LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SYC is far from losing players..their tryouts were packed.

EM would be on LMVSC Townhall over-a-year-ago-thread telling us about SYC tryouts being packed.

[Anonymous]

Why no town hall this year?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:All hostility aside, empirically, what's the state of LMVSC now? Full set of travel clubs next year? Solid rec league numbers?

Just to clarify, by "Full set of travel clubs" you mean that as teams per age group and gender within the leagues they are committed to play?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:All hostility aside, empirically, what's the state of LMVSC now? Full set of travel clubs next year? Solid rec league numbers?

Just to clarify, by "Full set of travel clubs" you mean that as teams per age group and gender within the leagues they are committed to play?

I was thinking more vaguely -- "full" as in "healthy number." Though, yes whether they'd need to bring in more teams from PAC and elsewhere would be interesting to know as well.

Hard to tell until the season starts and you are able to see what teams are participating in what leagues. No idea about their rec program.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:All hostility aside, empirically, what's the state of LMVSC now? Full set of travel clubs next year? Solid rec league numbers?

Just to clarify, by "Full set of travel clubs" you mean that as teams per age group and gender within the leagues they are committed to play?

I was thinking more vaguely -- "full" as in "healthy number." Though, yes whether they'd need to bring in more teams from PAC and elsewhere would be interesting to know as well.

They might bring in a handful of players per age group, but, they are likely to lose the best player or two per age group. They're in a tough spot.

[Anonymous]

good numbers, promoting the rec players to CCL teams and giving them higher level opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:good numbers, promoting the rec players to CCL teams and giving them higher level opportunities.

Why not promote them to NCSL first? I don’t understand, do you charge rec players same cost as travel players?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:All hostility aside, empirically, what's the state of LMVSC now? Full set of travel clubs next year? Solid rec league numbers?

Which coaching slate is accurate?

This one https://lmvsc.org/travel-soccer-staff/#2008

Or this one? https://lmvsc.org/coaching-slate/

When scrolling through the list, it is different in several age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SYC is far from losing players..their tryouts were packed.

And the offer response queue was full of silence and rejections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC is far from losing players..their tryouts were packed.

And the offer response queue was full of silence and rejections.

SYC is adding a team to every age group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC is far from losing players..their tryouts were packed.

And the offer response queue was full of silence and rejections.

SYC is adding a team to every age group

SYC advertised adding a team to every age group by announcing an extra coach. They did not fill the majority of those additional teams. Marketing hype vs actual numbers tell a different story. Unlike other teams discussed here, they keep short rosters at least through u12’s (this is good), and several existing teams moving up ages and adding players barely got enough to keep both teams.

LMVSC having similar numbers issues and expect to see several fill in teams or non existent at a couple of the youngest ages as they combine a few player age groups to make rosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC is far from losing players..their tryouts were packed.

And the offer response queue was full of silence and rejections.

SYC is adding a team to every age group

SYC advertised adding a team to every age group by announcing an extra coach. They did not fill the majority of those additional teams. Marketing hype vs actual numbers tell a different story. Unlike other teams discussed here, they keep short rosters at least through u12’s (this is good), and several existing teams moving up ages and adding players barely got enough to keep both teams.

LMVSC having similar numbers issues and expect to see several fill in teams or non existent at a couple of the youngest ages as they combine a few player age groups to make rosters.

Does LMVSC also advertise adding a team to every age group by announcing an extra coach? Several teams are missing this year, yet, there are coaches 'slated' for those teams.

[Anonymous]

Ssshhh...

[Anonymous]

If EM spent as much time developing SYC players as he does keeping this thread on page 1 of DCUM, he wouldn't have to constantly recruit players from LMVSC and Gunston.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If EM spent as much time developing SYC players as he does keeping this thread on page 1 of DCUM, he wouldn't have to constantly recruit players from LMVSC and Gunston.

this... plus it gave me a good chuckle reading it.