LH vs FBR Results 07 July 2017

Here are the results to the best of my knowledge on the D1 and D3 qualifiers for the 07 group in Lake Highlands QT.    I took the final FBR seeding and LH seeding chart  and color coded it.   (Green is D1; Yellow is D3, and Red is did not qualify for LH.)    Also below is the historical data to compare % qualified for week 1 D1 bracket winners, % for total D1, and total qualifier % to compare this years FBR and LH seeding to previous years.  

Too bad we had the red card incident and SRSA spread their players all over the metroplex or I think my numbers would be even better.  Oh well, I'm happy my rankings were as accurate as any.  

With this post, my duties are complete for the 07s.  Other than a couple of our more notorious posters(who must still be dining on crow), yall were fairly kind to me for the past 3 years, thanks.  I have found another soccer related activity to do going forward that will fill the time vacated with FBR being done, so I will not produce 07 JDL standings.   If you need rankings, use YSR.  I will try and keep up on the 07 team listing, I think this is a good resource for the masses.  

Carry on FBR 08, 09, and 10(?)...Thanks BWG for all your help along the way!!........FBR07G is signing out!!!!!    Good luck to all teams this year!

Thank you! Your efforts have been much appreciated.

Always love looking at the comparison of FBR vs LH seeding.

For those wondering, no, the LHGCL seeding committee does NOT use FBR in their seeding determination.  

The reality is, without the FBR to guide the LHGCL seeding committee down the yellow brick road each QT these days they would have no ability to accurately seed 40 + teams over one weekend at a local tournament like King Tut. The seeding committee does not have the resources or soccer experience & knowledge needed to objectively rank 40+ youth soccer teams on their own within 80% accuracy. They not only 100% use the FBR Ranking, they hold it as tight as possible like a guiding light during the dark of the night.

After King Tut they meet to discuss their own subjective analysis of the games they viewed and they seed teams as closely as possible to the FBR (with some slight changes here and there to make it a little different) The FBR has proven to be extremely accurate over time which guides the seeding committee while also helping them look more objective & knowledgeable about their product. It really isn’t that big of deal except the fact they take full credit for the accuracy in results instead of sending a shout out to the FBR for doing all the heavy lifting for them.

JustKeepinItReal wrote:The reality is, without the FBR to guide the LHGCL seeding committee down the yellow brick road each QT these days they would have no ability to accurately seed 40 + teams over one weekend at a local tournament like King Tut.  The seeding committee does not have the resources or soccer experience & knowledge needed to objectively rank 40+ youth soccer teams on their own within 80% accuracy.  They not only 100% use the FBR Ranking, they hold it as tight as possible like a guiding light during the dark of the night.  

After King Tut they meet to discuss their own subjective analysis of the games they viewed and they seed teams as closely as possible to the FBR (with some slight changes here and there to make it a little different) The FBR has proven to be extremely accurate over time which guides the seeding committee while also helping them look more objective & knowledgeable about their product.  It really isn’t that big of deal except the fact they take full credit for the accuracy in results instead of sending a shout out to the FBR for doing all the heavy lifting for them.    

They do most definitely take FBR into account. How much they use it is s different story.

JustKeepinItReal wrote:The reality is, without the FBR to guide the LHGCL seeding committee down the yellow brick road each QT these days they would have no ability to accurately seed 40 + teams over one weekend at a local tournament like King Tut.  The seeding committee does not have the resources or soccer experience & knowledge needed to objectively rank 40+ youth soccer teams on their own within 80% accuracy.  They not only 100% use the FBR Ranking, they hold it as tight as possible like a guiding light during the dark of the night.  

After King Tut they meet to discuss their own subjective analysis of the games they viewed and they seed teams as closely as possible to the FBR (with some slight changes here and there to make it a little different) The FBR has proven to be extremely accurate over time which guides the seeding committee while also helping them look more objective & knowledgeable about their product.  It really isn’t that big of deal except the fact they take full credit for the accuracy in results instead of sending a shout out to the FBR for doing all the heavy lifting for them.    

