ECNL moving to school year part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
SY was most popular based off Directors feedback, BY was not far behind. However there was a good size group that chose other and could write in their ideas besides Aug 1 or Jan 1. Some club directors did choose school grade or GY. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]
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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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).[/quote] 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… [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] Are you kidding. Happens all the time. ECNL won't let NEW clubs have MLSN and girls ECNL. Yes there are some legacy clubs with this configuration but you wont see any in the future. I even know of multiple clubs that went MLSN on the boys side and ECNL took girls ECNL away. Pretty much the definition of tieing 2 products together if you want one or the other In fact ECNL tieing boys with girls is the reason MLSN + GA announced their partnership earlier this year. Basically telling clubs that they will be playing the same game. If clubs want MLSN they'll need to have GA + if clubs go GA they'll have a better shot at MLSN. I wish someone would take ECNL to court and get the tieing on record. Imagine a world where clubs wouldn't have to be A or B they could be whatever combo makes the most sense for them. |
Anonymous
Not true. The options were SY 9/1 or BY 1/1. Many people didnt like SY 9/1 and voted other because of it. Once USYS + US Club got SY 9/1 they changed it to SY 8/1. This would likely have changed the number of other votes in some fashion. Also other votes didn't equate to just GY. Other was everything, 8/1, SY+30, biobanding, etc. |
Anonymous
Ok, then what is the most popular option? I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to argue here. |
Anonymous
SY was the most popular and the feedback was from directors (who don't like change/extra work) plus anybody else who wanted to comment. So clear win for SY. |
Anonymous
Not a clear win at all. There was a large percentage that wanted BY. Also rec tends to align with SY. While higher level soccer aligns with BY. From a club owner perspective SY makes sense because you have 10x the number of littles teams then olders top teams. If the question would have been asked "which would you prefer for olders top tier teams". It would have been completely different and likely in favor of BY. The littles and rec fans think they have the nunbers to push everyone else around. What they dont understand is the top tier teams might just break off and do their own thing if their needs are ignored. In fact this is exactly how ECNL was initially formed. |
Anonymous
It depends on your perspective and needs. There isnt a one size fits all and the more you try to make it this way the more groups that dont need/want it will push back or simply not participate. |
Anonymous
But you’re guessing and making assumptions here. Either SY was the more popular option or not. And no club owner wants two options for team formations. They want one. ECNL also wasnt formed because people didn’t like an age cutoff. Again, you’re making a ton of assumptions. The question was, what is the most popular of the two cutoffs. |
Anonymous
If, if, if.... It was a clear win. |
Anonymous
When ECNL formed, age cutoff wasn't an issue. It later became one as one of the primary reasons stated -- for the most elite players -- to switch to BY. Since everyone switched, it didn't matter BUT now there's a choice and provides an opportunity/lane. What's less clear is whether that's a development advantage as well as an economic one. |
Anonymous
Who do you think funds the top/higher level teams? It’s the rec, youth, and second/third/fourth teams. It doesn’t make sense for the higher level teams to break off and do their own thing, the cost would be astronomical. |
Anonymous
The dirty secret in the club soccer world is that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th teams (at U13 and above) pretty much fund the club (well that and tournaments). First teams provide marketing (but aren't big money makers usually) and the U8-11 world provides the pipeline for all of the U13+ teams. |
Anonymous
"It later became one as one of the primary reasons stated -- for the most elite players -- to switch to BY." Everyone switched to BY in 2016. What are you talking about? Elite players didn't go to ECNL because of BY. They went to ECNL because the top clubs decided (at the time) to join ECNL. It has absolutely nothing to do with an age cutoff. " it didn't matter BUT now there's a choice and provides an opportunity/lane." What choice? Everyone is still BY for at least the next year. |
Anonymous
The decision to switch to BY was for elite player development. ECNL (thru US Club) switched to SY because it believes it'll have economic benefits by aligning with what most of rec wants and the supposed college pipeline. Those who ultimately believe BY is STILL better for elite player development -- MLSN primarily -- have to decide whether staying BY makes sense for development and can work economically. |
Anonymous
| The only people who believe BY is magically somehow better for elite player development are parents of current MLSN teams who are mostly Jan-Jul birthdays. |