ECNL playing minutes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No- playing time is not a democracy once you hit ECNL.

Generally defenders are in most of the game. If you are a 'sub' for a defender position you might get little playing time--like 10 minutes.
For the rest of the positions, if your kid is not starting you are likely getting half a game (or maybe less if it is a very competitive game).

ECNL sub rules mean that Coach is not incented to remove the starters because he can't put them back in if necessary later in the half. So, it does create a disincentive to take out the starters too early.

The equal playing time was a thing in U-12 and below, but not once you hit ECNL. At that point, its whatever combination of players the coach thinks can win the game (it's no longer just about development)....

[/quote\

It is always about development. Nobody gives a rats rear end about who wins or loses a ECNL game. It is pretty simple really. Everyone plays at least half of every game. Every time. Don't want to play a kid half the game? Fine. No problem. Just do not put them on the team. See how easy that is? What? You want the kid to pay $3000? Then if you want the money play the kid at least half of every game. The coaches all know this already.

There are no youth games at any level that "matter" who wins or loses. The question is whether they are any good at developing players. If they are -- wonderful. If they are not -- fold. But, they have to develop, or try to develop, every player they take money from. Again, very easy -- don't take their money if you do not want to play them at least half of every game. Want to have 12 kids on your team? Great == lots of playing time for everyone. Kids get sick or hurt -- will you can forfeit. Want to not play kids? Not a problem if they are not paying anything. Use free guest players from lower level teams. Pay their travel expenses and it should be cool. Again -- every coach already knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember you are a paying customer. You are paying the club to develop your player. If your son or daughter is not getting close to 50% game time, you absolutely have the right to bring it to the AGC and/or TD.

If they offered your player a spot on their ECNL team and took your money, they have an obligation to develop them.

You are the Customer.

While you’re the customer, you kid is their employee who is not paid anything to make the club revenue and indirectly the coach’s salary. They work for the club to offer a service to you for which you pay for. Kinda warped.

Anyhow, yes they have an obligation to develop your kid. That happens mostly in practice, not games. Having said that, you have to be smart and not sign your kid up for a 24 roster team where they are clearly not in the top 16 players. Or, at least if you do, have them dual rostered to the B team where they’ll get playing time. Also, if your kid is not being developed, then move them to a different team/club.

+100

I would suggest development occurs in practice; the results of that development is seen in games. If the consistent improvement doesn't occur or if that development doesn't translate to game play, that is why your kid is a sub.

Thinking the club owes every kid at least 50% playing time means the parent doesn't understand the club and how competition works. Ask the coach and management if the coach is obligated to give Billy/Jane (if they're 13+) 50%; they should laugh at you. Stop living through your kid's achievements or lack thereof.

The best clubs give all players decent (i.e. approx 50% minimum) playing time. One or two players play the whole game, three or four more play 3/4 of the game. Teams that don't do this are usually not especially good in the first place which is why they fear putting anyone except their top kids on the field in the first place. And even if they're not terrible, they usually enter a downward spiral fairly rapidly for two reasons.

1. The subs don't improve, and become weaker and weaker links when they are required to play because of injury or absence.
2. The better subs leave because they are getting no playing time, so the team constantly has to replace any player who is not a starter, usually with weaker players. The consequence is that the roster gets weaker and weaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember you are a paying customer. You are paying the club to develop your player. If your son or daughter is not getting close to 50% game time, you absolutely have the right to bring it to the AGC and/or TD.

If they offered your player a spot on their ECNL team and took your money, they have an obligation to develop them.

You are the Customer.

While you’re the customer, you kid is their employee who is not paid anything to make the club revenue and indirectly the coach’s salary. They work for the club to offer a service to you for which you pay for. Kinda warped.

Anyhow, yes they have an obligation to develop your kid. That happens mostly in practice, not games. Having said that, you have to be smart and not sign your kid up for a 24 roster team where they are clearly not in the top 16 players. Or, at least if you do, have them dual rostered to the B team where they’ll get playing time. Also, if your kid is not being developed, then move them to a different team/club.

+100

I would suggest development occurs in practice; the results of that development is seen in games. If the consistent improvement doesn't occur or if that development doesn't translate to game play, that is why your kid is a sub.

