Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tgaroutte]

Something I made up from the state released CAP scores summarizing the 2009 season.  Presumably these values will be used, at last as a starting point, for placing teams in the 2010 RCL and State (select?) League.  The last 3 columns are an attempt to place the teams for 2010 based on their 2009 performance.  The first column is if they choose to mix the teams based on their actual ability rather than the pedigree of their soccer club (this would be the right thing to do) and the other two columns are what the state league and the RCL might look like if they are kept separate by the state.   

http://fusionfirecpt.com/tim/timsfolder/documents/2010 Leauge Predictions.pdf

As you can see from the colored list it is quite clear that there are many state league teams that are better than many PDL teams, even 2 in the top 10.  Knowing the teams quite well at this age after 8 years playing in it, the CAP system seems legitimate as an overall average indicator of team strength. However, there is not as much span as some would think between the teams.  Our team Fusion Fire CPT is ranked at 44 although we tied #15 Crossfire Coker 1-1 in the state cup, and played even with them.  We have played well against Tier 2 and Tier 3 PDL teams.   Not sure if the CAP program pro-rates games based on when they were played but it would seem like maybe it doesn't, or not enough.  Games played in January don't mean much compared to games played in the state cup as an indicator of current or season end strength.  Your last 5 games should weigh more heavily in your evolving and final cap score.  Where you end up as a team is more important than where you were at the begining of the season.  The CAP system is a great idea by WSYSA in our oppinion and we hope they will use that unbiased system to mix the teams in the RCL based soley on their abilities and that they continue to refine the formula to be as accurate as possible.  Remember not every kid can afford the $ to play for  a PDL club.  A good coach who can put enough of those kids together can create a great team that deserves to play with other great teams.  We applaud them for releasing that memo saying non-RCL club teams will be able to apply for the RCL.  We hope they follow through on that.  Maybe they should just use the CAP list and just assign the teams based on their ability and cap scores.  That just seems so simple and the only fair thing to do.  Why not just do that?

[goldengoal]

seems very confusing if you ask me- I looked on there just for educational purposes and you have some teams that didn't even make it past the Challenge Cup 1st round (Tornadoes and Xfire Coker) who end up ahead of some of the PDL and P1 teams that made it to the semifinals of the Challenge Cup. How the heck did that happen if State Cup matters more? They even ended up higher than teams who did well in the Championship Cup or during their PDL or State league play-

You know what they say- you put trash in you get trash out What is their next model? They going to play quarters at the bar?

[Gremlin]

I dont know why it is confusing to you, when you have a system that is open to manipulation you can acheive any cap sore you want and for any reason.It would be very intresting to see all the cap scores from the begining of the season to the end of league and then after state cup games, of course just the state league teams because the state did not want to post any PDL teams ( Todd Lincoln,Terry fischer) subject to final team placement. It would be great to see this, so we can see what teams gained in cap scores in what teams went down in cap scores to see if it made any sense. Maybe the state could do this since they probally have all the numbers, no wait, we want the correct numbers.It seems its not what your team does so much on the field, in the end it will comes down to who people know  and is open for too much human input.I know the state needs a system for team placement and league movement and some may or may not like the cap system,but remember the old saying. numbers dont lie, until you change them to reach the outcome you want.So much for, its for the kids.And forget about teaching them soccer, but teach them how to work the angles and tell them you didnt really prove it on the field, but dont worry, we will fix it for you.

[NKSoccerFan]

Simplest would be to simply publish the CAP scoring formula for all to see.  Then we can do the math ourselves.  Have never seen a compelling argument for keeping it secret.

[Gremlin]

The compelling reason, you just answered it... Keep it a secret So it can be adjusted anytime they want..

[GotRhythm]

seems very confusing if you ask me- I looked on there just for educational purposes and you have some teams that didn't even make it past the Challenge Cup 1st round (Tornadoes and Xfire Coker) who end up ahead of some of the PDL and P1 teams that made it to the semifinals of the Challenge Cup. How the heck did that happen if State Cup matters more? They even ended up higher than teams who did well in the Championship Cup or during their PDL or State league play-

You know what they say- you put trash in you get trash out What is their next model? They going to play quarters at the bar?

According to the State, Tornadoes and Xfire Coker did "better than expected" in the "Silver"bracket in the Challenge Cup and this is what caused their CAP to go up so much. The Silver bracket was made up of teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Challenge Cup. This is completely unfair to teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Championship Cup because this gave Challenge Cup losers access to more games than Champ Cup losers. In my opinion, the Silver Bracket games shouldn't count toward CAP scores since there is no Silver division in the Champ Cup.

[Front Yard Chickens]

seems very confusing if you ask me- I looked on there just for educational purposes and you have some teams that didn't even make it past the Challenge Cup 1st round (Tornadoes and Xfire Coker) who end up ahead of some of the PDL and P1 teams that made it to the semifinals of the Challenge Cup. How the heck did that happen if State Cup matters more? They even ended up higher than teams who did well in the Championship Cup or during their PDL or State league play-

You know what they say- you put trash in you get trash out What is their next model? They going to play quarters at the bar?

