FBR '06 AP Coming soon..

Thanks for correcting me on the field size and the number of players.  
I have to disagree when there is no such thing as AP06 league next spring.  How can we have fantasy AP06FBR. I am missing something here.  

FBR06AP wrote:It is our understanding that this is because none of this takes place until fall 2016. Not january.  

The size of field and number of players will have no impact on FBR elpistolero.  

Thank you for the question.

What we are compiling is simply a list of AP squads. Will be listed alphabetically.

Not until every roster is required to be AP will be begin ranking them.

So no fantasy FBR here sir. Not with our AP 06 FBR.

Sho'nuff wrote:It sounds like gophers was more a CUZete90 disciple.

If you only knew...

Sho'nuff wrote:It sounds like gophers was more a CUZete90 disciple. Who started the rule of excluding OT goals? Glad to see that changing!

Gophers is an effin' idiot riding on the coattails of visionaries, and yes, he's the idiot who decided to exclude OT goals!

So as of now, there is no age pure leagues in spring.
Yet, we can take our dds to these AP06 teams and play the current 06 teams next spring.   Brilliant.  

FBR06AP wrote:What we are compiling is simply a list of AP squads. Will be listed alphabetically.  

Not until every roster is required to be AP will be begin ranking them.  

So no fantasy FBR here sir.  Not with our AP 06 FBR.

Elpistolero wrote:So as of now, there is no age pure leagues in spring.
Yet, we can take our dds to these AP06 teams and play the current 06 teams next spring.   Brilliant.  

FBR06AP wrote:What we are compiling is simply a list of AP squads. Will be listed alphabetically.  

Not until every roster is required to be AP will be begin ranking them.  

So no fantasy FBR here sir.  Not with our AP 06 FBR.

As it stands... correct. We can take our our 06s to these AP 06 teams, but there is no guarantee that the opponent will be AP also.

Again, we will not be ranking the AP teams until Fall of 2016 when they will all be required to be AP. Until that time no one is required to be, and you cant fault them for using AP 05s, it just is not a true representation of the squad and any FBR ranking of AP teams is nearly entirely innacurrate.

CUZete90 wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:Have no idea who is doing the FBR 06...but this is good stuff. And it goes back to the ROOTS of the original FBR.  There was no de facto anything in the original FBR. That is why FBR was started in the first place...pre FBR parents had an excel sheet that kept their daughters team as #1 after winning a few games and then not playing anybody except boys or weak older teams...lol. The whole de facto business was anti FBR which was supposed to be about fairly ranking teams based on relative game results only.

Original FBR also did NOT rank hodgepodge teams once it became common knowledge  they weren't real teams or were folding.  It created some discussion, but I remember when the 01s had a team called princess warriors that always used guest players. Towards the end they were mostly players showing up for games that played for other teams. Once that happened the original FBR stopped ranking them.

For FBR to work best, IMO the person (or persons) doing it should be familiar with the age group....even better if the people doing it are NOT anonymous. Original FBR posted the tiers, every single time, and tried to be TRANSPARENT at all times. Keep up the good work whoever you are....

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit there Bud...

PW's were in my '01 rankings all the way through Fall and Spring of U10.  They weren't removed until the middle of May, once it was confirmed that they were going to merge with TFC Guzman going into select.

I also ranked Solar Webb and Solar Murin all the way through the fall of U10, when it was up for debate as to whether either of those teams were standalone entities, and only stopped ranking them once neither one showed up in a Spring league.

Also ranked Solar Blue/DT Red North (J. Hollis' team) all the way through U10, though it was common knowledge that they were light on numbers and almost always using guest players.  They ended up pulling in the extra numbers they needed to make a full roster for QT.

As for posting Tiers, I don't know if you posted them every week when you were publishing FBR at U9 for the '01's, but once I took over publishing duties at U10, I most certainly did NOT post the tiers every week.  I posted them every few weeks, about the same frequency I posted them over the subsequent 4 years.  

(p.s. Still got all of the old screen shots to prove everything I just said).

So in case of this princes warrior team, who did you assign there games too? princess warriors? Or to Solar, texans, sting? like the current fbr guy does.

We can say from having studied the debate and historical data...

Magenta of present is not like PW of past.

PW was an actual team at one point, used some guests, and eventually became a near All guests situation.

Magenta is not a team and was never a team. It is a name a coach throws on a squad that could be made up of any mix of players on any weekend.

For this reason in our AP FBR, Magenta will be handled as a non-ntx team, will be included for calculations sake, but will not be included in FBR that is published.

CUZete90 wrote:

Sho'nuff wrote:It sounds like gophers was more a CUZete90 disciple. Who started the rule of excluding OT goals? Glad to see that changing!

Gophers is an effin' idiot riding on the coattails of visionaries, and yes, he's the idiot who decided to exclude OT goals!

