Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

If that were true all of the top programs would only be filled with players from the best teams. Sorry but the data does not support what you are saying.

You have it backwards. Coaches have targets they are coming to the games to watch. They are not wasting time watching other players on the team. Why? Even if someone else jumps out at them, to many factors could rule them out. Already committed, bad grades, or no interest in the school to name a few. Coaches don’t have time for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

That wasn't the point in the post above yours. What your saying isn't purely wrong; however, it needs qualifiers. The point there is not that coaches offer a player or don't based off of win/loss records. The point was that coaches are attracted at showcases, tournaments, and so on to teams with great records. Half of the challenge is getting the coach to see your child. If he/she plays for a top tier team in the league, coaches come in high numbers and watch. At that point, it is up to your kid to perform. If not, then it will be much harder to get them there. So, yes a mediocre player still won't get recruited. A great player on a lousy team has an uphill battle in getting coaches to come to see him or her in the showcases. It's doable; it's just a lot harder.

Regardless, the player must still do ID sessions, email coaches, and all of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

I think the point is that if your DD is a mediocre player on a great team, these top coaches don’t care. They are not going to offer her a scholarship because the team is 10-0. Likewise, a superstar on a bad or so-so team is still going to get top college interest and will have coaches there to watch her play. The level of competition and how she performs matters the most. There are so many examples of this occurring just look at the data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

They don't, but they do. If you go to a showcase, see which teams have 50+ coaches up and down the sidelines during recruitment years. It's not the clubs with 10+ losses. A team that wins generally has a collectively higher talent pool, which is why they win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Pssst...[whispers in ear] D1 coaches don’t really care about your teams record either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

I think what previous poster was saying is that U15+ rankings matter more than U11 rankings

The goal of ECNL for many is to play D1 college soccer. D1 coaches really don't care what your kid did when they are 10 or 11.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

I agree with this in general, although at some point if the athletic kids can still beat the kids playing "the right way" as they age, perhaps a reassessment of "the right way" is in order. I think there are many strategies to winning soccer, some of which may not be aesthetically pleasing, but effective.

Anonymous wrote: Rankings are mostly BS. The scores don't represent the way a game was played or the ability of the teams. You could win 3-0 and play kickball or you can win 3-0 and play the right way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best place for the 07, 08 and 09 parents to see club vs club is this site below. They already rank these ages groups based on scores.

http://youthsoccerrankings.us

That also changes pretty dramatically by ECNL and DA ages but it is better than posting meaningless club points as some form of predictor of future success.

Keep in mind that most seasoned parents with kids in DA or ECNL, while they want their kids on competitive teams, it is really about the showcasing and the platform as the vehicle that matters most. College coaches do not look at the standings week after week to determine who they are going to scout.

My advice, find the club and coach who will do right by your kid and forget all of this standings nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked 07 is not even an ECNL age group this year. Start a new thread and argue about how great you're 10 year old kids are on that.

Anonymous wrote:The best place for the 07, 08 and 09 parents to see club vs club is this site below. They already rank these ages groups based on scores.

http://youthsoccerrankings.us