Message
michellesoccer wrote:Hi. My kids (8 and 10) just started soccer and would like to have some training classes. Any recommendations near vienna/oakton area? Thanks!
If you're near Vienna, check out Vienna Youth Soccer (VYS).
http://www.vys.org/
More than just classes, I would sign the kids up now to play in the VYS "house" league this spring (it's the "recreational" or "rec" league, as opposed to the "travel" league). VYS also has special week-long training programs during spring break, summer break, etc. They have info on the website.
Have fun!
FCV-Dad wrote:The crazy thing here is that Dolansky never mentioned the FCV angle. Why did he not even mention that? Bryc and VYS will greatly improve the FCV boys side. But, more importantly, fcv girls will make huge improvements to bryc ecnl and VYS ecnlr.
I routinely ignore any post that includes "FCV" in it (nothing personal, just that this board always get clogged up with weird and irrelevant FCV comments) and just realized that this post was a complete troll.
FCV isn't involved at all in the potential BRYC/VYS arrangement.
Anonymous wrote:For anyone who cares about kids, this is a must read by: Shelli Farhadian is an infectious disease physician and an assistant professor of medicine and of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine who is studying how Covid-19 affects the brain. Shira Doron is an infectious disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and an associate professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine.
https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/14/controlled-studies-ease-worries-widespread-long-covid-kids/
In two other studies that included scientific controls, the rates of long Covid symptoms were nearly the same in children who had tested positive for Covid-19 compared to those who didn’t. In other words, other factors were to blame in many or most of these cases.
Indeed, children who had not had Covid-19 reported higher rates of many symptoms, including difficulty concentrating and muscle pains — nearly every long Covid symptom except the loss of smell and taste. Similar findings have also been reported in controlled studies in adults.
To be sure, debilitating Covid-19 symptoms persist for weeks in a small number of children, likely due to lingering effects of infection and the body’s immune response to it. But the studies that include control groups tell us that the odds of this occurring in a child with Covid-19 is low, lower even than the odds of getting seriously injured while playing sports.
Controlled studies like the CLoCk study in England, published in Lancet Child and Adolescent Health on Feb. 7, also offer crucial information about the mental health toll the Covid-19 pandemic has taken on children, regardless of whether they had personally been infected with the virus that causes Covid-19. An alarming 40% of teens surveyed — those who had Covid-19 and those who did not have it — reported feeling worried, sad, or unhappy. These mental health symptoms are real, but the data indicate that, more often than not, they are not a consequence of direct Covid-19 infection. Among those who did have Covid-19, poor mental health before getting Covid-19 was an important risk factor for having multiple long Covid symptoms after three months, highlighting the importance of accounting for mental health conditions in studies of pediatric long Covid.
Framed this way, restrictions on children should not be maintained in the name of preventing long Covid.
Fear has had a strong hold on Americans for more than two years, and it is a hard thing to let go of. But we owe it to children to follow the science: Children are more likely to suffer from pandemic-associated symptoms than from infection-associated symptoms. School policies should reflect this reality.
Thanks for posting. It’s good confirmation of what many of us have been saying—based on the science—for over a year now: COVID is not a serious threat to children; it’s less of a threat than many other risks to children that we accept and live with every day; and many of the mitigation measures may be worse in terms of unintended consequences.
Remember folks—your child will get COVID if they haven’t already. Common sense tells us that we can’t stop our children from catching a highly-contagious coronavirus that’s endemic to the population at this point. And if common sense isn’t enough, the CDC has already admitted that “essentially everybody” is going to get COVID. So what, exactly, are all the potentially harmful mitigation measures for? To delay the inevitable? To what end? Hospitals are not overwhelmed and children hospitalized because of COVID are an immeasurably small percentage of hospital patients.
Long COVID may or may not present issues for all of us; none of us are going to be able to avoid it over the long term. We have to go back to living normal life and letting our children do the same.
Godot wrote:So structurally, where does this leave ostensibly high-level club soccer at U14+ in the local area?
For both girls and boys, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, there’s ECNL at Loudoun, VA Union (Mclean/SYC), VDA (PWSI/VSA), BRAVE (BRYC/VYS), Arlington.
For girls, there’s GA at FCV and Metro United.
