Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

I don't think so. For ECNL coaches (whether they be from SYC or McLean), they now have the ability to see into both clubs rosters earlier to identify and groom those players before they contemplate jumping ship. As it is, when an SYC player decides he/she wants to play at the ECNL level, they have a choice of several clubs to leap to. The idea is to create that relationship before that point is reached. Subtle difference, but potentially important if it is managed properly. Of course, I have no faith that it will be managed properly at all. I am simply explaining the thought process of McLean in pursing this alliance.

SYC. Boys. Don’t. Care. They are better and already playing in a better league. They can already compete with Arlington, especially if they stick with mls next. Who are all the SYC boys now at ecnl clubs?

Sorry but SYC boys cannot yet compete with Arlington - which is not a knock on SYC but Arlington is really, really strong right now almost across the board. Arlington teams are ranked above SYC (and McLean) in every single age group on YSR except U18 where Arlington don't have a team (and U18/U19 won't matter for next year anyway), in many cases by several goals. Even the 2008 team, arguably Arlington's weakest, is ranked slightly ahead of SYC's 2008 MLSNext team, and in the state cup games between the two clubs there was a huge gulf in ability and team play and scorelines.

That said, SYC is definitely headed in the right direction and may well be able to challenge Arlington 3-4 years provided they can retain the best kids. And therein lies the problem. If SYC can't offer MLSNext, those kids - or at least the best ones - will leave at U15 to go either to DCU or to Arlington. The partnership with McLean at least gives them ECNL and therefore a reason for those kids to stay.

SYC boys are higher rank than Arlington U14 and under.

U15 Boys and up in Arlington are made up of kids coming from other Clubs. Arlington likes to recruit new talent for the older age groups to stay strong. Many of the Arlington young kids make their 2nd team by the time they hit U15. Great move by Arlington!

Agreed. U13 SYC smoked Loudoun and Loudoun smokes Arlington In that age group. This guy doesn’t have a clue about the pipeline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

I don't think so. For ECNL coaches (whether they be from SYC or McLean), they now have the ability to see into both clubs rosters earlier to identify and groom those players before they contemplate jumping ship. As it is, when an SYC player decides he/she wants to play at the ECNL level, they have a choice of several clubs to leap to. The idea is to create that relationship before that point is reached. Subtle difference, but potentially important if it is managed properly. Of course, I have no faith that it will be managed properly at all. I am simply explaining the thought process of McLean in pursing this alliance.

SYC. Boys. Don’t. Care. They are better and already playing in a better league. They can already compete with Arlington, especially if they stick with mls next. Who are all the SYC boys now at ecnl clubs?

Sorry but SYC boys cannot yet compete with Arlington - which is not a knock on SYC but Arlington is really, really strong right now almost across the board. Arlington teams are ranked above SYC (and McLean) in every single age group on YSR except U18 where Arlington don't have a team (and U18/U19 won't matter for next year anyway), in many cases by several goals. Even the 2008 team, arguably Arlington's weakest, is ranked slightly ahead of SYC's 2008 MLSNext team, and in the state cup games between the two clubs there was a huge gulf in ability and team play and scorelines.

That said, SYC is definitely headed in the right direction and may well be able to challenge Arlington 3-4 years provided they can retain the best kids. And therein lies the problem. If SYC can't offer MLSNext, those kids - or at least the best ones - will leave at U15 to go either to DCU or to Arlington. The partnership with McLean at least gives them ECNL and therefore a reason for those kids to stay.

SYC boys are higher rank than Arlington U14 and under.

U15 Boys and up in Arlington are made up of kids coming from other Clubs. Arlington likes to recruit new talent for the older age groups to stay strong. Many of the Arlington young kids make their 2nd team by the time they hit U15. Great move by Arlington!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

I don't think so. For ECNL coaches (whether they be from SYC or McLean), they now have the ability to see into both clubs rosters earlier to identify and groom those players before they contemplate jumping ship. As it is, when an SYC player decides he/she wants to play at the ECNL level, they have a choice of several clubs to leap to. The idea is to create that relationship before that point is reached. Subtle difference, but potentially important if it is managed properly. Of course, I have no faith that it will be managed properly at all. I am simply explaining the thought process of McLean in pursing this alliance.