According to the State, Tornadoes and Xfire Coker did "better than expected" in the "Silver"bracket in the Challenge Cup and this is what caused their CAP to go up so much. The Silver bracket was made up of teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Challenge Cup. This is completely unfair to teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Championship Cup because this gave Challenge Cup losers access to more games than Champ Cup losers. In my opinion, the Silver Bracket games shouldn't count toward CAP scores since there is no Silver division in the Champ Cup.


So the Tornadoes who finished league play  with a 2-4-3 record, 5th out of 7 teams,  now has a higher CAP then SSGC Red (2nd place 4-0-5), 3 Rivers Eclispe, & Barefoot who all finished above and/or beat the Tornadoes n league play,  because of their remarkable run in the losers division of the challenge cup... Where one might say they did not  beat a team that would considered in a higher division.  Also, the MVP Marauders with  lower CAP, advanced to the GOLD division from the same group the Tornadoes were in.  Something just doesn't seem right

[Front Yard Chickens]

seems very confusing if you ask me- I looked on there just for educational purposes and you have some teams that didn't even make it past the Challenge Cup 1st round (Tornadoes and Xfire Coker) who end up ahead of some of the PDL and P1 teams that made it to the semifinals of the Challenge Cup. How the heck did that happen if State Cup matters more? They even ended up higher than teams who did well in the Championship Cup or during their PDL or State league play-

You know what they say- you put trash in you get trash out What is their next model? They going to play quarters at the bar?

According to the State, Tornadoes and Xfire Coker did "better than expected" in the "Silver"bracket in the Challenge Cup and this is what caused their CAP to go up so much. The Silver bracket was made up of teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Challenge Cup. This is completely unfair to teams that didn't make it out of bracket in the Championship Cup because this gave Challenge Cup losers access to more games than Champ Cup losers. In my opinion, the Silver Bracket games shouldn't count toward CAP scores since there is no Silver division in the Champ Cup.

So the Tornadoes who finished league play  with a 2-4-3 record, 5th out of 7 teams,  now has a higher CAP then SSGC Red (2nd place 4-0-5), 3 Rivers Eclispe, & Barefoot who all finished above and/or beat the Tornadoes n league play,  because of their remarkable run in the losers division of the challenge cup... Where one might say they did not  beat a team that would considered in a higher division.  Also, the MVP Marauders with  lower CAP, advanced to the GOLD division from the same group the Tornadoes were in.  Something just doesn't seem right

[swimfish]

Okay, okay. Time for the little fishy to set the record straight.

1. At the end of league play Crossfire Coker had a CAP score of 7.57 at the end of state cup it moved up to 7.69. A staggering  0.12 is not exactly a huge movement in the CAP score. For Tornados the move was from 7.15 to 7.33. A whopping +.15 gain. The CAP gain for these teams moved them a total of one to three spots in the overall rankings.

2. The Challenge Cup was not seeded (random draw). You absolutely can not assume that all teams making the gold elimination round were better than those who did not. For example, two of the initial round groups of three consisted of a either PDL Div 2 team or P2 team with two P4 teams. In those groups only one P4 team did not move to the gold elimination group. Both Crossfire and Tornado drew tough groups and failed to make the gold elimination round by only a couple points. For example, Tornados only loss in the Challenge Cup until the final was a 1-0 loss to Eastside White, the eventual Challenge Cup winner - CAP 7.50. Crossfire Coker was undefeated in the initial rounds (three ties).

3. Goldengoal et al, if you want to educate yourself about the CAP system, check out the WSYSA site CAP FAQs. They have been online for quite a while now and are by no means a state secret. Basically, the CAP system rewards goals-wins away so a 4-0 or 7-0 win away against a team that has a close or higher CAP score will move the team up. Close games against similar teams will not move the CAP a lot and losses against lower CAP scores will cost you. Looking only at the overall league record and not referencing who the games were against, where they were played and what the score was ignores the purpose of the CAP system. Tornados and Crossfire Coker played each other three times last season the scores were 2-2, 1-0 (Coker) and 2-3 (Coker). Tornados played Eastside White twice last year 1-1 and 1-0. That the teams ended up within .35 points of each other should surprise no one.   

4. No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

5. Yardchickens: That SSFC Red, Barefoot et al, decided not to play in State Cup is a decision they made knowing full well that it would not help their existing CAP score. The fact that State Cup results would be used in final CAP scores was stated clearly on the WSYSA site for well over six months before state cup. Crossfire Coker and Tornados played by the published rules and earned their CAP scores on the field. As I noted above looking only at the overall league record is not an indicator of relative team strength. Tornados played close games away against then higher ranked 3-Rivers (2-0) and SSFC (1-0) and lost a competitive game to Norpoint at home (2-0). Frankly Crossfire gained many of its CAP points by winning away games against P2 teams by over 3 goals. The Challenge Cup silver elimination process worked as intended. In that it gave teams that had a tough group draw a chance to prove on the field that they were strong teams.

