'04 Girls FBR Rankings - 02-28-12

Are people really nitpicking the 20-40s????

Why does anyone even respond to that. LOL...

FBR is as close to perfect as you will get for little kid soccer... Not perfect but as close to it as you will get. This is well established...

Can someone create an FBR FAQ and make it a sticky so we can just post links to it when newbs get on here and ask questions like "Why is number 47 not ranked about number 43 when they just beat number 36 by 2 goals and lost last week to number 27 by only 1 goal in PKs?"

bwgophers wrote:

Busby Babes wrote:I would liken these rankings to a scaled down version of the FIFA rankings.. Everyone knows the FIFA rankings are shite and full of inaccuracies. The Elo ranking system is a much more truer version, and considered the gold standard for football rankings..

Istanbul2005 wrote:
Yes, I know. Speaking more historically.
They are ranked 18th because they haven't been winning. But in the days of #1 for consecutive years, they would play third world countries and win 5-0 and be on top (pre recalibration of the formula)

Losing to Argentina twice, England, Mexico, and a draw to Colombia should put Brazil in the top 8!

South Africa lost to Brazil 1-0, that'd put them in the top 20 in the FBR..
Don't get me wrong, I'm like the majority of the hundreds of viewers and enjoy the latest release of FBR, but, win 2 out of 10 games in SDL2 and you've got yourself a place in the Top 30 on this page!

O.K. Let me make sure I've got this straight...

I've got one "expert" (Busby Babes), telling me that FBR is shite** because it's like FIFA rankings, where Brazil is ranked 18th, and I should use an ELo method, where Brazil is ranked 3rd...

I've got another "expert" (Istanbul2005), telling me that FBR is shite** because FBR would have Brazil ranked in the top 8, which means that FBR is actually designed to be much closer to ELo, than to FIFA...



Of course, the real reason is that I've looked at all 3 formulae and determined that FBR is shite** because it's nothing like either of these two ranking systems...

I said "scaled down" version of the FIFA rankings...which historically and undeniably have been full of inaccurate rankings. And yes, the Elo system is the preferred method and gold standard in rankings. This is not news, anyone well-versed in the sport knows this as fact.

Your ranking system has flaws, but that's not to say it is fully inaccurate.


But I also pointed out that you enjoy doing it, so good on you.

And it's Elo, not ELo, but you surely know this already..being the guru at rankings that you are..

I do not think it is just bwgophers that enjoys it- I think a lot of us do. I for one appreciate it and the work that goes into it. And it happens to be pretty spot on most of the time.

bigtex wrote:I do not think it is just bwgophers that enjoys it- I think a lot of us do. I for one appreciate it and the work that goes into it. And it happens to be pretty spot on most of the time.

It's fairly spot on from the upper tier, but glaring holes as you progress through. But not any ranking system is 100% full proof. It's a good way to appease the parents, but the whole premise of a ranking system for U-10 football is over the top. It's basically a fun thing to do, and gophers has fun doing it and for the most part does a decent job with it using his formula.

Istanbul2005 wrote:I think the top 10 to 15 are very accurate, like the example you provided in the older group.
It's the 20-40 range where the flaws are glaring.


Teams that have won just 2 out of 10 (2-6-2), or have played just 3 games (and winning one of them) shouldn't be ranked as high as they are. Perhaps a minimum # of wins or the minimum # of games played should be altered.

This....

bigtex wrote:I do not think it is just bwgophers that enjoys it- I think a lot of us do. I for one appreciate it and the work that goes into it. And it happens to be pretty spot on most of the time.

Well said. Cannot believe the same posters will continue to ridiculously debate and harp on these rankings, especialy after it's been shown already - in earier posts - that this thing is fairly accurate.

People debate, banter and challenge one another? Outrageous! What sort of country do we live in

Busby Babes wrote:

bigtex wrote:I do not think it is just bwgophers that enjoys it- I think a lot of us do. I for one appreciate it and the work that goes into it. And it happens to be pretty spot on most of the time.

It's fairly spot on from the upper tier, but glaring holes as you progress through. But not any ranking system is 100% full proof. It's a good way to appease the parents, but the whole premise of a ranking system for U-10 football is over the top. It's basically a fun thing to do, and gophers has fun doing it and for the most part does a decent job with it using his formula.

Well I will have to agree to disagree with you a bit here. I would not say there are glaring holes when you look at the accuracy if the rankings over time. For example in the 02 group the fact that the average deviation from the pre qt FBR rankings for those that were ranked between 20-40 is only 5 is my opinion is surprisingly accurate. I also don't think it only appeases parents- as judging from the FBR posts several coaches seem to join in the discussion. I would however agree that we (parents) sometimes put too much weight into the rankings at times. I tell you what ranking I would like to see more than the FBR ranking it would be a ranking of player development by team/coach within each age group. You can take away the W-L-D and give me that information at the younger ages and that would receive my full attention. I am not sure how that would stack up to the FBR rankings, but it would be interesting.....not that it ever could or would happen

Istanbul2005 wrote:People debate, banter and challenge one another? Outrageous! What sort of country do we live in