Anonymous wrote:DCSC announced a new director of boys program today- Phil Nana.
Where did Matt Arrington go? He was just hired in April-Mayish and has disappeared off the website, as well as whom I thought was their director of girls (Germain). What's up at DCSC or is this just normal churn and the challenges of trying to level up to a ECNLR club?

Anonymous wrote:DCSC announced a new director of boys program today- Phil Nana.
Where did Matt Arrington go? He was just hired in April-Mayish and has disappeared off the website, as well as whom I thought was their director of girls (Germain). What's up at DCSC or is this just normal churn and the challenges of trying to level up to a ECNLR club?

Anonymous wrote:the 09 girls team lost bad to PWSI (which has always been seen as the bottom)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t they primarily the current Blue teams?

Yes. No magic happening here conferred by some new acronym.

Right, but the new acronym is because the current blue teams (which, fwiw, my kids aren't on) will be competing in a different league. I don't entirely get why the club has decided to act as though it's a whole different form of tryout, but it IS true that that part will be different next year. The likely outcome may well be that DCSC teams all get absolutely torched every week, guess we'll see...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just another entrant in the alphabet soup of youth soccer in DC. They would do better to try to form an alliance with an existing ECNL (or MLS Next)club to send kids their way. DC proper has too many clubs. If the 5 small clubs plus DCSC banded together, something great could happen, particularly if they had a mission of leveling the playing field for kids who may not be able to traditionally afford travel soccer.

Touched a nerve, eh?

Somebody has to pay for it. I doubt a team of 12 with three who can afford to play are going to be happy footing the bill for nine other kids.

ASPEN institute begs to differ.

https://projectplay.org/childrens-rights-and-sports

I have a grand idea! Why don't YOU pay for one child to play? Pay for two if you can afford it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Be aware, not everyone who says they need a "scholarship " or assistance in paying. You won't mind though, I'm sure. What do you say?

It's one thing to want to complain about fees and to worry about what they'd be if a smaller share of the club's players were able to pay. But you can't seriously be arguing that the pay-to-play system we have in U.S. soccer is good, in general. I don't see much of a path to changing it (you'd need the professional clubs to be much more dominant, revenue-wise, than they are, and you'd need a lot of lower-division smaller clubs in metro areas, so that each pro club could just set up its own academy system -- it works in Europe because soccer isn't competing for cash with football, baseball, basketball and hockey there). But our national teams, and our domestic ones, would surely be better off if money wasn't an impediment to getting kids into developmental programs.

I did not see anyone say what you are arguing against. What I read was you being told to pay for a needy child. Apparently, that isn't something that interests you beyond asking everyone else to do it.

If you want to live somewhere that has s better youth system move there. Simple. To my knowledge, Holland still offers American citizens residency as a repayment for liberating them in WWII.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by this ECNL-R move, especially on the girls side. My DDs have played against the 2011 and 2009 teams. Unless there is some significant dramatic improvement in quality, they are going to get killed in ECNL-R league play.

It seems like the idea behind this is sort of a long-range one: Right now, the best players leave the club at older ages to move to more competitive ones. They seem to think playing against ECNL-R teams will help make DCSC more attractive longer-term for more players. I think they also hope it might make it more appealing than some of the other smaller D.C.-based ones. It sounds like no one is expecting good results for the first season, but they want fewer of their top-team players to move out of the club entirely. Eventually, if that all works out, the quality should improve.

Unfortunately, I think they had to agree to move the top team at every age, for boys and for girls, into ECNL-R, so it could be sort of ugly with some of the teams.

LMVSC is in the same exact boat. They were accepted into ECNL-RL for the 24-25 season, and all the top or red teams U13-U19 are now in ECNL-RL and U12-U11 are Pre ECNL-RL. Whereas some teams are good and could compete at that level, but a lot of teams currently have a tough time in NCSL Division 2 or 3, but will now be in the ECNL-RL league. Not sure if this helps ECNL-RL as whole when they expand and have small-medium clubs join? But, LMVSC doesn't have a Director Of Coaches, the Tech Director coaches multiple teams, there is no GK Coach and they are struggling to keep coaches with more than a D license and a few years experience. It's a tough spot to be in, but I think clubs like DCSC and LMVSC should work on in-house quality first before jumping into deeper waters. LMVSC also doesn't run any ball mastery clinics, puts 6-8 teams on 1 field to scrimmage and keeps u littles out practicing at 8:30pm. So, sure, lets brag about joining ECNL-RL but not change much regarding development and recruitment. By the way, please pay the new, higher travel fee's that come with being in ECNL-RL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just another entrant in the alphabet soup of youth soccer in DC. They would do better to try to form an alliance with an existing ECNL (or MLS Next)club to send kids their way. DC proper has too many clubs. If the 5 small clubs plus DCSC banded together, something great could happen, particularly if they had a mission of leveling the playing field for kids who may not be able to traditionally afford travel soccer.