Bottom line doing well in the CAP system is not a secret. Put your team on the field, play well (i.e., beat by 3 goals or more) against higher ranked teams in away games and you will move up. Lose to lower ranked teams at home or take your team off the field and you will move down or stagnate.                       

[Front Yard Chickens]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

[Brat Jr]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Oh great!
Now we'll have sandbaggers in the Chall Cup so they can get a better CAP score <insert eye roll here>

[swimfish]

The CAP system does not care if you play Challenge Cup or Championship Cup, are lucky or unlucky, play PDL or State League, P-1 or P-2, are politically connected or independent. It asks only three questions: 1. Who did you play? 2. Where did you play them?; and, 3.What was the score on the field?

MVP Marauders played Tornados in the group round result was 1-1 tie at home. In this case the CAP system gives a few more tenths of points to Tornados because the stronger team should statistically win at home.

3-Rivers played in a group of 3 consisting a P2 team playing against a P3 team (CAP-5.6) and a PDL Div 3 team (CAP-6.46). They then beat MVP Marauders (2-0) at home and lost their first away game against a strong opponent (CAP-7.35). Looking again at the CAP system beating lower ranked teams at home does not improve your CAP score. Beating or tying higher or equally ranked teams away does. That a team was lucky enough to draw lower ranking teams in group play means they got a pass into the Gold elimination round. It does not mean they deserve a higher CAP score than the teams that drew a tougher group assignment.

Frontyardchickens: For the record, the Tornados lost one game in the group round (1-0) to the eventual champion team Eastside White. Six of the Tornado players took early (5:30 am) Saturday flights from New Orleans where they had spent a vacation week de-molding houses in the 9th ward to play a late afternoon game in Seattle. Four of the players arrived at SEATAC 45 minutes before kickoff. The Tornados played their hearts out but could not pull of the tie need to move into the Gold elimination round. To insinuate that these players sandbagged the game to increase their CAP score by .15 points is just classless and reaches a level of cynicism rarely seen even on this site <insert justified eye roll and open mouthed stare here>.     

           

[GotRhythm]

Okay, okay. Time for the little fishy to set the record straight.

1. At the end of league play Crossfire Coker had a CAP score of 7.57 at the end of state cup it moved up to 7.69. A staggering  0.12 is not exactly a huge movement in the CAP score. For Tornados the move was from 7.15 to 7.33. A whopping +.15 gain. The CAP gain for these teams moved them a total of one to three spots in the overall rankings.

2. The Challenge Cup was not seeded (random draw). You absolutely can not assume that all teams making the gold elimination round were better than those who did not. For example, two of the initial round groups of three consisted of a either PDL Div 2 team or P2 team with two P4 teams. In those groups only one P4 team did not move to the gold elimination group. Both Crossfire and Tornado drew tough groups and failed to make the gold elimination round by only a couple points. For example, Tornados only loss in the Challenge Cup until the final was a 1-0 loss to Eastside White, the eventual Challenge Cup winner - CAP 7.50. Crossfire Coker was undefeated in the initial rounds (three ties).

3. Goldengoal et al, if you want to educate yourself about the CAP system, check out the WSYSA site CAP FAQs. They have been online for quite a while now and are by no means a state secret. Basically, the CAP system rewards goals-wins away so a 4-0 or 7-0 win away against a team that has a close or higher CAP score will move the team up. Close games against similar teams will not move the CAP a lot and losses against lower CAP scores will cost you. Looking only at the overall league record and not referencing who the games were against, where they were played and what the score was ignores the purpose of the CAP system. Tornados and Crossfire Coker played each other three times last season the scores were 2-2, 1-0 (Coker) and 2-3 (Coker). Tornados played Eastside White twice last year 1-1 and 1-0. That the teams ended up within .35 points of each other should surprise no one.   

4. No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

5. Yardchickens: That SSFC Red, Barefoot et al, decided not to play in State Cup is a decision they made knowing full well that it would not help their existing CAP score. The fact that State Cup results would be used in final CAP scores was stated clearly on the WSYSA site for well over six months before state cup. Crossfire Coker and Tornados played by the published rules and earned their CAP scores on the field. As I noted above looking only at the overall league record is not an indicator of relative team strength. Tornados played close games away against then higher ranked 3-Rivers (2-0) and SSFC (1-0) and lost a competitive game to Norpoint at home (2-0). Frankly Crossfire gained many of its CAP points by winning away games against P2 teams by over 3 goals. The Challenge Cup silver elimination process worked as intended. In that it gave teams that had a tough group draw a chance to prove on the field that they were strong teams.

Bottom line doing well in the CAP system is not a secret. Put your team on the field, play well (i.e., beat by 3 goals or more) against higher ranked teams in away games and you will move up. Lose to lower ranked teams at home or take your team off the field and you will move down or stagnate. 

