DC Express?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

^this. The BLC pipeline is basically non existent at the 30-35 age groups. All that talent is either at NL or ML. Throw in the fact you have Club Blue coming back into the picture as an alternative option, I just dont see how this was a good move for DC express, other then just getting paid.

[Anonymous]

Club Blue will be very short-lived.

Mad-Lax is catering more to those residing in VA. CM has such a bad reputation; they are losing steam. The ML teams at the HS ranks are nowhere close to what they once were - and that's a fact.

NL clearly has all the momentum; its college placement is extremely impressive. With that said, not every player can play for NL Blue.

DCE has a shot of not only staying relevant but also grabbing some market share with the right leadership and vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

But the problem is that ML and NL DON'T avoid Dad coaches. MadLax has Dad coaches on many of their teams - I know for sure 27, 28 and 29, and I bet there are others. (in fairness, the 28 coach is the program owner). NL has at least one (2030 or 31, I think). It is somewhat unavoidable because there are not other good options. you can have a daddy coach and all the toxicity and nepotism that brings, or you can have a chill lax bro kid in his 20's thinking he can make a living from lacrosse (spoiler alert, you can't), or you can get a HS coach with a good name but is spread too thin, so he is MIA most of the team (Dave Mitchell, for example), which means the assistants are frequently running the team, so you are back to the daddies or the 20-something lax bro's. club owners usually consider the daddies the "least bad" option because the price is right (i.e., free). If anyone knows a mature, quality coach in his 30's/40's with D1 college playing experience, not a nut case, not a team parent, and able to attend close to 100% of the games, and willing to give up their weekend for the pittance that travel coaches are paid, I would love to know who that is. If your son is lucky enough to have such a coach, be grateful, because they are very rare.
What does this mean for DCE under its new ownership? it means they will be fine, because if their coaching is flawed, it will be no different than their competitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Club Blue will be very short-lived.

Mad-Lax is catering more to those residing in VA. CM has such a bad reputation; they are losing steam. The ML teams at the HS ranks are nowhere close to what they once were - and that's a fact.

NL clearly has all the momentum; its college placement is extremely impressive. With that said, not every player can play for NL Blue.

DCE has a shot of not only staying relevant but also grabbing some market share with the right leadership and vision.

Club Blue is being handed off to younger guys. They are being advised very well on longevity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

But the problem is that ML and NL DON'T avoid Dad coaches. MadLax has Dad coaches on many of their teams - I know for sure 27, 28 and 29, and I bet there are others. (in fairness, the 28 coach is the program owner). NL has at least one (2030 or 31, I think). It is somewhat unavoidable because there are not other good options. you can have a daddy coach and all the toxicity and nepotism that brings, or you can have a chill lax bro kid in his 20's thinking he can make a living from lacrosse (spoiler alert, you can't), or you can get a HS coach with a good name but is spread too thin, so he is MIA most of the team (Dave Mitchell, for example), which means the assistants are frequently running the team, so you are back to the daddies or the 20-something lax bro's. club owners usually consider the daddies the "least bad" option because the price is right (i.e., free). If anyone knows a mature, quality coach in his 30's/40's with D1 college playing experience, not a nut case, not a team parent, and able to attend close to 100% of the games, and willing to give up their weekend for the pittance that travel coaches are paid, I would love to know who that is. If your son is lucky enough to have such a coach, be grateful, because they are very rare.
What does this mean for DCE under its new ownership? it means they will be fine, because if their coaching is flawed, it will be no different than their competitors.

So there’s flawed coaching, which I agree every club has. And then there is coaching so toxic that a program that historically fielded elite youth teams that could compete with anyone now consistently has to play in the absolute bottom pool of every HoCo league game and tourney because all of their talent has left. This has happened 5 years in a row now. What’s happened to the 2030-2035 BLC boys program is uniquely awful for the club. The fact that they are now responsible for the older side of things is disappointing. Talk about failing upward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

