VRSC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since when have local ECNL clubs had trouble getting girls onto college rosters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since when have local ECNL clubs had trouble getting girls onto college rosters?

Reading into things much?
Please point to where the previous poster said that ECNL has trouble getting players onto college rosters.

[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 it's top ranked Clubs. It does not have nearly the appeal of ECNL or DA from years ago.

GA for girls is now the top tier. Try to keep up, keyboard warrior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since when have local ECNL clubs had trouble getting girls onto college rosters?

Not onto top teams. Sending a few kids off to small d3 schools is not the same as those GA girls heading off to ivy league and Big D1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 it's top ranked Clubs. It does not have nearly the appeal of ECNL or DA from years ago.

GA for girls is now the top tier. Try to keep up, keyboard warrior.

Top tier of what?

[Anonymous]

So am I accurate in gathering the following?

- Revolution hired away the staff from FCV
- Revolution has solo usage rights & ownership of Evolution, and FCV can no longer use it in the Fall.
- Revolution does not CURRENTLY have any GA caliber teams, but was let in with the promise of being able to take all of FCV players.
- FCV may actually have a new facility/plan which would then get rid of the meltdown/exodus (potentially).

Am I missing anything? How will Revolution field competitive teams, are they still in the GA without bringing in a % of the players from FCV?

I am really struggling to understand the Revolution move by the GA, it seems like a "hope" of undermining one of your top programs and founding members. Surely one person (CC) doesn't have that level of juice? If so, what does that say about the evaluation process for the GA.

Any clarification on things being missed would be valued

[Anonymous]

Their hope is their ability to poach other clubs. SYC getting GA, FCV keeping GA, Loudon, Arlington, and VDA all being ECNL plus whatever union is means there will a lot of competition for players and poaching will not be easy

[Anonymous]

Not to mention this whole VRSC and FCV situation is literally 2 clubs sitting right on top of each other in the same market.

I don't even think they're able to take full rosters of FCV teams. At most they're probably lucky to get 6-10 GA1 players to shift over and that MIGHT be at the younger ages.

The closest thing I can think of would be if VRSC and Loudoun both had ECNL.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see why any GA players would stay at FCV given that nothing from the club they joined is still there when they can move to VR and have there much (though not all, BP) of what they originally joined FCV for. Some of those FCV GA players will go to ECNL clubs though. Most likely FCV’s GA teams next year will be filled with current FCV GA2 players perhaps plus some Brave players who lose their ECNL places in the Union combo (VR might pick up some of these players too). A year from now, my bet for the GA clubs is that SYC will be strongest, VR will be second, and FCV will be at the bottom. Five years from now, VR will be strongest because of its facilities and CC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention this whole VRSC and FCV situation is literally 2 clubs sitting right on top of each other in the same market.

I don't even think they're able to take full rosters of FCV teams. At most they're probably lucky to get 6-10 GA1 players to shift over and that MIGHT be at the younger ages.

The closest thing I can think of would be if VRSC and Loudoun both had ECNL.

Lots of those FCV girls are going to VDA. I think VRSC is in for some rough years and is counting on GA to draw in players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why any GA players would stay at FCV given that nothing from the club they joined is still there when they can move to VR and have there much (though not all, BP) of what they originally joined FCV for. Some of those FCV GA players will go to ECNL clubs though. Most likely FCV’s GA teams next year will be filled with current FCV GA2 players perhaps plus some Brave players who lose their ECNL places in the Union combo (VR might pick up some of these players too). A year from now, my bet for the GA clubs is that SYC will be strongest, VR will be second, and FCV will be at the bottom. Five years from now, VR will be strongest because of its facilities and CC.

SYC will be strongest a year from now simply because they have a deeper player pool and aren’t on top of another club like FCV/VR (and Loudoun).

[Anonymous]

FCV was always built on poaching players from other clubs. Now VR is attempting the same model. Problem is FCV’s ability to poach was based on their previous success (when there was less competition). Harder to see how VR is able to poach players until they can show some success. Chicken and egg problem we’ll see what happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention this whole VRSC and FCV situation is literally 2 clubs sitting right on top of each other in the same market.

I don't even think they're able to take full rosters of FCV teams. At most they're probably lucky to get 6-10 GA1 players to shift over and that MIGHT be at the younger ages.

The closest thing I can think of would be if VRSC and Loudoun both had ECNL.

Lots of those FCV girls are going to VDA. I think VRSC is in for some rough years and is counting on GA to draw in players.

I'll be surprised if I see a LOT. I think there will be a few age groups where there might be significant change, primarily the groups that BP is heading, but beyond that I don't think there will be significant roster changes aside from displacing the bottom of their rosters which tends to happen year after year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why any GA players would stay at FCV given that nothing from the club they joined is still there when they can move to VR and have there much (though not all, BP) of what they originally joined FCV for. Some of those FCV GA players will go to ECNL clubs though. Most likely FCV’s GA teams next year will be filled with current FCV GA2 players perhaps plus some Brave players who lose their ECNL places in the Union combo (VR might pick up some of these players too). A year from now, my bet for the GA clubs is that SYC will be strongest, VR will be second, and FCV will be at the bottom. Five years from now, VR will be strongest because of its facilities and CC.

FCV I would assume will keep their Champions Cup spot though, which is like the golden egg for GA recruiting. Others in the area don't have a shot at that for at least a year, so if you are in an important recruiting age FCV would be the logical choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why any GA players would stay at FCV given that nothing from the club they joined is still there when they can move to VR and have there much (though not all, BP) of what they originally joined FCV for. Some of those FCV GA players will go to ECNL clubs though. Most likely FCV’s GA teams next year will be filled with current FCV GA2 players perhaps plus some Brave players who lose their ECNL places in the Union combo (VR might pick up some of these players too). A year from now, my bet for the GA clubs is that SYC will be strongest, VR will be second, and FCV will be at the bottom. Five years from now, VR will be strongest because of its facilities and CC.

FCV I would assume will keep their Champions Cup spot though, which is like the golden egg for GA recruiting. Others in the area don't have a shot at that for at least a year, so if you are in an important recruiting age FCV would be the logical choice.

This would be crazy if true and I WOULD HOPE that leadership at the GA wouldn't allow this but I recall hearing VRSC mentioning that they believe they can get into the champions cup as well next year by petitioning. I think generally the top two clubs in each conference make it and usually for MA it's always been Ukies and FCV. If I were the GA, I would just take the 3rd best team for next year since Ukies are gone rather than a petition for it from VRSC.