LHGCL was seeding their QT for many, many years before FBR came along, and they were doing just fine with it.  As you will see in the graphic below, for the 1st 3 years that FBR was published ('01's-'03's), there were significant discrepancies between FBR and the QT seeding, so it was clear that LH was NOT using FBR as a guideline.  

Things changed with the '04's.  It became clear that LH started paying attention to FBR and since then, it's pretty clear that they do use FBR as a general reference, as the seeding discrepancies are far fewer and much smaller.

However, also note that the relative performance of FBR vs. QT Seeding in no different from '01-'03 vs. '04-'07.  If you go back and evaluate the large seeding discrepancies in the '01's-'03's (>7 spots difference) you would see that FBR/QT seed were split almost exactly 50/50 as to which seed was more accurate based on actual QT results.

Bottom line... if FBR ceases to exist tomorrow, LH will be just fine and will seed their QT with similar accuracy to what they always have.

This may be a dumb question- what does FBR stand for?

hjm wrote:This may be a dumb question- what does FBR stand  for?

FootBall Rankulator

It's the name of the commercially available software package that is used. The software was designed to do College Football rankings back in the BCS era.

bwgophers wrote:

hjm wrote:This may be a dumb question- what does FBR stand  for?

FootBall Rankulator

It's the name of the commercially available software package that is used.  The software was designed to do College Football rankings back in the BCS era.

Thanks BW, it's good to learn something new. I always thought it stood for
Freaking
Biased
Results

FBR is a data store and algorithm for predicting relative strength of a team. It's probably smart for the committee to consider the rankings as a data point. It would be shortsighted to do it any other way, wouldn't it? What FBR doesn't predict is what players have moved between the first recorded matches and the most recent. Or how the team is reacting to new players added. Watching the teams play at a tune-up tournament with their QT roster is about as accurate measure as you're going to get IMHO. Will some teams excel (Solar Quiroz)? Will some tank (Sting Heinz)? Sure, they're 10 year old kids. "On any day"...

wittymgr wrote:  Will some teams excel (Solar Quiroz)?

2/3 of the SRSA starting midfield helps a bit as well.

Axel Foley wrote:

wittymgr wrote:  Will some teams excel (Solar Quiroz)?

2/3 of the SRSA starting midfield helps a bit as well.

And your point is what? All players that appeared on the field for every team in the event were rostered as a North Texas (USYS) player for that respective team. SRSA doesn't exist as a NTSSA team. That group may be registered in US Club Soccer, but that's not the point. It's pretty smart to have skilled players spread around the teams if it aids in development of the club's players as a whole, doesn't it? I think that the Byers team played better with the other 1/3 of the aforementioned midfield on or off the pitch. They seemed to find a way to score both with and without her. Solar made a decision not to play one "all-star" team in LH in favor of spreading around the talent. It appeared to work...

Whenever we played 'SRSA' they had 4 midfielders. Did they lose one?

wittymgr wrote: It's pretty smart to have skilled players spread around the teams if it aids in development of the club's players as a whole, doesn't it? It appeared to work...

Yeah smart. Smart to anger the parents of teams that didn't want them, smart to pi** off lil Suzie's parents who develops from the bench, but they under contract so who cares, they got teams in D1, for a year.

Axel Foley wrote:

wittymgr wrote: It's pretty smart to have skilled players spread around the teams if it aids in development of the club's players as a whole, doesn't it? It appeared to work...

Yeah smart.  Smart to anger the parents of teams that didn't want them, smart to pi** off lil Suzie's parents who develops from the bench, but they under contract so who cares, they got teams in D1, for a year.

For once, I am in agreement with Axel on this one....

wittymgr wrote:

Axel Foley wrote:

wittymgr wrote:  Will some teams excel (Solar Quiroz)?

2/3 of the SRSA starting midfield helps a bit as well.