But the problem is that ML and NL DON'T avoid Dad coaches. MadLax has Dad coaches on many of their teams - I know for sure 27, 28 and 29, and I bet there are others. (in fairness, the 28 coach is the program owner). NL has at least one (2030 or 31, I think). It is somewhat unavoidable because there are not other good options. you can have a daddy coach and all the toxicity and nepotism that brings, or you can have a chill lax bro kid in his 20's thinking he can make a living from lacrosse (spoiler alert, you can't), or you can get a HS coach with a good name but is spread too thin, so he is MIA most of the team (Dave Mitchell, for example), which means the assistants are frequently running the team, so you are back to the daddies or the 20-something lax bro's. club owners usually consider the daddies the "least bad" option because the price is right (i.e., free). If anyone knows a mature, quality coach in his 30's/40's with D1 college playing experience, not a nut case, not a team parent, and able to attend close to 100% of the games, and willing to give up their weekend for the pittance that travel coaches are paid, I would love to know who that is. If your son is lucky enough to have such a coach, be grateful, because they are very rare.
What does this mean for DCE under its new ownership? it means they will be fine, because if their coaching is flawed, it will be no different than their competitors.

So there’s flawed coaching, which I agree every club has. And then there is coaching so toxic that a program that historically fielded elite youth teams that could compete with anyone now consistently has to play in the absolute bottom pool of every HoCo league game and tourney because all of their talent has left. This has happened 5 years in a row now. What’s happened to the 2030-2035 BLC boys program is uniquely awful for the club. The fact that they are now responsible for the older side of things is disappointing. Talk about failing upward.

PP here - that is news to me, because my son is on one of the HS teams and his experience has been good. Sorry to hear that the wheels came off in the younger ages.
what did the coaches in those ages do that was so bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

But the problem is that ML and NL DON'T avoid Dad coaches. MadLax has Dad coaches on many of their teams - I know for sure 27, 28 and 29, and I bet there are others. (in fairness, the 28 coach is the program owner). NL has at least one (2030 or 31, I think). It is somewhat unavoidable because there are not other good options. you can have a daddy coach and all the toxicity and nepotism that brings, or you can have a chill lax bro kid in his 20's thinking he can make a living from lacrosse (spoiler alert, you can't), or you can get a HS coach with a good name but is spread too thin, so he is MIA most of the team (Dave Mitchell, for example), which means the assistants are frequently running the team, so you are back to the daddies or the 20-something lax bro's. club owners usually consider the daddies the "least bad" option because the price is right (i.e., free). If anyone knows a mature, quality coach in his 30's/40's with D1 college playing experience, not a nut case, not a team parent, and able to attend close to 100% of the games, and willing to give up their weekend for the pittance that travel coaches are paid, I would love to know who that is. If your son is lucky enough to have such a coach, be grateful, because they are very rare.
What does this mean for DCE under its new ownership? it means they will be fine, because if their coaching is flawed, it will be no different than their competitors.

So there’s flawed coaching, which I agree every club has. And then there is coaching so toxic that a program that historically fielded elite youth teams that could compete with anyone now consistently has to play in the absolute bottom pool of every HoCo league game and tourney because all of their talent has left. This has happened 5 years in a row now. What’s happened to the 2030-2035 BLC boys program is uniquely awful for the club. The fact that they are now responsible for the older side of things is disappointing. Talk about failing upward.

PP here - that is news to me, because my son is on one of the HS teams and his experience has been good. Sorry to hear that the wheels came off in the younger ages.
what did the coaches in those ages do that was so bad?

It would be easier to list the recent BLC teams that haven’t blown up than the ones that have. The reasons why vary by team, but a big part of the broader issue is the degree to which Daddy ball infects the product on the field. The question isn’t why a particular team fell apart, it’s why it has happened over and over again across the organization—on the boys side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

The first BLC team to implode, 2030, was because the dad coaches wanted to keep coaching and NL promised they could do that. So they took the whole starting roster with them from BLC to NL. And those dad coaches are still the NL 2030 coaches to this day. Pretty much the opposite of your story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

But the problem is that ML and NL DON'T avoid Dad coaches. MadLax has Dad coaches on many of their teams - I know for sure 27, 28 and 29, and I bet there are others. (in fairness, the 28 coach is the program owner). NL has at least one (2030 or 31, I think). It is somewhat unavoidable because there are not other good options. you can have a daddy coach and all the toxicity and nepotism that brings, or you can have a chill lax bro kid in his 20's thinking he can make a living from lacrosse (spoiler alert, you can't), or you can get a HS coach with a good name but is spread too thin, so he is MIA most of the team (Dave Mitchell, for example), which means the assistants are frequently running the team, so you are back to the daddies or the 20-something lax bro's. club owners usually consider the daddies the "least bad" option because the price is right (i.e., free). If anyone knows a mature, quality coach in his 30's/40's with D1 college playing experience, not a nut case, not a team parent, and able to attend close to 100% of the games, and willing to give up their weekend for the pittance that travel coaches are paid, I would love to know who that is. If your son is lucky enough to have such a coach, be grateful, because they are very rare.
What does this mean for DCE under its new ownership? it means they will be fine, because if their coaching is flawed, it will be no different than their competitors.

