A few comments on previous posts. Inter 2012 ran up the score against FC Wisconsin to try & advance in the ECNL Midwest Cup. Essentially after losing to Rockford 2012 it created a three-way tie in their pool, their main hope to advance was goal differential. Sort of a pointless tournament anyway since no auto qualifier to post season, but apparently it meant enough to run up the score on a weaker team. The talent gap between the top three teams in any of these U13 to U17/18 age groups in Illinois and most states, except California & Texas which have a higher number, and the clubs listed afterward is often larger than many want to admit. We go through this on this board all the time. If Rush 2012 swapped spots with Eclipse or Inter 2012 with their same roster, and tried to play their schedules, they lose every game by large margins, outside maybe FC Wisconsin or Sporting Iowa, which could maybe be draws, maybe… The only team capable of performing better than Inter or Eclipse is FCU which is already rated above them, but at that, I’d say maybe 1 or 2 games better over a ECNL season. I’ll continue to say, I’m sure there are some quality players scattered throughout the lower rated teams that could help the higher rated teams be even better on a regional or national level. The number is probably not that high but there are certainly some.
That would be great. Get sponsors and the. Instead of “pay to play” make it get paid to play where winning clubs get cash prizes and thus it incentivizes them to show up and try to win.
The unfortunate (and sad?) part is that even if that hypothetical could be brought to life - and an independent team would be able to challenge the best on the field based on nothing other than their pure ability - it only works up to a certain age. Once the fantastic independent team reaches about U13/U14, any of the kids with high ambitions (and/or their parents), start to look for greater opportunities, a few of the standouts leave, and almost universally the team will start to quickly decline.
Well, the team we’re talking about is u14, and that’s kind of my point. The aggregation that really just starts at u12 happens more slowly than people think. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Hussars 2015s over the next three years. They destroyed Eclipse and FC Utd this fall. The club has a top ten 2014 team but seems not to field any teams older than that.
Historically there are always one off teams that excel at u8-u12 and then disappear when their top players migrate to the ECNL/GA teams. Also until recently, the Eclipse u8-u12 teams were pretty average but then would attract the top talent at u13. Since the scandal/ ECNL expansion, it seems like they are putting more effort into developing the younger ages.
I'm not sure what this means. By 13U/14U, most all fantastic independent teams have already noticeably declined - because leaving is what so many participants who are on them tend to do as they chase their own dreams. There may turn out to be teams that are rare exceptions - but it's they that tend to prove the rule.
Pretty much - but that's what the SR can already show someone who wants to play these hypothetical games: Current ECNL Midwest bracket for 2012G: Sorted by SR, with Rush inserted:
Of course not. I saw someone else refer to it as (M)ystery (L)eague (S)occer, and it seems to fit pretty well.
I stand by wanting some type of open competition between leagues. I think it would encourage more teams to stick together. I hate the consolidation. I looked at the Midwest Select Games results and it appears the ECNL RL girls had their way with the top NISL/NPL girls at 2012 and 2013. https://system.gotsport.com/org_event/events/48946/results?group=430269. I suppose that kind of points to the fact that this is the age where the consolidation of talent starts. Now I’d like to see the ECNL RL girls vs the IL GA teams best at those ages, the battle for 2nd best league lol. Looking at rankings I’d give the nod to GA at 2012’s b/c of FCU. 2013’s would be interesting. That Evo team ranked higher than all 4 GA and a bit of a falloff before you get to another RL team.
Well, at 2012 ECNL RL did win 5-2 but some of the best 2012 NISL players weren’t playing — Elmhurst City, Chicago Rush and maybe Sockers* all had games. There were only 8 teams and that’s #3, #1 and #4. Of course it’s also possible some ecnl rl players weren’t there. If they want their all-star tournament to be meaningful they may need to schedule it around known fixtures. Nobody is giving up players for league games to an exhibition. * I’m guessing Sockers #2 team in NISL and #3 in Aspire share some or most players. I find it hard to believe parents would pay for an 8-game Tuesdays-only NISL NPL season. Is there roster sharing between the NPL team and the full GA team? Their rankings are more similar. That would be even more evidence that the badge clubs aren’t nearly finished aggregating by 14u, since the NPL team couldn’t muster a win over any of the top 4 in 5 meetings.