For boys, there’s MLS Next at Alexandria and SYC (an alternative to VA Union, for the combo group right? I haven’t had a boy in travel soccer for a few years). Plus Bethesda and DC United north of the Potomac.
This actually seems like decent consolidation to me, something that’s been needed for a while now. My prediction, worth exactly the zero dollars that you all paid for it, is that MLS Next will slowly fade and the top ECNL boys teams will end up playing against the MLS academy teams in some format. GA will quickly fade, and FCV really ought to consider that partnership with a geographically rational ECNL team for the sake of the players. We’ll end up with 4-5 local clubs that are really top feeders to both pros and college, and those will be the clubs that capture a large young player pool from a geographic area that the club dominates. So eventually, Loudoun, Arlington, and VDA win their areas, with Fairfax still up for grabs among the VA Union//SYC//BRYC//VYS machinations. This also has to do with resources for hiring and keeping coaching staffs — the big clubs with huge natural player pools at the young rec and young travel levels have the revenue to support coaches’ salaries. That gets a lot harder when you’re smaller.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but in curious ti hear your thoughts on why you think MLS Next will fade.
I really have no idea and no opinion on that, other than I do find it odd and somewhat frustrating as a parent to not have a clear sense of what the “top” youth league is … I had been assuming that it’s MLS Next and that it’s here to stay, and it was ECNL that was more likely to fold into MLS Next. That’s based on nothing really, other than a vague sense that with the MLS and their youth academies behind it, they won’t be going away.
No one said to me or said here that anyone is afraid of competition for spots. Want best growth model. Best talent. That is not VYS boys basically.
Yet VYS boys U12 on down are stronger than BRYC. And BRYC’s “model” has made them the floor mat of ECNL for years. Go figure.
If this doesn’t work out it will be because of drama like this—not like VYS talent doesn’t have other nearby options if they want to play in ECNL.
SoccerD wrote:Swaggalicious wrote:SoccerD wrote:Swaggalicious wrote:SoccerD wrote:Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?
I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.
After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?
No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.
I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.
Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.
You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.
But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?
I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.
The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.
If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."
If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.
Thanks for the questions.
P.S. Great handle.
BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?
Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.
For travel soccer (and I think for most House/Rec soccer as well) they do it all by birth year, not grade.
As for the “u” designation, I think it starts with whatever age the kids are at the start of the fall season. So, for example, the kids who were born in 2013 were all “under 9” at the start of the fall 2021 season, so the 2013 team is called “U9”.
When you register they should sort it out for you simply by asking what year your child was born in.
As for the “u” designation, I think it starts with whatever age the kids are at the start of the fall season. So, for example, the kids who were born in 2013 were all “under 9” at the start of the fall 2021 season, so the 2013 team is called “U9”.
When you register they should sort it out for you simply by asking what year your child was born in.
I’m interested in this take. How is getting some new talent a bad thing for existing BRYC coaches and players. The VYS boys may not be lighting the world on fire, but there are some very talented players, especially at uLittle. I have seen the 2012s play futsal at TSJ, and they were very good.
Would be nice to see the top VYS 2012 team play the top BRYC 2012 team as an indication of what to expect in the future in terms of a joint ECNL effort. Both are playing in the Arlington ASIST tournament, but unfortunately not in the same flight — VYS’ top 2012 Boys team is in the highest flight, however, so they must be pretty competitive; BRYC’s top 2012 Boys team is two flights lower.
Bottom line is that I don’t see any reason for anyone at either club to be upset by this. VYS lacks access to ECNL and routinely loses top players to other clubs for ECNL (although as others have said, I doubt many players leave VYS for BRYC). Meanwhile BRYC has a solid club but is struggling in ECNL and would benefit from a larger player pool that a collaboration with VYS would bring. The fact that these two clubs are next-door to one another makes it an organic affiliation. I don’t think either team technically includes Fairfax City in its zone, but they’re the best teams closest to Fairfax City, in the heart of Fairfax County, and one would think the Fairfax City area should be fielding a strong team competitive with Arlington and Alexandria.
Anonymous wrote:Cruzado wrote:The executive order requiring all schools (both public and private) to allow parents to choose remains valid and enforceable except for the preliminary injunction as to the specific set of public schools that sued to challenge the order (no private schools sued).
Thus, private schools must adhere to the executive order giving parents the choice.
