Reply to ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It was the boys on both sides.  But they didnt need to combine the girls, why not let them have two ECNL teams one from each club?[/quote]

The boys would get them thrown out on both sides -- boys/girls.  This was the death peanlty for McL[/quote]

Maybe all the girl parents stopped reading after the mention of "particularly the boys program", but it also very clearly states their RL program wasn't up to par either.  Take a quick look at the girls RL side.  Don't worry ECNL parents, it's easy and it won't hurt, no one will even know you went slumming.  It's the link right under ECNL on their website.  1-5-1, 3-3-11, 1-6-0, 1-6-1, 3-3-2, 2-3-3.  That's Mclean girls RL records.  BRYC isn't any better.  In fact, VYS, the 3rd member, actually sits above Mclean and BRYC in the table in all but one age group.  If we're all to believe that these Mclean coaches are the best in the area, why doesn't that show up below the ECNL level on their teams?  Maybe because they've just recruited from elsewhere and not actually developed? No wonder their RL teams lose to GA teams, letting GA to dismiss those "same level as RL" jabs.

Yes, they're clearly pushing blame at the boys, and that side deserves much of the scrutiny.  However same letter gives other hints about where else you can look to see Mclean is really just 3 good ECNL girls teams these days and 1 of them is nearly entirely rostered from their now-former partner who will also be stealing those fairfax county players from them.  There are 21 other teams ECNL cares about for their image and funding (6 boys ecnl, 6 boys RL, 6 girls RL, 3 other girls ECNL).[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics