ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See I told you that MV was going to be the 08Gs HC.

Can someone please tell me if MV is any good?!

Yes. He is a very experienced coach. His current BRAVE players really like him as their coach and respond well to him, so the parents are happy too.

MV very active on dcum. Don’t believe this bs. NCSL coach that’s autistic so communication skills are just weird. DD loves LO but she is subservient to MV.

MV has a USSF A license, won multiple state cups, placed hundred in D1 uni and has been the guiding leader for VYS success for 10+ years. We are excited to have him as our DD coach.

Anyone in ECNL is far more concerned about his college connections than winning state cups. State cups haven’t been relevant for over a decade.

So please, spare us his NCSL accomplishments because nobody cares about them.

What ECNL parents care about is what he has done at the ECNL level. So, for the record, his teams lost and ECNL put his club on probation and ultimately forced a merger or lose ECNL all together.

How does any of this qualify his presence on so many teams?

No on field record of success in ECNL and no record of college commitments. Yeah, McLean parents should be really excited over getting this guy forced on their kids teams.

Unless you are absolutely desperate for college scholarships, and one of the few who actually gets real money to a good school, anybody counting on their travel coach to be the key that gets their daughter an offer is committing malpractice as a parent. If that's how you get through the door, that's also how you're going to leave.

The coach doesn’t do the work but the coach also has relationships and trust built with college coaches over the years. When your kid emails schools and they see the club and coach name of a club and coach they trust it helps kids make an initial list to be watched at a showcase.

But BRAVE/BRYC has had a total of 15 girls committed over 3 years. That’s his clubs record. If those were VYS numbers for NCSL then that is actually impressive but for a ECNL club to place only 15 players over 3 years is pathetic.

So he was impressive on his platform but you are judging him for not having placed the same amount of girls as ECNL coaches without having the same ECNL platform?

I have no idea how effective he will be in this new role and platform but you seem to be full of contradictions.

No, he wasn’t impressive on his platform. He failed to place kids while on the ECNL platform.

He has accomplished nothing at the ECNL level and has been provided a couple of years to demonstrate whether or not he can coach at that level in this area.

[Anonymous]

I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

[Anonymous]

Costco is out of popcorn since this thread began

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See I told you that MV was going to be the 08Gs HC.

Can someone please tell me if MV is any good?!

Yes. He is a very experienced coach. His current BRAVE players really like him as their coach and respond well to him, so the parents are happy too.

MV very active on dcum. Don’t believe this bs. NCSL coach that’s autistic so communication skills are just weird. DD loves LO but she is subservient to MV.

You are jerk, and I'm sure are raising amazing kids with this comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

IF (they still have 2 more games left)

[Anonymous]

https://www.fvaunion.org/girls-ecnl


every team has 3 coaches. That is LOVLY.

[Anonymous]

It's clear that there are issues with how BRYC handled their boys' program, leading to the creation of multiple clubs and facing tougher competition. Despite this, Brave is still striving for relevance. An interesting observation is that the Union side, which faces fewer challenges, is still struggling - even losing to SYC's second team and competing against second and third teams in mid-tier tournaments. Union undeniably possesses a richer talent pool and better players compared to Brave. It appears that a significant cultural shift is needed within the entire program, moving away from parental involvement and prioritizing the best players on the field regardless of their geographic origins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's clear that there are issues with how BRYC handled their boys' program, leading to the creation of multiple clubs and facing tougher competition. Despite this, Brave is still striving for relevance. An interesting observation is that the Union side, which faces fewer challenges, is still struggling - even losing to SYC's second team and competing against second and third teams in mid-tier tournaments. Union undeniably possesses a richer talent pool and better players compared to Brave. It appears that a significant cultural shift is needed within the entire program, moving away from parental involvement and prioritizing the best players on the field regardless of their geographic origins.

wait there is a BRYC boys program? havent seen a bryc boys team in years lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

McLean girls get committed. Look at the list. That is the end game here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

[Anonymous]

It appears that coaching isn't the problem; rather, there seems to be a lack of talent on the boys' side. I sympathize with the girls on both teams. Bringing together the top players from each club, along with external talent, would elevate the boys' competitiveness. This would result in an automatic improvement, particularly with outreach efforts to attract talent from Manassas/Woodbridge area with scholarship incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

And combining two underperforming clubs together while creating upheaval in your coaching staff is a recipe for success?? Club leadership lacks a backbone when dealing with the league and now they can just push us around when this fails (which it will). Less than 1% of these kids have a chance of playing in college. All this shuffling around doesn't change the outcome. What should matter is the experience we provide to the majority of the players. That's what lost in all this crap. Finding a good coach that can impact your kids life is what parents want. The hyper competitive "ELITE" BS that is marketed only helps a select handful. The parent above is right. McLean was fine on the boys side with the coaching staff and progress was being made. Why let the league tell you how to determine what's best for your own kids. This merger is hurting more kids than is helping and that is a fact. We forget the role of the clubs isn't just to appeal to the 1%.