points from Gotsoccer

[Unregistered]

Can anybody explain? Not complaining, but am curious -
U-18 points (approximate)for girls MPS Elite bracket winners
Stars - 1300 points
Scorpions - 1200
Aztec - 600
Berskhire - 80 points

It seems a bit odd, are these parameters set before the games, or are points alloted according to notoriety of team?
Can anybody clarify?
Thanks

[Unregistered]

Points are decided before a tournament

[Unregistered]

Point values are based on rank of teams in the groups.

[Unregistered]

If you look at the full team rankings page, there will be some explanation for points. Example: beating a team ranked 200 pts or higher is worth x amount . Beating a SC champ or finalist is worth x pts. However, that being said, its not consistant.

[Unregistered]

Can anybody explain? Not complaining, but am curious -
U-18 points (approximate)for girls MPS Elite bracket winners
Stars - 1300 points
Scorpions - 1200
Aztec - 600
Berskhire - 80 points

It seems a bit odd, are these parameters set before the games, or are points alloted according to notoriety of team?
Can anybody clarify?
Thanks

First of all the teams in the bracket bring the points to it. That will give it the maximum number of points available. Of course if the bracket has high ranking teams, there will be a lot points. The champions get the maximum # of points minus 20% of their current points, the finalists get 50% of the points after their 20% deduction, and the semifinalists get 25% of the points after their 20% deduction.

[Unregistered]

First of all the teams in the bracket bring the points to it. That will give it the maximum number of points available. Of course if the bracket has high ranking teams, there will be a lot points. The champions get the maximum # of points minus 20% of their current points, the finalists get 50% of the points after their 20% deduction, and the semifinalists get 25% of the points after their 20% deduction.

The crucial part of this is that the 'maximum' number of points is the average of the top 5 point totals entered into the tournament. In addition, teams will earn 10% of the points of a team that they beat if their pre-tournament point total is greater by 200+ points.

On the onset it is setup nicely to reflect the level of competition in the bracket and the ability of lower ranked teams to earn points by beating higher ranked ones. However, ranking is determined by the pre tournament point total. A team can earn many points playing in smaller tournaments. The big issue that has happened in the past is when their is a computer mistake....by a decimal point. A team that should have earned 100 points then gets 1000 points and brings that to their next tournament, thereby artificially elevating the 'maximum' points in that next tournament.

[Unregistered]

The crucial part of this is that the 'maximum' number of points is the average of the top 5 point totals entered into the tournament. In addition, teams will earn 10% of the points of a team that they beat if their pre-tournament point total is greater by 200+ points.

On the onset it is setup nicely to reflect the level of competition in the bracket and the ability of lower ranked teams to earn points by beating higher ranked ones. However, ranking is determined by the pre tournament point total. A team can earn many points playing in smaller tournaments. The big issue that has happened in the past is when their is a computer mistake....by a decimal point. A team that should have earned 100 points then gets 1000 points and brings that to their next tournament, thereby artificially elevating the 'maximum' points in that next tournament.

Correction about a team earning many points by playing in small tournaments: this is prevented by the step of subtracting 20% of a team's points contribution. You can see teams that have won tournaments, but received 0 additional points for doing so. It does seem to happen that there are data mistakes. One fix that should be considered is league play. A league like New England premiership includes clubs from 4-5 states, but any points earned count only to the team's state ranking, not regional or national. At the same time, the region I leagues involve similar geographic scope, but the points earned accrue to all rankings (state, regional and national). Gotsoccer should fix this.

[Unregistered]

If you look at the full team rankings page, there will be some explanation for points. Example: beating a team ranked 200 pts or higher is worth x amount . Beating a SC champ or finalist is worth x pts. However, that being said, its not consistant.

Disagree, it looks pretty consistent. Scorpions' group was worth 2600 points. Scorpions' potential points, because of how many they contributed to the group value, was 1000 less, or 1600 points. Because they won, they get all of those potential points, well, pro-rated down to 3/4 of them because of winning a 4-team group (normally, group value is based on the top 5 teams).
For Stars, their group was worth 2300. Stars' potential points were 500 less (not as much of a deduction as Scorpions because Stars didn't contribute to their group as much as Scorpions), or 1800. They got all of them, after the 3/4 pro-ration.
One possible mistake is that Scorpions are labeled Champion and Stars as Finalist, but it looks like this is just a labeling mistake, not a mistake in crediting the points.

