CCL and Virginia NPL: Make the case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

So tell me this -- if you could toss aside all the egos in an ideal world, would we NOT be better off integrating a lot of this? EDP is doing club-v-club but *only* for clubs that have all their teams at an elite level -- is that not better than CCL or VaNPL?

Of course it would be better. But this is not an ideal world. In an ideal world we would not have cancer either.

NCSL (WAGS on the girls side) predated many of these leagues, but we know what has happened there. To remedy this and not repeat history, we need to understand why NCSL/WAGS continues to crumble.

NP here. RSD, I agree with your vision for an ideal structure 100%. It would be so much better for kids and development.

To PP, having been around when WAGS and NCSL started their slide, I think there were two primary issues. First, the leadership of the 2 leagues had been there forever. They had a lot of power since they were basically it at the time, and they grew rigid and a bit arrogant. NCSL was still a great league for kids at the time, because it had a clear and fair system in place where the top 2 (or 3, depending on the division) moved up and down each season. You got to play with all the teams in the DMV at a level that was always appropriate. Contrary to what many claims, we never saw that this structure encouraged bad, win at all cost soccer. Good coaches had their teams playing great soccer, and bad coaches didn't, same as is currently the case in the club centric leagues like Da, ECNL, and CCL. But the leadership was not willing to be flexible on scheduling of games, club passes, etc., and there were a loot of club heads (like Ken Krueger at PWSI) who had a nasty relationship with the league leadership and vice versa. These unhappy club heads were thrilled to stick it to NCSL and WAGS (which had additional problems in that their pro rel was not pure, and they seemed to put teams into the top division bases on favoritism).

Meanwhile, DA started in 2007, and all the clubs who didn't get it freaked out. As discussed on DCUM in other contexts, they needed to claim that they too had an elite product, Voila, CCL north. Some of the member clubs probably believed the claims that CCL would be better for development and more convenient for families, but I think the power trip and marketing ploy were more significant drivers.

Now, as then, you'd have to weed out the big egos and find leaders who cared about the downsides of pay to play for families to bring sanity to have a better system for our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

So tell me this -- if you could toss aside all the egos in an ideal world, would we NOT be better off integrating a lot of this? EDP is doing club-v-club but *only* for clubs that have all their teams at an elite level -- is that not better than CCL or VaNPL?

Of course it would be better. But this is not an ideal world. In an ideal world we would not have cancer either.

NCSL (WAGS on the girls side) predated many of these leagues, but we know what has happened there. To remedy this and not repeat history, we need to understand why NCSL/WAGS continues to crumble.

NP here. RSD, I agree with your vision for an ideal structure 100%. It would be so much better for kids and development.

To PP, having been around when WAGS and NCSL started their slide, I think there were two primary issues. First, the leadership of the 2 leagues had been there forever. They had a lot of power since they were basically it at the time, and they grew rigid and a bit arrogant. NCSL was still a great league for kids at the time, because it had a clear and fair system in place where the top 2 (or 3, depending on the division) moved up and down each season. You got to play with all the teams in the DMV at a level that was always appropriate. Contrary to what many claims, we never saw that this structure encouraged bad, win at all cost soccer. Good coaches had their teams playing great soccer, and bad coaches didn't, same as is currently the case in the club centric leagues like Da, ECNL, and CCL. But the leadership was not willing to be flexible on scheduling of games, club passes, etc., and there were a loot of club heads (like Ken Krueger at PWSI) who had a nasty relationship with the league leadership and vice versa. These unhappy club heads were thrilled to stick it to NCSL and WAGS (which had additional problems in that their pro rel was not pure, and they seemed to put teams into the top division bases on favoritism).

Meanwhile, DA started in 2007, and all the clubs who didn't get it freaked out. As discussed on DCUM in other contexts, they needed to claim that they too had an elite product, Voila, CCL north. Some of the member clubs probably believed the claims that CCL would be better for development and more convenient for families, but I think the power trip and marketing ploy were more significant drivers.

Now, as then, you'd have to weed out the big egos and find leaders who cared about the downsides of pay to play for families to bring sanity to have a better system for our kids.

That's a great post and I agree with pretty much all of it. The arrogance and lack of flexibility of those running NCSL/WAGS had a lot to do with driving people away. As you say, the leadership had been there forever, and many of them had long since lost touch with what was happening "on the ground" so to speak. Their kids were older.

