Completely disagree with this. There needs to be one governing body and pro/rel. If you allow the top teams to be separate like NCAA football, you still end up with the top clubs poaching the best players. A small club should be rewarded for developing talent, not punished by being robbed. If your club has a top National team at 2009, they should be able to compete at the top level, and not lose out because they do not have top teams at 2008 and 2010, which is what you have described above. Conversely, if a top club has one terrible age group, they should not be rewarded with top league play. Teams should be able to earn and keep their spots. If that happens, then the shift is away from winning at all costs and goes to development, where it should be. Then the winning follows on naturally.
Since we are on the topic of GA vs. ECNL: What do you do if your player (A year or so away from recruiting) is on a 2nd ECNL team. More than likely blocked from ever moving up due to USYNT players in the same position. Do you move to a successful GA program or do you stay put? Playing time is not an issue at 75% or more of games. Boils down to are you better off on a bottom ECNL team or a top GA team?
I would love a one governing body system with pro/rel...i just don't think it will happen, that is why i brought up a split. i don't like the split, just think it would be easier to split than have one. the powers that be will not buy into one. Also, it doesn't have to be the top 30-40 clubs ... it could be teams per age group - which is likely what you are getting at. Then it would almost be like pro/rel as you'd have to earn your way into the top 30-40 or the top tier. I didn't explain my position as well as i probably should have.
I'm not sure if you are referring to a "2nd ECNL team" as the ECRL team, since there aren't any 2nd ECNL teams in this area, but if you are referring to an ECRL team, then you are better off going to a successful GA team. And a top GA team is still better recruiting wise than a bottom ECNL team.
This is where the ECNL marketing kicks in. They are bad teams regardless of where they are. They get the benefits of playing in a league that comes with many - and if someone's chasing "exposure", it sure seems to be the place with the most eyes. But they are still a bad team - whether they face off against good teams, other bad teams, or "normal" teams. ("bad team" in this case defined as one that has many, many teams of their own age expected to beat them in a soccer game) I think that's what's been telling as clubs are moving in and out of ECNL/GA/RL etc. - it turns out that their quality doesn't change much at all in the short-term, with the hopes that over a longer term moving to a stronger league will help recruiting such that quality will change. And the hopes of clubs moving out or over, to not lose quality in the short-term and succeed in the new organization. Club rating - solely based on team strength - at a national level doesn't seem to have changed much for clubs like the Nationals (30th), Select (38th), or the Ukies (63rd).
The Select 09s were always a top-heavy team. In U14 GA it worked out for them, but this year they faced tougher teams with better depth in ECNL, while also getting hit hard by injuries. Select has historically had a small area to draw players from, so the roster doesn't look vastly different than it was at U14. Their current U14s (2011s) actually did well in ECNL this season. TBD whether having the badge and some expanded regions will boost recruiting for these teams going forward.
I have a boy so may be different. But if your child has the ability to play at the top level and is not due to politics or someone better on top team in their position. Move without question. There are times staying and making them fight for playing time is good for them. But if the goal is college play, the numbers do not lie about where players get recruited, GA and ECNL. And it isn't ECRL or MLSNext2 or ECRL when it comes. for boys.
Actually two markets Detroit and St Louis has both 2nd team and RL teams. GA teams tend to be very successful as well.
Yes, Hawks and St. Louis have 2nd ECNL teams in the Midwest. Since this a Chicagoland thread, I assumed the post was referring to the local area.
Most clubs require a deposit upon acceptance of your spot on the team, and then you pay installments, with the final payment usually completed around November.
Especially considering only a handful of states have a July 31 cutoff for school year. The vast majority are August 31.
Whatever the answer is will reflect poorly on USYS. I assume the states that had earlier enrollment (MO, IN in our neck of the woods) pushed back due to still having trapped players. I know certain large clubs in STL and Indy were annoyed. But it is almost beyond comprehension they did not know all the state cut offs prior to making the original decision. A more conspiracy statement is that the rumor GA was going to 8/1 forced their hand. But that is pretty far fetched as well.
Top two 2013 girls teams (According to the rankings app) in IL faced off tonight in the MWC qualifier, eclipse and inter. 6-1 final, Eclipse.
Are you sure that was Inter's top team? Their second team plays MWC, and the score differential makes it look much more like that team played the top Eclipse team.
It was the B team but they did bring down some A team players. Not sure how many but 3-4 in all likelihood. Still a good result for Eclipse. The matter will be settled soon enough in the fall who the best 13 team in IL is.
I'm wondering how the teams will be affected once the new school birth year rules apply. I imagine both of these '13 teams will be getting chopped up because of the birthday split in the middle of the year coming up. I've noticed Eclipse has fairly strong 2012 and 2014 teams, so i'm assuming the three age groups will form two solid teams when they all get to ECNL age. How will everyone refer to them when that all changes? The 12/13 and 13/14 team?