Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is correct to say that top ECNL teams are competitive with the non-academy MLS Next teams. It is not correct to say there are "plenty of local ECNL teams in the area that not only compete, but smash, mls next teams routinely." It's not even close to correct.

My son plays on a U14 squad that lost to PP's team at Copa Rayados. (NCFC) They are an excellent team that plays well together, has skilled players, plays a good style, and seems very well coached. They are also one of the top 10 ECNL teams in the country at U14 and are from a region, North Carolina, where ECNL is stronger than MLS Next. I don't believe there are many areas in the country where that is true, and certainly not in our area. Here, Pipeline, Loudon, and VDA are all U14 teams that could beat the local MLS Next squads. The bottom half of the league, however, would not be competitive with any of the MLS Next teams and this is where ECNL falters. I'm thinking of this year's Arlington U14, Baltimore Celtic, BRAVE, VA Union, MD United, etc. MLS Next is much deeper, and good top to bottom.

The one exception to this is, I think, Achilles, who had a poor showing at Copa Rayados and is, from what I hear, in transition.

They seem to always have poor showings. Tell us more about this Achilles "transition".

Based on consistent poor results in all age groups in recent years, Achilles is apparently transitioning steadily away from a former high quality organization.
Smoking mirrors.

I have nothing to add, just wanted to say "smoking mirrors" was pretty great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is correct to say that top ECNL teams are competitive with the non-academy MLS Next teams. It is not correct to say there are "plenty of local ECNL teams in the area that not only compete, but smash, mls next teams routinely." It's not even close to correct.

My son plays on a U14 squad that lost to PP's team at Copa Rayados. (NCFC) They are an excellent team that plays well together, has skilled players, plays a good style, and seems very well coached. They are also one of the top 10 ECNL teams in the country at U14 and are from a region, North Carolina, where ECNL is stronger than MLS Next. I don't believe there are many areas in the country where that is true, and certainly not in our area. Here, Pipeline, Loudon, and VDA are all U14 teams that could beat the local MLS Next squads. The bottom half of the league, however, would not be competitive with any of the MLS Next teams and this is where ECNL falters. I'm thinking of this year's Arlington U14, Baltimore Celtic, BRAVE, VA Union, MD United, etc. MLS Next is much deeper, and good top to bottom.

The one exception to this is, I think, Achilles, who had a poor showing at Copa Rayados and is, from what I hear, in transition.

They seem to always have poor showings. Tell us more about this Achilles "transition".

Based on consistent poor results in all age groups in recent years, Achilles is apparently transitioning steadily away from a former high quality organization.
Smoking mirrors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is correct to say that top ECNL teams are competitive with the non-academy MLS Next teams. It is not correct to say there are "plenty of local ECNL teams in the area that not only compete, but smash, mls next teams routinely." It's not even close to correct.

My son plays on a U14 squad that lost to PP's team at Copa Rayados. (NCFC) They are an excellent team that plays well together, has skilled players, plays a good style, and seems very well coached. They are also one of the top 10 ECNL teams in the country at U14 and are from a region, North Carolina, where ECNL is stronger than MLS Next. I don't believe there are many areas in the country where that is true, and certainly not in our area. Here, Pipeline, Loudon, and VDA are all U14 teams that could beat the local MLS Next squads. The bottom half of the league, however, would not be competitive with any of the MLS Next teams and this is where ECNL falters. I'm thinking of this year's Arlington U14, Baltimore Celtic, BRAVE, VA Union, MD United, etc. MLS Next is much deeper, and good top to bottom.

The one exception to this is, I think, Achilles, who had a poor showing at Copa Rayados and is, from what I hear, in transition.

They seem to always have poor showings. Tell us more about this Achilles "transition".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the DCU kids from last season left for Armour bc the commute to Segra (even with the shuttle) was too long and their parents didn’t think DCU was worth it.

Maybe they’re on to something? Maybe not. But DCU isn’t the gold standard some think it is.

Does that mean the kids live in Howard County and close to Columbia MD where BA trains and have little commute?
Are they 'on scholarship' at BA.... or are they spending north of $10,000 per year (tuition, travel etc expenses)
"Worth it" is completely subjective, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that a fully funded MLS Academy isn't the #1 team for desirability in a given area or rapidly becoming it.

For boys who want to go pro it's a clear and obvious path AND for parents everything is covered which is a massive savings.

Desirability not being the same thing as the actual best team at a given moment in time.

They don't have a U13 or U16 squad. You have much closer options with arguably just as much talent or close to it. Many kids have to drop out of regular school because of the travel to and from practice and games. And, while the training is free, they're not paying for Mommy & Daddy to tag along to the road games in Toronto and further. Plus, the track record for turning out pros is not great. So color me unimpressed.

Anonymous wrote:Some of the DCU kids from last season left for Armour bc the commute to Segra (even with the shuttle) was too long and their parents didn’t think DCU was worth it.

Maybe they’re on to something? Maybe not. But DCU isn’t the gold standard some think it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding really has little to do with the month a kid is born - at least in its application in the U.S. Currently, only MLS Next utilizes the bio-banding waiver process for boys. Not aware of it being used for girls. It is designed to make sure late bloomers do not get squeezed out of the game because of their small stature compared to same aged peers. People disagree on the degree to which preference for size is a problem with development in US youth soccer, but most agree that it's a problem that often leads to the promotion of athletes and early bloomers over skilled soccer players. Bio-banding is an effort to guard against the system's fixation on size and its detriment to smaller players. Unfortunately, there are few rules for how it is applied in the U.S., and the birth year system is engrained in everyone's mind. So the concept is hard for many to grasp or properly apply.

I like the idea of this having a small and late to mature DD, 13… there is a point where it looks kind of dangerous to be playing against much stronger competitors in these transition years. But on another thread it sounded like biobanding was being used to stack younger teams more than assure developmental comparability.

You mean that some teams are taking a perfectly good idea and taking advantage of it?
Shocking!

Anonymous wrote:Think PP is correct. And seems we are talking about the Academy teams (i.e. MLS club affiliated teams). If you look at the New York Red Bulls, Philly Union, and DC United...the bulk (not all) of the kids are much larger than the average U13, U14 kid. At U15 it may even out because they've already stopped growing and others have caught up. But kids are being brought into the system, in part, because they are more physically developed than their counterparts. And this hurts the actual development of a talent pool because the smaller, more technical kids have been passed over. And then you're stuck with a bunch of early bloomers with mediocre skills.