STJ FCV Having ID Sessions Soon

[Anonymous]

FCV tryouts will be like Chipotle after a Listeria outbreak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCV tryouts will be like Chipotle after a Listeria outbreak

Just check social media tonight- sure they will post pictures with crowds of thousands storming Evergreen!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait - MU has 9 players ages 07 or younger playing U14 right now? Isn’t that more than any other club around? How does this hurt them for next year?

Take those 9 and put them at U14 again. That a nice problem to have.

The potential problem is in having enough 06s for the U15s. Maybe the partner clubs will change that. The other problem is having enough 07 for U14. Then the 08s can form the U13 team. That would be a good team if it's allowed to be without having players pulled up.

I live right by GFR and have an 07 playing on an ECNL team. Went to tryouts and was told she should “play up” on 06 DA team. I saw all the tiny kids at tryouts and knew this was going to end up being a disaster. We drive past MU 3 times a week so she can play on a competitive team with kids her age. We were not interested in having her play with girls who were 4th-8th graders.

Sounds like MU dodged a bullet with you.

Why would you say that? Because I don't want my 7th grader playing on a team with 4th-8th graders and playing against teams that are 99% 8th graders getting killed in every game each week? How is that good for anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait - MU has 9 players ages 07 or younger playing U14 right now? Isn’t that more than any other club around? How does this hurt them for next year?

Take those 9 and put them at U14 again. That a nice problem to have.

The potential problem is in having enough 06s for the U15s. Maybe the partner clubs will change that. The other problem is having enough 07 for U14. Then the 08s can form the U13 team. That would be a good team if it's allowed to be without having players pulled up.

I live right by GFR and have an 07 playing on an ECNL team. Went to tryouts and was told she should “play up” on 06 DA team. I saw all the tiny kids at tryouts and knew this was going to end up being a disaster. We drive past MU 3 times a week so she can play on a competitive team with kids her age. We were not interested in having her play with girls who were 4th-8th graders.

Sounds like MU dodged a bullet with you.

Why would you say that? Because I don't want my 7th grader playing on a team with 4th-8th graders and playing against teams that are 99% 8th graders getting killed in every game each week? How is that good for anyone?

He's just being defensive. He always retorts with something nasty like that. It's not. I think you made the right decision. But decisions should be made year to year. Take another look this spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait - MU has 9 players ages 07 or younger playing U14 right now? Isn’t that more than any other club around? How does this hurt them for next year?

Take those 9 and put them at U14 again. That a nice problem to have.

The potential problem is in having enough 06s for the U15s. Maybe the partner clubs will change that. The other problem is having enough 07 for U14. Then the 08s can form the U13 team. That would be a good team if it's allowed to be without having players pulled up.

I live right by GFR and have an 07 playing on an ECNL team. Went to tryouts and was told she should “play up” on 06 DA team. I saw all the tiny kids at tryouts and knew this was going to end up being a disaster. We drive past MU 3 times a week so she can play on a competitive team with kids her age. We were not interested in having her play with girls who were 4th-8th graders.

Sounds like MU dodged a bullet with you.

Because everyone thinks their kid is to good for a bad team yet they never think their kid is good enough to be the difference to make a "bad" team better.
Why would you say that? Because I don't want my 7th grader playing on a team with 4th-8th graders and playing against teams that are 99% 8th graders getting killed in every game each week? How is that good for anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait - MU has 9 players ages 07 or younger playing U14 right now? Isn’t that more than any other club around? How does this hurt them for next year?

Take those 9 and put them at U14 again. That a nice problem to have.

The potential problem is in having enough 06s for the U15s. Maybe the partner clubs will change that. The other problem is having enough 07 for U14. Then the 08s can form the U13 team. That would be a good team if it's allowed to be without having players pulled up.

I live right by GFR and have an 07 playing on an ECNL team. Went to tryouts and was told she should “play up” on 06 DA team. I saw all the tiny kids at tryouts and knew this was going to end up being a disaster. We drive past MU 3 times a week so she can play on a competitive team with kids her age. We were not interested in having her play with girls who were 4th-8th graders.

Sounds like MU dodged a bullet with you.