Cool.  There is no ranking.  
The disadvantages I see are teams will use the AP05s ( aug -dec 05 birth days)to play AP 06 teams ( jan - jul 06 kids in the AP06 teams), collect wins and recruit AP06 kids and build AP06 teams for next fall,  the leagues will be tracking wins and losses as 06s.  
And how does this do any good for younger AP06 player to play against aug 05 born kids. They will most likely face physical and emotional challenges to go against bigger , stronger , more mature 05 APs.  

FBR06AP wrote:

Elpistolero wrote:So as of now, there is no age pure leagues in spring.
Yet, we can take our dds to these AP06 teams and play the current 06 teams next spring.   Brilliant.  

FBR06AP wrote:What we are compiling is simply a list of AP squads. Will be listed alphabetically.  

Not until every roster is required to be AP will be begin ranking them.  

So no fantasy FBR here sir.  Not with our AP 06 FBR.

As it stands... correct.  We can take our our 06s to these AP 06 teams, but there is no guarantee that the opponent will be AP also.

Again, we will not be ranking the AP teams until Fall of 2016 when they will all be required to be AP.  Until that time no one is required to be, and you cant fault them for using AP 05s, it just is not a true representation of the squad and any FBR ranking of AP teams is nearly entirely innacurrate.  

It is not our purpose to debate on this topic. Our sole focus is the AP FBR and its data.

Thank you for contributing to this forum.

There is no debate here.  It is a loosing cause to move younger 06s,07s, 08s up to AP 06s,07s and 08s teams, The younger AP kids will play teams that are potentially 18 month older than them.
Have a great day.

FBR06AP wrote:It is not our purpose to debate on this topic.  Our sole focus is the AP FBR and its data.

Thank you for contributing to this forum.

Elpistolero wrote:The disadvantages I see are teams will use the AP05s ( aug -dec 05 birth days)to play AP 06 teams ( jan - jul 06 kids in the AP06 teams), collect wins and recruit AP06 kids and build AP06 teams for next fall,  the leagues will be tracking wins and losses as 06s.

If parents are that stupid, then they deserve what they get.  I don't think they are though.  I think most are taking bday inventory.  "Oh, she's a December bday.  Good luck with that."

The parents are not. The teams , coaches that are advertising here are.

Sho'nuff wrote:

Elpistolero wrote:The disadvantages I see are teams will use the AP05s ( aug -dec 05 birth days)to play AP 06 teams ( jan - jul 06 kids in the AP06 teams), collect wins and recruit AP06 kids and build AP06 teams for next fall,  the leagues will be tracking wins and losses as 06s.

If parents are that stupid, then they deserve what they get.  I don't think they are though.  I think most are taking bday inventory.  "Oh, she's a December bday.  Good luck with that."

FBR06AP wrote:We can say from having studied the debate and historical data...

Magenta of present is not like PW of past.  

PW was an actual team at one point, used some guests, and eventually became a near All guests situation.

Magenta is not a team and was never a team.  It is a name a coach throws on a squad that could be made up of any mix of players on any weekend.

For this reason in our AP FBR, Magenta will be handled as a non-ntx team, will be included for calculations sake, but will not be included in FBR that is published.

The Magenta/Fuego/etc. discussions have history that it is not worth rekindling especially with AP in our near future.

So far, I like your proposed FBR changes bc I view what you and FBR 06G are trying to do as continuous improvement. As such, I have a request. I ask that you both find a way to account for any team that uses players from a different team(s) from the same club to compete under a different name. My club/team has done this in the past as well so I am not casting stones. My point is we need a solution that is equitable. For example, if a team is created with players from different teams within the same club, the team manager should be ask to designate if they want the w/L/t to count in FBR or not. If they do, then the record has to count against the team within the club from which majority of the player come from. If they do not want the record in the FBR, then the w/L/t should not count against their opponents either.

Most of us have been on the forum awhile, lets try to make the FBR pure as possible for our last year before going select.

We have looked at this issue as it does arise.  This is not an easy thing to accomplish, and we would dare say impossible.

Our thought is the procedure can only go one of two ways.

1.  A team of that nature always counts as a stand alone "Non-NTX" entity, is recorded in FBR, but is not included in the ranking

2.  A team of that nature, from any club or at any time that cannot be proven to be an actual team would never count, would not be recorded and would basically be a "no game played" situation.

This would entail self-policing by the teams or extensive hours by us to constantly monitor the teams as games are played every weekend.  

As is currently happening, there are teams being called AP 06 squads and some games they are, but depending on the opponent are not, and in fact end up mostly AP 05 players with players coming from several different teams within a club. Same as players guesting that are AP, but not trully on that roster. Being Academy and it generally being allowed, it is a tough area to police. We were informed that recetly at TGPL the "no player sharing" has been enforced in that league and in a situation like that, it becomes one that is rather easy to track.

This is something we will look at.  For now we will handle them as a Non-NTX squad, and will not be included in FBR rankings once we begin publishing next Fall.  Until that time we will be compiling the data and seeing what seems to work the best.  

Our goal is a return to the roots of FBR.  All input and assistance with this at this time of change is appreciated.

Thank you,

If I understand you correctly, the Non-NTX squad would not be included in FBR and the record would not impact any team, correct?

