Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not CCL trying to get into NCSL's turf. CCL is Club based and NCSL is team based. All CCL is trying to do is add a couple of local clubs at the U Little levels to reduce travel for its NOVA clubs. It is not going to be a huge expansion.

possibly but if demand is high, they may certainly increase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not CCL trying to get into NCSL's turf. CCL is Club based and NCSL is team based. All CCL is trying to do is add a couple of local clubs at the U Little levels to reduce travel for its NOVA clubs. It is not going to be a huge expansion.

possibly but if demand is high, they may certainly increase it.

Why would demand be high? To just "sort of be in CCL"? Is that really a selling point? And do people really care that much at the younger ages what league their kids play in? This is a solution for problem within the league structure and I just don't see it being anything significant more than that. I could very well be wrong but CCL II, for example is kinda pointless with NCSL unless you are a full fledged CCL Club. The whole point for B/C teams to participate is the ability to use the club pass for player development and to have full club scheduling. None of those advantages matter if you are not in CCL too.

I just see it as a place for some really good clubs to put their U Littles into pretty good league. But the short list is really non VPL clubs that would stand to gain something by participating. So, speculating on non CCL and VPL clubs is where I would start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

This makes some sense and since this is targeted at under U12 it may be that CCL sees its strength as a league, and that has always been U9-U12. With ECNL, DA and EDP there are options at older ages but the strength of the league is at those defining development ages. I don't have a kid in CCL but I've always felt it is a strong league at those younger ages.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

This makes some sense and since this is targeted at under U12 it may be that CCL sees its strength as a league, and that has always been U9-U12. With ECNL, DA and EDP there are options at older ages but the strength of the league is at those defining development ages. I don't have a kid in CCL but I've always felt it is a strong league at those younger ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just find it curious that CCL fans are now congratulating CCL for addressing a problem (too much travel) that they insist we should never have discussed.

I really don't care. I just find it fascinating human behavior.

And I *am* curious to see how they'll implement it and the knock-on effects it'll have in Northern Virginia. Will NCSL barely field any teams through U12? Will ODSL be reduced to Cougars vs. Dynamite? Will EDP's efforts to limit travel by recruiting more DMV clubs be doomed?

There's a lot to discuss here. If you don't like it, well, there are millions of other message board threads ...

Yeah I wonder if the very large clubs will move all their teams into this new league ? That would many others move as well.

How would that work? CCL 3, CCL 4, CCL 5, etc.? (I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you -- I think you may be right, but I'm not sure how it would work.)

And if they bring in -- let's say Herndon and Reston -- they'll have to somehow account for the fact that some Herndon A teams may be CCL 1 level, some may be CCL 2, some may be CCL 3, etc.

Loudoun, Arlington and BRYC have the coaching depth (and the recruiting acumen) to have competitive CCL 1-level teams at each age group. Who else can say that?

Hmmm, sounds like it will have promotion and relegation, which was supposedly the original sin of NCSL that drove the creation of CCL.

The creation of the NoVa part of CCL was driven by the fact that the leadership of some of the big member clubs had had various disputes with WAGS and NCSL, and didn't want to be told what to do. Plus it gave them the ability to market themselves as elite to credulous parents.

I agree that it seems like the NextGen concept is another way to stick it to NCSL. I personally would be just fine with things if CCL became the default local league that WAGS + NCSL used to be, so long as they add in a pro-rel feature at U11 or U12. That way we'd get back to having all the area teams able to compete against each other. You'd have to lose the club to club scheduling feature, but I think that's more of a bonus for TDs and coaches than it ever has been for families. CCL would have to stop pretending they are an elite league, but they wouldn't need to then, because they'd be the only major local league.

Are you saying that CCL should just become the main/only league in the area with promotion/relegation with all of the clubs or just the "elite" clubs of the area. In my opinion there should only be one and the club's philosophy shouldn't be dictated by the league that they are in but by the club itself on how it thinks is the best way to develop their talent. People should pick a club by who offers the best opportunity for their kid and not by what league they play in. At the top, the true top teams would play again each other. In the middle the teams looking to improve to make it to the top, and in the bottom the teams looking to improve what they currently have and eventually getting into a higher division.

