ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

Exactly, here's how it will go.

ECNL was created by stealing the top teams out of leagues like Coast (in CA). At the time Coast had all the clubs and all the levels playing in one league. There were several regional leagues like this. The top clubs would come together at local tournaments like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup. ECNL created a national league by taking all the top clubs from each regional league.

Now ECNL is trying to become what Coast was back in the day. A level for everyone. They're doing this to increase profits and control player pipelines. Which is exactly what Coast did before them.

This leaves ECNL vulnerable to the top clubs leaving them and creating their own league. Starting the cycle over again under a new list of letters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

So, basically in a macro-sense USYS lost at the elite level with its NL and Elite64/Club Premier (even though it's still around and provides decent competition) and now US Club which is dominant in girls and No. 2 in boys at the elite level (ECNL) wants to grow by taking more of the USYS pie at the lower levels, the stronger state leagues, basically. And while many of these clubs already serve as pipelines to ECNL, they want to formalize them as they compete with MLSN/GA. Who knows they might eventually merge in some fashion if successful but then they may lose their edge in all the largess (similar to how USYS can struggle now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is going to have pre ECNL for 7v7 and will start in 26/27. With U9!

The writing was on the wall for this. It is the next logical step in trying to keep MLSN at bay. Particularly if MLSN stays BY. Each league will need/want to create their own silo from u8 through u19.

I think it will take longer for MLSN to spin up their own alternative. They don’t seem to have the overhead needed.

MLSN does not be benefit from a silo age cutoff, ECNL boys does.

That doesn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

If we are going to do this nonsense we should just scrap league play. Add in 2 more tournaments per season and play all the teams there. Traveling for one league game is a waste of time and $$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

So, basically in a macro-sense USYS lost at the elite level with its NL and Elite64/Club Premier (even though it's still around and provides decent competition) and now US Club which is dominant in girls and No. 2 in boys at the elite level (ECNL) wants to grow by taking more of the USYS pie at the lower levels, the stronger state leagues, basically. And while many of these clubs already serve as pipelines to ECNL, they want to formalize them as they compete with MLSN/GA. Who knows they might eventually merge in some fashion if successful but then they may lose their edge in all the largess (similar to how USYS can struggle now).

One of the fundamental problems USYS faces, US Club does not. USYS is still straddled with 50+ state orgs and an ancient operating structure. Plus, for whatever reason, USYS feels they need to serve everyone regardless of costs. It is like the USPS model vs UPS/fedex.

ECNL doesn’t need to serve everyone, just everyone in their key markets. And once you have a customer, it is easier to keep them down the line.

The danger is in diluting their brand to where these leagues hurt their overall image. But with MLSN2, they probably feel the danger is worth it. Tier 2 was a direct shot on them…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is going to have pre ECNL for 7v7 and will start in 26/27. With U9!

The writing was on the wall for this. It is the next logical step in trying to keep MLSN at bay. Particularly if MLSN stays BY. Each league will need/want to create their own silo from u8 through u19.

I think it will take longer for MLSN to spin up their own alternative. They don’t seem to have the overhead needed.

MLSN does not be benefit from a silo age cutoff, ECNL boys does.

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re right it makes sense to limit your talent pool and force a less popular age cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

So, basically in a macro-sense USYS lost at the elite level with its NL and Elite64/Club Premier (even though it's still around and provides decent competition) and now US Club which is dominant in girls and No. 2 in boys at the elite level (ECNL) wants to grow by taking more of the USYS pie at the lower levels, the stronger state leagues, basically. And while many of these clubs already serve as pipelines to ECNL, they want to formalize them as they compete with MLSN/GA. Who knows they might eventually merge in some fashion if successful but then they may lose their edge in all the largess (similar to how USYS can struggle now).

One of the fundamental problems USYS faces, US Club does not. USYS is still straddled with 50+ state orgs and an ancient operating structure. Plus, for whatever reason, USYS feels they need to serve everyone regardless of costs. It is like the USPS model vs UPS/fedex.

ECNL doesn’t need to serve everyone, just everyone in their key markets. And once you have a customer, it is easier to keep them down the line.

The danger is in diluting their brand to where these leagues hurt their overall image. But with MLSN2, they probably feel the danger is worth it. Tier 2 was a direct shot on them…

Makes sense since many MLSN2 are basically strong USYS clubs. In our area, we saw a shift either toward that (and GA) or ECRL. So, now the old USYS state league is full of 2nd and 3rd teams -- it's a shell of what it was even a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

So, basically in a macro-sense USYS lost at the elite level with its NL and Elite64/Club Premier (even though it's still around and provides decent competition) and now US Club which is dominant in girls and No. 2 in boys at the elite level (ECNL) wants to grow by taking more of the USYS pie at the lower levels, the stronger state leagues, basically. And while many of these clubs already serve as pipelines to ECNL, they want to formalize them as they compete with MLSN/GA. Who knows they might eventually merge in some fashion if successful but then they may lose their edge in all the largess (similar to how USYS can struggle now).

One of the fundamental problems USYS faces, US Club does not. USYS is still straddled with 50+ state orgs and an ancient operating structure. Plus, for whatever reason, USYS feels they need to serve everyone regardless of costs. It is like the USPS model vs UPS/fedex.

ECNL doesn’t need to serve everyone, just everyone in their key markets. And once you have a customer, it is easier to keep them down the line.

The danger is in diluting their brand to where these leagues hurt their overall image. But with MLSN2, they probably feel the danger is worth it. Tier 2 was a direct shot on them…

So your arguement is ECNL should take over a market using monopolistic power. Then limit that market to fewer participants?