But the teams that played in the Champ Cup that also had a tough draw didn't have that same opportunity (silver elimination process) to prove on the field that they were also strong teams. That gives Challenge Cup teams more opportunity to raise their CAP score, an opportunity that Champ Cup teams are not given.                 

[goldengoal]

Okay, okay. Time for the little fishy to set the record straight.

1. At the end of league play Crossfire Coker had a CAP score of 7.57 at the end of state cup it moved up to 7.69. A staggering  0.12 is not exactly a huge movement in the CAP score. For Tornados the move was from 7.15 to 7.33. A whopping +.15 gain. The CAP gain for these teams moved them a total of one to three spots in the overall rankings.

2. The Challenge Cup was not seeded (random draw). You absolutely can not assume that all teams making the gold elimination round were better than those who did not. For example, two of the initial round groups of three consisted of a either PDL Div 2 team or P2 team with two P4 teams. In those groups only one P4 team did not move to the gold elimination group. Both Crossfire and Tornado drew tough groups and failed to make the gold elimination round by only a couple points. For example, Tornados only loss in the Challenge Cup until the final was a 1-0 loss to Eastside White, the eventual Challenge Cup winner - CAP 7.50. Crossfire Coker was undefeated in the initial rounds (three ties).

3. Goldengoal et al, if you want to educate yourself about the CAP system, check out the WSYSA site CAP FAQs. They have been online for quite a while now and are by no means a state secret. Basically, the CAP system rewards goals-wins away so a 4-0 or 7-0 win away against a team that has a close or higher CAP score will move the team up. Close games against similar teams will not move the CAP a lot and losses against lower CAP scores will cost you. Looking only at the overall league record and not referencing who the games were against, where they were played and what the score was ignores the purpose of the CAP system. Tornados and Crossfire Coker played each other three times last season the scores were 2-2, 1-0 (Coker) and 2-3 (Coker). Tornados played Eastside White twice last year 1-1 and 1-0. That the teams ended up within .35 points of each other should surprise no one.   

4. No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

5. Yardchickens: That SSFC Red, Barefoot et al, decided not to play in State Cup is a decision they made knowing full well that it would not help their existing CAP score. The fact that State Cup results would be used in final CAP scores was stated clearly on the WSYSA site for well over six months before state cup. Crossfire Coker and Tornados played by the published rules and earned their CAP scores on the field. As I noted above looking only at the overall league record is not an indicator of relative team strength. Tornados played close games away against then higher ranked 3-Rivers (2-0) and SSFC (1-0) and lost a competitive game to Norpoint at home (2-0). Frankly Crossfire gained many of its CAP points by winning away games against P2 teams by over 3 goals. The Challenge Cup silver elimination process worked as intended. In that it gave teams that had a tough group draw a chance to prove on the field that they were strong teams.

Bottom line doing well in the CAP system is not a secret. Put your team on the field, play well (i.e., beat by 3 goals or more) against higher ranked teams in away games and you will move up. Lose to lower ranked teams at home or take your team off the field and you will move down or stagnate.                       

Swimfish You cant win this argument for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that teams did not play the same number of games during league play and state cup. By the way, the Tornadoes actually went up much larger than the .15 because the state recalculated the end of season CAP scores. Ironically they were the only team that went up in their CAP score out of all the teams that played in the state league. How is that for a perfect system?
The state gave their CAP score system a BLACK EYE when they decided to 1) recalculate the end of season CAP scores recently 2) when they created the Silver division for state cups 3) when they calculated new CAP scores for teams that did not enter a cup.
The only way to fix it is to go back to the way the end of season ended and not count the state cup games, especially for this age group. It is the only age group that we have had problems with at our association due to the PDL breaking away and then some PDL teams coming back or new teams joining the state league without having to go through LPT’s’.

[GotRhythm]

Okay, okay. Time for the little fishy to set the record straight.

1. At the end of league play Crossfire Coker had a CAP score of 7.57 at the end of state cup it moved up to 7.69. A staggering  0.12 is not exactly a huge movement in the CAP score. For Tornados the move was from 7.15 to 7.33. A whopping +.15 gain. The CAP gain for these teams moved them a total of one to three spots in the overall rankings.

2. The Challenge Cup was not seeded (random draw). You absolutely can not assume that all teams making the gold elimination round were better than those who did not. For example, two of the initial round groups of three consisted of a either PDL Div 2 team or P2 team with two P4 teams. In those groups only one P4 team did not move to the gold elimination group. Both Crossfire and Tornado drew tough groups and failed to make the gold elimination round by only a couple points. For example, Tornados only loss in the Challenge Cup until the final was a 1-0 loss to Eastside White, the eventual Challenge Cup winner - CAP 7.50. Crossfire Coker was undefeated in the initial rounds (three ties).

