Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. There is no difference. There are ECNL teams who beat GA teams and there are GA teams who beat ECNL teams. An both are equally providing exposure. The key here is to focus on your own player and what they can do.

There are differences. Significant differences.

There are also ECNL-RL teams that can (and have) beaten GA teams. But I will not argue ECNL-RL is somehow equal to GA. ECNL-RL teams also get invited to ECNL showcases. But I will not argue ECNL-RL has equal exposure to GA. Stop putting out false narratives. ECNL and GA's exposure to college recruitment are not equal and not even close. Not yet.

I am one of those people who believes GA will overtake ECNL for girls. GA's affiliation to MLSN gives it that advantage. But this will not happen until the future, and none of us know how far in the future. Nor do we know if we are even correct in our prediction at all.

The last sentence (re-focus on your own player) I do agree with.

You can also state there are ECNL RL teams who beat ECNL teams, but ECNL hats are unwilling to share for self preservation reasons.

Top ECNL-RL teams frequently beat bottom ECNL teams. The parent who referenced GA teams that can beat ECNL teams probably also left out the details about top GA teams beating bottom ECNL teams.

Anonymous wrote:Does GA currently have a biobanding concept? Wondering if there are any circumstances under which a player would be permitted to play down a year for the 2025-26 season.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone confirm to me with with verified sources on whether GA is doing school or birth year due 2026-27?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

because college pathway will transition to GA showcases. And parents will then chase GA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

ECNL is cooked thats how

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

Your hatred for GA is so transparent.

I have zero hatred. Just an observer and is asking for evidence for these bold proclamations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

Your hatred for GA is so transparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Again. How does that make GA better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.

can confirm this. NVA tried and was told by ECNL … hell no… you honestly think they suddenly thought GA was better? Its a forced marriage to chase money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. There is no difference. There are ECNL teams who beat GA teams and there are GA teams who beat ECNL teams. A both are equally providing exposure. The key here is to focus on your own player and what they can do.

There’s definitely a difference.

If they both put the player in front of the same college coach then there is no difference. That is what matters to me as a parent. Now what teams are in each league and what players play in each league, I could care less.

So there’s no difference between the leagues? Equal number of college commitments in number and quality?

More former girls ECNL quit playing in their first year of college than any other girls league. Something to consider.

More former girls ECNL get injured in their first year of college than any other leagues.

So ECNL has a quitting problem and injury problem?! This is something that is worth discussing.

Of course ECNL girls get hurt in college. ECNL girls are 70% of all women colelge soccer players.

I'm glad someone pointed this out. Because I was going to ask if the calculation of female college soccer players getting injured was ever given consideration to the proportion to the total population of female athletes as well as those who came though non-ECNL clubs.

Statistically speaking your DD is more likely to play college soccer coming out of ECNL. Therefore more likely to get injured. Can you play college not from ECNL- yes. But the data proves its harder and a much smaller possibility/subset. That's not going to change in the next few years. Maybe in 5 if at all, but not before then.

Ridiculous, GA college commitments have gone up every year its even posted on their website.

GA proponents continue to use "gone up every year", "increasing", "closing the gap", "will overtake", etc. While this may indeed turn out to be true, future tense language without actual stats are just propaganda and predictions. The current stats are 70% of collegiate female soccer players are from ECNL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is baffling. The statistics show ECNL has the current advantage. I really don't understand how a club having a MLS N for boys is going to magically make their girls programs better. Other than this "alliance" what is the rationale for GA over taking ECNL's status?

because once you go MLSN you lose ECNL girls.. which then forces them to GA.