Last week felt like more of a routine week when compared with the previous week. Greenville may have a legitimate complaint to that comment, given that they played two of the top four teams in the league in a four day span. Toronto FC II are probably also glad that what has become their routine of playing two matches each week will disappear this week. Below are the updated ratings:
| Rank | Team | Rating |
| 1 | Union Omaha (6-3-1) | 2.332 |
| 2 | Chattanooga Red Wolves (5-2-1) | 1.513 |
| 3 | Greenville Triumph (5-3-2) | 1.189 |
| 4 | Forward Madison (3-4-2) | 0.994 |
| 5 | New England Revolution II (4-1-4) | 0.492 |
| 6 | Richmond Kickers (3-3-4) | 0.280 |
| 7 | Toronto FC II (3-4-4) | 0.139 |
| 8 | Fort Lauderdale CF (5-2-6) | -0.122 |
| 9 | FC Tucson (2-3-4) | -0.131 |
| 10 | North Texas SC (3-2-4) | -0.160 |
| 11 | South Georgia Tormenta (5-0-7) | -0.667 |
| 12 | North Carolina FC (1-1-6) | -1.390 |
| Rank Δ | Team | Result(s) | Change |
| 8 → 5 | New England | W 3-0 v. NTX | 🔼 0.459 |
| 12 ↔ | North Carolina | W 2-1 v. RIC | 🔼 0.369 |
| 4 ↔ | Madison | D 2-2 @ GVL | 🔼 0.277 |
| 10 → 8 | Fort Lauderdale | W 2-1 v. TFC | 🔼 0.204 |
| 2 ↔ | Chattanooga | D 1-1 v. GVL | 🔼 0.156 |
| 3 ↔ | Greenville | D 2-2 v. MAD D 1-1 @ CRW | 🔼 0.155 |
| 1↔ | Omaha | W 1-0 v. TUC | 🔽 0.081 |
| 9 ↔ | Tucson | L 0-1 @ OMA | 🔽 0.095 |
| 6 → 7 | Toronto | W 3-1 v. TRM L 2-1 @ FTL | 🔽 0.161 |
| 11 ↔ | Tormenta | L 1-3 @ TFC | 🔽 0.286 |
| 5 → 6 | Richmond | L 1-2 @ NCFC | 🔽 0.352 |
| 7 → 10 | North Texas | L 0-3 @ NE | 🔽 0.403 |
Some immediate takeaways I noticed once creating this table:
- You notice a nice, expected inverse of matchups at the top and bottom of the list. New England and North Texas had the best and worse movements over the week, followed by North Carolina and Richmond. Then things get messy due to the irregular schedule.
- Greenville moved up less than Madison and Chattanooga (though Chattanooga’s advantage is practically a rounding one only), even though they drew both sides. Madison’s higher rating bump makes sense because their match was in Greenville, but Chattanooga likely merely treaded water with Greenville because of Greenville’s earlier draw, and also because this run of form of theirs has lowered their rating to the point that these results are starting to become the norm.
- Omaha and Tucson both saw similar movement, a slight decline in their rating. It’s fair to say that Union Omaha’s run on the road has been so good that a 1 goal victory at home to a below average team is going to be a detriment.
I also believe we’re going to see this constantly shuffling of positions in this large middle we currently have in the table, at least for a while. If North Carolina FC are actually turning a corner, then we might start seeing a more noticeable bottom tier (though Tormenta may give them a little assistance on that front). The same might be said at the top, as all three of last week’s top four teams trailing Union Omaha cut into their deficits.
While Union Omaha can’t be caught in the actual League One table this upcoming week by Chattanooga, it’s quite possible that they could be caught in the ratings with a loss. There would be no shame in losing to this Chattanooga team, but all loses at home hurt. This match, and New England-Greenville on Sunday are the matches that have the most potential to really shuffle the ratings around. Next week’s update should be very interesting (which means it probably won’t be).
Hey sorry if I’m missing it, but I’m curious as to the methodology behind generating a team’s Rating? What factors are considered and how is the number generated? Is it totally a product of their W-D-L?
Thanks!
LikeLike
My methodology is kind of a hybrid of an RPI rating (using winning percentages and strength of schedules) and the old school FIFA Elo model (where I incorporate a goal difference variable along with home field advantage). I explain my methodology in an earlier article, linked here: https://wgahmedia.com/2021/04/06/adapt-and-move-on-a-new-rating-system-for-2021/
LikeLike