My ideal scenario sounds like yours. I don't actually care whether it's CCL or another league, but I would like to see all the clubs that can meet whatever minimum standards the league needs to set re fields, etc. be reunited in one main local league. It is beyond silly for CCL to claim that it is a home for "elite" clubs in its current format, when its member clubs include LMVSC, Roanoke Star, DC Stoddert, FC Frederick, etc. (Which is not to say those clubs and others don't have great coaches, philosophy, and what have you--just not a history of creating top players).

I think there are some well-intentioned people involved in CCL who truly believe that they are doing something new and good with all this "club-centric" focus, but plenty of others just hope that potential customers actually believe the hype that CCL is somehow elite. The reality is you can have a player-centric model in a club regardless of what league the club's team plays in. Many clubs had that back when their top teams played in WAGS, NCSL, National League, etc. and many still don't, regardless of the fact their top teams are in CCL or other "club-centric" leagues like ECNL or DA.

If my ideal local league had elements like a board that did evaluations to be sure that clubs were following player-centric practices, that would be great, and I'd be interested to hear what other things the true believers in CCL think the league has actually accomplished in terms of development. I'd hope many of them could be imported into an improved league structure as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just find it curious that CCL fans are now congratulating CCL for addressing a problem (too much travel) that they insist we should never have discussed.

I really don't care. I just find it fascinating human behavior.

And I *am* curious to see how they'll implement it and the knock-on effects it'll have in Northern Virginia. Will NCSL barely field any teams through U12? Will ODSL be reduced to Cougars vs. Dynamite? Will EDP's efforts to limit travel by recruiting more DMV clubs be doomed?

There's a lot to discuss here. If you don't like it, well, there are millions of other message board threads ...

Yeah I wonder if the very large clubs will move all their teams into this new league ? That would many others move as well.

How would that work? CCL 3, CCL 4, CCL 5, etc.? (I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you -- I think you may be right, but I'm not sure how it would work.)

And if they bring in -- let's say Herndon and Reston -- they'll have to somehow account for the fact that some Herndon A teams may be CCL 1 level, some may be CCL 2, some may be CCL 3, etc.

Loudoun, Arlington and BRYC have the coaching depth (and the recruiting acumen) to have competitive CCL 1-level teams at each age group. Who else can say that?

Hmmm, sounds like it will have promotion and relegation, which was supposedly the original sin of NCSL that drove the creation of CCL.

The creation of the NoVa part of CCL was driven by the fact that the leadership of some of the big member clubs had had various disputes with WAGS and NCSL, and didn't want to be told what to do. Plus it gave them the ability to market themselves as elite to credulous parents.

I agree that it seems like the NextGen concept is another way to stick it to NCSL. I personally would be just fine with things if CCL became the default local league that WAGS + NCSL used to be, so long as they add in a pro-rel feature at U11 or U12. That way we'd get back to having all the area teams able to compete against each other. You'd have to lose the club to club scheduling feature, but I think that's more of a bonus for TDs and coaches than it ever has been for families. CCL would have to stop pretending they are an elite league, but they wouldn't need to then, because they'd be the only major local league.

Are you saying that CCL should just become the main/only league in the area with promotion/relegation with all of the clubs or just the "elite" clubs of the area. In my opinion there should only be one and the club's philosophy shouldn't be dictated by the league that they are in but by the club itself on how it thinks is the best way to develop their talent. People should pick a club by who offers the best opportunity for their kid and not by what league they play in. At the top, the true top teams would play again each other. In the middle the teams looking to improve to make it to the top, and in the bottom the teams looking to improve what they currently have and eventually getting into a higher division.

My ideal scenario sounds like yours. I don't actually care whether it's CCL or another league, but I would like to see all the clubs that can meet whatever minimum standards the league needs to set re fields, etc. be reunited in one main local league. It is beyond silly for CCL to claim that it is a home for "elite" clubs in its current format, when its member clubs include LMVSC, Roanoke Star, DC Stoddert, FC Frederick, etc. (Which is not to say those clubs and others don't have great coaches, philosophy, and what have you--just not a history of creating top players).

