Agree that with the recent expansion, NL has become a watered down. But at least the teams that play in it have some qualification process. ECNL has no such qualification. Each ECNL club fields a team in each age group regardless of quality or track record. ECNL has a champions league and a 2nd tier North American league. ECNL is also watered down and includes teams that couldn't compete even in the watered down NL. Tophat was a mid level NL team, yet won their ECNL conference the first year in the league. I'm sure a few players changed, joined etc. -- but doubt it changes the point much. What will be left of USYSA leagues AND ECNL with the new DA? Also, your interesting story shows that ECNL had nothing to do with the bulk of player development. ECNL was trying to mainly be a talent aggregator for the college coaches and probably YNT scouts. In some regions they might have been more successful, but certainly not in others. DA is essentially the same concept but seems to be trying to be more inclusive. However, the most critical, key coaches are the excellent development coaches in U8-U13 age groups. That's the foundation. Yet I wonder whether they ever get any credit, other than from the kid and parents, for the success of a player.
Thanks you Glove Stinks, for (as you say) "stepping up" to exemplify the basic point that I am making. You are in good company. You made choices that you viewed to be in your (daughter's) best interest. Your story also supports the point that the ECNL is a business model that in the finest American entrepreneurial tradition has sprung up to satisfy a market -- in this case serving the interests of a certain class of parents and kids who see soccer as a avenue to getting into a college to meet soccer and other objectives by arranging to bring in hordes of college recruiters to see ECNL events. I don't think that anyone can deny that the ECNL has been very successful in achieving this objective and in being a profitable business. Your story indicates that it has also served your objectives well. Having said this, however, let us remember that this recent turn of discussion was in response to the many posters who are wringing their hands and lamenting the apparent fact that the rest of the world seems to be rapidly catching up and surpassing the US in girls'/women's soccer as exemplified by the recent several cycles of U17 and U20 world cup competitions. The results of these competitions seems to clearly show that the US teams are not the "winners" we expect them to be and this is very hurtful to our national view of our selves as "winners." No wonder we are wringing our hands and looking for a solution. The "possession" game seems to be the apparent proposed solution. Notwithstanding that "possession" soccer may or may not be the simplistic solution to getting our female teams back to being dominant winners on the international stage, the second issue I have been trying to communicate is that the ECNL is not responsible for any specific type of training or soccer development. That is not their reason for being nor their focus for being a successful business. My point here is that when we look in the mirror, we see that it is the parents who want what is individually best for their child which does not necessarily mean training them as Barca does starting with 8 year olds in their academy to learn possession soccer. What parents want for their kid is to be successful and happy --which in our culture means achieving enough "winning" along the way and getting noticed by college scouts so as to make the next step toward future success and happiness. Parents are not thinking about helping out the future prospects for our national women's soccer teams by sending their 8 year old kids to soccer environments which may spend years stressing basic skills and soccer IQ building over winning and moving up. So it's not the ECNL's fault that its alumna who are now the vast majority of the U17 and U20 teams are doing so poorly internationally. Not their job! Nor should it be therefore assumed that because the US full national team which is mostly populated with players who predated the ECNL and is doing very well internationally (still ranked #1 by FIFA) means that the prior system was better than ECNL. Not relevant. One can hope that the new girls development academy will take on this task of focused training and coaching to achieve the national goal of maintaining a strong international position in the women's game. They may have to do it with many of the strongest players opting for ECNL instead for the reasons listed above, but at least they have taken the step to claim development as their overriding function.
here's a couple examples I have come across. I know more kids but I don't remember their names or they don't have videos. I picked up most of these kids watching showcase games before, during, or after my kids' and they caught my eye. So there are a lot more out there. Some are older videos, but you get the point. here's a younger version full game u13 championships solar chelsea plays nice soccer Google Deanza Force. They play a sophisticated style really wish these guys were in charge. They are like the Kleibans for boys soccer. here's a sample of what's out there:
LOVED the Deanza highlight video, some of those plays were a huge step up from what I've seen. Super encouraging, thanks!
