McLean leaving FVU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a bunch of low level girls teams are getting emails encouraging them to try out for GA – these are kids that never even got looked at for ECNL. Not sure if they’re just trying to make the ID sessions look busier but a little odd in my opinion. Not sure why you would do that to those girls.

Do what to those girls? Invite them to open ID sessions? Especially after the unclear email they sent on Tuesday it totally makes sense. Half the GA teams are likely to be made up of players from their existing Green and White teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

Yes FVU is just BRYC RL and Vienna RL now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a bunch of low level girls teams are getting emails encouraging them to try out for GA – these are kids that never even got looked at for ECNL. Not sure if they’re just trying to make the ID sessions look busier but a little odd in my opinion. Not sure why you would do that to those girls.

The ID sessions next week are open (not invite only), so it makes sense that MYS would email all of their families about what’s going on and what team next week’s ID Sessions are for (GA only) and when the GA Aspire ID Sessions will take place (the Spring).

I see this as MYS trying to inform families so they know which ID session they should sign up for vs. trying to drum up a larger volume of potentially unqualified players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

Yes FVU is just BRYC RL and Vienna RL now

ECNL RL will be so bad in this area now, losing McLean and Loudoun hurt.

Ouch! Just go back to ncsl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a bunch of low level girls teams are getting emails encouraging them to try out for GA – these are kids that never even got looked at for ECNL. Not sure if they’re just trying to make the ID sessions look busier but a little odd in my opinion. Not sure why you would do that to those girls.

The ID sessions next week are open (not invite only), so it makes sense that MYS would email all of their families about what’s going on and what team next week’s ID Sessions are for (GA only) and when the GA Aspire ID Sessions will take place (the Spring).

I see this as MYS trying to inform families so they know which ID session they should sign up for vs. trying to drum up a larger volume of potentially unqualified players.

Poor coaches. Not sure how they’re going to filter players if everyone shows up. I can see the chaos there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

Yes FVU is just BRYC RL and Vienna RL now

I heard they going to move FVU to a Rec League.

[Anonymous]

Even Rec practices more than FVU.

The number of canceled practices is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

No. Looks like they are now even better positioned as an ECNL club with the area down to only 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

Yes FVU is just BRYC RL and Vienna RL now

Wrong. These clubs were ECNL (BRAVE) before and now FVU remains ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

No. Looks like they are now even better positioned as an ECNL club with the area down to only 3.

Better? How? By filling a team roster of kids who can be beaten by most other club's 2nd team? Or, not having any teams to play nearby so games are an hour to 1.5 hours away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t it McLean that saved BRYC and allowed them to partner and join ECNL with them? Why would ECNL allow BRYC to stay in the ECNL after one year and McLean leaving?

FALSE, McLEAN/VA UNION was going to lose their ECNL Charter and had to find a new partner.

BRAVE was doing worse than McLean so I think they were both in jeopardy.

That is incorrect; Brave had better teams on the girl's side and on the boy's side.

What are you smoking??? BRAVE's girls teams were awful.

Stop. Brave's girls teams were a little below average for ECNL teams (overall 9th of 13 MA teams; 2 of 6 in Champions league). And with no competing ECNL club in Fairfax, FVU will get a lot better environment to compete in than what Brave had.

C'mon man. They were essentially in last place across the board with maybe one team as an exception to that. Don't re-write history.

You’re the one attempting to re-write history — and failing. PP provided accurate information. And BRAVE achieved this being a new ECNL club.

Can you point out where BRAVE (or BRYC) is, across any age group:
https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/ecnl-girls-champions-league-playoff-draw_aid53422
https://www.soccerwire.com/news/club-by-club-results-from-the-2022-2023-ecnl-girls-champions-league-postseason/
https://www.soccerwire.com/news/club-by-club-results-from-the-2022-ecnl-girls-champions-league-postseason/

I smell a BRYC hater. You gotta let that go. It's not healthy.
And the the PP is correct in '24. You're citing '22 and '23. BRAVE Girls were middle of pack in the MA with the exception of two age groups who at the bottom and two age groups who were top 4/5. It's really in past though and you need to move on.