And your point is what? All players that appeared on the field for every team in the event were rostered as a North Texas (USYS) player for that respective team. SRSA doesn't exist as a NTSSA team. That group may be registered in US Club Soccer, but that's not the point. It's pretty smart to have skilled players spread around the teams if it aids in development of the club's players as a whole, doesn't it? I think that the Byers team played better with the other 1/3 of the aforementioned midfield on or off the pitch. They seemed to find a way to score both with and without her. Solar made a decision not to play one "all-star" team in LH in favor of spreading around the talent. It appeared to work...

Nobody has suggested it was outside the letter of the law.  Some just question if "it aids in development of the club's players as a whole."   If a team plays better competition, that can aid development of the team -- unless the team is so far behind the competition, in which case development is harmed.

As for Byars playing better with the added midfielder on and off the pitch -- in the game and a half I saw, it would be hard to judge how they played with her off the pitch because she was rarely off the pitch.  And, when she was on, two girls from the other team followed her wherever she went, leaving the rest of the team to play 7 field players vs. 6.

If all the parents were informed and on board, who am I to say if it is right or wrong.  I just know the optics aren't good to those who know -- to the rest of the world, they see lots of Solar teams in D1, which is the ultimate goal -- not player development.

jstones wrote:Whenever we played 'SRSA' they had 4 midfielders.  Did they lose one?  

Sounds like a pesky dig that no one caught.

I dont think the addition of players on the Byars team made any difference to them making D1 if that is what the issue is. Based on what I saw out there in the other teams, they would have been there anyways. Now Quiroz IMHO would have been a different animal all together without the "help" I noticed with them. Pretty sure they would not have been in the green.

Let's be honest with each other. The addition of players to these rosters has nothing to do with development. It is the sole purpose of the club to place as many teams in D-1 because little sussie like it or not will not pay for D-2. Plus the big clubs lose (money) if the are not dominating leagues. What it says is the big clubs do not care about the development of your DD. They simply look to fill their pocketbook. The only way this happens is through D-1. Filling teams and girls paying premium prices to LHGCL pays for their Top teams and players.

Well every time a player plays for a team that they are not rostered on, it doesn't necessarily mean they are just trying to win. There are some players that genuinely deserve to play on the top or better team and player passing gives them that opportunity. So in some very low percentage cases it can be about development.

Okay, yes and no but to get those players at the lower level to pay premium prices to be on teams in LHGCL they need to be in D-1. You will see them again at the end of the year to make sure teams in d-1 stay and teams that have opportunity to move into d-1 do. They are what we consider ghost players used for one sole purpose.

Zizou wrote:Okay, yes and no but to get those players at the lower level to pay premium prices to be on teams in LHGCL they need to be in D-1. You will see them again at the end of the year to make sure teams in d-1 stay and teams that have opportunity to move into d-1 do. They are what we consider ghost players used for one sole purpose.

Well not sure if your bitterness is trueth. Byars had JDL players on his roster in the 06 age group last year and they played all season with them. I have 0eople that say this will happen again. All solar teams will host those players all year. So get over it people!

Zizou wrote:Okay, yes and no but to get those players at the lower level to pay premium prices to be on teams in LHGCL they need to be in D-1. You will see them again at the end of the year to make sure teams in d-1 stay and teams that have opportunity to move into d-1 do. They are what we consider ghost players used for one sole purpose.

True there has to actually be a top team and said top team needs to be in top league and so on and so on.
I always thought of ghost players as those players added to roster to fulfill the minimum number of players that the league required to have a team in league. Where as those players were said to be fictional comes the phrase. Not a player used to obtain a specific level such as D1.

Now they are used to help teams qualify and maintain qualification. Along with club player passing players that are reduced at the end of season, but your ghost players that are us club are still rostered for end of the season, state cup, regionals and nationals.

My DD was always rostered on two teams usysa, us club,she never played usysa but was available when and if needed.