Thinking the club owes every kid at least 50% playing time means the parent doesn't understand the club and how competition works. Ask the coach and management if the coach is obligated to give Billy/Jane (if they're 13+) 50%; they should laugh at you. Stop living through your kid's achievements or lack thereof.

The best clubs give all players decent (i.e. approx 50% minimum) playing time. One or two players play the whole game, three or four more play 3/4 of the game. Teams that don't do this are usually not especially good in the first place which is why they fear putting anyone except their top kids on the field in the first place. And even if they're not terrible, they usually enter a downward spiral fairly rapidly for two reasons.

1. The subs don't improve, and become weaker and weaker links when they are required to play because of injury or absence.
2. The better subs leave because they are getting no playing time, so the team constantly has to replace any player who is not a starter, usually with weaker players. The consequence is that the roster gets weaker and weaker.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember you are a paying customer. You are paying the club to develop your player. If your son or daughter is not getting close to 50% game time, you absolutely have the right to bring it to the AGC and/or TD.

If they offered your player a spot on their ECNL team and took your money, they have an obligation to develop them.

You are the Customer.

While you’re the customer, you kid is their employee who is not paid anything to make the club revenue and indirectly the coach’s salary. They work for the club to offer a service to you for which you pay for. Kinda warped.

Anyhow, yes they have an obligation to develop your kid. That happens mostly in practice, not games. Having said that, you have to be smart and not sign your kid up for a 24 roster team where they are clearly not in the top 16 players. Or, at least if you do, have them dual rostered to the B team where they’ll get playing time. Also, if your kid is not being developed, then move them to a different team/club.

+100

I would suggest development occurs in practice; the results of that development is seen in games. If the consistent improvement doesn't occur or if that development doesn't translate to game play, that is why your kid is a sub.

Thinking the club owes every kid at least 50% playing time means the parent doesn't understand the club and how competition works. Ask the coach and management if the coach is obligated to give Billy/Jane (if they're 13+) 50%; they should laugh at you. Stop living through your kid's achievements or lack thereof.

The best clubs give all players decent (i.e. approx 50% minimum) playing time. One or two players play the whole game, three or four more play 3/4 of the game. Teams that don't do this are usually not especially good in the first place which is why they fear putting anyone except their top kids on the field in the first place. And even if they're not terrible, they usually enter a downward spiral fairly rapidly for two reasons.

1. The subs don't improve, and become weaker and weaker links when they are required to play because of injury or absence.
2. The better subs leave because they are getting no playing time, so the team constantly has to replace any player who is not a starter, usually with weaker players. The consequence is that the roster gets weaker and weaker.

The best teams can put the subs on because it is 2-0 15 minutes into the game

[Anonymous]

Right now, the question we are asking is this - is our DD better off playing 20-30 minutes a game with “great” coaching for an ECNL club or playing 75+ minutes with “good” coaching for an ECNL-RL club? The end goal is not development because, like probably 98% of the people on here, our DD is not going to play in college (lack of size and pace). The end goal is just the enjoyment of playing and being on a team that she’s been on for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember you are a paying customer. You are paying the club to develop your player. If your son or daughter is not getting close to 50% game time, you absolutely have the right to bring it to the AGC and/or TD.

If they offered your player a spot on their ECNL team and took your money, they have an obligation to develop them.

You are the Customer.

While you’re the customer, you kid is their employee who is not paid anything to make the club revenue and indirectly the coach’s salary. They work for the club to offer a service to you for which you pay for. Kinda warped.

Anyhow, yes they have an obligation to develop your kid. That happens mostly in practice, not games. Having said that, you have to be smart and not sign your kid up for a 24 roster team where they are clearly not in the top 16 players. Or, at least if you do, have them dual rostered to the B team where they’ll get playing time. Also, if your kid is not being developed, then move them to a different team/club.

+100

I would suggest development occurs in practice; the results of that development is seen in games. If the consistent improvement doesn't occur or if that development doesn't translate to game play, that is why your kid is a sub.

Thinking the club owes every kid at least 50% playing time means the parent doesn't understand the club and how competition works. Ask the coach and management if the coach is obligated to give Billy/Jane (if they're 13+) 50%; they should laugh at you. Stop living through your kid's achievements or lack thereof.