There were a lot of changes going on at the time: the number of professionally coached and trained teams increased drastically, the introduction of the "technical director" position at many clubs, "academy style" travel programs, .... These changes were met with a lot of mistrust and resistance from the "old guard," and NCSL and WAGS were still insisting on an "our way or the highway" approach to scheduling, resolving coaching conflicts, play-ups, player movement between rosters, etc....

So the market was ripe for more accommodating leagues to step in and start to draw teams and/or clubs in by offering to fulfill their needs. Want flexible scheduling and "like v like" competition every week, even for good teams in small clubs? Go EDP. Want a "club v club" format with maximum flexibility of player movement and accommodating an active TD role? Go CCL. But CCL was exclusive so if you couldn't get into that but still wanted club v club format and were maybe worried about the travel of EDP - then go NPL.

From one perspective, there's nothing wrong with any of this. It shows the value of market competition (which has also spurred changes in NCSL/WAGS). I guess the problem I have with the CCL/NPL comes down to marketing. If they were selling themselves as better for development because of some things they pitched as inherently better about the club v club model, I'd be fine with that. But the sales pitch really does seem to still be about who's more "elite", when in reality the answer is neither. The boys DA and girls DA/ECNL have cornered the market on that. For all of the other leagues, to the extent that level of competition is what's important, the only one that can really claim to provide the highest level - across the board - is EDP. CCL/NPL teams who are very good will play some other good teams, but they will also play some teams which are far below their level, season after season.

So, RSD, here is the case for CCL and NPL:

League soccer shouldn't be primarily focused on results. It should be about development. The club v club model allows clubs to focus on that - under the careful and watchful eye of their very involved and highly expert technical directors, by moving players between teams and age groups, playing them out of position at times to work on certain weaknesses in their games, and generally creating a developmental / teaching-focused environment which is simply impossible to do when results have priority. This is the same developmental model followed by the US Soccer Federation in it's Development Academy -- which is not a promotion/relegation league, for good reason.

That's the case I think they should be making, even though they're not. Instead, they continue to "compete" with each other, and with EDP, for some illusory perception of "most eliteness" status.

I also think if they took my advice they'd both probably fold within a year or two.

Market forces can do great things with an educated consumer base, but I think we are a generation or two away from attaining that in this country.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, RSD, here is the case for CCL and NPL:

League soccer shouldn't be primarily focused on results. It should be about development. The club v club model allows clubs to focus on that - under the careful and watchful eye of their very involved and highly expert technical directors, by moving players between teams and age groups, playing them out of position at times to work on certain weaknesses in their games, and generally creating a developmental / teaching-focused environment which is simply impossible to do when results have priority. This is the same developmental model followed by the US Soccer Federation in it's Development Academy -- which is not a promotion/relegation league, for good reason.

That's the case I think they should be making, even though they're not. Instead, they continue to "compete" with each other, and with EDP, for some illusory perception of "most eliteness" status.

I also think if they took my advice they'd both probably fold within a year or two.

Market forces can do great things with an educated consumer base, but I think we are a generation or two away from attaining that in this country.

This is an excellent post. At least, someone has made the case -- and you're right, it's probably NOT the case the clubs are making. Not when you see any number of press releases with German Peri or another TD/DOC smiling with a CCL/VPL trophy.

I think, ideally, you'd have a league that is *vaguely* pro/rel. In practice, that's what we have with NCSL, anyway. I've seen parents on multiple teams stressing about the pro/rel implications of the last game of a season, not realizing that the turnover in the league in going to make "two up / two down" an impossibility. And I know one team this season that must have convinced NCSL to drop it to the lowest division even though its results didn't merit such a drop.

I'll need to look into this, but I recall one California league worked along these lines. It had three tiers -- self-selected at first, then with teams moving up or down if they were clearly too good or not good enough for their particular tier. They could still experiment with different positions and tactics without the fear of relegation, but teams that weren't at the right competitive level could still move. In CCL and VPL, you're just stuck.

With EDP now offering club-v-club, I wonder if the CCL/VPL time has simply passed. Not that I would expect them to admit it. VPL would always have the prospect of combining somehow with ECNL, which I can't believe it hasn't done already. Braddock Road would probably get competitive games in Richmond without the need to travel to Raleigh.

I actually think club-v-club works better for showcase events, anyway. For a year-round league, it obviously doesn't work.

