Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top players haven’t left. Bottom players have though.

Wrong again-they will be losing several good starters this year. At U14, things will be an uphill battle unless recruiting efforts were stellar.

On at least 3 teams: rising U15, rising U16, and rising U17, they lost bottom players, kept the key players and in some cases may be adding some talent. I don't know about rising U19s or rising U14s, but every club has pocket age groups that aren't very strong. And I do mean every club.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants to play for a club that never wins nor does the DA want to retain clubs that are not competitive. In a year, MU will not be a DA and thus not viable. As I said in my original post, it’s not about the coaches; it’s about bleeding talent and the results that follow.

It’s the same story non-ECNL and DA clubs have persistently faced: top players leave, more games are lost, and then the next level of players start questioning if they should move. Unless a dynamic coach or something else keeps a particular team together, travel teams at those clubs diminish in quality year after year. Starts earlier at lesser clubs( eg, LMVSC, Burke, VYS) but eventually hits the next tier of clubs too like Arlington, Loudoun and PWSI in the past which is why they wanted ECNL/DA so badly.

But what should families do when FCV is so unappealing?

Right now, loudoun and mclean are more attractive options for these players than mu. If MU does not right the ship in a significant way this year, they are done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top players haven’t left. Bottom players have though.

Wrong again-they will be losing several good starters this year. At U14, things will be an uphill battle unless recruiting efforts were stellar.

Anonymous wrote:Top players haven’t left. Bottom players have though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants to play for a club that never wins nor does the DA want to retain clubs that are not competitive. In a year, MU will not be a DA and thus not viable. As I said in my original post, it’s not about the coaches; it’s about bleeding talent and the results that follow.

It’s the same story non-ECNL and DA clubs have persistently faced: top players leave, more games are lost, and then the next level of players start questioning if they should move. Unless a dynamic coach or something else keeps a particular team together, travel teams at those clubs diminish in quality year after year. Starts earlier at lesser clubs( eg, LMVSC, Burke, VYS) but eventually hits the next tier of clubs too like Arlington, Loudoun and PWSI in the past which is why they wanted ECNL/DA so badly.

But what should families do when FCV is so unappealing?

Anonymous wrote:No one wants to play for a club that never wins nor does the DA want to retain clubs that are not competitive. In a year, MU will not be a DA and thus not viable. As I said in my original post, it’s not about the coaches; it’s about bleeding talent and the results that follow.

It’s the same story non-ECNL and DA clubs have persistently faced: top players leave, more games are lost, and then the next level of players start questioning if they should move. Unless a dynamic coach or something else keeps a particular team together, travel teams at those clubs diminish in quality year after year. Starts earlier at lesser clubs( eg, LMVSC, Burke, VYS) but eventually hits the next tier of clubs too like Arlington, Loudoun and PWSI in the past which is why they wanted ECNL/DA so badly.

Anonymous wrote:My money is on the one and done guy. I don't see how MU survives in this crowded market.

Anonymous wrote:You’re being an ass because I post an opinion and I’m willing to back it up? And you’re still posting anonymously? Tell us again what you’ve added to the conversation.

And as for the bet, loser can give George the money to hold for the winner? FYI, I’ll just donate my winnings to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well written but aweful analysis

How so?

.

You don't know enough about MU to understand why it is likely to succeed. What you said is a good outsider's lens, but the internal momentum is completely absent. If anything, the Spirit affiliation was part of the problem. They treated it like a longer term version of Super Y; it was a marketing tool and a money maker. That's why they wanted such large rosters.

Now, there is an energy from families and coaches alike that want better. It's why they left their old clubs.

I wrote the original post (but not the “how so” question). I know more about Spirit than you give me credit for. Let’s agree to disagree but if you don’t want to agree, I’ll put money on my prediction for MU.