2010-11 top U15-18 non-ECNL CT girls clubs

[Unregistered]

2010-2011 top U15-18 non-ECNL CT girls clubs (including non-ECNL CFC branches), based on average regional gotsoccer rankings. If a club did not have a team in a given age group, the team was assigned a ranking of 200 for purposes of calculating the average. Age groups are for 2010-11 playing year. My apologies if I missed a club that should have been included.

1. Yankee - 66 average ranking - club rebuilt after down period a few years ago; 3 high quality teams in U15-U17; average only hurt by lack of U18 team
U15 - 16
U16 - 16
U17 - 30
U18 - no team

2. CFC Arsenal - 89 average ranking - 2 very good teams (U15 and U17) and 2 weaker teams (U16 and U18); variability in strength of teams probably affected by varied impact of CFC United team formation.
U15 - 24
U16 - 171
U17 - 27
U18 - 132

3. Oakwood - 90 average ranking - solid teams throughout
U15 - 69
U16 - 140
U17 - 79
U18 - 72

4. FSA United - 108 average ranking - U15 team's ranking hurt by gotsoccer's failure to include State Cup points; might otherwise have been ranked #2
U15 - 153
U16 - 50
U17 - 159
U18 - 68

5. South Central - 130 average ranking - 2 good teams (U16 and U17); 1 weaker team (U15) and 1 age group without a team (U18).
U15 - 227
U16 - 45
U17 - 54
U18 - no team

6. CFC Wolves - 163 average ranking - 2 decent teams (U15 and U17), but 1 age group with no team (U16) and 1 team with 0 pts (U18); variability in team strength, and existence of teams in particular age groups, probably affected by formation of CFC United teams.
U15 - 103
U16 - no team
U17 - 147
U18 - 0 pts

7. Northeast United - 164 average ranking - 1 very good team (U18), 2 weaker teams (U15 and U17), and 1 team with 0 pts (U16)
U15 - 223
U16 - 279
U17 - 116
U18 - 36

8. Beachside - 167 average ranking - 2 decent teams (U16 and U18), but 2 age groups without teams (U15 and U17).
U15 - no team
U16 - 148
U17 - no team
U18 - 121

[Unregistered]

2010-2011 top U15-18 non-ECNL CT girls clubs (including non-ECNL CFC branches), based on average regional gotsoccer rankings. If a club did not have a team in a given age group, the team was assigned a ranking of 200 for purposes of calculating the average. Age groups are for 2010-11 playing year. My apologies if I missed a club that should have been included.

1. Yankee - 66 average ranking - club rebuilt after down period a few years ago; 3 high quality teams in U15-U17; average only hurt by lack of U18 team
U15 - 16
U16 - 16
U17 - 30
U18 - no team

2. CFC Arsenal - 89 average ranking - 2 very good teams (U15 and U17) and 2 weaker teams (U16 and U18); variability in strength of teams probably affected by varied impact of CFC United team formation.
U15 - 24
U16 - 171
U17 - 27
U18 - 132

3. Oakwood - 90 average ranking - solid teams throughout
U15 - 69
U16 - 140
U17 - 79
U18 - 72

4. FSA United - 108 average ranking - U15 team's ranking hurt by gotsoccer's failure to include State Cup points; might otherwise have been ranked #2
U15 - 153
U16 - 50
U17 - 159
U18 - 68

5. South Central - 130 average ranking - 2 good teams (U16 and U17); 1 weaker team (U15) and 1 age group without a team (U18).
U15 - 227
U16 - 45
U17 - 54
U18 - no team

6. CFC Wolves - 163 average ranking - 2 decent teams (U15 and U17), but 1 age group with no team (U16) and 1 team with 0 pts (U18); variability in team strength, and existence of teams in particular age groups, probably affected by formation of CFC United teams.
U15 - 103
U16 - no team
U17 - 147
U18 - 0 pts

7. Northeast United - 164 average ranking - 1 very good team (U18), 2 weaker teams (U15 and U17), and 1 team with 0 pts (U16)
U15 - 223
U16 - 279
U17 - 116
U18 - 36

8. Beachside - 167 average ranking - 2 decent teams (U16 and U18), but 2 age groups without teams (U15 and U17).
U15 - no team
U16 - 148
U17 - no team
U18 - 121

Interesting and surprised about Yankee. Another month the system will change to 2011-2012

[Unregistered]

Another month the system will change to 2011-2012

True, but the results won't be a real reflection of the new teams until late next spring - eg, if a 2010-11 U14 Wolves or Arsenal team was gutted by players going to the 2011-12 U15 United team, the rankings of the 2011-12 U15 Wolves or Arsenal team wouldn't fully reflect until last next spring when all the U14 results roll off the rankings.

