SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Super 22

Agree on Gmerek and Urig (although I only saw her play for Wando one time). Probably could have made a case for Deahl. Ramsey was only a freshman and probably didn't get much notice from the committee. Although she is widely-regarded as the best rising U-16 player in the state, she didn't even get named All-Region. Playing for Rock Hill HS doesn't provide her any recognition on the scholastic level.

Sheets will certainly be a leading candidate to make the squad next year. I think she'll make it tough on that gal from Lexington to repeat as Super 22 Player of the Year next spring.

It will be interesting to see the club distribution on this team two years down the road. We may have a few out-of-state representatives. More than a dozen rising sophomores from Clover, Fort Mill and Nation Ford are playing their club soccer up north, and a few of them may have a shot at being named to this team over the next couple of years.

Chico—

There is a bias that AAAA and AAA are better and thus players are better because the schools are bigger—in the bigger scope of things—and I am sure the larger school teams and players get way more state PR—but it is possible and likely over the years that better players have been at smaller schools—

Underep'd? I don't really know—but wanted to put in a plug since I am biased toward my AA school—:)

You are correct about AAA having the disproportional weight in SC HS girls soccer—and possibly deservedly so—

>>[garnet&black] There is a bias that AAAA and AAA are better and thus players are better because the schools are bigger<<

What I don't understand is the nature of the bias if such a bias exists. If there are 1000 kids playing in 4-A, 100 kids playing in 3-A, 10 kids playing in 2-A, and 1 kid playing in 1-A, then an unbiased representation would be 100X more kids making an all-star team in 4-A versus 2-A. This is made even more difficult by the actual candidate pool -- if in 4-A there are 2000 candidates of which 1000 were selected and in 1-A there was only 1 candidate then that becomes another factor. Of course, these are hypothetical numbers -- I wish I had the time to go figure out the real ones.

The problem I think you're getting at isn't the actual sampled representation over a given population but the assumption people make that because a player is from a smaller school that they are always less qualified than a player from a larger school. This is like saying that an engineer from MIT is always better than an engineer from Clemson. While it may typically be true, it is not always true.

The Big School-Small School discussion should focus more on a player's access (geography + economics) to high level training in a competitive club environment. A player from Bishop England (2A) probably has a better shot at being named to the Super 22 than a player from a 4A team such as Hartsville or Conway.

Not using terms technically, Chico—But at both larger schools (AAA, AAAA) and private schools, you have MORE teams with MORE quality players, than the smaller public schools (A, AA); thus:

At the bigger/private schools, a player can play one position, such a striker, and be quite successful, appearing to be "better" because of the context and probably the added press/exposure than a high-quality player at a small (and public) school where an elite player has to do "everything," thus sacrifice stats, etc.

When I started coaching at Woodruff, for example, we had Casey Cash—an elite player who I believe was under-appreciated state-wide in many respects because she literally did everything—even keeper in PKs—for the team. If Casey had been at a top AAA or AAAA school and allowed to focus on her natural position, I believe she would have garnered far more recognition, although she would have been the same player.

If we swapped those players (striker at large school for elite player at small school), I believe people would be surprised at what player is actually superior.

Then add in Hurt66's point—access to club/elite training skews the impact of school size. His BE example is dead-on.

BE players have a large list of advantages over other small schools, and their players ride a bias that other small and public schools don't receive.

My point, however, is NOT that those receiving the biases do not deserve the recognition, but that players at smaller schools are overlooked and/or under-appreciated.

Don't we assume that the top players who lead their AAA or AAAA teams to a state championship match are "better" than the top players who lead their team to the AA/A state match? I think 9 out of 10 people would believe that simply because of the school size.

An analogy that I think works: I know for a fact that college admissions prefer top-ten students from LARGER schools because there exists a bias that larger school students are superior to smaller school students. Thus there is a bias that a #3 student at a AAAA school is superior to a #3 student at a A school. A similar "popular" view of athletes exists as well.

>>[garnet&black] I know for a fact that college admissions prefer top-ten students from LARGER schools because there exists a bias that larger school students are superior to smaller school students. Thus there is a bias that a #3 student at a AAAA school is superior to a #3 student at a A school. A similar "popular" view of athletes exists as well.<<

I think it comes down to the definition of "bias." The top student in a class of 10 is in the top 10% of her class; the top student in a class of 1000 is in the top 0.1% of her class. Factors of 100X, while not predictive given any single event, tend to be predictive over multiple events.

If you look at the definition of bias as we're using it here, you find:

Quote:

---

3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

---

The question is whether it is an unreasoned judgment or whether there's error with respect to sampling; that's why looking at the base populations is important (to judge whether systemic error is being introduced.)

The bottom line is that while it's possible that 2-A/1-A schools are underrepresented given the candidates, players, and teams that constitute the class, my "gut feel" just looking at the numbers is that 3-A is probably overrepresented (note: again, given the strength of Riverside and Eastside, this makes sense), 4-A is underrepresented, and I don't have a clue as to whether 1-A/2-A is over or underrepresented.

However, it is the worst-kind of "profiling" or "stereotyping" to assume that any specific player is better than any other specific player just because one player is in 4-A and the other is in SCISA (for example.)

I'm pretty sure that the folks who do the SCSoccer.com selections (or state, or whatever), aren't engaged in either this type of blind profiling or stereotyping.

SA,

No.....Vertically Challenged.


g&b,

I worked as a college admissions counselor for a year. There are other "biases" as well. A student in the 3/5 of a private prep school could get admitted over a student in the top 1/5 of a large public school.

Chico—

Good points as always—BUT I was not in any way making a commentary on scsoccer.com and the selection process or the quality of that process—More so I am making a commentary that is descriptive of a larger phenomenon.

Scsoccer.com's Super 22 has been done well and is a solid list; from that basis, I am highlighting a mistake I think we make in general about "best" players. In the general popular view, and in some more narrow avenues, we careless assume more quality in the larger school sports. Other factors such as tradition come into play also. People EXPECT BE to have strong teams so those players get a jump on other small schools.

I think your technical points are dead-on, but I am not making a purely statistical commentary—mainly because I don't buy statistical paradigms as being any better than other arbitrary paradigms. But that's me.

I would argue that in girls soccer, the popular view would be to EXPECT AAAA soccer to be the best; the reality is that across the board, AAA girls soccer is quite probably the best in the state. Many years, I would pick a AAA girls team as the best in the state, not a AAAA. But I have stated hear before, when teams have quality players, classification becomes insignificant. This is much clearer than trying to identify BEST PLAYERS, however, because the contexts are skewed. As I noted earlier, the smaller schools tend to have fewer top ;players, thus those players have different roles; thus, you begin comparing significantly unlike qualities in players.

I want to add here for clarity—I am NOT complaining about the Super 22 selection; I am making descriptions of how I see the reality—not any measurable judgment.