I think that works and I think my suggestion could work as well. Teams are less likely to do it if it counts.

Maybe we can get CFBAL to also adopt the same rule as PTGL of no player sharing in the same level of play? Seems easy enough. Otherwise, top teams will just play PTGL.

A non-ntx squd recorded in FBR counts in the calculations, but is excluded from the rankings that are published.

So it does impact a team's standing in the Ranking, but that ghost team is not rewarded for anything. Similar to the Socal teams that played at Super Copa. They would be placed in the Non-NTX tiers, games recorded, would impact local squads positively and negatively, but not included in the published rankings.

SkeetsG06 wrote:

FBR06AP wrote:We can say from having studied the debate and historical data...

Magenta of present is not like PW of past.  

PW was an actual team at one point, used some guests, and eventually became a near All guests situation.

Magenta is not a team and was never a team.  It is a name a coach throws on a squad that could be made up of any mix of players on any weekend.

For this reason in our AP FBR, Magenta will be handled as a non-ntx team, will be included for calculations sake, but will not be included in FBR that is published.

The Magenta/Fuego/etc. discussions have history that it is not worth rekindling especially with AP in our near future.

So far, I like your proposed FBR changes bc I view what you and FBR 06G are trying to do as continuous improvement.  As such, I have a request.  I ask that you both find a way to account for any team that uses players from a different team(s) from the same club to compete under a different name.  My club/team has done this in the past as well so I am not casting stones.  My point is we need a solution that is equitable.  For example, if a team is created with players from different teams within the same club, the team manager should be ask to designate if they want the w/L/t to count in FBR or not.  If they do, then the record has to count against the team within the club from which majority of the player come from.  If they do not want the record in the FBR, then the w/L/t should not count against their opponents either.

Most of us have been on the forum awhile, lets try to make the FBR pure as possible for our last year before going select.

Great idea Skeets. We designate Kicks Selecao and Kicks JM not to count towards FBR.

Coach JM, correct me if we are incorrect, but both Selecao and JM will be AP 05 teams and would not be in this AP 06 poll anyways.

You may need to take this up with the other person, we have no contact with that person.

FBR06AP wrote:A non-ntx squd recorded in FBR counts in the calculations, but is excluded from the rankings that are published.  

So it does impact a team's standing in the Ranking, but that ghost team is not rewarded for anything.  Similar to the Socal teams that played at Super Copa.  They would be placed in the Non-NTX tiers, games recorded, would impact local squads positively and negatively, but not included in the published rankings.

I think that loophole discredits the FBR b/c it encourages teams to create mixed teams as there is no downside but it can hurt other teams.

A simple adjustment that in addition to Non-NTX squads, Mixed NTX squads will not count in FBR AND calculations of their opponents.

Just let me know if this is not going to change and I can stop tennis-posting you. :-)

Maybe one FBR 06AP does it one way and the other FBR 06G AP does it the other.  Either way is fine.

SkeetsG06 wrote: Teams are less likely to do it if it counts.

Maybe we can get CFBAL to also adopt the same rule as PTGL of no player sharing in the same level of play?  Seems easy enough.  Otherwise, top teams will just play PTGL.

I sure hope not. Most parents could care less about FBR and the kids certainly don't. They just want to play. This is academy. There is plenty of time for parents and kids to be tied down to one roster.

SkeetsG06 wrote:If I understand you correctly, the Non-NTX squad would not be included in FBR and the record would not impact any team, correct?

I think that works and I think my suggestion could work as well.  Teams are less likely to do it if it counts.

Maybe we can get CFBAL to also adopt the same rule as PTGL of no player sharing in the same level of play?  Seems easy enough.  Otherwise, top teams will just play PTGL.

I doubt Nicole will implement this rule.  Have you seen how many clubs on the boys side share players in same division, or how many boys play with multiple clubs in academy in same division?   I personally believe iron sharpens iron.  If a team/club brings guest players within the club or outside the club then better for us.

I personally don't care that our FBR ranking will be hurt bc of sharing players. I coach two teams and my focus is to help develop each one of them for when it really matters (U13 - U19).    

Maybe TGPL changes the rule or teams might just play UAL.  I've spoken to a few coaches in TGPL and they really don't care who they play against as long as they are not overage.

FBR06AP wrote:Coach JM, correct me if we are incorrect, but both Selecao and JM will be AP 05 teams and would not be in this AP 06 poll anyways.  

You may need to take this up with the other person, we have no contact with that person.

If there is a Kicks Selecao AP 06 team, then will you leave them out of the rankings?

FBR06AP wrote:Coach JM, correct me if we are incorrect, but both Selecao and JM will be AP 05 teams and would not be in this AP 06 poll anyways.  

You may need to take this up with the other person, we have no contact with that person.

We will have a Kicks Selecao 06 team too.

I've been around too long to know that exchanging posts with coaches on forums is not a good a idea. No disrespect intended...just the opposite...nothing but respect.

FBR AP 06, you have read my POV, fine either way. Peace