Reply to Riverbend FC

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Riverbend FC"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don't see the point to this whole complicated fake "pathway" to NVA for just the one RBFC team that exists.

[/quote]

From a strategic standpoint, NVA launching an Aspire team in Fairfax with Riverbend makes a lot of sense.

Geography matters more than people admit. Most families prefer a 10–25 minute drive to training. Once you push past 30 minutes multiple nights a week, the pool shrinks fast,  especially for multi-kid households. Loudoun and VRSC naturally pull from western Fairfax and Loudoun because of proximity. By placing Aspire’s home base in Fairfax County, NVA opens access to a completely different player base that likely wouldn’t consider driving west consistently.

Fairfax County has over 1.1 million residents and produces one of the deepest youth soccer pools in the region. Yet the top-tier pathway options locally are limited. Great Falls Reston (GFR) offers ECNL-RL, NCSL, and EDP. Vienna competes in the RL. [b]McLean has Aspire, but roster spots are finite and internal competition is tight[/b]. For players in central and eastern Fairfax, Aspire in Fairfax becomes a strong, convenient alternative without requiring a Loudoun commute.

From a league positioning standpoint, [b]Aspire generally sits above ECNL-RL in the player development hierarchy[/b], which makes it attractive to families seeking a higher competitive ceiling without jumping immediately to full ECNL travel demands. That naturally creates interest from players currently in RL who feel capped.

It’s also smart portfolio management. Instead of concentrating [b]Aspire talent pools[/b] in Loudoun and competing for the same households as VRSC, Fairfax expands the footprint and reduces direct cannibalization. Different geography, different recruiting lanes.

Fairfax is a massive soccer ecosystem with strong rec foundations and competitive club pipelines. Putting Aspire there taps into a dense player base that hasn’t had as many [b]elite pathway options[/b] within immediate reach.
[/quote]

This is delusional. The local Aspire teams are made up mostly of ex-NCSL players when the respective clubs went GA. No one is fighting for roster spots on Aspire teams. No rational actor thinks Aspire is better than RL. GA is barely better than RL.
[/quote]

Please explain these rankings then

I agree that most people think that but that is based on how strong RL used to be. Currently if you average the rankings for all teams in mid Atlantic’s south GA, VA RL and Mid Atlantic South Aspire you will see a different story. For instance for 2011 you get

GA - 331
Aspire - 772
RL - 926

RL has a few really good teams but also numerous teams ranked 1000+.[/quote]

I’m not interested in debating dubious rankings from an unidentified source. All I know is my DD plays on an RL team. In bigger tournaments we’ve played other RL teams, GA teams, and an occasional NL team. There’s never been an Aspire team within five bracket levels of her team. If you doubt that, look at the Jefferson Cup brackets and look for Aspire teams.

Maybe Aspire would be competitive with the bottom of the RL table. Even the bottom of the table GA teams would not be competitive at the top of the RL table, much less Aspire teams.

I think you have an overly aspirational view if Aspire.[/quote]

So on one side of the debate we have a rankings app that is used by many, continues to be tweaked and constantly re ranks teams based on results. On your side of the debate we have your “eye test”.

You can’t cherry pick the top few RL teams and then say the entire RL league is better. Those top RL teams are good. No doubt. But the league as a whole has way more weak teams than strong.

For 2011, the lowest ranked Aspire team is Alexandria at 1265. There are six RL teams (DCSC, LMVSC, VIVA, BRYC, Herndon and SOCA) that are ranked lower than that. [/quote]

The problem with your argument is not just that it relies on unreliable rankings but that it primarily turns on the least meaningful part of those rankings. It is at the top of the rankings where they have the most value, even if they are dubious even there.

I might be willing to accept that there is some real, discernable difference between the team on the rankings app ranked 5 in the USA vs the team ranked 25, or between the team ranked 25 and the team ranked 50, or 50 v 100, or 100 v 250, etc. Do I think it's very meaningful? No. In the year I'm most familiar with, 2014G, Richmond Orange 1 has been ranked as high as something like 38 and as low as something like 86 and is currently ranked 72. Do I think these shifts mean anything? No, I just think it means that team is roughly competitive with the teams ranked 35 to 80.

But when we are talking about the bottom ranges of the rankings, they don't convey any meaningful information because there is so little information for cross-comparisons and so many very similar teams. So for the range from 1500 to 2500, in my view, that's all one undifferentiated mass separated only by noise. But these are the numbers you are trying to make your case from. If Alexandria 2011 played those six RL teams, maybe it's 3-3, maybe 4-2, 2-4, could be 6-0, 1-5. The rankings don't tell you that much, esp. because even individual games in soccer can be very variable and influenced by random factors.[/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