NCSL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking of NCSL blowouts...NCSL needs to look at teams from clubs with DA when they become U12. For example, let's say Arlington...at U11 Arlington Red and White CCL, Blue team in NCSL and they do well. Now, the DA teams start at U12 and most of the Red and White kids go DA and that Blue team basically becomes the Red team, the Black team basically becomes the White team, and the Gold team basically becomes the Blue team but NCSL still puts the Blue team in Division 1 based on the name of the team and not the quality of the team. Maybe these DA clubs should communicate this to NCSL prior to the division structure being released. Maybe NCSL should realized it without being told. I don't know. This happened with PWSI last year and I think it's happening to Arlington Blue and Loudoun White this year. I just hate to see teams get blown out.

Shouldn’t the DA cast a wider net than a single team ? If DA was consolidating talent then you might see a couple players from Arlington red make DA, not the whole team. That’s a joke.

No it is not: Arlington, as all DAs, has two teams at the U12 level, which explains why many kids from the U11 Red team make it there.

I think, for Arlington u12 DA, all but two of the Red team made the DA. One kid moved away and the other didn't try out. I think 3 or 4 kids from the White team made the DA. So Arlington essentially lost one full team to the DA.

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:Let me see if I can rephrase my comment regarding 2008s bearing the brunt of the age grouping change.

I believe 2008 squads at "small" clubs (like FPYC) are bearing the brunt of the rule change more than others. Kids born in the first half of 2008 had the option of starting travel soccer at U9 with kids born in the second half of 2007. Once the rule went into effect, those kids likely stayed with their team (now labeled 2007s). We can call that playing up now for the 2008s playing with the 2007s, but these kids were just staying with their current team. So, when the time came for the 2008s to start travel at U9 (after the rule change), the pool of potential players at a small club was probably limited to kids born in the second half of 2008. At bigger clubs, there were probably a ton of kids born in the first half of 2008 that started U9 travel with 2007s. Aside from A-team players staying with a 2007 group, a big club could probably field full 2008 squads with players who already had a year's worth of travel experience. To my untrained eye, having a team full players with an extra year of travel (at U9 through U11) can make you pretty dominant, particularly against teams from smaller clubs that simply don't have as large a pool of potential players. For tournaments, big clubs can stack some of their teams with players that qualify by age. This is something smaller clubs simply cannot do. We can only play with the ones we've got!

Of the 15 rostered players on this FPYC 2008 team, I believe there is one with May birthday who started with the team at U9. For the U10 year, I think we've added a January birthday from another other club. Two other players with first-half-of-2008 birthdays just joined this team for Fall 2018 when their 2007 FPYC team abruptly disbanded after the spring. The remaining 11 all have birthdays after July 1st. FPYC didn't garner enough interest to field a 2009 team. There is a 2010 team that's just completed its first month of games.


…


As far as NCSL division alignment at U11, when one division has A teams from two or more clubs and another division has the B/C teams from those same clubs, I think it's natural to assume that the division with multiple A teams is higher/better. For this particular FPYC 2008 team, we're currently grouped with the B/C teams from those larger clubs. At this point, we can only hope that the girls continue to develop and maybe win a good share of tournament games. EDP can wait.

That's really the club's fault, for not insisting that most if not all of the 2008 girls play with the new 2008 team. The club from the top down should have been committed to adjusting to the age group change. On the boys side, at least at the 03-06 age group, the club made the decision to split up the "old" teams and form new calendar year teams.

All of this birthday stuff will become meaningless in a couple of years when all the girls grow and move to a full field. Development is all that is important at U11.

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:Let me see if I can rephrase my comment regarding 2008s bearing the brunt of the age grouping change.