Interesting perspective. But somehow I think something fundamental is being lost about parenting and teaching. And I thought of the Michael Lewis book "Coach". As a parent, I'll take my chances with Coach Fitz. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/magazine/coach-fitz-s-management-theory.html?_r=0
This is a good general summary and defense of the "have your cake and eat it to" point but NOT what you hear from the ecnl folks when they brag about their successes. The difference in purpose between Development and Showcasing talented players in the ecnl "platform" is VERY blurred and quit purposefully I think. They promote the USNT successes of their players just like the college scholarship dollars. Why is there a Player ID tab on the website? Don't you think it's curious to say you are showcasing the best talent in the US from the best clubs in the US for college coaches (and NT scouts) and then not take any responsibility when your alumni can't beat Korea or Japan and get outplayed by Mexico? "Must be the US Coaching!?" If the US had won that U-20 World Cup, do you think the ecnl would have done another credit-claiming press release like this one: http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague...presented-on-the-u20-womens-world-cup-roster/ I think this is why the Girls DA had to go their own way. The ECNL is now about prestige and power and money. They want to keep control of the calendar and the revenue. Keep taking money from families by convincing them they can earn some of it back through the college coaches coming to their events with a scholarship budget. Of course that's very true and they've gotten good at it. No one questions their business model works for them. But then when someone says something about 'Developing US players', and why isn't the ECNL doing this or that, they claim that's not their mission (as Soccerhunter summarized). The "Player ID" tab is staying on the website because its marketing. They need parents to think they will always be a 'full service' league that is important to US Soccer and you'll get scouted here too. I wonder if US Soccer will scout those events as much when the DA starts. I've made this point here before. Everyone says there should be a mandate and that we should all be on the same page doing soccer development the 'right way' with kids. Then when someone actually tries it, everyone cries foul and wants to do it their own self-serving way. Maybe in the pluralistic capitalistic US, we never will agree because agreement in youth soccer means 'conceding' or losing to the other guy. If we could get out of our own way in the US, we would have the dominate US program we all expect. (The college ID stuff will always take care of itself. College coaches are scavengers and will always figure out where the players are). Until then, the Semifinal and 4th place in the Youth World Cups is where we deserve to be, and were lucky to be in that U2o event.
I would like to point out that (at least in the case of my daughter) the quality, pace, and competition at ECNL was miles beyond any club they faced in NPL. SUrf Cup often had combinations of teams from both leagues and I can't remember ever a non ECNL team winning above U15. Point I am making is everyone is quick to point the finger at ECNL when the development at non ECNL clubs is worse. As I pointed out in my previous post, position specific training at my kids ECNL club was not great, but the quality of the player and the pace of the game was way better. Yes the ECNL is a marketing machine. But it brings the best players in an Area together (at U16 there were 120 kids that tried out for 18 spots). College coaches know this and it makes their jobs much easier. You bring up the point that ECNL wants to be a "full service" league....well guess what? So do the players and their families and its working
Where comes this idea that ECNL graduates should just steamroll competitors from Japan, Mexico and Europe? Japan has taken soccer seriously for a long time; their women, at all levels, have been good for quite a long time, have they not? They were second in the last senior women's WC and won it the time before. In 8 senior women's WC's, we've won it 3 times, came 2nd once and 3rd three times--have never been worse than third. That is a pretty damn good record. Last I checked, soccer was very competitive all over the world. In U20, there likewise have been 8 World Cups and we've won three. Germany has also won it 3 times, and North Korea has won it twice. That's a pretty good record. North Korea has been good at the U20 level for years; Germany of course takes its soccer very seriously. We were not so good in this last U20 WC but the Japanese team we lost to had played together for a long time, I heard, as did the title-winning North Koreans. I've got news: We're not going to win every WC at every level, and anyone who thinks we are is delusional and thinks like a conservative Republican: American exceptionalism! Should we keep promoting development? Of course. The ECNL promotes development--but it is a private operation and naturally not as systematic as in other countries. That, I surmise, is why the U.S. DA has been started. We'll see how it does; I read that several clubs that originally signed up have dropped out. In any case, I don't get all this hand-wringing because we don't win every WC. If we did, the tournaments would be boring. Sports is all about tough comp--that's what makes tournaments exciting.
What might be true in your area is not generally true. Especially about aggregating the best players. You are excluding a huge group of teams that are non ECNL in USYS .... including National League. Many of those teams are equally as good as the top 10 ECNL Champions League teams. You lose credibility if you defend ECNL without acknowledging those facts. Surf Cup is held when the best non USYS teams are playing NL and there are many that would not travel that far for a showcase anyway.
