Yeah sure. Mclean to loudon or howison park 3x a week during rush hour sounds great.

Heard girls are going to Loudon and VDA. oops

Any offers after the session yesterday

Anonymous wrote:Would have been nice if MYS surveyed the families before making this move. Shows how non-inclusive the MYS organization is with the player's families and making important decisions on their own. MYS really needs to fix things internally before making decisions that impact the whole organization.

Come on, no organizations can or should work this way. Consensus driven businesses fail all the time. Partnerships and acquisitions can't be done in public or they get pulled down by too much baggage. They weighed (or should have) the pro's and con's of making this move based on how well they think they know their business. They decided that despite a reaction like seen here that most of those people either wouldn't be affected and therefore it's a non-issue, or that they were ok losing those handful of players. I'm confident they went out to their top top players families and suggested that they'd be making a move and gauge their reaction. ECNL is a marketing tool for them to have hundreds of kids at other levels of the organization look really good with status for the thousands in the program at other levels down through rec.. There are what, 10 teams? Even if there are 25-30 kids/team, there are only 1-3/team who will be affected directly by this enough to leave when asked back. You really gonna drive 15 minutes farther each to Arlington or Loudoun 4 nights a week to avoid an extra 20-25 minute drive one night/week? Not once you sit down and think about it. Unless you were already on the verge of leaving anyway. If you ask everyone ahead of time, then the complaint is that you heard our complaints and told us you didn't care, because no matter what, it never would have been 100% move forward.

At the end of the day, this is more likely a calculated risk that losing 10-20 fringe or even average players due to practice area, and another 30-50 that likely would be replaced on a roster anyway through a normal tryout period (3-4/team out of that 30) makes your teams better and more competitive. They've made a bet that they can withstand that downside and come out ahead. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous wrote:Would have been nice if MYS surveyed the families before making this move. Shows how non-inclusive the MYS organization is with the player's families and making important decisions on their own. MYS really needs to fix things internally before making decisions that impact the whole organization.

The alliance has everything to do with improving the cost structure and survivability of the club in the future, and less about providing opportunities to the current players. Of course it’s not in the interest of existing MYS players to expand the player pool so why would they ask for input. It does however make MYS stronger to have more players overall, more fields, more coaches, more leverage with sponsors, more paying parents, etc

Would have been nice if MYS surveyed the families before making this move. Shows how non-inclusive the MYS organization is with the player's families and making important decisions on their own. MYS really needs to fix things internally before making decisions that impact the whole organization.

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is if there is 1 SYC girls on my DD ECNL team we better have exactly zero practices in Springfield. Our team has new drivers that do not need to be driving on 495 in rush hour. Their coach said he did not expect to be taking any SYC players so I have no idea what the point of this alliance is. Especially if the top boys teams are going to remain either AECNL or MLS. Seems like the point is for those 3 SYC coaches to become ECNL coaches. I'm not sure why they couldn't just apply for the job and not involve the players

Of course MYS/SYC thought out all of this out. SMH...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is if there is 1 SYC girls on my DD ECNL team we better have exactly zero practices in Springfield. Our team has new drivers that do not need to be driving on 495 in rush hour. Their coach said he did not expect to be taking any SYC players so I have no idea what the point of this alliance is. Especially if the top boys teams are going to remain either AECNL or MLS. Seems like the point is for those 3 SYC coaches to become ECNL coaches. I'm not sure why they couldn't just apply for the job and not involve the players

“All I can say” and then you say a lot of different things. Bigger player pool = more talent = better competitive team fielded. Most older teams have rosters with few formative MYS players. Any thoughts there?

I do not have an 08 MYS player. Was just responding to the above comments on this "alliance". My DD did not start at MYS but has been there since U11. There are a handful of girls who have been on this team from the start and I would agree a few girls come and go each year but with the exception of one year it has not been more than a couple each year. I believe this to be true of all the ECNL and GA teams. There are a few changes each year and lots of various things play into it.

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is if there is 1 SYC girls on my DD ECNL team we better have exactly zero practices in Springfield. Our team has new drivers that do not need to be driving on 495 in rush hour. Their coach said he did not expect to be taking any SYC players so I have no idea what the point of this alliance is. Especially if the top boys teams are going to remain either AECNL or MLS. Seems like the point is for those 3 SYC coaches to become ECNL coaches. I'm not sure why they couldn't just apply for the job and not involve the players

“All I can say” and then you say a lot of different things. Bigger player pool = more talent = better competitive team fielded. Most older teams have rosters with few formative MYS players. Any thoughts there?

All I can say is if there is 1 SYC girls on my DD ECNL team we better have exactly zero practices in Springfield. Our team has new drivers that do not need to be driving on 495 in rush hour. Their coach said he did not expect to be taking any SYC players so I have no idea what the point of this alliance is. Especially if the top boys teams are going to remain either AECNL or MLS. Seems like the point is for those 3 SYC coaches to become ECNL coaches. I'm not sure why they couldn't just apply for the job and not involve the players

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are any SYC 09 trying out for the SYC Mclean team? How many will make the team? Why have they not announced a ID session yet?

Alreay happened. But was invite only for the top SYC players.

SYC alliance is primarily to strengthen McLean's boys ECNL program. They might take a couple of players on the girls side for each age group, but it's all about recruiting boys.

+100000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are any SYC 09 trying out for the SYC Mclean team? How many will make the team? Why have they not announced a ID session yet?

Alreay happened. But was invite only for the top SYC players.

SYC alliance is primarily to strengthen McLean's boys ECNL program. They might take a couple of players on the girls side for each age group, but it's all about recruiting boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are any SYC 09 trying out for the SYC Mclean team? How many will make the team? Why have they not announced a ID session yet?

Alreay happened. But was invite only for the top SYC players.

^ j/k

Anonymous wrote:Are any SYC 09 trying out for the SYC Mclean team? How many will make the team? Why have they not announced a ID session yet?

Alreay happened. But was invite only for the top SYC players.

Are any SYC 09 trying out for the SYC Mclean team? How many will make the team? Why have they not announced a ID session yet?