I believe 2008 squads at "small" clubs (like FPYC) are bearing the brunt of the rule change more than others. Kids born in the first half of 2008 had the option of starting travel soccer at U9 with kids born in the second half of 2007. Once the rule went into effect, those kids likely stayed with their team (now labeled 2007s). We can call that playing up now for the 2008s playing with the 2007s, but these kids were just staying with their current team. So, when the time came for the 2008s to start travel at U9 (after the rule change), the pool of potential players at a small club was probably limited to kids born in the second half of 2008. At bigger clubs, there were probably a ton of kids born in the first half of 2008 that started U9 travel with 2007s. Aside from A-team players staying with a 2007 group, a big club could probably field full 2008 squads with players who already had a year's worth of travel experience. To my untrained eye, having a team full players with an extra year of travel (at U9 through U11) can make you pretty dominant, particularly against teams from smaller clubs that simply don't have as large a pool of potential players. For tournaments, big clubs can stack some of their teams with players that qualify by age. This is something smaller clubs simply cannot do. We can only play with the ones we've got!

Of the 15 rostered players on this FPYC 2008 team, I believe there is one with May birthday who started with the team at U9. For the U10 year, I think we've added a January birthday from another other club. Two other players with first-half-of-2008 birthdays just joined this team for Fall 2018 when their 2007 FPYC team abruptly disbanded after the spring. The remaining 11 all have birthdays after July 1st. FPYC didn't garner enough interest to field a 2009 team. There is a 2010 team that's just completed its first month of games.
…


As far as NCSL division alignment at U11, when one division has A teams from two or more clubs and another division has the B/C teams from those same clubs, I think it's natural to assume that the division with multiple A teams is higher/better. For this particular FPYC 2008 team, we're currently grouped with the B/C teams from those larger clubs. At this point, we can only hope that the girls continue to develop and maybe win a good share of tournament games. EDP can wait.

In the bigger clubs, 08 is thin. For example, McLean has 3 08 girls teams while they have 4 for their 06s and 07s. Loudoun has 4 for 08, but 5 for all other small-sided age groups. For 08s born in the 1st half of 2008, they played up to U8 as the 'young' half of their age group. Is it possible 'Relative Age Effect' left fewer of them playing or at least playing successfully -- i.e. weren't the top players on their teams, didn't get selected for juniors/academies/etc??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also with FPYC. EDP is pretty much the only higher league you’d be able to get into, and if I’m not mistaken you have to have won your division.

That doesn't sound right. I've seen tons of teams go from NCSL Division 1 to EDP in one year.

It's funny in a way. All these teams decide they've outgrown NCSL, so they go to EDP -- to play each other anyway.

Sorry, I should’ve specified. This team was in Division 2, not 1.

You don't need to have won any division to enter EDP. NCSL and EDP are not in any hierarchy together.

I think I would know better than you. We were specifically told we needed to have won the division, since we weren’t a Division 1 team. I don’t know what else to tell you.

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:Let me see if I can rephrase my comment regarding 2008s bearing the brunt of the age grouping change.

I believe 2008 squads at "small" clubs (like FPYC) are bearing the brunt of the rule change more than others. Kids born in the first half of 2008 had the option of starting travel soccer at U9 with kids born in the second half of 2007. Once the rule went into effect, those kids likely stayed with their team (now labeled 2007s). We can call that playing up now for the 2008s playing with the 2007s, but these kids were just staying with their current team. So, when the time came for the 2008s to start travel at U9 (after the rule change), the pool of potential players at a small club was probably limited to kids born in the second half of 2008. At bigger clubs, there were probably a ton of kids born in the first half of 2008 that started U9 travel with 2007s. Aside from A-team players staying with a 2007 group, a big club could probably field full 2008 squads with players who already had a year's worth of travel experience. To my untrained eye, having a team full players with an extra year of travel (at U9 through U11) can make you pretty dominant, particularly against teams from smaller clubs that simply don't have as large a pool of potential players. For tournaments, big clubs can stack some of their teams with players that qualify by age. This is something smaller clubs simply cannot do. We can only play with the ones we've got!

Of the 15 rostered players on this FPYC 2008 team, I believe there is one with May birthday who started with the team at U9. For the U10 year, I think we've added a January birthday from another other club. Two other players with first-half-of-2008 birthdays just joined this team for Fall 2018 when their 2007 FPYC team abruptly disbanded after the spring. The remaining 11 all have birthdays after July 1st. FPYC didn't garner enough interest to field a 2009 team. There is a 2010 team that's just completed its first month of games.
…


As far as NCSL division alignment at U11, when one division has A teams from two or more clubs and another division has the B/C teams from those same clubs, I think it's natural to assume that the division with multiple A teams is higher/better. For this particular FPYC 2008 team, we're currently grouped with the B/C teams from those larger clubs. At this point, we can only hope that the girls continue to develop and maybe win a good share of tournament games. EDP can wait.