Sorry no they are generally not. One or two teams might be competitive in the ECNL, but they are not generally of the level any more. Some of the National league teams are really bad. Few are really good anymore. Yes some ECNL teams are also not very good, but a higher percentage are competitive. Expanding, aka watering down, the national league this year was a bad idea. Look at some of the scores. Last year the games were generally better with fewer teams "earning their place". The top college coaches most likely will back away because they can't be assured adequate competition against which to judge a player. It becomes a matter of budget and value for them. i like the model, but the arrogance in USYSA did them in.
Can't comment about this year post expansion, but the previous 4 years I can say that at least half the NL teams were as good as the top ECNL teams. My kid dual rostered on a NL team and a top ECNL team. There are way more than "some" ECNL teams that are not very good, which is more true in some conferences than others. I do agree that the arrogance of USYSA is the reason ECNL got off the ground and ECNL did many things well and better than USYS had done. But there are or at least were many good players and teams not in ECNL. I think it was a mistake for USYS to expand NL. But in a similar way,, I don't see the point of having a North American "league" national championship basically of mid to bottom tier ECNL teams. Was it basically a means for those lesser teams to feel good about themselves or meant to be just another showcase opportunity? It probably doesn't mater much going forward because as AH says, college coaches are likely to focus on GDA.
I respect your opinion and agree there are decent teams outside ECNL, but coming from a large market Soccer Community, I can honestly say there might be 1 or 2 clubs that can beat an ECNL side or even compete. Im pretty comfortable making the same statement in most other areas. That being said, the top USYS teams (4 or 5 of them) would be competitive with te top ECNL
Dude there are 3 ECNL b teams in the NL age group my kid is playing - nothing else needs to be said. Recent tournament activity again shows the average ECNL teams generally handily beating the NL teams. Legends is a great club and will be out next year as a DA team. Otherwise the NL has declined dramatically and next year legends DA and the Nebraska club, Cincinnati club and other quality clubs are shifting into the DA or ECNL. You can maybe offer a weak argument this year but next it will be a difficult sell.
Also I would add in my area there is a NL team that is currently upper mid table. The team has probably 7or more kids on the roster who were either relegated from my kid's ECNL team to the NPL team or who simply never made the ECNL team at tryouts. In fact with the age change and team shake ups, the NL team's best players threw their hats in the ring this year with the ECNL team at tryouts. Their best attacking player (according to the kid's dad who made sure we all knew her stats ) made it. She now comes off the bench to play right back. Tryouts were very interesting this past year with probably twice as many kids giving the ECNL a shot- mostly January-July -kids than in the past. Many of the new kids at tryouts I didn't know and maybe are now playing for the national league team. By participating in the NL these bubble kids are probably getting better exposure than they would have through the NPL. They exemplify the phenomenon of the better NPL level kids choosing the neighbor club's less competitive A team rather than play for the ECNL club's B team. At this point I personally think that was smart of them. My kid's club's NPL team didn't make some of the better tournament's selection criterion but the kids playing for the NL team get good exposure. I am glad they have that option.
There's an update from the US Soccer meeting of Girls DA Club reps. Some highlights below. I noticed the ecnl is pushing clubs to put their boys teams into the new boys ecnl. Interesting politics there. Some clubs may only go to the boys ecnl, if their girls are also added. While some current ecnl girls clubs will certainly expect their boys teams to be added. Some of these clubs were "affiliates" of the MLS DA in their region. Lots of that 'good will' will be changing I guess. What happens to the quality of the ecnl if they end up having to add clubs as a result of going after boys-teams, and lose anything close to the 5000 players US Soccer is projecting? Let the US youth soccer wars begin! 2017 is going to be a shit-show - in US youth soccer AND politics. Happy New Year! From US Soccer Press Release (12/23/16): By the numbers: • 71 Number of clubs joining the Girls' Development Academy in Fall 2017 • 6 Number of Girls' Development Academy regions: Northeast, Southwest, Mid-America, Frontier, Northwest, Southeast • 5,000 Number of projected Development Academy girls' players for inaugural season • 10,700 Current players in the Development Academy • 179 Number of unique boys' and girls' Academies, developing the next generation of talent • 135 Number of USSF 'A' licensed coaches currently committed to Girls' Development Academy clubs • 1,544 Number of players to receive full scholarships from Academy Clubs "Any decision you make is about trust and responsibility," Sockers FC Chicago Academy Director Dave Richardson said. "If you look at U.S. Soccer and you look at the Development Academy, you say, 'Can I trust that they can put together the best programming for players? Can I trust that they are going to put together an environment that is going to be good for developing players, which is ultimately going to be good for you as a club?' Well, having been with them for ten years on the boys' side, I can say that the answer is yes."
