Girls ECNL Season - 2018-19 Season

[Anonymous]

i.e. the teams with the high win records?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

Let me put it this way. Not only is it what I see, but I have asked around as well. That is consistent with what people across the country see. Again, no one - or at least not me - is saying that the player cannot get recruited. I'm only saying that it will be harder. That doesn't mean everyone should rush to McLean or another stronger club. BECAUSE your kid won't get recruited on the bench either. She needs to go where she can play and be seen.

But, I think it's a little naive to suggest that it's all the same regardless of where you play. It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

Let me put it this way. Not only is it what I see, but I have asked around as well. That is consistent with what people across the country see. Again, no one - or at least not me - is saying that the player cannot get recruited. I'm only saying that it will be harder. That doesn't mean everyone should rush to McLean or another stronger club. BECAUSE your kid won't get recruited on the bench either. She needs to go where she can play and be seen.

But, I think it's a little naive to suggest that it's all the same regardless of where you play. It's not.

I never said where you play does not matter. If you are at McLean you are benefiting from the ECNL platform. Coaches know that ECNL provides a high level of competition which is part of the vetting. You also benefit from Clyde Watson's relationship with college programs / coaches. I am sure you will do well. My point is that the coaches don't care if your DD's particular team is winning or losing when it comes to evaluating her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

Let me put it this way. Not only is it what I see, but I have asked around as well. That is consistent with what people across the country see. Again, no one - or at least not me - is saying that the player cannot get recruited. I'm only saying that it will be harder. That doesn't mean everyone should rush to McLean or another stronger club. BECAUSE your kid won't get recruited on the bench either. She needs to go where she can play and be seen.

But, I think it's a little naive to suggest that it's all the same regardless of where you play. It's not.

I never said where you play does not matter. If you are at McLean you are benefiting from the ECNL platform. Coaches know that ECNL provides a high level of competition which is part of the vetting. You also benefit from Clyde Watson's relationship with college programs / coaches. I am sure you will do well. My point is that the coaches don't care if your DD's particular team is winning or losing when it comes to evaluating her.

I think we aren't far apart in what we are saying, but we are not saying exactly the same thing. I say it doesn't matter much, but it matters some. They won't choose or not choose her over the record per se - most definitely. What I am saying only is that if your kid is on a team with that record - and with clubs with a certain reputation - more coaches come and they come more easily. So, any kid in the ECNL platform has entered into an arena of greater access, but a kid from PDA will have coaches end up at her showcase games because she plays for PDA, because they win a lot, and it will be easier for her as a result.

That's it. That's all I'm saying and years of watching the process unfold with multiple children continues to show the same thing. That never means that a kid at say Carolina Rapids can't be seen. That does mean extra effort will have to happen, as those coaches won't just happen to be at her games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

Let me put it this way. Not only is it what I see, but I have asked around as well. That is consistent with what people across the country see. Again, no one - or at least not me - is saying that the player cannot get recruited. I'm only saying that it will be harder. That doesn't mean everyone should rush to McLean or another stronger club. BECAUSE your kid won't get recruited on the bench either. She needs to go where she can play and be seen.

But, I think it's a little naive to suggest that it's all the same regardless of where you play. It's not.

I never said where you play does not matter. If you are at McLean you are benefiting from the ECNL platform. Coaches know that ECNL provides a high level of competition which is part of the vetting. You also benefit from Clyde Watson's relationship with college programs / coaches. I am sure you will do well. My point is that the coaches don't care if your DD's particular team is winning or losing when it comes to evaluating her.

I think we aren't far apart in what we are saying, but we are not saying exactly the same thing. I say it doesn't matter much, but it matters some. They won't choose or not choose her over the record per se - most definitely. What I am saying only is that if your kid is on a team with that record - and with clubs with a certain reputation - more coaches come and they come more easily. So, any kid in the ECNL platform has entered into an arena of greater access, but a kid from PDA will have coaches end up at her showcase games because she plays for PDA, because they win a lot, and it will be easier for her as a result.

That's it. That's all I'm saying and years of watching the process unfold with multiple children continues to show the same thing. That never means that a kid at say Carolina Rapids can't be seen. That does mean extra effort will have to happen, as those coaches won't just happen to be at her games.

I agree it does not matter much and they won't be chosen or not based over the record. The far more important factor is to find a club that your kids enjoys playing at and with coaches that will support her development and provide a positive development environment.

[Anonymous]

Exactly, glad we could see each other's points. And I agree totally with that, and quite frankly, that is one good thing with the ECNL brand. You are putting your child in a club that has been vetted. All that remains is to find whichever one works best for you and your family.

[Anonymous]

ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Please supply your data. My data is what I see at the showcases. It's where I see tons and tons of coaches. Are you telling me that those are the only teams with kids contacting coaches and trying to get recruited?