3. Goldengoal et al, if you want to educate yourself about the CAP system, check out the WSYSA site CAP FAQs. They have been online for quite a while now and are by no means a state secret. Basically, the CAP system rewards goals-wins away so a 4-0 or 7-0 win away against a team that has a close or higher CAP score will move the team up. Close games against similar teams will not move the CAP a lot and losses against lower CAP scores will cost you. Looking only at the overall league record and not referencing who the games were against, where they were played and what the score was ignores the purpose of the CAP system. Tornados and Crossfire Coker played each other three times last season the scores were 2-2, 1-0 (Coker) and 2-3 (Coker). Tornados played Eastside White twice last year 1-1 and 1-0. That the teams ended up within .35 points of each other should surprise no one.   

4. No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

5. Yardchickens: That SSFC Red, Barefoot et al, decided not to play in State Cup is a decision they made knowing full well that it would not help their existing CAP score. The fact that State Cup results would be used in final CAP scores was stated clearly on the WSYSA site for well over six months before state cup. Crossfire Coker and Tornados played by the published rules and earned their CAP scores on the field. As I noted above looking only at the overall league record is not an indicator of relative team strength. Tornados played close games away against then higher ranked 3-Rivers (2-0) and SSFC (1-0) and lost a competitive game to Norpoint at home (2-0). Frankly Crossfire gained many of its CAP points by winning away games against P2 teams by over 3 goals. The Challenge Cup silver elimination process worked as intended. In that it gave teams that had a tough group draw a chance to prove on the field that they were strong teams.

Bottom line doing well in the CAP system is not a secret. Put your team on the field, play well (i.e., beat by 3 goals or more) against higher ranked teams in away games and you will move up. Lose to lower ranked teams at home or take your team off the field and you will move down or stagnate.                       

Swimfish You cant win this argument for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that teams did not play the same number of games during league play and state cup. By the way, the Tornadoes actually went up much larger than the .15 because the state recalculated the end of season CAP scores. Ironically they were the only team that went up in their CAP score out of all the teams that played in the state league. How is that for a perfect system?
The state gave their CAP score system a BLACK EYE when they decided to 1) recalculate the end of season CAP scores recently 2) when they created the Silver division for state cups 3) when they calculated new CAP scores for teams that did not enter a cup.
The only way to fix it is to go back to the way the end of season ended and not count the state cup games, especially for this age group. It is the only age group that we have had problems with at our association due to the PDL breaking away and then some PDL teams coming back or new teams joining the state league without having to go through LPT’s’.

+1

For some reason, the State is trying to sweep this under the carpet. No offense to the Tornado's, Crossfire Coker, or even 3 Rivers Eclipse, but do they really want to be placed where the CAP score system has placed them? Yikes!

[Gremlin]

LPT'S  LPT'S  lets get back to the basics  earn your spot on the field   

[Front Yard Chickens]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

 

[swimfish]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

 

Oops I'm very sorry that was Brat Jr.

[swimfish]

Swimfish You cant win this argument for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that teams did not play the same number of games during league play and state cup. By the way, the Tornadoes actually went up much larger than the .15 because the state recalculated the end of season CAP scores. Ironically they were the only team that went up in their CAP score out of all the teams that played in the state league. How is that for a perfect system?
The state gave their CAP score system a BLACK EYE when they decided to 1) recalculate the end of season CAP scores recently 2) when they created the Silver division for state cups 3) when they calculated new CAP scores for teams that did not enter a cup.
The only way to fix it is to go back to the way the end of season ended and not count the state cup games, especially for this age group. It is the only age group that we have had problems with at our association due to the PDL breaking away and then some PDL teams coming back or new teams joining the state league without having to go through LPT’s’.

[/quote]

I said - No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

LPTs ended several years ago and are not coming back. If you are arguing now that the best way to assign teams is based on the personnel opinions of the PDL/RCL DOCs, then I rest my case.

Look, the Champ and Challenge Cup gold elimination had one purpose, to pick by process of elimination the top teams for the regional cups. Since teams that had no chance of advancing were allowed to participate in either Cup and the groups were assigned by random draw, the Cups are extremely poor methods to determine the relative strengths of all the teams. Is a team that made the (gold) elimination round as the second place team in a weak group of three stronger than a team that placed third in a tough four team division and was eliminated. Really!!

Comparing Cup results and CAP scores is like comparing apples and pineapples. Both include the word apple but the difference should be pretty clear. Moreover, the state cups are the only venue where PDL teams and State league teams actually compete against each other in full length games. As the long published FAQs stated. Under the CAP system all league and state cup games count and there are no throw away games. To disallow actual game results from some teams solely because the were unlucky, finished third in a tough group and will not be going to regionals, while keeping the game results for teams that got lucky and finished second in a weak group of three is not just unfair. It completely defeats the whole purpose of the CAP system which is to determine the relative strengths all teams not just pick the top two. Had X-fire Coker or Tornados lost or tied in regulation time against a lower rated team in silver elimination it would have significantly reduced their CAP scores. That it did not happen is not a valid reason to now disallow the results of actual games played on the field. Seriously!!               

