongest top teams that would be expected to beat the top teams of competing clubs. It's going to make a pretty good prediction - much better than anyone is ever likely to do by looking at a standings bracket. Deciding to join a team solely because it's going to beat another team, or deciding to join a club solely because its top teams are impressive, probably isn't enough information alone for anyone to go on. There are plenty of other solid reasons to join a particular team or club, and any/all of them may be valid. Hopefully if someone asks your opinion on which local clubs they might consider, you're able to point them in the right direction with more information than they had when they asked you. Here are all clubs with girls teams in IL (U11G-U17G, at least 5 age groups represented): Here are some of the top U11G teams, of 192 currently showing in IL:
Take a log off that fire big shooter. I was asking an honest question. For many years I would push many of my better players to Sockers but looking at their IWSL standings - no way. I have been pushing them to Force. I was only asking because I wanted to validate if that still is the best move. Furthermore - I am not looking for what team will beat any other team. My question - as stated was far more general. Looks like the app cannot do that. Hey - only 250 calories - have one already.
what is this app you fight about? Does it really matter? I can honestly say I have never looked at it. I suppose if your kids on the team an you want to justify the 10k you're spending. per year. But, shouldn't you pick clubs because its a challenging environment and your kid is getting better? It's funny to watch people discuss which teams are better by this amount of points. I would not let my kids see such a thing. They should play their heart out every game regardless of what some app says.. What a waste of time. Why doesn't this thread talk about who the good coaches are and where kids can get extra touches with people that help them get better? My kid was developed by a guy who sets his own goals up every night in a park for 5 years, and now he is at the very highest level in the country. I know of big badge clubs that absolutely have not developed their kids. The badge matters if they want to play for a big college so as to be seen for recruiting. But they also have to be able to play and stay there. someone should start a thread entitled "The app that tells your kid not to play hard" so parents can brag about team rankings
There is a high correlation between how high a team is ranked and how good their players are . And I want my kid to be challenged every day in practice by the best of the best players. Iron sharpens iron and all that. Your kid is not going to get better playing against weak competition in practice no matter how good their coach is. And just to address some of your points: -you somehow conflate an app that ranks teams with your kid not playing hard. Yeah, if your kid looks at the app and doesnt play hard, it is a kid issue not an app issue. -Some people enjoy the analytics of the app, clearly not you but some do. So there is an easy solution if you think it is a waste of time, simply dont use it. But try to refrain from policing what others like and find value in. -You must not have been around this thread much because there are all kinds of posts about good coaches, good supplemental training, etc. You dont like the content of the thread nobody forcing you to read it. But to come on here and blather on with your sanctimonious tone makes you look like a tool………..