The DA, incidentally, is taking steps to tweak the schedule so the games are more competitive. An example I cited of a Bay Area team flying to Utah for an uncompetitive game *shouldn't* happen this year. With 70-100 teams in each age group, they have that sort of flexibility. CCL and VPL do not, particularly as long as they stay stuck in the "Vienna's teams will play the Richmond Strikers teams today come hell or high water" mentality.

So thank you for making the case. It's a legitimate concern. But, as you seem to think as well, it's probably one that's easier to fold into other leagues than it would be to fix CCL and VPL's flaws.

DP here. Not much of a case to be honest. First, a generalized statement about prioritizing development over winning, which few people would disagree with. Check. Then some theoretical jargon, without any substantiation, about highly involved and highly expert technical directors, player movement, playing out of position, teaching focused environment, etc. As if our area is littered with such amazing coaches/technical directors, who are present at every game and developed countless world class players. Check. Then lavish some praise to DA as not being promotion relegation league. Check. Then place some blame on the uneducated parents/consumer base, which are a couple of generations away from being enlightened (i.e., enough time before someone can call the BS on this poorly functioning model). Check. I've heard it before and I will hear many times it again. It's the same old cool-aid. Not buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, RSD, here is the case for CCL and NPL:

League soccer shouldn't be primarily focused on results. It should be about development. The club v club model allows clubs to focus on that - under the careful and watchful eye of their very involved and highly expert technical directors, by moving players between teams and age groups, playing them out of position at times to work on certain weaknesses in their games, and generally creating a developmental / teaching-focused environment which is simply impossible to do when results have priority. This is the same developmental model followed by the US Soccer Federation in it's Development Academy -- which is not a promotion/relegation league, for good reason.

That's the case I think they should be making, even though they're not. Instead, they continue to "compete" with each other, and with EDP, for some illusory perception of "most eliteness" status.

I also think if they took my advice they'd both probably fold within a year or two.

Market forces can do great things with an educated consumer base, but I think we are a generation or two away from attaining that in this country.

This is an excellent post. At least, someone has made the case -- and you're right, it's probably NOT the case the clubs are making. Not when you see any number of press releases with German Peri or another TD/DOC smiling with a CCL/VPL trophy.

I think, ideally, you'd have a league that is *vaguely* pro/rel. In practice, that's what we have with NCSL, anyway. I've seen parents on multiple teams stressing about the pro/rel implications of the last game of a season, not realizing that the turnover in the league in going to make "two up / two down" an impossibility. And I know one team this season that must have convinced NCSL to drop it to the lowest division even though its results didn't merit such a drop.

I'll need to look into this, but I recall one California league worked along these lines. It had three tiers -- self-selected at first, then with teams moving up or down if they were clearly too good or not good enough for their particular tier. They could still experiment with different positions and tactics without the fear of relegation, but teams that weren't at the right competitive level could still move. In CCL and VPL, you're just stuck.

With EDP now offering club-v-club, I wonder if the CCL/VPL time has simply passed. Not that I would expect them to admit it. VPL would always have the prospect of combining somehow with ECNL, which I can't believe it hasn't done already. Braddock Road would probably get competitive games in Richmond without the need to travel to Raleigh.

I actually think club-v-club works better for showcase events, anyway. For a year-round league, it obviously doesn't work.

The DA, incidentally, is taking steps to tweak the schedule so the games are more competitive. An example I cited of a Bay Area team flying to Utah for an uncompetitive game *shouldn't* happen this year. With 70-100 teams in each age group, they have that sort of flexibility. CCL and VPL do not, particularly as long as they stay stuck in the "Vienna's teams will play the Richmond Strikers teams today come hell or high water" mentality.

So thank you for making the case. It's a legitimate concern. But, as you seem to think as well, it's probably one that's easier to fold into other leagues than it would be to fix CCL and VPL's flaws.

DP here. Not much of a case to be honest. First, a generalized statement about prioritizing development over winning, which few people would disagree with. Check. Then some theoretical jargon, without any substantiation, about highly involved and highly expert technical directors, player movement, playing out of position, teaching focused environment, etc. As if our area is littered with such amazing coaches/technical directors, who are present at every game and developed countless world class players. Check. Then lavish some praise to DA as not being promotion relegation league. Check. Then place some blame on the uneducated parents/consumer base, which are a couple of generations away from being enlightened (i.e., enough time before someone can call the BS on this poorly functioning model). Check. I've heard it before and I will hear many times it again. It's the same old cool-aid. Not buying it.

