SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP U13 and up challenge league Fall 06

From the reported scores in SCYSA website as of 10/16/06 AM(provided I did not make any errors - tie =1/4W for % calculation)
Make from it what you like but the numbers show some surprises to me, half-way though the season

		W	L	T	Total	% W
1	Bridge	37	11	9	57	68.86%
2	CESA	63	25	11	99	66.41%
3	CASC	6	2	2	10	65.00%
4	FSCG	5	3	0	8	62.50%
5	MPSC	16	6	8	30	60.00%
6	CRSA	5	4	0	9	55.56%
7	CFC	12	9	2	23	54.35%
8	NACSC	3	2	1	6	54.17%
9	LCSC	15	18	10	43	40.70%
10	SAA	3	5	0	8	37.50%
11	CSC	13	21	3	37	37.16%
12	DSC	7	12	3	22	35.23%
13	CUSC	2	4	0	6	33.33%
14	CUFC	39	85	19	143	30.59%
15	Tega Cay	4	13	1	18	23.61%
16	TrCSC	0	1	1	2	12.50%
17	Aiken	0	15	2	17	2.94%
	min 20 games played
1	Bridge	68.86%	57
2	CESA	66.41%	99
3	MPSC	60.00%	30
4	CFC	54.35%	23
5	LCSC	40.70%	43
6	CSC	37.16%	37
7	DSC	35.23%	22
8	CUFC	30.59%	143

Absolutely outstanding data and information -- thank you!!!

Good stuff futbol!
If you look further at the classic teams results (and I am too lazy to run the excellent stats you ran for challenge), it appears that MPSC, SSC & Bridge have had some excellent results as well, with some of their teams at or near the top in their respective classic leagues. If those 3 clubs would have a full merger, that would be a very big and very strong club overall.
Also, even though CUFC is in its first merger year, I expected better overall challenge results, given the quality of players and teams who competed with NECSA/CSC.

I agree with the MPSC and SSC statement (I thought Bridge only had challenge teams). I also agree with the CUFC comment. I left it at challenge only as it is supposed to be the most competitive league and would therefore give more meaningful information. Plus I do have a life outside of this forum... I think???

By the way (chico correct me if I am wrong), it should be noted that the larger the sample the more accurate the calc.

So the min 20 games ranking is more comparable although potentially it should be 40 as the min number of games.

Bridge has a 7-0 Boys U13 Classic team and a 4-2-1 U13 Girls Classic team.

It would be interesting to see these numbers with only the elite,premier or what ever a club might call it's highest level teams. I know that some of the bigger clubs field more than one team in each age group, one stronger and one weaker.

Then you would have to factor in R3Premier records and that would skew the results. A loss to a R3 powerhouse from another state should not count against you.

I agree with Hurst... to me the comparison is between clubs with teams that play each other in the most competitive league and have an opportunity to meet during the season. Elite/premier/gold... whatever definition, is just a name. The clubs that fielded these teams in this league felt that they would be competitive with the talent available.

I am sure that by now noone would field a team in the highest league if you did not feel you could win. I can see it happening at younger age groups where you may not know where you fit.

One thing to Note, On the girls side for CESA we are not exactly comparing apples to apples, since at the U-13 age group our top teams are playing up. Our top U-13 team is playing U-14 Challenge and our top U-12 Team is playing U-13 Classic.(Of note Bridge's top U-12 Team is also playing U-13 Classic.) The U-13 Team is currently first or 2nd in the U-14 Challenge division. The Team in the U-13 Challenge is our 2nd level team of the U-13 age group.

I would also note that come Spring we will likely get a much better analysis of how clubs are doing since I would anticipate several teams currently playing Classic to move up to Challenge and Possibly the 93 Premier to move back into U-13 Challenge for State Cup reasons.

The CESA 94 Premier and the Bridge 94 Gold played for the first time this weekend with CESA winning 3 to 0. As parents we noted that this will be the first of many times these teams will meet in the coming years. Several of the girls had met opposing teammates at Lundy Camp this Summer and had developed friendships that will hopefully grow from year to year.

I spent a little time this morning trying to understand the facts underlying this data. The most amazing thing is that midway through the season CUFC is doing much more poorly than I think anyone would have predicted -- certainly more poorly than I would have predicted. Thus, I spent some time trying to understand the second largest club in South Carolina.

CUFC has 11 teams playing in the SC challenge league (U15 and up). 4 of these teams are "Elite", 7 are "Challenge" -- there are no "Classic" teams playing in the challenge league.

You'd think that the "Elite" teams would be doing very well in challenge league. Of the 4 teams, 1 team is in second place, 2 teams are in third place, and 1 team is in fifth place.

So how are the "Challenge" teams doing? None are in 1st or 2nd place, 1 is in 3rd place, 1 is in 4th place, 2 are in 5th place, and 2 are in 6th place.

Is it fair to compare CUFC to Bridge in its first year or CESA in its first year? I think so -- if anything, CUFC should have an advantage in that a larger percentage of its top teams are playing challenge than Bridge's or CESA's top teams which are played RIIIPL. (Note: I think CUFC has 4 teams playing RIIIPL this year, 15B, 15G, 16G, and 18G.)

This is particularly humbling in that I've stated repeatedly that I believed a merger of two or more Columbia-area clubs should happen and I've stated repeatedly that I like what CUFC has said that they are trying to do [although I've had a few reservations about some of their methods.]

So I'm left with the following questions:

• Did anyone out there anticipate these types of results?
  
• What am I missing in this? How is any part of this "not fair" to CUFC?
  
• Why is CUFC not doing better?