Brave was never that bad. Brave was only for two years, 22-23 and 23-24
22/23 - average place 8.83 of 13 (1 team in champions league)
23/24 - average place 8.50 of 13 (2 teams in champions league)

So, across 6 age groups, over two years, they could only manage to put 3 teams in the top 5 of a bad MA division?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a bunch of low level girls teams are getting emails encouraging them to try out for GA – these are kids that never even got looked at for ECNL. Not sure if they’re just trying to make the ID sessions look busier but a little odd in my opinion. Not sure why you would do that to those girls.

The ID sessions next week are open (not invite only), so it makes sense that MYS would email all of their families about what’s going on and what team next week’s ID Sessions are for (GA only) and when the GA Aspire ID Sessions will take place (the Spring).

I see this as MYS trying to inform families so they know which ID session they should sign up for vs. trying to drum up a larger volume of potentially unqualified players.

Poor coaches. Not sure how they’re going to filter players if everyone shows up. I can see the chaos there.

It's still the same players that have always been here. The McLean coaches are well familiar with the players. Don't think that these are open sessions where everyone has a fighting chance. They will look at where the player plays now and that's the starting point. Don't expect a whole lot of movement across levels. The GA teams will be made up primarily of girls who are currently playing on ECNL/GA teams, with a few RL players as needed to fill out the rosters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a bunch of low level girls teams are getting emails encouraging them to try out for GA – these are kids that never even got looked at for ECNL. Not sure if they’re just trying to make the ID sessions look busier but a little odd in my opinion. Not sure why you would do that to those girls.

Not accurate.
-Parent of player on a White team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true FVU might go to RL?

No. Looks like they are now even better positioned as an ECNL club with the area down to only 3.

Better? How? By filling a team roster of kids who can be beaten by most other club's 2nd team? Or, not having any teams to play nearby so games are an hour to 1.5 hours away?

FVU girls are currently the 5th best club in the M.A. despite how it's characterized on this board. I believe very few FVU players would go to McLean GA. FVU will probably get NVA refugees, which will make them better.

[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:Wasn’t it McLean that saved BRYC and allowed them to partner and join ECNL with them? Why would ECNL allow BRYC to stay in the ECNL after one year and McLean leaving?

FALSE, McLEAN/VA UNION was going to lose their ECNL Charter and had to find a new partner.

BRAVE was doing worse than McLean so I think they were both in jeopardy.

That is incorrect; Brave had better teams on the girl's side and on the boy's side.

What are you smoking??? BRAVE's girls teams were awful.

Stop. Brave's girls teams were a little below average for ECNL teams (overall 9th of 13 MA teams; 2 of 6 in Champions league). And with no competing ECNL club in Fairfax, FVU will get a lot better environment to compete in than what Brave had.

C'mon man. They were essentially in last place across the board with maybe one team as an exception to that. Don't re-write history.

You’re the one attempting to re-write history — and failing. PP provided accurate information. And BRAVE achieved this being a new ECNL club.

Can you point out where BRAVE (or BRYC) is, across any age group:
https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/ecnl-girls-champions-league-playoff-draw_aid53422
https://www.soccerwire.com/news/club-by-club-results-from-the-2022-2023-ecnl-girls-champions-league-postseason/
https://www.soccerwire.com/news/club-by-club-results-from-the-2022-ecnl-girls-champions-league-postseason/

I smell a BRYC hater. You gotta let that go. It's not healthy.
And the the PP is correct in '24. You're citing '22 and '23. BRAVE Girls were middle of pack in the MA with the exception of two age groups who at the bottom and two age groups who were top 4/5. It's really in past though and you need to move on.

Brave was never that bad. Brave was only for two years, 22-23 and 23-24
22/23 - average place 8.83 of 13 (1 team in champions league)
23/24 - average place 8.50 of 13 (2 teams in champions league)

So, across 6 age groups, over two years, they could only manage to put 3 teams in the top 5 of a bad MA division?

The claim was that the teams were awful. They weren't. They were a little below average for ECNL, which is what I've shown you.