[tripleplay]

Okay, okay. Time for the little fishy to set the record straight.

1. At the end of league play Crossfire Coker had a CAP score of 7.57 at the end of state cup it moved up to 7.69. A staggering  0.12 is not exactly a huge movement in the CAP score. For Tornados the move was from 7.15 to 7.33. A whopping +.15 gain. The CAP gain for these teams moved them a total of one to three spots in the overall rankings.

2. The Challenge Cup was not seeded (random draw). You absolutely can not assume that all teams making the gold elimination round were better than those who did not. For example, two of the initial round groups of three consisted of a either PDL Div 2 team or P2 team with two P4 teams. In those groups only one P4 team did not move to the gold elimination group. Both Crossfire and Tornado drew tough groups and failed to make the gold elimination round by only a couple points. For example, Tornados only loss in the Challenge Cup until the final was a 1-0 loss to Eastside White, the eventual Challenge Cup winner - CAP 7.50. Crossfire Coker was undefeated in the initial rounds (three ties).

3. Goldengoal et al, if you want to educate yourself about the CAP system, check out the WSYSA site CAP FAQs. They have been online for quite a while now and are by no means a state secret. Basically, the CAP system rewards goals-wins away so a 4-0 or 7-0 win away against a team that has a close or higher CAP score will move the team up. Close games against similar teams will not move the CAP a lot and losses against lower CAP scores will cost you. Looking only at the overall league record and not referencing who the games were against, where they were played and what the score was ignores the purpose of the CAP system. Tornados and Crossfire Coker played each other three times last season the scores were 2-2, 1-0 (Coker) and 2-3 (Coker). Tornados played Eastside White twice last year 1-1 and 1-0. That the teams ended up within .35 points of each other should surprise no one.   

4. No ranking system is perfect, treat the CAP scores as a statistical indicator of relative team strength. Not an absolute ranking system!! Teams with CAP scores within .50 points of each other will normally play competitive games (within 2 goals). Nevertheless, the system is based on actual performance on the field rather than by political assignment by DOCs.

5. Yardchickens: That SSFC Red, Barefoot et al, decided not to play in State Cup is a decision they made knowing full well that it would not help their existing CAP score. The fact that State Cup results would be used in final CAP scores was stated clearly on the WSYSA site for well over six months before state cup. Crossfire Coker and Tornados played by the published rules and earned their CAP scores on the field. As I noted above looking only at the overall league record is not an indicator of relative team strength. Tornados played close games away against then higher ranked 3-Rivers (2-0) and SSFC (1-0) and lost a competitive game to Norpoint at home (2-0). Frankly Crossfire gained many of its CAP points by winning away games against P2 teams by over 3 goals. The Challenge Cup silver elimination process worked as intended. In that it gave teams that had a tough group draw a chance to prove on the field that they were strong teams.

Bottom line doing well in the CAP system is not a secret. Put your team on the field, play well (i.e., beat by 3 goals or more) against higher ranked teams in away games and you will move up. Lose to lower ranked teams at home or take your team off the field and you will move down or stagnate.                       

First, the FAQ does not give the detailed algorithm of the calculation. That is, it does not give sufficient information for an objective outsider to duplicate the calculations.
Second, the CAP system is mathematically flawed. The fact that it is does not even approximately relate to regular season results is the best evidence. Since the details of the rating system are secret, one can only speculate as to what the primary source of error is.
Third, do the people behind the CAP system have any experience with rating systems? There are rating systems used in many competitive activities - just google "elo" and that will get you started.

[Brat Jr]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

I didn't say that they did. I said :

Oh great!
Now we'll have sandbaggers in the Chall Cup so they can get a better CAP score <insert eye roll here>

Not that they did sandbag, but if need to get more games, the road to get there is through the losers bracket ( silver bracket ) thus gaining you more points......

[GotRhythm]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

I didn't say that they did. I said :

Oh great!
Now we'll have sandbaggers in the Chall Cup so they can get a better CAP score <insert eye roll here>

Not that they did sandbag, but if need to get more games, the road to get there is through the losers bracket ( silver bracket ) thus gaining you more points......

Halle Frickin Lujah! This is what pushed the Tornadoes, XFire Coker, and 3 Rivers Eclipse's Cap score artificially high.

[Front Yard Chickens]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

I didn't say that they did. I said :

Oh great!
Now we'll have sandbaggers in the Chall Cup so they can get a better CAP score <insert eye roll here>

Not that they did sandbag, but if need to get more games, the road to get there is through the losers bracket ( silver bracket ) thus gaining you more points......

Halle Frickin Lujah! This is what pushed the Tornadoes, XFire Coker, and 3 Rivers Eclipse's Cap score artificially high.