I think there are some well-intentioned people involved in CCL who truly believe that they are doing something new and good with all this "club-centric" focus, but plenty of others just hope that potential customers actually believe the hype that CCL is somehow elite. The reality is you can have a player-centric model in a club regardless of what league the club's team plays in. Many clubs had that back when their top teams played in WAGS, NCSL, National League, etc. and many still don't, regardless of the fact their top teams are in CCL or other "club-centric" leagues like ECNL or DA.

If my ideal local league had elements like a board that did evaluations to be sure that clubs were following player-centric practices, that would be great, and I'd be interested to hear what other things the true believers in CCL think the league has actually accomplished in terms of development. I'd hope many of them could be imported into an improved league structure as well.

I don't think that you quite understand what "club centric" means. NCSL and formerly WAGS did/ do not practice it. This is not about claiming to be "elite", it is about ease of scheduling, flexibility with game day rosters and more. Those are important distinctions versus the clubs simply adopting the "model". If league rules and red tape make changing rosters on game day nearly impossible, it really doesn't matter what the clubs intent is, the league needs to allow the clubs discretion be allowed. And since there is no promotion/relegation, the sanctity of the team roster is irrelevant and that is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not CCL trying to get into NCSL's turf. CCL is Club based and NCSL is team based. All CCL is trying to do is add a couple of local clubs at the U Little levels to reduce travel for its NOVA clubs. It is not going to be a huge expansion.

That's funny. Really fun. The CCL club we used to be at was anything, but club-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

This makes some sense and since this is targeted at under U12 it may be that CCL sees its strength as a league, and that has always been U9-U12. With ECNL, DA and EDP there are options at older ages but the strength of the league is at those defining development ages. I don't have a kid in CCL but I've always felt it is a strong league at those younger ages.

Nope. My kid was in CCL U-9-U-11. No competitive games at all. Maybe one per season. The only time they were in a challenging match was during tournament play against non-CCL clubs. There is sure a lot of bullshit bandied about.

Club-centric as used by CCL means having the limited # of coaches all at the same field. It means nothing for the players. Unless your kids are same gender twins on same team in the Club l, it won't be if any benefit to the family since they'll still be at differ t fields/location for other children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not CCL trying to get into NCSL's turf. CCL is Club based and NCSL is team based. All CCL is trying to do is add a couple of local clubs at the U Little levels to reduce travel for its NOVA clubs. It is not going to be a huge expansion.

That's funny. Really fun. The CCL club we used to be at was anything, but club-based.

That isn't the leagues fault. You must separate the club from the league. You play in a league, not for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

This makes some sense and since this is targeted at under U12 it may be that CCL sees its strength as a league, and that has always been U9-U12. With ECNL, DA and EDP there are options at older ages but the strength of the league is at those defining development ages. I don't have a kid in CCL but I've always felt it is a strong league at those younger ages.

Nope. My kid was in CCL U-9-U-11. No competitive games at all. Maybe one per season. The only time they were in a challenging match was during tournament play against non-CCL clubs. There is sure a lot of bullshit bandied about.

Club-centric as used by CCL means having the limited # of coaches all at the same field. It means nothing for the players. Unless your kids are same gender twins on same team in the Club l, it won't be if any benefit to the family since they'll still be at differ t fields/location for other children.

Expecting competitive balance from U9-U11 kids is stupid. They are children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just find it curious that CCL fans are now congratulating CCL for addressing a problem (too much travel) that they insist we should never have discussed.

I really don't care. I just find it fascinating human behavior.

And I *am* curious to see how they'll implement it and the knock-on effects it'll have in Northern Virginia. Will NCSL barely field any teams through U12? Will ODSL be reduced to Cougars vs. Dynamite? Will EDP's efforts to limit travel by recruiting more DMV clubs be doomed?

