Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

They many only produce 20 MLS players a year but they produce 90% of the NCAA Division 1 soccer players.

What percentage of those 90% go on to MLS teams? Is this really just about college opportunities wrapped inside the allure of MLS/International contracts which have an extremely low chance of success? Sounds the same as what USSF offered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ouch, what did Richmond united and Arlington do to deserve the penalty.
Richmond united and Arlington panicked.

I wish all of them the best of luck. I am not sure they would have made the cut, but they are both really good clubs and they will continue to be good if they can retain their DA coaches as they go to ECNL. I'd just like all of them to test themselves outside ECNL when the time comes - hopefully they won't mind the challenge of playing really good teams close to home. That goes for all of these clubs.

I've heard Arlington coaches are not happy going into ECNL but the decision was made by the club administration. Time will tell...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

Unless they are working out solidarity payments which was one of the reasons the MLS wanted out of DA.

The league will be fine, the MLS Academies are doing a better job than most of the youth clubs. They are not interested in college showcases so they will never be drawn to leagues like ECNL.

This is kind of why I question the league's future. The MLS Academies have wanted (or some of them have wanted) their own league or something like that. I just wonder how long it is before they go for that completely. This seems like a bit of a step toward that goal (DA-->MLS DA-->MLS) over the next few years.

Logistically you can’t ask kids to play only MLS clubs. They need high level competition that is also logistically feasible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

They many only produce 20 MLS players a year but they produce 90% of the NCAA Division 1 soccer players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

Unless they are working out solidarity payments which was one of the reasons the MLS wanted out of DA.

The league will be fine, the MLS Academies are doing a better job than most of the youth clubs. They are not interested in college showcases so they will never be drawn to leagues like ECNL.

This is kind of why I question the league's future. The MLS Academies have wanted (or some of them have wanted) their own league or something like that. I just wonder how long it is before they go for that completely. This seems like a bit of a step toward that goal (DA-->MLS DA-->MLS) over the next few years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

Unless they are working out solidarity payments which was one of the reasons the MLS wanted out of DA.

The league will be fine, the MLS Academies are doing a better job than most of the youth clubs. They are not interested in college showcases so they will never be drawn to leagues like ECNL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

The level of MLS commitment or funding would have zero impact on my kid's decision, but clubs and teams do not aggressively subsidize needier players, then whatever they are putting together will not be as good as it could be. Does that mean it's not worth playing? I doubt it. I don't think any player at the top tier thinks or cares whether the club is making a multi-year investment in them. Are there other clubs doing that of which we are not aware?

Anonymous wrote:I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

+1 When a league is the secondary business entity (USSF with DA and now with MLS) then it will never be resourced properly for the long-term. Let's not forget that these academies only produce around 20ish MLS players a year.

I think many clubs question the long term commitment of the MLS to running anything more than their own academies. This maybe a very short league before things change again.

Anonymous wrote:Do tell us how this MLS League is the answer... just like DA was the answer, right?

Who is bringing the pitchforks? Torches? Time to rally the haters.....

Anonymous wrote:Do tell us how this MLS League is the answer... just like DA was the answer, right?

Answer to what? What bozo thinks a league is an answer to anything? Or a club?

Do tell us how this MLS League is the answer... just like DA was the answer, right?

Anonymous wrote:Will the MLS league be tiered?
In which conference will BSC and Bethesda play?

I have not seen age groups, either.

Will the MLS league be tiered?
In which conference will BSC and Bethesda play?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington was, then backed out, joined ECNL

Ummmm, baaaaad move.

Not if the MLS goes under.

It is possible that it is a bad move even if the MLS goes under. And it is possible that it would be a good move even if the MLS does not go under. The players are not investors in the MLS. And talented players do not really need to worry about whether this vehicle flourishes. This isn't a standards war, where perception can trump objective reality and result in outcomes that are suboptimal. Unless people systematically make poor decisions and hop on bad badwagons. Which is entirely possible given the parents on these boards.