I agree that youth soccer in the States is becoming a bigger mess than it already was. The Federation can repeatedly profess that the GDA was started for development but I believe that it was started under the guise of development. The real reason that it was started was politically motivated and is being done to wrest power back from US Club Soccer. Since the Federation played the political/power game, US Club Soccer/the ECNL followed with the boys ECNL (or the ENPL or whatever alphabet name it is being given). I don't think wither of them was really needed, though. The GDA is redundant and not needed for the girls and the Boys ECNL is redundant and not needed for the boys. Having said all of the above, I often have my doubts about the true motivations of US Club Soccer. USCS is "paperwork friendly" and really does a great job of streamlining the process player passes and paperwork in general. However, with one of the objectives of USCS being that of giving some of the power back to the clubs, it has, in my opinion, led to youth soccer becoming more of a business and has made it less attainable for many youth. I believe that USCS is more about what is in the best interests of the clubs and the club personnel and not what is best for the kids.
I have watched the progress of US Club Soccer from its beginnings, and I have always said what PlaySimple is saying about their motivation and tactics as a business. However, their rise also has to be seen in the context of a sea change from the old assumptions of parent motivated and led youth soccer rising out of the era of most youth soccer clubs starting a recreational activity. (The rise of non-profit parent organized recreational soccer also has to be seen in its own historic context of "Americanizing" soccer away from its imported roots planted by immigrant communities in the industrial cities of this country in the late 1800s and well into the 20th century. But that's a whole different story which we'll save for another day.) US Club Soccer was (and still is) a backlash fueled by the first wave of American youth players who learned their soccer in the parent-run local non-profit clubs and went off to college or amateur and semi-pro leagues and then wished that they could make a living out of their skill and passion but found themselves facing a basically all volunteer youth soccer scene which had become over bureaucratic as the volunteer parents sitting on local and regional boards tried their inept best to get organized. Making a living in youth soccer clubs was tough when most of the teams were coached by parents who volunteered to do it for nothing. Some of these volunteer parents did a great job and produced good players who comported themselves well on college teams, while many other volunteer parents were relatively clueless especially in areas where soccer was not well established, such as away from the larger cities in more traditionally agrarian communities or where immigrant soccer never got going. So the push from US Club Soccer over the last 15 years has been to "professionalize" the youth soccer clubs by not appointing parents to coach and by paying more soccer savvy coaches to do the job and relegating parents off to only a support role (plus of course, financing the salaries.) So there has been a serious change over the past 15 years young (and no not so young) ex players can now make a living through youth soccer, and the cost has gone up exponentially for parents. 20 years ago a kid could play two seasons (fall and spring) and perhaps 4 regional tournaments all for a grand total of about $500 (or less) payable to the club for field rentals, uniforms, referee fees, and tournament entry fees. Presently many clubs are charging in the neighborhood of $1,500 to $2,000 per season (or even higher.) Even taking into account inflation, this is about 6 to 8 times more money than the old volunteer days. But it has allowed a lot of ex players to earn a living coaching and administering soccer and not have to figure out a real "day job" that would allow the flexibility of getting away early to go to practices etc. In theory, (and this has always been the argument) such professionalization has led to better quality training and a better overall product. However, this is also the basic argument of this thread, questioning to what extent the professionalization and increased cost has led to better outcome for all concerned. The professionalization has also made many clubs (and US Club Soccer) very profitable and has naturally increased the drive to get even bigger and expand the business model further. The invention of the ECNL is the crown jewel of this trajectory. There is serious money being made here (and even more money being expended by by parents for periodic long-distance travel and lodging.) As has been outlined many times in this thread, the ECNL has been quite successful in accomplishing what appears to be its #1 objective -that being to work the "platform" as they call it to bring in hordes of college recruiters so as to impress more parents into buying into the program and growing yet bigger. Which brings us back to the issue of true soccer IQ and skills development being basically an afterthought trotted out to assuage the doubters and nay sayers. This is where the establishment of the girls development academy really makes sense from the point of view of getting the best players and coaches involved in the national teams. If the #1 focus is truly development (not money making, jobs, prestige, and showcasing) then the academy makes real sense in the long run. If one is charged with producing the best product to perform in international competition that involves having development of players and coaches as the FIRST priority then it is hard to blame US Soccer to trying to wrest the "development" issue back from the those who say that the ECNL can do this job too in addition to their primary focus. In passing, I also agree with you, PlaySimple, that the establishment of a boy's ECNL is obviously and transparently a competitive move by US Club soccer to assert itself and retaliate against the "incursion" of the girls academy into what it sees as its "turf" and to try to punish US Soccer by taking what it can from the boys side to claim that it will handle the development of these players too by use of its superior "platform". Such retaliatory behavior simply makes clear how the egos and money are involved. US Club Soccer clearly sees the academy as "competition." Money making companies striving to dominate a market always hate competition and the instinct is to retaliate when they see it. It's pretty much out on the table for us all to see.