That’s not really data you are supplying but anecdotal evidence. Look at the rosters of D1 programs and the wide variety of clubs they come form. Many are so-so teams. A girl committed to UNC this week who doesn’t even play on a DA or ECNL team. Also look at commits from local clubs that have losing records where the majority on the team still get offers.

All of those coaches you see have a list of players that have shown interest and have some level of vetting through their process. If you were talking football where there are 10 assistant coaches than they would have time to discover players and hunt them down. In soccer there is typically 1 head coach and 2 assistants to vet the 500-1000 players in their database. They don’t have the bandwidth to chase down players.

Let me put it this way. Not only is it what I see, but I have asked around as well. That is consistent with what people across the country see. Again, no one - or at least not me - is saying that the player cannot get recruited. I'm only saying that it will be harder. That doesn't mean everyone should rush to McLean or another stronger club. BECAUSE your kid won't get recruited on the bench either. She needs to go where she can play and be seen.

But, I think it's a little naive to suggest that it's all the same regardless of where you play. It's not.

I never said where you play does not matter. If you are at McLean you are benefiting from the ECNL platform. Coaches know that ECNL provides a high level of competition which is part of the vetting. You also benefit from Clyde Watson's relationship with college programs / coaches. I am sure you will do well. My point is that the coaches don't care if your DD's particular team is winning or losing when it comes to evaluating her.

I think we aren't far apart in what we are saying, but we are not saying exactly the same thing. I say it doesn't matter much, but it matters some. They won't choose or not choose her over the record per se - most definitely. What I am saying only is that if your kid is on a team with that record - and with clubs with a certain reputation - more coaches come and they come more easily. So, any kid in the ECNL platform has entered into an arena of greater access, but a kid from PDA will have coaches end up at her showcase games because she plays for PDA, because they win a lot, and it will be easier for her as a result.

That's it. That's all I'm saying and years of watching the process unfold with multiple children continues to show the same thing. That never means that a kid at say Carolina Rapids can't be seen. That does mean extra effort will have to happen, as those coaches won't just happen to be at her games.

At showcases, college coaches are going to games to watch specific players, not teams. It doesn't matter if there are more coaches on the sideline of your kid's game if they are not there watching her specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62
[/quote]

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.[/quote]

Loudoun won't challenge the top clubs For a while

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62
[/quote]

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.[/quote]

Loudoun won't challenge the top clubs For a while[/quote]

It will be a while before Loudoun challenges for the top MA spots - about 8 months from now.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62
[/quote]

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.[/quote]

Loudoun won't challenge the top clubs For a while[/quote]

For a look more down the road, here are the point totals for the clubs when you eliminate the U19 group.

BRYC 118
Richmond United 112
McLean 95
VDA 91
Loudoun 55

And here are the combined point totals for U13-U14
VDA 55
McLean 22
Richmond United 21
Loudoun 17
BRYC 13

The point totals for the top clubs are pretty heavily skewed towards older teams that will be gone in a few short months.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62
[/quote]

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.[/quote]

Loudoun won't challenge the top clubs For a while[/quote]

For a look more down the road, here are the point totals for the clubs when you eliminate the U19 group.

BRYC 118
Richmond United 112
McLean 95
VDA 91
Loudoun 55

And here are the combined point totals for U13-U14
VDA 55
McLean 22
Richmond United 21
Loudoun 17
BRYC 13

The point totals for the top clubs are pretty heavily skewed towards older teams that will be gone in a few short months. [/quote]

Meh, the stats at u13 and u14 are nearly meaningless. Dominated by athletes and early bloomers still at that age. Jeeves, bring me the stats at u16 and up across the last 5 years would you please?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ECNL Mid Atlantic (VA Teams) overall points

BRYC 168
Richmond United 150
McLean 135
Vda 96
Loudoun 62
[/quote]

I'm sure that next year, after their players have adjusted, Loudoun will challenge BRYC for the top of the local ECNL teams while McLean continues its slide to mediocrity.[/quote]

Loudoun won't challenge the top clubs For a while[/quote]

For a look more down the road, here are the point totals for the clubs when you eliminate the U19 group.

BRYC 118
Richmond United 112
McLean 95
VDA 91
Loudoun 55

And here are the combined point totals for U13-U14
VDA 55
McLean 22
Richmond United 21
Loudoun 17
BRYC 13

The point totals for the top clubs are pretty heavily skewed towards older teams that will be gone in a few short months. [/quote]

Meh, the stats at u13 and u14 are nearly meaningless. Dominated by athletes and early bloomers still at that age. Jeeves, bring me the stats at u16 and up across the last 5 years would you please?[/quote]

The point is, club stats are ALL stupid. The only ones that matter are the ones for your age group. Colleges are not looking at the point totals of clubs in league play.