Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

Not a fan of Mclean/Union but there girls side is impressive. Making playoffs is not even one of the criteria. College placements is. And they have had them. McLean was probablyt he top ECNL club int he region. Mclean and FCV for GA. Now both are gone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

And combining two underperforming clubs together while creating upheaval in your coaching staff is a recipe for success?? Club leadership lacks a backbone when dealing with the league and now they can just push us around when this fails (which it will). Less than 1% of these kids have a chance of playing in college. All this shuffling around doesn't change the outcome. What should matter is the experience we provide to the majority of the players. That's what lost in all this crap. Finding a good coach that can impact your kids life is what parents want. The hyper competitive "ELITE" BS that is marketed only helps a select handful. The parent above is right. McLean was fine on the boys side with the coaching staff and progress was being made. Why let the league tell you how to determine what's best for your own kids. This merger is hurting more kids than is helping and that is a fact. We forget the role of the clubs isn't just to appeal to the 1%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

IF (they still have 2 more games left)

That's inaccurate. Multiple McLean girls' teams have qualified for playoffs. The last few games will determine how many go to champion's league playoffs. At this point, the 10s, 08s, 07s are definitely going to playoffs -- remaining games will determine level. The 11s still have a chance because they have about 11 games left to play; they are in 7th place and the top 5 go to playoffs. That only leaves the 09s (7th place and only top 5 go; still have 2 games to play) and the 06s (they are in 3rd and only top finisher from MA goes to playoffs for U18). Compare to Brave....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.

IF (they still have 2 more games left)

Anonymous wrote:It's all done now folks. You can either accept it and tryout or find a new club. No one is happy about it, but it's time to move on

Anonymous wrote:How happy would we be if ECNL took away both Brave and Union's boys programs? That was the threat. Then we'd complain that the clubs didn't do anything to protect their teams. No win situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

And combining two underperforming clubs together while creating upheaval in your coaching staff is a recipe for success?? Club leadership lacks a backbone when dealing with the league and now they can just push us around when this fails (which it will). Less than 1% of these kids have a chance of playing in college. All this shuffling around doesn't change the outcome. What should matter is the experience we provide to the majority of the players. That's what lost in all this crap. Finding a good coach that can impact your kids life is what parents want. The hyper competitive "ELITE" BS that is marketed only helps a select handful. The parent above is right. McLean was fine on the boys side with the coaching staff and progress was being made. Why let the league tell you how to determine what's best for your own kids. This merger is hurting more kids than is helping and that is a fact. We forget the role of the clubs isn't just to appeal to the 1%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

And combining two underperforming clubs together while creating upheaval in your coaching staff is a recipe for success?? Club leadership lacks a backbone when dealing with the league and now they can just push us around when this fails (which it will). Less than 1% of these kids have a chance of playing in college. All this shuffling around doesn't change the outcome. What should matter is the experience we provide to the majority of the players. That's what lost in all this crap. Finding a good coach that can impact your kids life is what parents want. The hyper competitive "ELITE" BS that is marketed only helps a select handful. The parent above is right. McLean was fine on the boys side with the coaching staff and progress was being made. Why let the league tell you how to determine what's best for your own kids. This merger is hurting more kids than is helping and that is a fact. We forget the role of the clubs isn't just to appeal to the 1%.

I think everything I’ve stated has been that the inclusion of so many BRAVE coaches will only make this merger a failure.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a successful ECNL boys program with DC United and MLSNext in our region.

But the disruption on the girls side will be the real loss.

ECNL seems hell bent on this happening without being realistic about the overall success of ECNL boys vs ECNL girls.

ECNL needs to accept second tier status on the boys side and FU needs to accept second tier status in Fairfax Co. to SYC on the girls and boys side for the the forseeable future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that, "the boys side both clubs suck" in reference to coaching. My family has had players registered with MYS since 2009. Most clubs have a few "duds," coaches who disappoint. But overall, MYS coaches have not disappointed. To the contrary, they've consistently demonstrated professionalism and a commitment to their players. Talent pool is another topic. Lets not confuse the two. The opportunities for boys to play college soccer (on scholarship) differs drastically compared to opportunities for girls. So is it possible that many parents of male youth soccer players in this area (where traffic frequently sucks) just aren't willing to spend money and time commuting for an ECNL experience that ultimately won't lead to a college scholarship for their sons? There are cheaper other opportunities for youth boys to play a similar level of soccer (as most of the local boys ECNL teams) in the DC Metro area.

The boys side of both clubs suck in regards to results. And the results are why ECNL stepped in in the first place.

Your experience sounds fine but ECNL doesn’t see things the same way regarding either club.

And combining two underperforming clubs together while creating upheaval in your coaching staff is a recipe for success?? Club leadership lacks a backbone when dealing with the league and now they can just push us around when this fails (which it will). Less than 1% of these kids have a chance of playing in college. All this shuffling around doesn't change the outcome. What should matter is the experience we provide to the majority of the players. That's what lost in all this crap. Finding a good coach that can impact your kids life is what parents want. The hyper competitive "ELITE" BS that is marketed only helps a select handful. The parent above is right. McLean was fine on the boys side with the coaching staff and progress was being made. Why let the league tell you how to determine what's best for your own kids. This merger is hurting more kids than is helping and that is a fact. We forget the role of the clubs isn't just to appeal to the 1%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled. I was under the impression that the merger occurred primarily due to McLean's lackluster performance over time. Given its location, McLean should have had access to a good talent pool, and the talent from SYC didn't seem to benefit the Union boys much. So, why would they retain coaches from McLean then?

The boys side both clubs suck.

The girls side McLean is better and has a long standing history of competitive and placement success.

They both suck on both the boys and girls side. If the playoff qualifications ended today, one Mclean girls and one Fairfax Brave girls teams would make it. That is it.