Because everyone thinks their kid is to good for a bad team yet they never think their kid is good enough to be the difference to make a "bad" team better.
Why would you say that? Because I don't want my 7th grader playing on a team with 4th-8th graders and playing against teams that are 99% 8th graders getting killed in every game each week? How is that good for anyone?

No, not too good. Because he didn't think it was a good training and developmental environment. And I agree. I think choosing a competitive, correctly formed ECNL team was a better choice for the growth of his DD. I wouldn't choose it either. What matters is if MU can fix it or not.

[Anonymous]

No, not too good. Because he didn't think it was a good training and developmental environment. And I agree. I think choosing a competitive, correctly formed ECNL team was a better choice for the growth of his DD. I wouldn't choose it either. What matters is if MU can fix it or not.

[Anonymous]

And it's not his DD's job to make that bad team better. That's not why anyone picks a team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And it's not his DD's job to make that bad team better. That's not why anyone picks a team.

No, people tend to pick teams that win with the better record because they believe that means their kid is developing.

Their kid could be a sub, but they are getting better because the team is winning. I have personally seen players take huge cuts in minutes to be a bench player on a "better team". I'm sure those kids love being a cheerleader though.

[Anonymous]

And I get it, but the reality is, in this diluted market most teams are just a couple of players away from being really good or potentially worse if they lose a couple of players. Very few clubs anymore have tremendous depth of talent. Add to that, with girls anyway, players do tend to follow players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not his DD's job to make that bad team better. That's not why anyone picks a team.

No, people tend to pick teams that win with the better record because they believe that means their kid is developing.

Their kid could be a sub, but they are getting better because the team is winning. I have personally seen players take huge cuts in minutes to be a bench player on a "better team". I'm sure those kids love being a cheerleader though.

You don't know that he picked it because it wins. MU offered to play his kid up. That's not what he wanted and that probably wouldn't have been good for his kid. You also don't know that his kid is a bench warmer. His kid could be a starter on that ECNL team. You are making a lot of assumptions just because he didn't want his kid on a team with FOUR different ages on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not his DD's job to make that bad team better. That's not why anyone picks a team.

No, people tend to pick teams that win with the better record because they believe that means their kid is developing.

Their kid could be a sub, but they are getting better because the team is winning. I have personally seen players take huge cuts in minutes to be a bench player on a "better team". I'm sure those kids love being a cheerleader though.

You don't know that he picked it because it wins. MU offered to play his kid up. That's not what he wanted and that probably wouldn't have been good for his kid. You also don't know that his kid is a bench warmer. His kid could be a starter on that ECNL team. You are making a lot of assumptions just because he didn't want his kid on a team with FOUR different ages on it.

And neither do you so what makes you such an expert on why anyone did something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCV tryouts will be like Chipotle after a Listeria outbreak

Just check social media tonight- sure they will post pictures with crowds of thousands storming Evergreen!!!!

what if no one shows up? how embarrassing would that be for a club. Not speaking about FCV but I wonder If club ever posted try outs and no one showed up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCV tryouts will be like Chipotle after a Listeria outbreak

Just check social media tonight- sure they will post pictures with crowds of thousands storming Evergreen!!!!

what if no one shows up? how embarrassing would that be for a club. Not speaking about FCV but I wonder If club ever posted try outs and no one showed up

It happens but it is likely just scheduled during a regular practice. People also register so they have a good idea at least how many people are interested at least on a superficial level.

But, it is early in the process.

But a spring tryout and nobody shows up is pretty bad and I've seen it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's not his DD's job to make that bad team better. That's not why anyone picks a team.

No, people tend to pick teams that win with the better record because they believe that means their kid is developing.

Their kid could be a sub, but they are getting better because the team is winning. I have personally seen players take huge cuts in minutes to be a bench player on a "better team". I'm sure those kids love being a cheerleader though.

You don't know that he picked it because it wins. MU offered to play his kid up. That's not what he wanted and that probably wouldn't have been good for his kid. You also don't know that his kid is a bench warmer. His kid could be a starter on that ECNL team. You are making a lot of assumptions just because he didn't want his kid on a team with FOUR different ages on it.

And neither do you so what makes you such an expert on why anyone did something?

I wasn't the one who made the nasty comments about him. I mentioned plausible reasons he chose something else. Only he can speak for himself, but being nasty about it serves no purpose.