[Unregistered]

True, but the results won't be a real reflection of the new teams until late next spring - eg, if a 2010-11 U14 Wolves or Arsenal team was gutted by players going to the 2011-12 U15 United team, the rankings of the 2011-12 U15 Wolves or Arsenal team wouldn't fully reflect until last next spring when all the U14 results roll off the rankings.

Sorry, meant the gotsoccer "rankings" won't be a real reflection of the new teams until late next spring.

[Unregistered]

True, but the results won't be a real reflection of the new teams until late next spring - eg, if a 2010-11 U14 Wolves or Arsenal team was gutted by players going to the 2011-12 U15 United team, the rankings of the 2011-12 U15 Wolves or Arsenal team wouldn't fully reflect until last next spring when all the U14 results roll off the rankings.

There are only 3 Wolves left from last years U-14 team.

[Unregistered]

There are only 3 Wolves left from last years U-14 team.

I appreciate and applaud the effort but I think the best way to rank the clubs would be to just take league and cup results and that is it. If club X deciding to compete in 8 tourneys and did well they would be the top club. Maybe the standings would be the exact same under my formula as I haven't done the calculations.

Here's what I came up with:

Maybe 100 pts for Cup Champ
75 pts 2nd place
50 pts semi finalist
25 pts 1/4 finalist

For League 100 pts for 1st place in league
75 pts 2nd
50 3rd
25 4th
20 5th
15 6th
10 7th
5 for 8th or worse.

Don't have the time to do the leg work tonight

[Unregistered]

There are only 3 Wolves left from last years U-14 team.

So the U15 Wolves is basically the old Wildcats team with a few additional players? Looks like only about 5 players taken from the U14 Arsenal team for United, so more continuity there.

[Unregistered]

I appreciate and applaud the effort but I think the best way to rank the clubs would be to just take league and cup results and that is it. If club X deciding to compete in 8 tourneys and did well they would be the top club. Maybe the standings would be the exact same under my formula as I haven't done the calculations.

Here's what I came up with:

Maybe 100 pts for Cup Champ
75 pts 2nd place
50 pts semi finalist
25 pts 1/4 finalist

For League 100 pts for 1st place in league
75 pts 2nd
50 3rd
25 4th
20 5th
15 6th
10 7th
5 for 8th or worse.

Don't have the time to do the leg work tonight

You would need to decide how you treat NERP league. Also, not sure why you would ignore tournament results. State Cup is an important tournament, but it is just one tournament. Why ignore all the others? Seems like you are creating your own gotsoccer-like points system. I'm not saying gotsoccer doesn't have errors or issues, but its algorithm has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the years. They give points for league results. In addition, doing well in a lot of tournaments does not keep increasing your points total -- unless you keep playing in tougher tournaments, your points total plateaus -- you can win a tournament and get 0 points.

[Unregistered]

You would need to decide how you treat NERP league. Also, not sure why you would ignore tournament results. State Cup is an important tournament, but it is just one tournament. Why ignore all the others? Seems like you are creating your own gotsoccer-like points system. I'm not saying gotsoccer doesn't have errors or issues, but its algorithm has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the years. They give points for league results. In addition, doing well in a lot of tournaments does not keep increasing your points total -- unless you keep playing in tougher tournaments, your points total plateaus -- you can win a tournament and get 0 points.

Got soccer is a joke. And saying State cup is just 1 tourney is a bigger joke. Got soccer is a scam and is about what else the $$$.

[Unregistered]

There are only 3 Wolves left from last years U-14 team.

Got to be a real downer for the kids who are left. I'd go to another club.

[Unregistered]

Got to be a real downer for the kids who are left. I'd go to another club.

I believe they all had other opportunities and they're happy where they are. The Wildcats had girls from the same towns as 2 of 3 the girls that stayed. 4 moved up to play on the 16s wolves, 1 left for Stars West in MA, 1 moved to Texas, 1 moved on Soccerplus and 8 are on United

[Unregistered]

Got soccer is a joke. And saying State cup is just 1 tourney is a bigger joke. Got soccer is a scam and is about what else the $$$.