08s who elected to play up and stay with an 07 team didn't start travel at U9. They actually skipped U9 and went straight from U8 rec to U10 travel. At FPYC, there were 3 08s who initially played with the 07 travel team. One left and went to another club, and the other two are now with your team. The 07s didn't "abruptly disband after the Spring." That is simply not true and not fair to the coach. He called a meeting to let the team know he was leaving in mid-March.

Most bigger clubs did not allow play-ups when the birth year change took effect. They just enforced the change across the board. Smaller clubs had to be more flexible and often allowed teams to stay together, with the younger half of the team playing up. There was a trade off in loss of competitiveness that came along with that. Some were OK with that. Some weren't and those teams have split up.

Most big clubs only put their B/C teams and below in NCSL. Any club in CCL, CCL II, VPL, or EDP, is going to put it's top team, or sometimes 2 top teams, in those leagues. The Girls U11 Div C, which is nominally the "top" division, has Alexandria's B team, Arlington's C team, Stoddert's C team, SYC's B team.

Looking at your team's past results, I could see why NCSL would put them where they are, thinking that would give them decent competition, since they'd lost to B teams from McLean and Arlington over the past year. It sounds like your team has continued to improve and is probably doing better than NCSL expected, but that happens sometimes. I'm sure the addition of the two older 08s has helped a lot, since most other 08 teams would not be getting that bump right now, and I'm also sure also the team has continued to develop and improve, because you do have a very good coach, and some talented players. It's likely that NCSL will make an adjustment and put you with more competitive teams in the Spring.

Having experienced both NCSL and EDP, and while I like EDP for a lot of reasons, I don't think it makes sense unless you are at or near the top of NCSL D1, and your team has a little bit to go before you get there.

Good luck this weekend.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that NCSL does not do seeding and have tiered divisions for younger age teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that NCSL does not do seeding and have tiered divisions for younger age teams.

Should they? Do the younger ages feature a lot of "blow out" games?

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:My apologies as I didn't want to "overly" imply that any true tiering was going on prior to the U13 year. I not trying to claim to be all-knowing when it comes to NCSL or anything else. For Fall 2018, I only noticed that NCSL seems to have A/B teams from multiple clubs grouped in one GU11 division, while C/D teams from those same clubs are grouped in another GU11 division. It just appears that the divisions with A/B teams **may** offer a higher level of play than the divisions with C and lower teams from those same clubs. Again, I fully realize that this is not full-blown, all-out NCSL tiering.

I'll offer the following from http://ncsl-soccer.com/division-structure:

GU11 Div C (10 teams) has Arlington Blue, Great Falls-Reston United, McLean Green, MSI Academy White, SYC Orange
GU11 Div G (10) has Great Fall-Reston Arsenal, Loudoun White, McLean Gold, MSI Academy Green, Vienna Black
GU11 Div P (8) has Arlington Black, SYC White
GU11 Div Y (8) has Great Falls Spirit Pre-Academy, Loudoun Silver, Vienna White


Is it safe to say that Arlington Blue > Black; GFR United > Arsenal > Spirit Pre-Academy, McLean Green > Gold, MSI Academy White > Green, SYC Orange > White … and so on? (Yes, I realize that some of the clubs have their true top teams some place other than NCSL.)

I had noticed the same thing. I always thought it was implicitly tiered, although they didn't like to use labels. Just like McLean says Green and Gold, when we all now it's really A and B. If it's just coincidence, it's certainly an interesting one.

[Anonymous]

So is it too much of a stretch to hope for a consolidation of leagues then? Like EDP, CCL, and NCSL?

The NPL doesn't seem to be a very good league in terms of quality, but the other 3 seem to have some good play in them.