The best clubs give all players decent (i.e. approx 50% minimum) playing time. One or two players play the whole game, three or four more play 3/4 of the game. Teams that don't do this are usually not especially good in the first place which is why they fear putting anyone except their top kids on the field in the first place. And even if they're not terrible, they usually enter a downward spiral fairly rapidly for two reasons.

1. The subs don't improve, and become weaker and weaker links when they are required to play because of injury or absence.
2. The better subs leave because they are getting no playing time, so the team constantly has to replace any player who is not a starter, usually with weaker players. The consequence is that the roster gets weaker and weaker.

The best teams can put the subs on because it is 2-0 15 minutes into the game

Indeed. But the mistake the weaker teams make is thinking that they can't. Because, in attemtping to win the game without playing their subs, they guarantee their long term decline. Play your subs, develop the whole team, accept the result today and improve the team over months and years.

After all if you only win a game because you didn't play your subs and the other team did, what are you really proving anyway?

[Anonymous]

That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

For the majority of kids who won't play in college, winning is important and they do care. Those kids do care that they won and Mary playing up top against a good D doesn't matter because Mary will be playing intramural next year if she plays at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

So all the best college coaches and scouts are walking right on by the fields with McLean and FCV on it right on over to watch the BRYC game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

College scouts couldn’t tell you the record of any club team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please remember you are a paying customer. You are paying the club to develop your player. If your son or daughter is not getting close to 50% game time, you absolutely have the right to bring it to the AGC and/or TD.

If they offered your player a spot on their ECNL team and took your money, they have an obligation to develop them.

You are the Customer.

While you’re the customer, you kid is their employee who is not paid anything to make the club revenue and indirectly the coach’s salary. They work for the club to offer a service to you for which you pay for. Kinda warped.

Anyhow, yes they have an obligation to develop your kid. That happens mostly in practice, not games. Having said that, you have to be smart and not sign your kid up for a 24 roster team where they are clearly not in the top 16 players. Or, at least if you do, have them dual rostered to the B team where they’ll get playing time. Also, if your kid is not being developed, then move them to a different team/club.

+100

I would suggest development occurs in practice; the results of that development is seen in games. If the consistent improvement doesn't occur or if that development doesn't translate to game play, that is why your kid is a sub.

Thinking the club owes every kid at least 50% playing time means the parent doesn't understand the club and how competition works. Ask the coach and management if the coach is obligated to give Billy/Jane (if they're 13+) 50%; they should laugh at you. Stop living through your kid's achievements or lack thereof.

The best clubs give all players decent (i.e. approx 50% minimum) playing time. One or two players play the whole game, three or four more play 3/4 of the game. Teams that don't do this are usually not especially good in the first place which is why they fear putting anyone except their top kids on the field in the first place. And even if they're not terrible, they usually enter a downward spiral fairly rapidly for two reasons.

1. The subs don't improve, and become weaker and weaker links when they are required to play because of injury or absence.
2. The better subs leave because they are getting no playing time, so the team constantly has to replace any player who is not a starter, usually with weaker players. The consequence is that the roster gets weaker and weaker.

Bingo. Just left an ECNL club. DS was playing 12 minutes per match on a losing team and is now a starter on a winning team. If you want a kid on the roster, you need to play him more than 15% of the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now, the question we are asking is this - is our DD better off playing 20-30 minutes a game with “great” coaching for an ECNL club or playing 75+ minutes with “good” coaching for an ECNL-RL club? The end goal is not development because, like probably 98% of the people on here, our DD is not going to play in college (lack of size and pace). The end goal is just the enjoyment of playing and being on a team that she’s been on for a long time.

Lack of size is something you've let other people convince you is an impediment. There are plenty of 5'6" and even smaller guys on D1 rosters. Pace - will take your word for that. Can be improved to some degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I do know that if the team is getting thrashed every week it can be very difficult to evaluate Mary because she likeloy does not touch the ball much. And it's hard to evaluate midfielders if the rest of the midfield is out of position when they receive the ball, and the forwards don't know when/how to make runs. And so on for all other positions.

[Anonymous]

Every college coach absolutely knows that they can evaluate talent in any scenario. The coach at the college where my daughter ended up came to a high school game and stayed 10 minutes. I figured “that’s a big nope” when he and an asst coach left. (Stands aren’t exactly packed.). But, he called her club coach that night to arrange a call (rules at the time required juniors to initiate contact.). He liked how she ran the pregame as the coach was not there yet.