As the poster who "made the case", I agree. It's not much of a case, and I think those leagues have outlived their usefulness. Actually scratch that. I thought they were BS fron the beginning - always just a way to attract and retain parents who need to think their child is an "elite" player, even though 99% have no idea what one actually looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, RSD, here is the case for CCL and NPL:

League soccer shouldn't be primarily focused on results. It should be about development. The club v club model allows clubs to focus on that - under the careful and watchful eye of their very involved and highly expert technical directors, by moving players between teams and age groups, playing them out of position at times to work on certain weaknesses in their games, and generally creating a developmental / teaching-focused environment which is simply impossible to do when results have priority. This is the same developmental model followed by the US Soccer Federation in it's Development Academy -- which is not a promotion/relegation league, for good reason.

That's the case I think they should be making, even though they're not. Instead, they continue to "compete" with each other, and with EDP, for some illusory perception of "most eliteness" status.

I also think if they took my advice they'd both probably fold within a year or two.

Market forces can do great things with an educated consumer base, but I think we are a generation or two away from attaining that in this country.

This is an excellent post. At least, someone has made the case -- and you're right, it's probably NOT the case the clubs are making. Not when you see any number of press releases with German Peri or another TD/DOC smiling with a CCL/VPL trophy.

I think, ideally, you'd have a league that is *vaguely* pro/rel. In practice, that's what we have with NCSL, anyway. I've seen parents on multiple teams stressing about the pro/rel implications of the last game of a season, not realizing that the turnover in the league in going to make "two up / two down" an impossibility. And I know one team this season that must have convinced NCSL to drop it to the lowest division even though its results didn't merit such a drop.

I'll need to look into this, but I recall one California league worked along these lines. It had three tiers -- self-selected at first, then with teams moving up or down if they were clearly too good or not good enough for their particular tier. They could still experiment with different positions and tactics without the fear of relegation, but teams that weren't at the right competitive level could still move. In CCL and VPL, you're just stuck.

With EDP now offering club-v-club, I wonder if the CCL/VPL time has simply passed. Not that I would expect them to admit it. VPL would always have the prospect of combining somehow with ECNL, which I can't believe it hasn't done already. Braddock Road would probably get competitive games in Richmond without the need to travel to Raleigh.

I actually think club-v-club works better for showcase events, anyway. For a year-round league, it obviously doesn't work.

The DA, incidentally, is taking steps to tweak the schedule so the games are more competitive. An example I cited of a Bay Area team flying to Utah for an uncompetitive game *shouldn't* happen this year. With 70-100 teams in each age group, they have that sort of flexibility. CCL and VPL do not, particularly as long as they stay stuck in the "Vienna's teams will play the Richmond Strikers teams today come hell or high water" mentality.

So thank you for making the case. It's a legitimate concern. But, as you seem to think as well, it's probably one that's easier to fold into other leagues than it would be to fix CCL and VPL's flaws.

DP here. Not much of a case to be honest. First, a generalized statement about prioritizing development over winning, which few people would disagree with. Check. Then some theoretical jargon, without any substantiation, about highly involved and highly expert technical directors, player movement, playing out of position, teaching focused environment, etc. As if our area is littered with such amazing coaches/technical directors, who are present at every game and developed countless world class players. Check. Then lavish some praise to DA as not being promotion relegation league. Check. Then place some blame on the uneducated parents/consumer base, which are a couple of generations away from being enlightened (i.e., enough time before someone can call the BS on this poorly functioning model). Check. I've heard it before and I will hear many times it again. It's the same old cool-aid. Not buying it.

As the poster who "made the case", I agree. It's not much of a case, and I think those leagues have outlived their usefulness. Actually scratch that. I thought they were BS fron the beginning - always just a way to attract and retain parents who need to think their child is an "elite" player, even though 99% have no idea what one actually looks like.

LOL, I agree with this comment, especially with re many parents not knowing what an "elite" player looks like and willing to shell out big bucks for being on an "elite" team in an "elite" league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, RSD, here is the case for CCL and NPL:

League soccer shouldn't be primarily focused on results. It should be about development. The club v club model allows clubs to focus on that - under the careful and watchful eye of their very involved and highly expert technical directors, by moving players between teams and age groups, playing them out of position at times to work on certain weaknesses in their games, and generally creating a developmental / teaching-focused environment which is simply impossible to do when results have priority. This is the same developmental model followed by the US Soccer Federation in it's Development Academy -- which is not a promotion/relegation league, for good reason.