[Unregistered]

Disagree, it looks pretty consistent. Scorpions' group was worth 2600 points. Scorpions' potential points, because of how many they contributed to the group value, was 1000 less, or 1600 points. Because they won, they get all of those potential points, well, pro-rated down to 3/4 of them because of winning a 4-team group (normally, group value is based on the top 5 teams).
For Stars, their group was worth 2300. Stars' potential points were 500 less (not as much of a deduction as Scorpions because Stars didn't contribute to their group as much as Scorpions), or 1800. They got all of them, after the 3/4 pro-ration.
One possible mistake is that Scorpions are labeled Champion and Stars as Finalist, but it looks like this is just a labeling mistake, not a mistake in crediting the points.

It is very consistent (unless they make a mistake - which happens too frequently). Some people have a hard time working through the math.

The problems with the system is in the rules not in the implementation.

[Unregistered]

Can anybody explain? Not complaining, but am curious -
U-18 points (approximate)for girls MPS Elite bracket winners
Stars - 1300 points
Scorpions - 1200
Aztec - 600
Berskhire - 80 points

It seems a bit odd, are these parameters set before the games, or are points alloted according to notoriety of team?
Can anybody clarify?
Thanks

Gotsoccer? Who cares...... their point totals are of no value.

[Unregistered]

Gotsoccer? Who cares...... their point totals are of no value.

Brought to you by scorpions or stars because they can't win any ECNL event to get points.

[Unregistered]

Brought to you by scorpions or stars because they can't win any ECNL event to get points.

Brought to you by one of those people I spoke of earlier who doesn't understand how the math of gotsoccer works.

[Unregistered]

Gotsoccer? Who cares...... their point totals are of no value.

They are of some value, but not the be-all and end-all. The problem people seem to have is the same one they have with any ranking, that it necessarily means a higher-ranked team is better than or will win over a lower-ranked one. Don't use it that way, use it as a general indicator. Also, use the information it captures about who a team has played. Example 1: a team seems over-ranked, but you look at their record and all their points came from doing surprisingly well in one tournament. Any of us can imagine what might cause that, but we should regard that team differently than one that has collected points steadily from more events. Example 2: Two teams that differ in points by 1000 or 2000, but have faced each other multiple times in the past year and both teams have as many wins vs the other. You would regard these teams as equal, even though one is ranked higher.

Despite weaknesses, to say it's of no value is misinformed. It is definitely better than concluding that one competition, like winner of state cup or MAPLE or New England Premiership, determines all. What system do you prefer if you don't like gotsoccer points?

[Unregistered]

They are of some value, but not the be-all and end-all. The problem people seem to have is the same one they have with any ranking, that it necessarily means a higher-ranked team is better than or will win over a lower-ranked one. Don't use it that way, use it as a general indicator. Also, use the information it captures about who a team has played. Example 1: a team seems over-ranked, but you look at their record and all their points came from doing surprisingly well in one tournament. Any of us can imagine what might cause that, but we should regard that team differently than one that has collected points steadily from more events. Example 2: Two teams that differ in points by 1000 or 2000, but have faced each other multiple times in the past year and both teams have as many wins vs the other. You would regard these teams as equal, even though one is ranked higher.

Despite weaknesses, to say it's of no value is misinformed. It is definitely better than concluding that one competition, like winner of state cup or MAPLE or New England Premiership, determines all. What system do you prefer if you don't like gotsoccer points?

GOTSTARS points.

[Unregistered]

value

The Gotsoccer points are a tremendous value. While I won't suggest that they mean one team is better than the other, they play an important role for tournament organizers to place teams in brackets and for the 'soccer-CV'. Stating that you start for the 20th ranked team in the country looks a lot better than starting for 200th ranked team. As ridiculous as many want to claim this system is, it certainly has a role.

For the DAP teams it does not matter, as they are being viewed by college and national team coaches on a different level.

If your club does not participate in tournaments then that is their option, but don't be upset when there is less interest in the players.

As for judging teams based on Gotsoccer points, I would submit that the top 50 teams are, overall, better than the middle 50 in any age group.