Touched a nerve, eh?

Somebody has to pay for it. I doubt a team of 12 with three who can afford to play are going to be happy footing the bill for nine other kids.

ASPEN institute begs to differ.

https://projectplay.org/childrens-rights-and-sports

I have a grand idea! Why don't YOU pay for one child to play? Pay for two if you can afford it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Be aware, not everyone who says they need a "scholarship " or assistance in paying. You won't mind though, I'm sure. What do you say?

It's one thing to want to complain about fees and to worry about what they'd be if a smaller share of the club's players were able to pay. But you can't seriously be arguing that the pay-to-play system we have in U.S. soccer is good, in general. I don't see much of a path to changing it (you'd need the professional clubs to be much more dominant, revenue-wise, than they are, and you'd need a lot of lower-division smaller clubs in metro areas, so that each pro club could just set up its own academy system -- it works in Europe because soccer isn't competing for cash with football, baseball, basketball and hockey there). But our national teams, and our domestic ones, would surely be better off if money wasn't an impediment to getting kids into developmental programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by this ECNL-R move, especially on the girls side. My DDs have played against the 2011 and 2009 teams. Unless there is some significant dramatic improvement in quality, they are going to get killed in ECNL-R league play.

It seems like the idea behind this is sort of a long-range one: Right now, the best players leave the club at older ages to move to more competitive ones. They seem to think playing against ECNL-R teams will help make DCSC more attractive longer-term for more players. I think they also hope it might make it more appealing than some of the other smaller D.C.-based ones. It sounds like no one is expecting good results for the first season, but they want fewer of their top-team players to move out of the club entirely. Eventually, if that all works out, the quality should improve.

Unfortunately, I think they had to agree to move the top team at every age, for boys and for girls, into ECNL-R, so it could be sort of ugly with some of the teams.

LMVSC is in the same exact boat. They were accepted into ECNL-RL for the 24-25 season, and all the top or red teams U13-U19 are now in ECNL-RL and U12-U11 are Pre ECNL-RL. Whereas some teams are good and could compete at that level, but a lot of teams currently have a tough time in NCSL Division 2 or 3, but will now be in the ECNL-RL league. Not sure if this helps ECNL-RL as whole when they expand and have small-medium clubs join? But, LMVSC doesn't have a Director Of Coaches, the Tech Director coaches multiple teams, there is no GK Coach and they are struggling to keep coaches with more than a D license and a few years experience. It's a tough spot to be in, but I think clubs like DCSC and LMVSC should work on in-house quality first before jumping into deeper waters. LMVSC also doesn't run any ball mastery clinics, puts 6-8 teams on 1 field to scrimmage and keeps u littles out practicing at 8:30pm. So, sure, let's brag about joining ECNL-RL but not change much regarding development and recruitment. By the way, please pay the new, higher travel fee's that come with being in ECNL-RL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by this ECNL-R move, especially on the girls side. My DDs have played against the 2011 and 2009 teams. Unless there is some significant dramatic improvement in quality, they are going to get killed in ECNL-R league play.

It seems like the idea behind this is sort of a long-range one: Right now, the best players leave the club at older ages to move to more competitive ones. They seem to think playing against ECNL-R teams will help make DCSC more attractive longer-term for more players. I think they also hope it might make it more appealing than some of the other smaller D.C.-based ones. It sounds like no one is expecting good results for the first season, but they want fewer of their top-team players to move out of the club entirely. Eventually, if that all works out, the quality should improve.

Unfortunately, I think they had to agree to move the top team at every age, for boys and for girls, into ECNL-R, so it could be sort of ugly with some of the teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by this ECNL-R move, especially on the girls side. My DDs have played against the 2011 and 2009 teams. Unless there is some significant dramatic improvement in quality, they are going to get killed in ECNL-R league play.

It seems like the idea behind this is sort of a long-range one: Right now, the best players leave the club at older ages to move to more competitive ones. They seem to think playing against ECNL-R teams will help make DCSC more attractive longer-term for more players. I think they also hope it might make it more appealing than some of the other smaller D.C.-based ones. It sounds like no one is expecting good results for the first season, but they want fewer of their top-team players to move out of the club entirely. Eventually, if that all works out, the quality should improve.

Unfortunately, I think they had to agree to move the top team at every age, for boys and for girls, into ECNL-R, so it could be sort of ugly with some of the teams.

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by this ECNL-R move, especially on the girls side. My DDs have played against the 2011 and 2009 teams. Unless there is some significant dramatic improvement in quality, they are going to get killed in ECNL-R league play.