There's a lot to discuss here. If you don't like it, well, there are millions of other message board threads ...

Yeah I wonder if the very large clubs will move all their teams into this new league ? That would many others move as well.

How would that work? CCL 3, CCL 4, CCL 5, etc.? (I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you -- I think you may be right, but I'm not sure how it would work.)

And if they bring in -- let's say Herndon and Reston -- they'll have to somehow account for the fact that some Herndon A teams may be CCL 1 level, some may be CCL 2, some may be CCL 3, etc.

Loudoun, Arlington and BRYC have the coaching depth (and the recruiting acumen) to have competitive CCL 1-level teams at each age group. Who else can say that?

Hmmm, sounds like it will have promotion and relegation, which was supposedly the original sin of NCSL that drove the creation of CCL.

The creation of the NoVa part of CCL was driven by the fact that the leadership of some of the big member clubs had had various disputes with WAGS and NCSL, and didn't want to be told what to do. Plus it gave them the ability to market themselves as elite to credulous parents.

I agree that it seems like the NextGen concept is another way to stick it to NCSL. I personally would be just fine with things if CCL became the default local league that WAGS + NCSL used to be, so long as they add in a pro-rel feature at U11 or U12. That way we'd get back to having all the area teams able to compete against each other. You'd have to lose the club to club scheduling feature, but I think that's more of a bonus for TDs and coaches than it ever has been for families. CCL would have to stop pretending they are an elite league, but they wouldn't need to then, because they'd be the only major local league.

Are you saying that CCL should just become the main/only league in the area with promotion/relegation with all of the clubs or just the "elite" clubs of the area. In my opinion there should only be one and the club's philosophy shouldn't be dictated by the league that they are in but by the club itself on how it thinks is the best way to develop their talent. People should pick a club by who offers the best opportunity for their kid and not by what league they play in. At the top, the true top teams would play again each other. In the middle the teams looking to improve to make it to the top, and in the bottom the teams looking to improve what they currently have and eventually getting into a higher division.

My ideal scenario sounds like yours. I don't actually care whether it's CCL or another league, but I would like to see all the clubs that can meet whatever minimum standards the league needs to set re fields, etc. be reunited in one main local league. It is beyond silly for CCL to claim that it is a home for "elite" clubs in its current format, when its member clubs include LMVSC, Roanoke Star, DC Stoddert, FC Frederick, etc. (Which is not to say those clubs and others don't have great coaches, philosophy, and what have you--just not a history of creating top players).

I think there are some well-intentioned people involved in CCL who truly believe that they are doing something new and good with all this "club-centric" focus, but plenty of others just hope that potential customers actually believe the hype that CCL is somehow elite. The reality is you can have a player-centric model in a club regardless of what league the club's team plays in. Many clubs had that back when their top teams played in WAGS, NCSL, National League, etc. and many still don't, regardless of the fact their top teams are in CCL or other "club-centric" leagues like ECNL or DA.

If my ideal local league had elements like a board that did evaluations to be sure that clubs were following player-centric practices, that would be great, and I'd be interested to hear what other things the true believers in CCL think the league has actually accomplished in terms of development. I'd hope many of them could be imported into an improved league structure as well.

I don't think that you quite understand what "club centric" means. NCSL and formerly WAGS did/ do not practice it. This is not about claiming to be "elite", it is about ease of scheduling, flexibility with game day rosters and more. Those are important distinctions versus the clubs simply adopting the "model". If league rules and red tape make changing rosters on game day nearly impossible, it really doesn't matter what the clubs intent is, the league needs to allow the clubs discretion be allowed. And since there is no promotion/relegation, the sanctity of the team roster is irrelevant and that is the point.

Thanks. I know what club-centric means, both in theory and in practice, and I'm well aware of the positives and negatives of the old NCSL and WAGS structure. Ignoring the bolded part for the moment, keep in mind that in the string you are on we are talking about a league that could potentially combine the best elements of CCL with a return to more competitive play for all the teams in the area. It is hard to have one big league and guarantee ease of scheduling, I will grant you that, though the ease that CCL currently provides is more for coaches and TDs, not for most families. But beyond that, why couldn't you set up a league that allows clubs a lot more discretion than the old regime did? You could institute a liberal player pass policy and take other steps to ensure flexible rosters for younger ages, and have pro/rel start at whatever age the leadership agree real competition is beneficial for players.