Mitchell hasnt been coaching HS for a few years now...

[Anonymous]

DCE is a dumpster fire and has been for several years. I'm shocked BLC would keep any attachments to the former ownership. If they want to have any level of credibility with the current families they should sever all ties and start fresh with new faces and a new plan to regain the confidence lost over the past several years.

To a prior post about a couple good years recently. The 25 & 26 black teams successes had zero to do with DCE as a club. They had one off situations and well intentioned dad's who kept things together for those years DESPITE the club. I feel bad for the orange teams at every year the last several classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

The first BLC team to implode, 2030, was because the dad coaches wanted to keep coaching and NL promised they could do that. So they took the whole starting roster with them from BLC to NL. And those dad coaches are still the NL 2030 coaches to this day. Pretty much the opposite of your story.

Cool story bro. Now do the 2031s, 2032s, 2033s, 2034s and 2035s

[Anonymous]

DC express stinks, end of story. This will acquisition will be epic failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC express stinks, end of story. This will acquisition will be epic failure.

All of these posts critiquing the pros and cons of DCE relative to Madlax and NL miss the only point that matters: the level of play and the number of good to elite players in the DC met area has dropped significantly. Does this area still produce elite players? Of course, just not as many of them. If you took the elite players from all three clubs and put them on one team, it could beat anyone in the country, but 5-10 years ago all three clubs fielded elite teams. Those days are over for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC express stinks, end of story. This will acquisition will be epic failure.

Good morning CM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCE former owners can now focus solely on coaching and the BLC people can handle the business that distracts owners who coach. Considering some of the owners who coach around here this like a good separation of church and state to me.

Anzelone was the former owner and he got out just like i said he would when his son graduated. Mission accomplished. Now Urick can launch his kids.

Sadly this is the way of these clubs. Their kids and their kids' friends above all others.

IF BLC's recent track record with the boys' club program is any indication of how daddy ball is going to work with the older kids at DCE, this merger seems like it's going to be a disaster.

BLC is where they don’t do daddy ball - see ML 2027, NL 2030, NL 20 whatever McCavera - all teams formed at BLC with dad coaches who wanted to keep going so had to take their entire teams - cutting more and more original players every year of course - to these other places.

Ah, no. These BLC daddy ball teams didn't implode because BLC wouldn't let the coaches continue to coach their teams. They imploded because the daddy coach model that BLC permits got so toxic that team after team disbanded in order to play for NL, ML, etc. where they largely avoid dad coaches.

I really was hoping for DCE to find a way through the fact that the BLC pipeline for talent in the 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033 etc. classes is so weak. Tying themselves even more strongly to the BLC pipeline is the worst thing they can do to build DCE from within.

The first BLC team to implode, 2030, was because the dad coaches wanted to keep coaching and NL promised they could do that. So they took the whole starting roster with them from BLC to NL. And those dad coaches are still the NL 2030 coaches to this day. Pretty much the opposite of your story.

Cool story bro. Now do the 2031s, 2032s, 2033s, 2034s and 2035s

If you don’t have an adult on the team (preferably the coach!) who cares deeply about its success, it’s very hard to build and then if that adult takes the best players and moves to another club, it’s very hard for the group left to successfully regroup. It’s heartbreaking and time consuming and there are not a lot of people who choose to lead an effort like that especially when their kids are involved. Much easier to abandon ship and that’s what you’re seeing with those years after 2030.

Also parents very understandably did not want their kids to have to basically start from scratch when BLC ended after 7th grade so they wanted to get out before that happened. BLC girls are now tied much more closely with Capital and the boys with DCE - business stuff aside to try and eliminate that fear and subconscious need to jump ship before 8th grade.