Well actually 3-rivers eclipse advanced to the Gold round and won their first round game.  They were brought into the conversation as having beat the tornadoes in league play 2-1 , finished ahead of the tornadoes in league play, advanced to the gold round of challenge cup, won a gold round game.  But was assigned a lower cap than the tornadoes.

[Front Yard Chickens]

  So under CAP scoring  would 3 Rivers Eclipse and MVP Marauders Navy  been better off not advancing to the Gold division and taking their chances at winning more games in the Silver division?

Swimfish,   how does this question lead you to believe i'm insinuating the Tornadoes sandbagged? 

I didn't say that they did. I said :

Oh great!
Now we'll have sandbaggers in the Chall Cup so they can get a better CAP score <insert eye roll here>

Not that they did sandbag, but if need to get more games, the road to get there is through the losers bracket ( silver bracket ) thus gaining you more points......

Halle Frickin Lujah! This is what pushed the Tornadoes, XFire Coker, and 3 Rivers Eclipse's Cap score artificially high.

Well actually 3-rivers eclipse advanced to the Gold round and won their first round game.  They were brought into the conversation as having beat the tornadoes in league play 2-1 , finished ahead of the tornadoes in league play, advanced to the gold round of challenge cup, won a gold round game.  But was assigned a lower cap than the tornadoes.

Which brings us back to...under the CAP system were teams punished for advancing and rewarded for not?

[swimfish]

Halle Frickin Lujah! This is what pushed the Tornadoes, XFire Coker, and 3 Rivers Eclipse's Cap score artificially high.
[/quote]
Well actually 3-rivers eclipse advanced to the Gold round and won their first round game.  They were brought into the conversation as having beat the tornadoes in league play 2-1 , finished ahead of the tornadoes in league play, advanced to the gold round of challenge cup, won a gold round game.  But was assigned a lower cap than the tornadoes.
[/quote]

Okay, we must let go of the notion (opinion) that advancement in the Cups is in any way related to the relative strengths of the teams. 3-Rivers is a perfect case in point. The team's CAP score is based in part on their record in away games. Last year after league play they had a 1-3-0 record in away games. Their one away win was a 3-2 game against SH Revolution the lowest rated team in the P2 division. After State Cup play their away game record improved to 2-3-1. Their additional win came in a 5-1 game against LH United a lower rated P3 team. In order to improve your CAP score you need to win against higher ranked teams in away games. In that regard their record is 0-2-0 (two ties). This is not a record that will move up the CAP scale. Basically 3-Rivers would have had a lower CAP score than Tornados and Coker even if those teams had never participated in State Cup. For example, one reason Coker moved up the CAP scale was its league play 5-0 defeat of 3-Rivers in the Tri-Cities.  

More to my point, 3-Rivers drew a three team Challenge Cup group that consisted of a P2 team, a low ranked P3 team and a middle ranked PDL-Div 3 team. To not advance (make Gold elimination) in a group of three would have required them to lose both their group play games against lower rated teams. In contrast Coker finished a close third in a four team group with a high rated PDL-Div 2 team, a P1A team, and a P3 team. Tornados finished a close third in a group consisting of a PDL-Div 2 team (eventual winner) and three P2 teams. To equate 3-Rivers advancement to the Gold round with being a stronger team just plain defies reason. What the CAP scores indicate is that had Tornados or Coker gotten the same draw the results would have been about the same (statistically speaking).

While the exact formula is not on line, the CAP scores are for the most part consistent with the team records when away games and relative strength of competition is taken into account.                    

[tripleplay]

Okay, we must let go of the notion (opinion) that advancement in the Cups is in any way related to the relative strengths of the teams. 3-Rivers is a perfect case in point. The team's CAP score is based in part on their record in away games.

Enough said. Advancement in the cups is is statistically related to the relative strengths of the teams. The fact that the CAP system does not generally track advancement is evidence that the CAP is not an accurate gauge of team strength.

Of course, the poster refuses to say exactly what CAP measures. Probably he just doesn't know, which is sad.

[Front Yard Chickens]

Quote:
 "Okay, we must let go of the notion (opinion) that advancement in the Cups is in any way related to the relative strengths of the teams. 3-Rivers is a perfect case in point. The team's CAP score is based in part on their record in away games. Last year after league play they had a 1-3-0 record in away games. Their one away win was a 3-2 game against SH Revolution the lowest rated team in the P2 division."


You have the records wrong swimfish.  According to the State site 3 rivers was 1-0-3 in away games.  The tornadoes were 1-2-1 they too only beat Sh Revolution away from home.  So we have shown that 3 rivers had a better league record, (3rivers 3-1-5,Tornadoes 2-4-3) better away record(3 rivers, 1-0-3, Tornadoes, 1-2-1), and beat the Tornadoes head-to-head 2-1. Ann beat the Marauders you advanced out of the Tornadoes group.  But yet 3 rivers has a lower CAP.  Explain the fairness again please.