Nope. One of our schools leases space in a church and is required to abide by their contractual obligation to follow the church’s mask requirement. What authority does the Governor have to interfere in a private contract between a church and school? It’s an illegal government overreach to try to prohibit private schools from mandating masks. What is the Governor going to be able do to private schools that violate his “order?”
The same authority that the governor had when governor Northam issued the mandatory mask mandate for all schools public and private. Now there is a mandatory choice order and it has the same effect. If a parent at your school wants to send their kids to school without a mask, and your school prevents that, the school is looking at a costly lawsuit. No private school in VA will enforce any mask requirements after March 1.
The executive order requiring all schools (both public and private) to allow parents to choose remains valid and enforceable except for the preliminary injunction as to the specific set of public schools that sued to challenge the order (no private schools sued).
Thus, private schools must adhere to the executive order giving parents the choice.
Thus, private schools must adhere to the executive order giving parents the choice.
Interesting. I suppose it makes sense to “do their own thing” at the younger age groups, as parents can stay closer to home in terms of practices and home fields.
And older kids, who are presumably more into soccer (i.e. beyond the snack and trophy phase), would be willing to travel a bit farther for practices—better than traveling to Arlington or Alexandria from the VYS/BRYC geographic areas.
The joint-venture model always seems a bit more temporary than a straight club merger—as if the collaboration might be short lived—but I can see the reason for it.
Will be interesting to see how strong the joint BRYC and VYS U11+ teams will be next year when this takes effect.
And older kids, who are presumably more into soccer (i.e. beyond the snack and trophy phase), would be willing to travel a bit farther for practices—better than traveling to Arlington or Alexandria from the VYS/BRYC geographic areas.
The joint-venture model always seems a bit more temporary than a straight club merger—as if the collaboration might be short lived—but I can see the reason for it.
Will be interesting to see how strong the joint BRYC and VYS U11+ teams will be next year when this takes effect.
I read in another thread that VYS and BRYC are merging or entering into some sort of partnership—it’s just a rumor at this point and so the details are TBD. That said, it warrants its own thread.
If true, I think it’s the right move. BRYC and VYS are smaller clubs that seem to punch above their weight, but some sort of merger would bring them closer to parity with Arlington, Alexandria, McLean/SYC, and other nearby clubs.
My kids have at times played with both BRYC and VYS and had mostly positive experiences at both clubs. But VYS hasn’t had access to the more competitive ECNL league for its older players, and BRYC alone appears to struggle against larger competitors in those more competitive leagues. The two clubs cover a contiguous geographic area (which is how we ended up playing for both clubs at various times) and some sort of collaboration would seem to make sense.
Still just mere speculation on my part anyway, until something more official comes out. But will be watching with interest.
If true, I think it’s the right move. BRYC and VYS are smaller clubs that seem to punch above their weight, but some sort of merger would bring them closer to parity with Arlington, Alexandria, McLean/SYC, and other nearby clubs.
My kids have at times played with both BRYC and VYS and had mostly positive experiences at both clubs. But VYS hasn’t had access to the more competitive ECNL league for its older players, and BRYC alone appears to struggle against larger competitors in those more competitive leagues. The two clubs cover a contiguous geographic area (which is how we ended up playing for both clubs at various times) and some sort of collaboration would seem to make sense.
Still just mere speculation on my part anyway, until something more official comes out. But will be watching with interest.
My kid plays winter futsal but prefers soccer so we sign him up for Super Y.
The heat wasn’t that much of a factor, since most games were played in the morning, and practices were in the evenings.
In fact, the winter futsal team is half outdoors (half of the practices and half of the games are on outdoor courts) and his soccer team has been running outdoor practices as well; those bitter cold events are more of a challenge than summer morning/evening weather in my opinion!
The heat wasn’t that much of a factor, since most games were played in the morning, and practices were in the evenings.
In fact, the winter futsal team is half outdoors (half of the practices and half of the games are on outdoor courts) and his soccer team has been running outdoor practices as well; those bitter cold events are more of a challenge than summer morning/evening weather in my opinion!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You're going to miss out if you don't try out NOW
Where is the info on their website to register/tryout?
Have fun:
http://www.vys.org/super-y-tryouts/
VYS is not fielding Super Y teams for the 2022 summer.