VRSC

[Anonymous]

$350

[Anonymous]

Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$350

Well then it’s essentially a free option. That’s a weekend of private lessons.

[Anonymous]

There are two open issues for VR GA: Will a critical mass of FCV GA players follow the coaches there and will CC be able to run the GA program without too much interference from the TD? If the answers to those questions are both yes, then VR is the new FCV. If the answer to the first is no, it will take a few years to build the GA program. If the answer to the second is no, the program likely will not succeed. I don’t think CC would go there if he didn’t have confidence he’d have a relatively free hand. I have no idea whether enough FCV GA players follow him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

Everybody always goes back to this whole deal of legacy FCV staff building the program. How often is it with their GA that they are bringing up girls internally? Most of the current GA teams are put together from other clubs and a few players from their own programs internally.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/804708.page

And its always been the case. GA begins at U13, FCV gets handed players picked by them, often poaching players from other clubs quickly and then evaluating who they got to commit and hope they can sprinkle in what they have to round out the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two open issues for VR GA: Will a critical mass of FCV GA players follow the coaches there and will CC be able to run the GA program without too much interference from the TD? If the answers to those questions are both yes, then VR is the new FCV. If the answer to the first is no, it will take a few years to build the GA program. If the answer to the second is no, the program likely will not succeed. I don’t think CC would go there if he didn’t have confidence he’d have a relatively free hand. I have no idea whether enough FCV GA players follow him.

+1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm not buying this story that the coaches that "built" FCV are now going to do the same at VR. First of all, there were many other coaches that were at FCV over the years and helped build that program. To give all the credit to the few at VR is a stretch. Second, the way FCV "built" their program was always to recruit players in their teen years from other clubs at all costs. Judging by how VR has entered the scene by muscling their way in, I would say they are attempting to build a similar program based on recruiting. It might work. It might not. But to put these coaches up as master developers that can turn any group of players into a high level program is ignorant or disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Top players have all but accepted VDA and other ECNL Club offers. What will be left won't be enough for FCV or VRSC in any age groups. I'd wager neither will have a single team even make GA Playoffs next year. The only thing that could change that is if they are able to poach some bench players from ECNL.

In the end, you can blame multiple parties. CC for going to a directly conflicting Club when he probably could have gone just about anywhere. Blame STJ for not allowing CC to finish the year for a smoother transition. Blame STJ for causing concern for the future with fields. Blame BP for adding to the fire by taking the VDA job on top of it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm not buying this story that the coaches that "built" FCV are now going to do the same at VR. First of all, there were many other coaches that were at FCV over the years and helped build that program. To give all the credit to the few at VR is a stretch. Second, the way FCV "built" their program was always to recruit players in their teen years from other clubs at all costs. Judging by how VR has entered the scene by muscling their way in, I would say they are attempting to build a similar program based on recruiting. It might work. It might not. But to put these coaches up as master developers that can turn any group of players into a high level program is ignorant or disingenuous.

Biggest difference between now and then was the quality of the Leagues. GA is now 2nd tier and falling even further losing three more of it's top ranked Clubs. It does not have nearly the appeal of ECNL or DA from years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm not buying this story that the coaches that "built" FCV are now going to do the same at VR. First of all, there were many other coaches that were at FCV over the years and helped build that program. To give all the credit to the few at VR is a stretch. Second, the way FCV "built" their program was always to recruit players in their teen years from other clubs at all costs. Judging by how VR has entered the scene by muscling their way in, I would say they are attempting to build a similar program based on recruiting. It might work. It might not. But to put these coaches up as master developers that can turn any group of players into a high level program is ignorant or disingenuous.

Biggest difference between now and then was the quality of the Leagues. GA is now 2nd tier and falling even further losing three more of its top ranked Clubs. It does not have nearly the appeal of ECNL or DA from years ago.

Nope, GA and ECNL function nearly identical. Top GA club players will get just as much attention as top ECNL clubs. Which ironically for ECNL means nothing to NOVA clubs because the top clubs are in California and Texas. At least with GA clubs outside California and Texas have a chance at the finals which is what perks up recruiters ears.

[Anonymous]

People act like nobody can see the college scout lists. The GA events have a large showing. It might not be as high of an amount as an ECNL event but there are big turnouts to GA events too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm not buying this story that the coaches that "built" FCV are now going to do the same at VR. First of all, there were many other coaches that were at FCV over the years and helped build that program. To give all the credit to the few at VR is a stretch. Second, the way FCV "built" their program was always to recruit players in their teen years from other clubs at all costs. Judging by how VR has entered the scene by muscling their way in, I would say they are attempting to build a similar program based on recruiting. It might work. It might not. But to put these coaches up as master developers that can turn any group of players into a high level program is ignorant or disingenuous.

CC & team built a highly successful (on field and college recruiting) GA program, but it indeed was dependent on attracting disaffected players from other programs at the U13 and U14 levels and developing them further from there. Their U9-12 program typically was small (1-2 teams per age group) and not particularly competitive, as the most athletic girls generally went to the bigger programs (Loudoun, McLean) in those early years. With their success at the GA level, you’d think they could have done a better job attracting those kids to the early years program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People act like nobody can see the college scout lists. The GA events have a large showing. It might not be as high of an amount as an ECNL event but there are big turnouts to GA events too.

There could be hundreds of coaches at an event or one coach. All that matters is that they’re there to see *you* because you reached out to them specifically, expressed an interest in their program and asked them to come watch you. If you’re banking on the odds of being seen by a coach randomly wandering by your field, the odds are not in your favor even if there are a lot of coaches attending an event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine the record of existing VRSC with a TD and coaches that are more worried about "devolopment" and not results is a very bad mix.

I remember that was Metro's mantra, development, not wins....and we see where that got them.

For anyone who believes that trash, good luck in your college recruiting for any level. Nobody is going to scout the games of losing teams. Losing teams end up in lower brackets against bad teams.

Hard pass for me. SYC or FCV for my kid if we stay GA.

You just endorsed FCV’s historical GA on-field performance and college recruiting success, but ignored the fact that none of the coaches who built that program and achieved that success are there anymore. And you dismissed VR based on their poor historical results but ignored the fact that most of the FCV GA coaches who built that program and are responsible for that success are now at VR. Ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm not buying this story that the coaches that "built" FCV are now going to do the same at VR. First of all, there were many other coaches that were at FCV over the years and helped build that program. To give all the credit to the few at VR is a stretch. Second, the way FCV "built" their program was always to recruit players in their teen years from other clubs at all costs. Judging by how VR has entered the scene by muscling their way in, I would say they are attempting to build a similar program based on recruiting. It might work. It might not. But to put these coaches up as master developers that can turn any group of players into a high level program is ignorant or disingenuous.

There were not many other coaches responsible for the GA program. Before MJ left, CC, BP and MJ each had two GA teams and ED and CCh each had two pre-GA teams. CC, MJ, and ED are VR now. Losing BP clearly hurts, but he joined the FCV coaching staff just a few years ago, the others were there much longer.