ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[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.

Not a fan of Mclean/Union but there girls side is impressive. Making playoffs is not even one of the criteria. College placements is. And they have had them. McLean was probablyt he top ECNL club int he region. Mclean and FCV for GA. Now both are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

I think everything I’ve stated has been that the inclusion of so many BRAVE coaches will only make this merger a failure.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a successful ECNL boys program with DC United and MLSNext in our region.

But the disruption on the girls side will be the real loss.

ECNL seems hell bent on this happening without being realistic about the overall success of ECNL boys vs ECNL girls.

ECNL needs to accept second tier status on the boys side just as GA needs to accept second tier status on the girls side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

I think everything I’ve stated has been that the inclusion of so many BRAVE coaches will only make this merger a failure.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a successful ECNL boys program with DC United and MLSNext in our region.

But the disruption on the girls side will be the real loss.

ECNL seems hell bent on this happening without being realistic about the overall success of ECNL boys vs ECNL girls.

ECNL needs to accept second tier status on the boys side and FU needs to accept second tier status in Fairfax Co. to SYC on the girls and boys side for the the forseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Thank you - +10000 % agree!

[Anonymous]

How happy would we be if ECNL took away both Brave and Union's boys programs? That was the threat. Then we'd complain that the clubs didn't do anything to protect their teams. No win situation.

[Anonymous]

It's all done now folks. You can either accept it and tryout or find a new club. No one is happy about it, but it's time to move on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How happy would we be if ECNL took away both Brave and Union's boys programs? That was the threat. Then we'd complain that the clubs didn't do anything to protect their teams. No win situation.

You’re right, now instead of just the boys being mad now everyone is mad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all done now folks. You can either accept it and tryout or find a new club. No one is happy about it, but it's time to move on

+1000

127 pages on DCUM about this is more than enough.

[Anonymous]

Bill Hamid Though...

[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.

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)

That's inaccurate. Multiple McLean girls' teams have qualified for playoffs. The last few games will determine how many go to champion's league playoffs. At this point, the 10s, 08s, 07s are definitely going to playoffs -- remaining games will determine level. The 11s still have a chance because they have about 11 games left to play; they are in 7th place and the top 5 go to playoffs. That only leaves the 09s (7th place and only top 5 go; still have 2 games to play) and the 06s (they are in 3rd and only top finisher from MA goes to playoffs for U18). Compare to Brave....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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)

That's inaccurate. Multiple McLean girls' teams have qualified for playoffs. The last few games will determine how many go to champion's league playoffs. At this point, the 10s, 08s, 07s are definitely going to playoffs -- remaining games will determine level. The 11s still have a chance because they have about 11 games left to play; they are in 7th place and the top 5 go to playoffs. That only leaves the 09s (7th place and only top 5 go; still have 2 games to play) and the 06s (they are in 3rd and only top finisher from MA goes to playoffs for U18). Compare to Brave....

Congrats on all the teams in the NIT.

[Anonymous]

Well they must think it won’t take much for girls since they have 1 ID session. Boys have FOUR! So you’d better perform well girls cause you’re one and done!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

I think you are being a little unrealistic. Lack of backbone? McLean/Union had no choice. This is not a nice discussion. This was a command -- do something or lose ECNL and RL. More like a boss telling you to do something. You can have all the backbone you want and then you are fired. What would McLean do -- get GA? I mean they would have but that is a nightmare for them. Yes the leauge can push you around. You have to do what they say or leave. There is no FU possible.

When you say less than 1% of these kids will play in college -- do you mean the boys? On the girls ECNL side every player on Union commits. Most of the kids on Brave even commit. Union ECNLR have commits.

[Anonymous]

Under the girls page it shows 2 ID sessions, but on the ID session page just one.
I’m assuming they are giving the boys more because with many MYS coaches not participating it means they won’t be around to give input. Gives the Mclean boys a more even shot.
On the girls side with a mix they’ll hopefully be able to figure things out quicker. Makes it tough to come in from the outside.
I still believe the Clubs would be stupid to not take the best combined talent. It’s the only way they will survive this.

[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.

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.

Not a fan of Mclean/Union but there girls side is impressive. Making playoffs is not even one of the criteria. College placements is. And they have had them. McLean was probablyt he top ECNL club int he region. Mclean and FCV for GA. Now both are gone.

I keep hearing about the "amazing college placement" for Mclean girls. This is an illusion. They are getting placed on these college teams because they come from an affluent region, with amazing schools and educational oportunities, and their parents have the means to pay for their child's higher education. The work that these girls put into their school work and education got them into college; they also happen to be decent to good at soccer. Any team of 30 girls that play in ECNL that come from this background will have players that play at some good colleges.

I actually think they under-performed in college placement for girls. If they had been developed better over the years, I'm sure more college coaches would have been giving offers to Mclean players who didn't need a scholarship. This would have given more money to use of players that needed the scholarship money.