Anonymous wrote:NVA may gave gotten better by raising the floor. Did Arlington get better, reallly do they ever get that much better. Best case is 5th place finish for any of these clubs FVU inlcuded moving forward. NC is about to take over the MA conference once we are talkign about HS ages

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

they all talk and already know. It seems like Loudon and Arlington were the big winners

The fall will be the first time playing ECNL and on a new team. Kid doesn't know anyone. Guess we will find out during first practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

they all talk and already know. It seems like Loudon and Arlington were the big winners

Anonymous wrote:So many more boys than girls play soccer in the DMV- yet the boys have one less “elite” team. Just like college, much, MUCH easier for girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

Yes, it should create more depth and competition with 1 less on the boys side. On the girls side, it's still a dilution over this season and back to the same number of teams previously.

9 "elite" boys programs in the DMV for 24/25 season. 10 for the 23/24 season.
5 ECNL boys with Potomac, FVU, Arlington, NVA, VDA, down from 6.
4 MLS Next Bethesda, Achilles, Alexandria, SYC

8 "elite" programs in the DMV. 7 for 23/24 season, 8 for the 22/23 season.
5 local ECNL girls with VDA, NVA, FVU, Arlington, Bethesda down from 6.
3 GA with FCV, Revolution, SYC, up from 1.

I don't think any of the top players will be considering the GA teams enough to make them as strong as FCV once was. So yes, the same number of teams but the makeup of these teams will differ with top talent consolidating mostly to the ECNL teams. 2012 SYC may be the only exception but I can see their top players leaving after next year or the latest at the end of u14. There seems to be consensus that the hierarchy on the girls' side is ECNL, GA and then RL for now.

Fake news. Don't think too hard you might hurt yourself and be wrong in the process

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

they all talk and already know. It seems like Loudon and Arlington were the big winners

Don't think Arlington really added anything that moves the needle. Loudoun had a lot of room to improve so no surprise there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

they all talk and already know. It seems like Loudon and Arlington were the big winners

Anonymous wrote:when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

Yes, it should create more depth and competition with 1 less on the boys side. On the girls side, it's still a dilution over this season and back to the same number of teams previously.

9 "elite" boys programs in the DMV for 24/25 season. 10 for the 23/24 season.
5 ECNL boys with Potomac, FVU, Arlington, NVA, VDA, down from 6.
4 MLS Next Bethesda, Achilles, Alexandria, SYC

8 "elite" programs in the DMV. 7 for 23/24 season, 8 for the 22/23 season.
5 local ECNL girls with VDA, NVA, FVU, Arlington, Bethesda down from 6.
3 GA with FCV, Revolution, SYC, up from 1.

I don't think any of the top players will be considering the GA teams enough to make them as strong as FCV once was. So yes, the same number of teams but the makeup of these teams will differ with top talent consolidating mostly to the ECNL teams. 2012 SYC may be the only exception but I can see their top players leaving after next year or the latest at the end of u14. There seems to be consensus that the hierarchy on the girls' side is ECNL, GA and then RL for now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

Yes, it should create more depth and competition with 1 less on the boys side. On the girls side, it's still a dilution over this season and back to the same number of teams previously.

9 "elite" boys programs in the DMV for 24/25 season. 10 for the 23/24 season.
5 ECNL boys with Potomac, FVU, Arlington, NVA, VDA, down from 6.
4 MLS Next Bethesda, Achilles, Alexandria, SYC

8 "elite" programs in the DMV. 7 for 23/24 season, 8 for the 22/23 season.
5 local ECNL girls with VDA, NVA, FVU, Arlington, Bethesda down from 6.
3 GA with FCV, Revolution, SYC, up from 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

Yes, it should create more depth and competition with 1 less on the boys side. On the girls side, it's still a dilution over this season and back to the same number of teams previously.

9 "elite" boys programs in the DMV for 24/25 season. 10 for the 23/24 season.
5 ECNL boys with Potomac, FVU, Arlington, NVA, VDA, down from 6.
4 MLS Next Bethesda, Achilles, Alexandria, SYC

8 "elite" programs in the DMV. 7 for 23/24 season, 8 for the 22/23 season.
5 local ECNL girls with VDA, NVA, FVU, Arlington, Bethesda down from 6.
3 GA with FCV, Revolution, SYC, up from 1.