That's the case I think they should be making, even though they're not. Instead, they continue to "compete" with each other, and with EDP, for some illusory perception of "most eliteness" status.

I also think if they took my advice they'd both probably fold within a year or two.

Market forces can do great things with an educated consumer base, but I think we are a generation or two away from attaining that in this country.

This is an excellent post. At least, someone has made the case -- and you're right, it's probably NOT the case the clubs are making. Not when you see any number of press releases with German Peri or another TD/DOC smiling with a CCL/VPL trophy.

I think, ideally, you'd have a league that is *vaguely* pro/rel. In practice, that's what we have with NCSL, anyway. I've seen parents on multiple teams stressing about the pro/rel implications of the last game of a season, not realizing that the turnover in the league in going to make "two up / two down" an impossibility. And I know one team this season that must have convinced NCSL to drop it to the lowest division even though its results didn't merit such a drop.

I'll need to look into this, but I recall one California league worked along these lines. It had three tiers -- self-selected at first, then with teams moving up or down if they were clearly too good or not good enough for their particular tier. They could still experiment with different positions and tactics without the fear of relegation, but teams that weren't at the right competitive level could still move. In CCL and VPL, you're just stuck.

With EDP now offering club-v-club, I wonder if the CCL/VPL time has simply passed. Not that I would expect them to admit it. VPL would always have the prospect of combining somehow with ECNL, which I can't believe it hasn't done already. Braddock Road would probably get competitive games in Richmond without the need to travel to Raleigh.

I actually think club-v-club works better for showcase events, anyway. For a year-round league, it obviously doesn't work.

The DA, incidentally, is taking steps to tweak the schedule so the games are more competitive. An example I cited of a Bay Area team flying to Utah for an uncompetitive game *shouldn't* happen this year. With 70-100 teams in each age group, they have that sort of flexibility. CCL and VPL do not, particularly as long as they stay stuck in the "Vienna's teams will play the Richmond Strikers teams today come hell or high water" mentality.

So thank you for making the case. It's a legitimate concern. But, as you seem to think as well, it's probably one that's easier to fold into other leagues than it would be to fix CCL and VPL's flaws.

DP here. Not much of a case to be honest. First, a generalized statement about prioritizing development over winning, which few people would disagree with. Check. Then some theoretical jargon, without any substantiation, about highly involved and highly expert technical directors, player movement, playing out of position, teaching focused environment, etc. As if our area is littered with such amazing coaches/technical directors, who are present at every game and developed countless world class players. Check. Then lavish some praise to DA as not being promotion relegation league. Check. Then place some blame on the uneducated parents/consumer base, which are a couple of generations away from being enlightened (i.e., enough time before someone can call the BS on this poorly functioning model). Check. I've heard it before and I will hear many times it again. It's the same old cool-aid. Not buying it.

As the poster who "made the case", I agree. It's not much of a case, and I think those leagues have outlived their usefulness. Actually scratch that. I thought they were BS fron the beginning - always just a way to attract and retain parents who need to think their child is an "elite" player, even though 99% have no idea what one actually looks like.

LOL, I agree with this comment, especially with re many parents not knowing what an "elite" player looks like and willing to shell out big bucks for being on an "elite" team in an "elite" league.

If the team doesn’t have Elite or International in the name, is it truly “elite”?

[Anonymous]

Even a league with 2 divisions is enough... that at least gives teams something to play for.... VPL / CCL are you listening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even a league with 2 divisions is enough... that at least gives teams something to play for.... VPL / CCL are you listening?

CCL has 2 divisions.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but do the teams move up and down based on performance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but do the teams move up and down based on performance?

No.

[Anonymous]

NCSL, VPL and CCL are no longer relevant and it is shame that a club like Herndon that has strong girls teams joined CCL. Alexandria and Stafford left the NCSL for CCL but the reality is that these leagues have and will only serve as a testing ground for teams and players moving to the DA, ECNL and EDP (Club v Club or Premier I). The NCSL is being devastated by the new leagues. The top 10 teams in the DMV are dominated by ECNL, EDP or DA. Kids will always look for the platform that plays the best competition and offers the best exposure. NCSL, VPL and CCL are not that platforms.