SYC. Boys. Don’t. Care. They are better and already playing in a better league. They can already compete with Arlington, especially if they stick with mls next. Who are all the SYC boys now at ecnl clubs?

Sorry but SYC boys cannot yet compete with Arlington - which is not a knock on SYC but Arlington is really, really strong right now almost across the board. Arlington teams are ranked above SYC (and McLean) in every single age group on YSR except U18 where Arlington don't have a team (and U18/U19 won't matter for next year anyway), in many cases by several goals. Even the 2008 team, arguably Arlington's weakest, is ranked slightly ahead of SYC's 2008 MLSNext team, and in the state cup games between the two clubs there was a huge gulf in ability and team play and scorelines.

That said, SYC is definitely headed in the right direction and may well be able to challenge Arlington 3-4 years provided they can retain the best kids. And therein lies the problem. If SYC can't offer MLSNext, those kids - or at least the best ones - will leave at U15 to go either to DCU or to Arlington. The partnership with McLean at least gives them ECNL and therefore a reason for those kids to stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

I don't think so. For ECNL coaches (whether they be from SYC or McLean), they now have the ability to see into both clubs rosters earlier to identify and groom those players before they contemplate jumping ship. As it is, when an SYC player decides he/she wants to play at the ECNL level, they have a choice of several clubs to leap to. The idea is to create that relationship before that point is reached. Subtle difference, but potentially important if it is managed properly. Of course, I have no faith that it will be managed properly at all. I am simply explaining the thought process of McLean in pursing this alliance.

SYC. Boys. Don’t. Care. They are better and already playing in a better league. They can already compete with Arlington, especially if they stick with mls next. Who are all the SYC boys now at ecnl clubs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

I don't think so. For ECNL coaches (whether they be from SYC or McLean), they now have the ability to see into both clubs rosters earlier to identify and groom those players before they contemplate jumping ship. As it is, when an SYC player decides he/she wants to play at the ECNL level, they have a choice of several clubs to leap to. The idea is to create that relationship before that point is reached. Subtle difference, but potentially important if it is managed properly. Of course, I have no faith that it will be managed properly at all. I am simply explaining the thought process of McLean in pursing this alliance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

Maybe. We won't know for a while though. If the next generation of kids (2010 and younger) from both clubs happily sign up for merged teams and are able to compete successfully with Arlington (or at least Loudoun) on the boys side, without the girls' side dropping off then this will have been a win. The clubs will be willing to lose some of their current players if the future is solidified. If the clubs had not merged then there were significant risks:
(a) McLean boys really struggled and followed BRYC into the cellar, struggling to attract and even retain the better kids, and perhaps eventually losing ECNL status.
(b) SYC's momentum stalled out. Not getting MLS Next additional age groups and CCL imploding leaves them in a tricky spot again potentially facing a lot of their better players leaving.

So it's not like the status quo was all rosy for either club on the boys' side. The one group that probably doesn't really benefit much is the McLean girls' group which appeared to be fine and stable.

it gives the "directors" of these clubs more work to do they can get paid for, and covers up weaker teams in the club due to larger numbers of kids coming in. less pressure on the leadership now because teams will get stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

This isn’t an answer. All those customers could already go to McLean. You need to assume that (1) everybody from SYC will stay with the new club, (2) that SYC kids will be willing to practice in McLean, and (3) the net gain in talent from SYC offsets the losses from McLean parents who will not go to Springfield for practice. Otherwise you will only lose more numbers. People are giving SYC too much credit. It’s dumb for both clubs and a major unforced error.

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's obvious. It's for the long term survival of the club, or that's the thought anyway. The club is/was dying and needs numbers to survive. They recognize that in the near term, they are going to irritate some customers, however it's the price of growth.

Anonymous wrote:What happens when Virginia Union plays Virginia Revolution?

Both sides will display Virginia Valor.

They won’t-VA Revolution not in ECNL.

What happens when Virginia Union plays Virginia Revolution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

Same.

It's still baffling why SYC did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

We can all agree that parents and players have ZERO input where our money goes...

Anonymous wrote:It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

Same.

It's still baffling why SYC did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!

It's still baffling why McLean did this. No one I have talked to is happy with this!