Dont take those results too seriously. It was not as cut and dried as RL vs NISL. The best players on the field were not RL or NISL players to my understanding.
I watched all of the 2013 games for the Heartland RL Team, and I can say at that age group the best players were on the Heartland RL Team. I'm not sure about the NISL team, but I do know the Twin Cities and the Great Lakes Alliance clubs were actual teams and have played together before, so to watch the HL "All stars" play as well as they did together was impressive.
The Hussars 2015G is the same team as the 2014G. They just had the 2015 team play in two leagues with the same players. And that Hussars team has 2016 and 2017 players on it. They are really that good. QUOTE="ne plus ultra, post: 43309525, member: 9557"]Well, the team we’re talking about is u14, and that’s kind of my point. The aggregation that really just starts at u12 happens more slowly than people think. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Hussars 2015s over the next three years. They destroyed Eclipse and FC Utd this fall. The club has a top ten 2014 team but seems not to field any teams older than that.[/QUOTE]
That is bad. Very late communication. Makes headaches for your families, the tournament organizers and the opponents. Seems like a fail by both parties.
Do you know why the fall IWSL season for the 2015 team seems to have been changed to all forfeits? https://www.iwsl.com/team.php?tea_id=112325 Here is what the scores appeared to be when initially loaded to SR:
No idea the real reason here. I have no idea on this age range. But that sure looks like the team got caught doing something wrong, like rostering older players or some type of cheating. Wow. Also looks like the 2014 team had the same thing happen.
Yes, same deal for the 2014 team (IWSL link). The 2016 team is still showing all IWSL results without forfeits. Next time the SR bot comes through to scan, it will likely identify these as forfeits and remove the results, which may likely drop the team(s) from the ranked lists with not enough recent games.
I was told by someone who has a younger daughter that played against the Hussars team that they used the same above age player to play games in multiple age groups, and that this individual may not even have been properly released from her prior team. If true it seems like there were multiple regulatory failures that should have been caught long prior to November so kinda shame on everyone.
An 11U scandal. OMG, I almost don't know what to say. That's too bad, for the teams that lost and for the Hussars kids. I wonder what the full story is. If you were older and really good, you wouldn't even want to be playing down. Hussars has no older teams. Was it a kid who forgot to try out elsewhere, or only tried out for one team, a little out of depth, and didn't get picked? We do upload birth certificates as I remember the process. But a lot of that is handled by the various platforms, especially if your club is part of a larger grouping like United Elite that handles backend things. If they're indy, it may have slipped or only a few people knew and they let it go. Playing two years down at those ages, the physical and athletic difference is intense. Can't imagine.
No idea what the situation was here, but we've come across plenty of instances where kids are playing where they shouldn't. There are several doctored birth certs we've seen over the years, and other things that have caught out different players who weren't eligible. In many cases it's not primarily so a kid can have a huge performance advantage and play down. We've found cousins who wanted to be on the same team while one was too old, forging the cert so they'd be able to play together. None of it matters much at all, until a coach decides to play a standout kid down, who is also ineligible - pissing off opponents to the point that there will be a push to verify. The intent of all of the age rules is to bracket kids where there will be reasonably "fair" competition, and as long as it seems reasonably "fair", nobody tends to notice or care. It boggles the mind why you'd play an ineligible player on the #1 ranked team in state. If there was one place that would get some scrutiny - seems like that would be the first place people would start complaining about.
Especially playing two years down. Seems like some parents and team officials did not serve this child or their teammates well here. For that matter, imagine if your kid wasn't picked for the team to make room for the kid two years too old.