McLean Soccer and CCL Nextgen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean U11 and U12 (boys and girls) teams were kicked out of CCL. Rumor is it was because at the U13 age all of the top McLean team go to ECNL while other clubs keep their top teams in CCL. This is obviously not the case because Arlington and Loudoun both switch to either DA or ECNL too. The U11 and U12 top (green) girls teams crushed all or almost all of the NCSL teams they played this past fall. Not good for either the McLean players or for the teams the play. Bad for development to only have competitive games in tournaments. I think the U11 and U12 boys teams may have had more competitive matches in NCSL because their teams are not as strong. These teams that were once amongst the stronger ones in their age groups will enter ECNL at a huge disadvantage.

So, what has happened? Why the decline on the boys side? I think the U11 Green boys lost most of their games in NCSL (so it can't really be argued that NCSL won't prepare them for next year).

U11/12 had club related issues (including a shared coach who was ousted) which was more the driver of NCSL performance. This was not league related.

Mys had to pull their u-11 and 12 boys out of ccl when they chose the ECNL boys route that became avaiable last year (for U-13). If they had decided against ECNL for boys they likely would have stayed in ccl for younger groups and ccl would have allowed it as their record was fine.

There was no significant difference last season in the level of competition between CCL and NCSL for McLean boys U1U11/12. Don't worry about stuff that doesn't matter.

At least NCSL is doing pro/rel now as an incentive to improve.

There are few circumstances in life that can lead to more crazy adult behavior than a U11/U12 NCSL relegation match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean U11 and U12 (boys and girls) teams were kicked out of CCL. Rumor is it was because at the U13 age all of the top McLean team go to ECNL while other clubs keep their top teams in CCL. This is obviously not the case because Arlington and Loudoun both switch to either DA or ECNL too. The U11 and U12 top (green) girls teams crushed all or almost all of the NCSL teams they played this past fall. Not good for either the McLean players or for the teams the play. Bad for development to only have competitive games in tournaments. I think the U11 and U12 boys teams may have had more competitive matches in NCSL because their teams are not as strong. These teams that were once amongst the stronger ones in their age groups will enter ECNL at a huge disadvantage.

So, what has happened? Why the decline on the boys side? I think the U11 Green boys lost most of their games in NCSL (so it can't really be argued that NCSL won't prepare them for next year).

U11/12 had club related issues (including a shared coach who was ousted) which was more the driver of NCSL performance. This was not league related.

Mys had to pull their u-11 and 12 boys out of ccl when they chose the ECNL boys route that became avaiable last year (for U-13). If they had decided against ECNL for boys they likely would have stayed in ccl for younger groups and ccl would have allowed it as their record was fine.

There was no significant difference last season in the level of competition between CCL and NCSL for McLean boys U1U11/12. Don't worry about stuff that doesn't matter.

At least NCSL is doing pro/rel now as an incentive to improve.

There are few circumstances in life that can lead to more crazy adult behavior than a U11/U12 NCSL relegation match.

We've been spared that pleasure -- so far...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

How does CCL for CCL's sake suck any more money out of parents than NCSL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

How does CCL for CCL's sake suck any more money out of parents than NCSL?

Isn't it more expensive for the club?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

How does CCL for CCL's sake suck any more money out of parents than NCSL?

Isn't it more expensive for the club?

Not when they need fewer coaches for the younger ages because the A and B team are always at the same field. I doubt league fees are that much higher if at all. Of course NCSL lowers their cost by requiring a parent from each team to volunteer as a AR.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure if NCSL is cheaper, they will still charge the same across the board for that age group. Our club had teams in CCL, NCSL, and ODSL, based on conversations it sounded like we were all paying the same amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

How does CCL for CCL's sake suck any more money out of parents than NCSL?

Isn't it more expensive for the club?

Not when they need fewer coaches for the younger ages because the A and B team are always at the same field. I doubt league fees are that much higher if at all. Of course NCSL lowers their cost by requiring a parent from each team to volunteer as a AR.

They don't lower the cost to the teams they just save themselves some money. For example ODSL uses non-parent ARs and the fees are the same if not cheaper. CCL also uses paid AR and as another poster mentioned previously the fees are relatively the same. The volunteer AR is a pain and should not be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

It was pointed out previously that the girls didn't fare the same ... any good reason why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

It was pointed out previously that the girls didn't fare the same ... any good reason why?

Trying not to be Captain Obvious here — the U-11/12 girls had an entirely different coach.

[Anonymous]

Why don't you folks change sports? After that video of your high school kids fighting against Langley, you should be prepping for round 2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you folks change sports? After that video of your high school kids fighting against Langley, you should be prepping for round 2!

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean is feeling the heat for putting it's youngers in sh*tty NCSL

Jesus, it’s youth soccer, and pre 11v11 at that. You’re a cancer to the sport.

1. There's no real difference between CCL and NCSL in competitiveness, so who cares? I don't even know why CCL even exists, except as another way to suck money out of soccer parents.

2. The problem with McLean's U11/U12 boys was a coaching issue. And that's something which really matters, not the silly CCL vs NCSL vs ECNL debate. Fortunately, it's being fixed.

It was pointed out previously that the girls didn't fare the same ... any good reason why?

Trying not to be Captain Obvious here — the U-11/12 girls had an entirely different coach.

You are rude. The girls had NO competition, and U11 and U12 were not competitive in NCSL at all. The girls needed to be in CCL. Stop berating posters.

[Anonymous]

Calm yourself down. The PP asked a question that had a very obvious answer based on prior posts.

If you read in some level of detail that the boys U-11/12 boys faced a unique coaching issue on both teams which had a direct impact on their season and performance in NCSL and then ask why the U-11/U-12 girls did not have the same experience as the boys, you clearly need to learn how to connect the dots better and understand the same coach does not coach all 4 teams. That’s why. The girls did not have the same coaching problem so did not have the same problem the boys had in ncsl (in face they had the opposite problem it appears)...

[Anonymous]

So you were rude. Got it.