I'm not saying it wont work. However if implemented ECNL will need additional legal staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is going to have pre ECNL for 7v7 and will start in 26/27. With U9!

The writing was on the wall for this. It is the next logical step in trying to keep MLSN at bay. Particularly if MLSN stays BY. Each league will need/want to create their own silo from u8 through u19.

I think it will take longer for MLSN to spin up their own alternative. They don’t seem to have the overhead needed.

MLSN does not be benefit from a silo age cutoff, ECNL boys does.

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re right it makes sense to limit your talent pool and force a less popular age cutoff.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-ECNL program lower than U9 is another money grab. We already have it here in our area for U11-U12 and it is a hot mess. The lower level clubs who are getting throttled in it hate it so much. It makes no sense.

Seems like it's more about partnering with smaller clubs and replacing USYS as the league for those clubs' top teams. Maybe that improves their development pipeline.

This is right. It is about finding feeder clubs. And ECNL’s growth is currently, (in a NL / RL model) top end limited - clubs typically can only have one team per age bracket and those teams have roster limits.

Think about this in a business model perspective. If big clubs have their own rec program, have classic, have tiers of competitive regional and national soccer (DPL, NPL, USYS NL, MLSN / ECNL / GA), the money for the club comes from the classic league and rec programs - that’s how they pay for staff and full time coaches at the top end.

ECNL’s share of wallet from that club is pretty small. AND ECNL’s ability to grow by adding clubs is relatively limited (time, talent and infrastructure).

So…how does ECNL grow its revenue? By seeking a larger share of wallet from the existing clubs, AND creating a product that can be scaled to clubs that they can’t bring into RL / NL for a variety of reasons (market size / saturation, financial resources, existing talent at the smaller club, etc).

ECNL is commercializing as a league. Which in youth sports, has never ended well for that league.

So, basically in a macro-sense USYS lost at the elite level with its NL and Elite64/Club Premier (even though it's still around and provides decent competition) and now US Club which is dominant in girls and No. 2 in boys at the elite level (ECNL) wants to grow by taking more of the USYS pie at the lower levels, the stronger state leagues, basically. And while many of these clubs already serve as pipelines to ECNL, they want to formalize them as they compete with MLSN/GA. Who knows they might eventually merge in some fashion if successful but then they may lose their edge in all the largess (similar to how USYS can struggle now).

One of the fundamental problems USYS faces, US Club does not. USYS is still straddled with 50+ state orgs and an ancient operating structure. Plus, for whatever reason, USYS feels they need to serve everyone regardless of costs. It is like the USPS model vs UPS/fedex.

ECNL doesn’t need to serve everyone, just everyone in their key markets. And once you have a customer, it is easier to keep them down the line.

The danger is in diluting their brand to where these leagues hurt their overall image. But with MLSN2, they probably feel the danger is worth it. Tier 2 was a direct shot on them…

So your arguement is ECNL should take over a market using monopolistic power. Then limit that market to fewer participants?

I'm not saying it wont work. However if implemented ECNL will need additional legal staff.

It's only anti-trust if they tell their clubs they can't do business with the other leagues -- which doesn't seem to be happening at least with USYS. It's rather them trying to expand their lane of elite down through the ecosystem, touting it as the best route and perhaps best chance to reach it's higher levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is going to have pre ECNL for 7v7 and will start in 26/27. With U9!

The writing was on the wall for this. It is the next logical step in trying to keep MLSN at bay. Particularly if MLSN stays BY. Each league will need/want to create their own silo from u8 through u19.

I think it will take longer for MLSN to spin up their own alternative. They don’t seem to have the overhead needed.

MLSN does not be benefit from a silo age cutoff, ECNL boys does.

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re right it makes sense to limit your talent pool and force a less popular age cutoff.

That doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, not sure what that dude is talking about. Of course MLSN wants their own silo. Why else create MLSN2 with all of these random clubs (who all get to now claim they are MLSN)?

‘Less popular age cutoff”? Would love to see the data on that. It seems like SY would naturally be the more popular generally to the public but I’m willing to learn.

[Anonymous]

The announcement of the younger "pre-ecnl' commissioners and general expansion of the groups is interesting...

The talk above about clubs controlling the own rec programs through ECNL is exactly what just occurred to me locally with the consolidation of Richmond Kickers and Strikers into Richmond United.

RU previously was solely ECNL. 10 Teams - 5 Boys and 5 Girls. Now the teams span from Rec to Travel to ENCL all bringing in revenue. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the next couple of years.

[Anonymous]

When does ECNL usually release the schedules and league rules for the upcoming year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is going to have pre ECNL for 7v7 and will start in 26/27. With U9!

The writing was on the wall for this. It is the next logical step in trying to keep MLSN at bay. Particularly if MLSN stays BY. Each league will need/want to create their own silo from u8 through u19.

I think it will take longer for MLSN to spin up their own alternative. They don’t seem to have the overhead needed.

MLSN does not be benefit from a silo age cutoff, ECNL boys does.

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re right it makes sense to limit your talent pool and force a less popular age cutoff.

That doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, not sure what that dude is talking about. Of course MLSN wants their own silo. Why else create MLSN2 with all of these random clubs (who all get to now claim they are MLSN)?

‘Less popular age cutoff”? Would love to see the data on that. It seems like SY would naturally be the more popular generally to the public but I’m willing to learn.

SY was most popular based on survey last year.