SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Club U13+ Challenge League Performance To Date

[Preface: Thought some of these numbers were fascinating. As always, I did this quickly and I'm sure there are errors so please let me know. Of course, it's early in the season -- just thought that there might be some interest out there.]

U13 and up challenge league results to date [from the reporting web sites.]


U13 and up challenge league results to date of clubs with 30 or more games [from the reporting web sites.]


Chart of U13 and up challenge league results to date of clubs with 30 or more games [from the reporting web sites.]


These didn't seem right to me; so to sanity check I looked at two local clubs: LCSC and CUFC. Here are the results of head-to-head matches to date:

All age groups, all levels where LCSC played CUFC: LCSC 16W 10L 5T.

Challenge, U13+ [U13 and up] where LCSC played CUFC: LCSC 7W 2L 3T

Chico,

I think your comparison between Columbia United and Lexington is somewhat misleading. A number of the games in those stats are played between the top Lexington team in the given age group and Columbia United's second team. Columbia United has 81% of their select teams playing at Challenge or higher levels while only 47% of Lexington's select teams are playing Challenge or higher. As far as I can tell, Lexington does not have more than one team playing Challenge or higher in any age group. In Challenge League/Division games, Columbia United’s Elite teams have a 1-1-3 record versus Lexington. Also, four of the Elite teams are playing R3PL where there are no Lexington teams.

Columbia United's decision to play their teams at a higher level will not look good initially on the win-loss records, but, hopefully, will lead to better development for the players and teams in the long run. I believe this decision will be revisited each season to make sure the teams are playing in the division that best suits their developmental needs.

(I also compiled these numbers quickly from the League web pages. Feel free to point out any errors.)

Coach P: I apologize for any "misleading" I've done in the posts above. Due to my incredible ignorance I'm actually not seeing where I misled anyone. Thus, several respectful questions:

• Are all of the results "misleading" or only the ones associated with CUFC and Lexington?
  
• How can I restate the results above to make them less "misleading"?
  
• Is it simply that you want CUFC elite teams compared to Lexington's top teams?
  

The problem of course with the last one is that trying to compare "elite" teams would be an apples and oranges exercise. As you know, Lexington doesn't have an "elite/challenge/classic" designation -- basically, teams are formed for a variety of reasons with competition being only one factor. (Note: I like the CUFC elite/challenge/classic competition based system better.)

Do you perceive that I am trying to say "the best LCSC teams are better than the best CUFC teams"? Actually...I really wasn't...the thought never crossed my mind (honestly, it didn't...maybe the billboards out here in Lexington have brainwashed me, but I haven't even perceived at an "elite" or "premier" level that LCSC was competitive with CUFC with the exception of some specific teams.) Sure...there are a few teams now and then that LCSC fields that are very good -- the LCSC U17B and U17G teams seem to be good examples this year -- but I would think on average that the top CUFC team would be much, much better than the top LCSC team. In fact, I wouldn't think that this was the comparison for which you were striving -- instead, the comparison for the top CUFC teams should be RIIIPL-East play and play against in-state clubs like Bridge.

One thing that is interesting is the strategy difference between CUFC and LCSC. I didn't realize until your post that CUFC had made a strategic decision to play teams at a higher level thus resulting in more losses but better player development -- I had thought that in most groups CUFC had 2-3 teams with elite and challenge teams playing premier and challenge and classic teams playing classic.

Look -- I've repeatedly said that I believe in what CUFC has stated that they are trying to do (offer better youth soccer services to Columbia kids.) But trying to figure out what they're doing is a bit difficult. Thank you tremendously for participating in this discussion so that more light is shed on the strategies and even tactics of the club.

And Cesa has premier and challenge and Bridge has gold and red, etc. The fact is that Cesa's B and Bridge's B teams help the overall club perfomance in the numbers (which CUFC plays against). This may not be the case for CUFC.

At Lexington, we also make sure we place teams in the appropriate divisions so they can be the most competitive and if we have the numbers we consider multiple teams.

Based on the number of games 86, CUFC had many more chances to win (as they had many more to loose). The fact that it did not (30% winning ratio) says that the teams loosing are probably in the wrong classification.

Lexcoach: Exactly. What I was trying to do was compare all teams in a league; not try to make distinctions about "A", "B", and "C" teams.

Here's a small bit of background. I actually started looking at this after I saw some results from the RBC Liberty tournament where Bridge had done well and I wondered how CUFC had done. When I looked, I didn't see any CUFC teams at RBC at all (not sure what's going on there -- RBC is by far the top-ranked tournament in SC, CUFC has aspirations of being a top club in SC, so this is a bit confusing but I figured there must be some major club-wide conflict).

That got me wondering how CUFC was doing so far this season compared to Bridge and CESA. LCSC got thrown into the mix only because they had played as many challenge league games as Bridge. And I sanity checked CUFC and LCSC because they're both close to home and they've had more games against each other so far.

Again -- it's early in the season -- this is just a snapshot...

Maybe "misleading" was a poor word choice. I am simply saying that playing a higher level of competition often leads to a lower win-loss-tie record than playing in a lower level and that needs to be considered when viewing these numbers.

Columbia United made an aggressive decision to place their top two teams in Challenge or higher leagues in all but 1 age group. Lexington, on the other hand, has apparently made the decision to place their teams in the league where they will be most competitive. Both strategies have merit.

One has to wonder if CUFC is shooting themselves in the foot by not attending top SC tournaments and really not supporting other SC tournaments with quality team number (elite, challenge or classic) turnout. I think they did well with Disney this year, but fear this focus on Elite is leaving the challenge teams to fend for themselves. I think this truth is reflected in the very poor turn out of quality teams for the upcoming Carolina cup in Columbia. How does CUFC interpret no really good teams being interested in their tournament, especially when Columbia is centrally located??? And, it is not a new tournament...

Chico,

You have CSC listed twice on your first table. The second CSC has played 42 matches, winning 46% of them, yet you leave them out of the analysis in the second table (>30)?

Why?