Aggressive Recruiting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These coaches gotta have good teams first. Each have their own mega teams from different years. Makes sense

What mega team does Nick from NVA have? Is this Nick posting about himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These coaches gotta have good teams first. Each have their own mega teams from different years. Makes sense

What mega team does Nick from NVA have? Is this Nick posting about himself?

Does NVA have any mega teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Are you talking about the VDA side?

Like PP mentioned its any or all of the clubs that have 'alliances', they all are just aggressively recruiting. There is no pathway to their top team like they want people to believe. If you pay attention specifically to the jump from U12-U13, its rare for teams to maintain the entire roster even if they have success as a unit before. Too many talking heads at the table prevent this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Are you talking about the VDA side?

Like PP mentioned its any or all of the clubs that have 'alliances', they all are just aggressively recruiting. There is no pathway to their top team like they want people to believe. If you pay attention specifically to the jump from U12-U13, its rare for teams to maintain the entire roster even if they have success as a unit before. Too many talking heads at the table prevent this.

If this is really true, how much of an entire roster is kept when moving from U12-U13?

That is the jump to ECNL or MLSNext, from 9 v 9 to 11 v 11. Ideally, esp for players on second teams, the first team is supplemented by players on the second team. But reality is that this is an opportunity for clubs to get top players from other clubs.

I think some clubs will promote a few from the second team, but I have not heard of this happening at our club. What happens is that the first team will lose a couple to other top teams and in turn, new players from outside of the club are added.

There is some movement from second teams to top teams but usually to another club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Are you talking about the VDA side?

Like PP mentioned its any or all of the clubs that have 'alliances', they all are just aggressively recruiting. There is no pathway to their top team like they want people to believe. If you pay attention specifically to the jump from U12-U13, its rare for teams to maintain the entire roster even if they have success as a unit before. Too many talking heads at the table prevent this.

If this is really true, how much of an entire roster is kept when moving from U12-U13?

That is the jump to ECNL or MLSNext, from 9 v 9 to 11 v 11. Ideally, esp for players on second teams, the first team is supplemented by players on the second team. But reality is that this is an opportunity for clubs to get top players from other clubs.

I think some clubs will promote a few from the second team, but I have not heard of this happening at our club. What happens is that the first team will lose a couple to other top teams and in turn, new players from outside of the club are added.

There is some movement from second teams to top teams but usually to another club.

One example would be the NVA alliance. The alliance should be evaluating Loudoun Soccer, GFR, and Valor. For the most recent group on the girls side of 2011, NVA kept primarily their Loudoun squad intact. But if anybody actually paying attention or has seen the three of those teams playing knows that the best group wasn’t Loudoun 2011’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Are you talking about the VDA side?

Like PP mentioned its any or all of the clubs that have 'alliances', they all are just aggressively recruiting. There is no pathway to their top team like they want people to believe. If you pay attention specifically to the jump from U12-U13, its rare for teams to maintain the entire roster even if they have success as a unit before. Too many talking heads at the table prevent this.

If this is really true, how much of an entire roster is kept when moving from U12-U13?

That is the jump to ECNL or MLSNext, from 9 v 9 to 11 v 11. Ideally, esp for players on second teams, the first team is supplemented by players on the second team. But reality is that this is an opportunity for clubs to get top players from other clubs.

I think some clubs will promote a few from the second team, but I have not heard of this happening at our club. What happens is that the first team will lose a couple to other top teams and in turn, new players from outside of the club are added.

There is some movement from second teams to top teams but usually to another club.

One example would be the NVA alliance. The alliance should be evaluating Loudoun Soccer, GFR, and Valor. For the most recent group on the girls side of 2011, NVA kept primarily their Loudoun squad intact. But if anybody actually paying attention or has seen the three of those teams playing knows that the best group wasn’t Loudoun 2011’s.

I'm assuming you're referencing Valor2011 here and if that's your argument, Loudoun beat them in both the fall & spring by 2 goals each time. Personally I think it's strange decision to keep a whole team together and shut out everyone else if you're an alliance of effectively 5 clubs, but who knows who came to tryouts. There are definitely girls in both GFR and Valor 2011 who could play for NVA, but maybe they didn't want the level of commitment required in ECNL for practices and travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Are you talking about the VDA side?

Like PP mentioned its any or all of the clubs that have 'alliances', they all are just aggressively recruiting. There is no pathway to their top team like they want people to believe. If you pay attention specifically to the jump from U12-U13, its rare for teams to maintain the entire roster even if they have success as a unit before. Too many talking heads at the table prevent this.

If this is really true, how much of an entire roster is kept when moving from U12-U13?

That is the jump to ECNL or MLSNext, from 9 v 9 to 11 v 11. Ideally, esp for players on second teams, the first team is supplemented by players on the second team. But reality is that this is an opportunity for clubs to get top players from other clubs.

I think some clubs will promote a few from the second team, but I have not heard of this happening at our club. What happens is that the first team will lose a couple to other top teams and in turn, new players from outside of the club are added.

There is some movement from second teams to top teams but usually to another club.

One example would be the NVA alliance. The alliance should be evaluating Loudoun Soccer, GFR, and Valor. For the most recent group on the girls side of 2011, NVA kept primarily their Loudoun squad intact. But if anybody actually paying attention or has seen the three of those teams playing knows that the best group wasn’t Loudoun 2011’s.

I'm assuming you're referencing Valor2011 here and if that's your argument, Loudoun beat them in both the fall & spring by 2 goals each time. Personally I think it's strange decision to keep a whole team together and shut out everyone else if you're an alliance of effectively 5 clubs, but who knows who came to tryouts. There are definitely girls in both GFR and Valor 2011 who could play for NVA, but maybe they didn't want the level of commitment required in ECNL for practices and travel.

Good point on perhaps they just didn’t want to play at the higher level. I personally think it’s silly for ECNL to be U13+. Would make more sense for it to be U15+ but they would make less money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These coaches gotta have good teams first. Each have their own mega teams from different years. Makes sense

What mega team does Nick from NVA have? Is this Nick posting about himself?

Does NVA have any mega teams?

Does Union have any mega teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These coaches gotta have good teams first. Each have their own mega teams from different years. Makes sense

What mega team does Nick from NVA have? Is this Nick posting about himself?

Does NVA have any mega teams?

Does Union have any mega teams?

Union 07 is very good.

[Anonymous]

5th place finish in MA division? They finished behind Loudoun. Haha. That’s a mega team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Season starts today… how has The Meg done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

+1000

When things at your current club seem weird, make no sense, and parents are scared to say the wrong thing publicly just follow the money and it all comes into focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

Recruiting=Wins. Parents want wins makes kids happy and good for IG. More wins increase $$$ revenue at the club that only sells pathways. Lower team enrollment at the U-Little ages increases and more color teams are added, parents think “these guys win they are doing something right” thereby subsidizing the recruiting for the team(s) their kid has no shot of ever play for and it continues.

Is this about Maryland United?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole landscape is recruiting. No coaches even attempt to develop kids, they just recruit. It's ridiculous.

+1000

People say this the whole time but it's kinda BS. The skills coaches can help with are not the same as the skills kids can develop themselves. Coaches legitimately want the most technically skilled, and athletic players on their team. Both of those skillsets are not really things coaches can impact all that much.

Good coaches will then take those kids and teach them soccer IQ.

Bad coaches will also take those kids and teach them nothing of course .