Got soccer is the best ranking system we have. The OP did not state that these are the best teams but based it upon the GotSoccer rankings. If a team wants to be considered the best, they have to play the best. The best tournaments are all ranked by Got Soccer.

The problem with rating off the Region 1 leagues is that the games are so early in the spring season. Before the first games, the teams in LI and NJ have been playing outside for 2 mos and the CT and MA teams just started playing outside.

Rating off State Cup is difficult. Upsets happen and how CJSA picks the top seeds is questionable. They need to seed the top 8. Some teams have an easy road to the finals.

Who have they played and who have they beaten, I believe is the best measuring stick. South Central is the top Got Soccer U-14 team in CT but with the exception of the Stars of MA win in March, they haven't won any games against the top 25 teams in the region. In my mind they are behind Oakwood and CFC

[Unregistered]

Got to be a real downer for the kids who are left. I'd go to another club.

That's one of the problems with the CFC model. When United forms at U15, there may not be enough players left to form a team or some of the better remaining girls may decide to leave to other teams rather than stay at the weakened team. Every year or so, one of the constituent teams seems to fold as a result. Good (and probably planned) that CFC had both the Wolves and Wildcats in the U14 age group so they could merge and form 1 viable team. If there had been no U14 Wildcats, there probably would not be a U15 Wolves team next year. I assume that is why there was no U16 Wolves team last year - ie, the Wolves team in that age group didn't survive the departure of players for United at U15. Has happened to Arsenal in the past too. Clearly, and not surprisingly, the U15+ Wolves and Arsenal teams are often not nearly as strong as the U14- teams. Actually pretty impressive that Arsenal had 2 top ranked teams last year (although I seem to recall that last year's U17 team was fortified at U16 with a bunch of players from the old Beachside team in the same age group that collapsed).

[Unregistered]

That's one of the problems with the CFC model. When United forms at U15, there may not be enough players left to form a team or some of the better remaining girls may decide to leave to other teams rather than stay at the weakened team. Every year or so, one of the constituent teams seems to fold as a result. Good (and probably planned) that CFC had both the Wolves and Wildcats in the U14 age group so they could merge and form 1 viable team. If there had been no U14 Wildcats, there probably would not be a U15 Wolves team next year. I assume that is why there was no U16 Wolves team last year - ie, the Wolves team in that age group didn't survive the departure of players for United at U15. Has happened to Arsenal in the past too. Clearly, and not surprisingly, the U15+ Wolves and Arsenal teams are often not nearly as strong as the U14- teams. Actually pretty impressive that Arsenal had 2 top ranked teams last year (although I seem to recall that last year's U17 team was fortified at U16 with a bunch of players from the old Beachside team in the same age group that collapsed).

It isn't easy getting to the top of the pyramid.

[Unregistered]

That's one of the problems with the CFC model. When United forms at U15, there may not be enough players left to form a team or some of the better remaining girls may decide to leave to other teams rather than stay at the weakened team. Every year or so, one of the constituent teams seems to fold as a result. Good (and probably planned) that CFC had both the Wolves and Wildcats in the U14 age group so they could merge and form 1 viable team. If there had been no U14 Wildcats, there probably would not be a U15 Wolves team next year. I assume that is why there was no U16 Wolves team last year - ie, the Wolves team in that age group didn't survive the departure of players for United at U15. Has happened to Arsenal in the past too. Clearly, and not surprisingly, the U15+ Wolves and Arsenal teams are often not nearly as strong as the U14- teams. Actually pretty impressive that Arsenal had 2 top ranked teams last year (although I seem to recall that last year's U17 team was fortified at U16 with a bunch of players from the old Beachside team in the same age group that collapsed).

Not sure if this year was just a 1 time thing but is it possible CFC 12,13,14 wolves age groups will start to drop off with the emergence of Oakwood and FSA getting much better and retaining players they may have lost in the past. FSA beat CFC at u12 and U14 in Cup and CFC 13s losing early on is a complete 180 from what has happened over the past 5-6 years at these ages where CFC has pretty much swept the Cup at these ages.

Going forward CFC United teams will have a stronger makeup of kids from fairfield county where as in the past United teams may have been more Wolves heavy. What is the makeup of 15 United team...wolves vs fairfield based teams?