Back to the bolded part. Are you actually claiming that CCL doesn't care about being seen as an "elite" league? That they don't market themselves as "elite" or "superior"? That they don't trumpet the number of State Cup winners they produce? That they don't take steps to try to make their audience view them as a higher level league than NCSL?

[Anonymous]

I think NCSL is always going to be there, and its oldest age groups will still have a handful of teams capable of competing in State Cup.

I wonder, though, if anyone will jump ship from VPL. Or what it means for EDP, which is kinda sorta trying to do some club-centric scheduling (actually, so is NCSL) but doesn't expect every club to field a first-division team in every age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they would not move the C, D and E teams-- just the top two (like CCL operated now-- the clubs who have A and B teams in the CCL have their C, D and E teams in the NCSL or other league)...no pro/rel, though sometimes CCL will have an A team start in CCL II (like Ellicott City)

We have our A and B teams in CCL and the C team in CCL2. Will this mean the D-F will also move into this league? I am confused by all of this.

I imagine the next step is for CCL clubs to send something out to their membership to help them understand what this change means for their teams in the Next Gen age groups. If I had that many teams in my club, I would be asking.

It likely means that the clubs that they would normally travel to at the younger ages will simply be replaced by more local clubs. This isn't that complicated. Then at U12 or U13 the A teams will simply be in CCL "Proper" as it had "always been".

I feel like none of this helps. I am enticed by the process of keeping it local for younger kids, but the most benefit for the kids is the training they receive at those ages. The games/leagues are an after-thought---to practice the concepts they've learned in practice. Every year it seems to get more and more convoluted.

CCL has started a turf battle against NCSL. That's the way I see it.

Agreed. CCL is reeling from its clubs getting DA status and looking to maintain its relevance.

This makes some sense and since this is targeted at under U12 it may be that CCL sees its strength as a league, and that has always been U9-U12. With ECNL, DA and EDP there are options at older ages but the strength of the league is at those defining development ages. I don't have a kid in CCL but I've always felt it is a strong league at those younger ages.

Nope. My kid was in CCL U-9-U-11. No competitive games at all. Maybe one per season. The only time they were in a challenging match was during tournament play against non-CCL clubs. There is sure a lot of bullshit bandied about.

Club-centric as used by CCL means having the limited # of coaches all at the same field. It means nothing for the players. Unless your kids are same gender twins on same team in the Club l, it won't be if any benefit to the family since they'll still be at differ t fields/location for other children.

Expecting competitive balance from U9-U11 kids is stupid. They are children.

Dioshit, I am resounding directly to somebody saying the new league will be more competitive.

[Anonymous]

This discussion seems overkill, no? We've been in CCL lower ages for 3 years.

At U9 and U10, which is not the main focus of the NexGen announcement as far as I can read it, CCL didn't have some "travel distance problem" as some allege, as the teams in Northern Virginia would just play the same set of local teams twice, once in the fall and once again in the spring, more or less. They never had to do big travel down South.

At U11 and U12 is when the regional travel began, and between the fall and spring Seasons combined, you were supposed to travel around the region and play each of the other CCL clubs one time for a total of about 15 games, more or less. Talk among parents was that it was getting back to the league that the parents were unhappy about all the travel, especially down to Southern Virginia to play some very poor teams like Roanoke and Legacy. Rumor has been CCL was going to do something to fix it, and it looks like they're trying to now fix the U11 and U12 level by eliminating that travel down south to play those faraway CCL clubs, and hopefully replace it with a few new clubs up here who would have interest participating in u11 & u12 with the full member CCL clubs.

Other than that, I can't read much more into this without pure speculation and guessing.

We are looking forward to 2017 when we don't have to do an 8 hour car ride to play a horrible team like Roanoke.