I'll make a brief counterargument 1) the boys development academy doesn't seem to have changed things much. Boys DA also apparently includes several clubs with TV contract money that are nearly free and yet boys DA in 10 years, has it really changed US soccer much? (my understanding is the girls side will not have nearly the money the boys side does from TV and professional clubs). 2) I think the whole high school thing is silly; it doesn't appear to affect Men's basketball on the international level has been hurt by blackout seasons for AAU during high school season. It's possible that boys ECNL isn't so much as retribution as realizing that a good high school team that makes a deep playoff run may leave more positive memories than playing at showcases in front of college coaches. (given that 99.9% of kids that touch a soccer ball are never going to be paid a living wage to do it professionally) 3) ~90% of the clubs with ECNL are going to be the clubs with GDA. the coaches will be identical, at best maybe the affordability goes up, but that's all I've read rumors of.
first two NWSL draft picks thank high school as part of career. #2 pick specifically thanks high school coach. Thank goodness GDA will fix that.
My opinion is that the GDA should augment girls top level program for those who truly want to strive for the highest levels and are willing to make some sacrifices along the way.; it should not be a stand alone entity. My model: USSF should funnel all the money they are willing to spend (I heard 1.5 million I thought at one point) into 20 programs. Then get additional sponsorship money for uniforms and maybe even defray some travel cost (How much is Nike giving the ECNL now?). Let the kids play on their primary team; clubs to be designated by the USSF. Consolidate those players at the level and willing to sacrifice for it in 15 markets. I know there will be huge gaps, but we will still cover as much population as our competitors. They train once a week when their primary team is in session and 4 times/ week out of season (aka high school season). They play a "GDA" national showcase 3 times/year clubs will be directed to those showcases offered during the primary team's off season. Cost is free to most and almost free to a few- including the club fees which the clubs should eat to be part of the prestigious 20 and cull the top players in the area. They will more than make it back in increased enrollment as many will want to be a part of the uber elite clubs. Especially the ulittle parents hoping/believing they are raining the next Carli. Markets: Boston 1 NYC metro /NJ 2 PA/MD 1 VA 1 NC1 GA 1 FL 2 OH1 MI 1 IL1 KS/MI 1 TX2 Socal 3 Norcal 1 OR/WA 1
In what country other than the US is the National Team responsible for developing players and playing on it the goal? Until everyone understands that and rewards clubs for developing players and pays lucratively in the professional leagues we are swimming up stream. Every solution is a band aid. That's why they are so endless.
Ok don't disagree with you on the boys side necessarily. However clearly since there is not a huge amount of money even for boys in the USA your solution regarding what the rest of the world does not apply to the USA Today. If we had a robust men's league paying salaries as they are overseas then I agree with you. The girls would then have to rely on the charity of the men's programs as they also do overseas for an adequate academy program. However that isn't our world so a real life potentially viable solution was put forward to address the issue in our country as it currently exists.
Funny thing just happened in LA. Dorrance actually got Lavers and Heinrichs with Micklos in the same room to talk about the ECNL/Girls DA. It was much too tame, imho. After AD gave April crap about the U20s having to skip their college seasons for about 20 minutes, April and Lavers danced around the core issues for most of the time. Btw, Lavers looks like a 25 year old surfer and comes off as pretty cocky. April is a politician and Micklos seemed like the most reasonable person on the panel. AD had Tom Byer in there from Japan, I guess to make the case that the US should be spending more time and money developing younger players. Great argument but its too late for that and he was out of place in this forum. None of the really good juicy confrontational questions were asked, no why? questions, but someone in the audience asked if the Girls DA and ECNL were going to cooperate in any way over the next 12 months and the answer was basically, No. Micklos said something like "sometime next year when we are up and running we'll start to look at issues of common interest".
For those of us who don't have a clue about what the forum was supposed to be about, could you let us in?