Quote:
"More to my point, 3-Rivers drew a three team Challenge Cup group that consisted of a P2 team, a low ranked P3 team and a middle ranked PDL-Div 3 team. To not advance (make Gold elimination) in a group of three would have required them to lose both their group play games against lower rated teams. In contrast Coker finished a close third in a four team group with a high rated PDL-Div 2 team, a P1A team, and a P3 team. Tornados finished a close third in a group consisting of a PDL-Div 2 team (eventual winner) and three P2 teams. To equate 3-Rivers advancement to the Gold round with being a stronger team just plain defies reason. What the CAP scores indicate is that had Tornados or Coker gotten the same draw the results would have been about the same (statistically speaking)."


So then under the CAP system, during State/Challenge Cup this year, one could  say LUCK played an important role in your final score. All depens on the draw

[swimfish]

-- You have the records wrong swimfish.  According to the State site 3 rivers was 1-0-3 in away games.  The tornadoes were 1-2-1 they too only beat Sh Revolution away from home.  So we have shown that 3 rivers had a better league record, (3rivers 3-1-5,Tornadoes 2-4-3) better away record(3 rivers, 1-0-3, Tornadoes, 1-2-1), and beat the Tornadoes head-to-head 2-1. Ann beat the Marauders you advanced out of the Tornadoes group.  But yet 3 rivers has a lower CAP.  Explain the fairness again please. --

We are using the same numbers I just put the ties in the middle 1-3-0 is the same as 1-0-3. The CAP score is not just based won-tie-loss in away games, it also looks at the record of those teams that you played on the road. If Tornados lost on the road to higher ranked or equally ranked teams they would not lose many CAP points. Its a little like the USAFE Cup, goals scored in away games are worth more than goals scored in home games. In the CAP system I think the bonus is about 10 percent for away game goals against higher ranked teams. 3-Rivers beat Tornados 2-1 at home. The game had little effect on the relative CAP scores of the teams because it was a home game win for 3-Rivers (i.e., the result was as expected from these relatively equal strength teams). Had 3-Rivers played to the same result in Seattle it would have resulted in a move up in the CAP score for 3-Rivers but that game was not scheduled.

If I had to guess I would say that the relatively small (.24) difference between Tornados and 3-Rivers had more to do with the team's relative results against the higher ranked Coker team. Tornados tied Coker in Redmond but scored some goals (2-2). At home Tornados lost to Coker 1-0 but 3-Rivers lost 5-0 at home to same team. The 1-0 loss at home against a higher ranked team would have had a small effect on both team's CAP scores (it was the expected outcome) but 3-Rivers 5-0 home loss to the same team would have significantly helped Coker and hurt 3-Rivers.

To move up under the CAP system a team must beat expectations that means winning away games against higher ranked teams. Teams lose points under the CAP system when they don't meet expectations, i.e., lose big at home against teams that are somewhat close in the CAP ratings. It is not the same as league scores or state cup elimination rounds and it was never meant to be.

[swimfish]

Enough said. Advancement in the cups is is statistically related to the relative strengths of the teams. The fact that the CAP system does not generally track advancement is evidence that the CAP is not an accurate gauge of team strength.

Of course, the poster refuses to say exactly what CAP measures. Probably he just doesn't know, which is sad.
[/quote]

Okay lets have a little experiment. I don't know the exact formula that FIFA uses to rank teams and therefore I'll "refuse to disclose" them. I do know that they are based on the relative strengths of the teams and take into account away vs home games with a bonus given to wins away. Now lets run a little elimination tournament using the state random draw with no seeding. Only the top two teams advance. My teams:

Group D: Brazil (1611), Germany (1082), Argentina (1076), and the Netherlands (1231) - Results of first round standings have all games finish as expected except Germany beats the Netherlands 1-0 and advances to the elimination round on points  - The eliminated teams are the Netherlands and Argentina.   

Group E: Sweden (761), Honduras (734) and Scotland (699) - Results are also as expected, except Scotland ties Honduras and moves forward on goal differential. Eliminated team Honduras.

Under your theory that advancement in a cup is statistically related to relative team strengths, both Scotland and Sweden are stronger teams than the Netherlands and Argentina because they advanced to the elimination rounds.

Under my theory that FIFA rankings (like CAP scores) are based on relative team strengths and that randomly drawn elimination tournaments are poor predictors of relative team strengths, I believe that the Netherlands and Argentina are still stronger teams than either Sweden or Scotland. Care to take bets on the Netherlands v Scotland game. I'll even spot you a goal and we can play in Glasgow.           

[goldengoal]

swimfish,

you are drowning my friend- I suggest you stop while you are ahead. If you go back to the points I made they can not be argued no matter what. By the way, this is not FIFA. Man you are starting to sound like Todd Lincoln at the State- no matter how wrong he is there is always an excuse or an anomaly as to why this or that. Lets just move on and hope the state corrects their mistake otherwise they are cheating all the players and the clubs who pay their wages. People need to leave their ego and stop being so proud of their system that when someone discovers a flaw they argue instead of fixing it. they forget who their customer is