Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And lastly, I described a free market. As in you are free to choose the product to purchase at your own free will and the producer is free to produce the product. The consumer will decide. The winners will win and the loser will lose

The consumer’s choices are artificially limited by private agreements among clubs and teams that might otherwise compete. Of course these clubs want to limit competition. Many of the parents enjoy the artificial barriers to entry - they are essentially buying exclusivity and exclusion. Put aside whether this is a free market. It might even be competitive in the sense of recruitment. But the final product is crap. So if the final product is crap, the system might not be producing good outcomes or welfare enhancement even though you are describing a free market. I think the inability to do better (and simply give in to the club v club format) is a classic collective action problem. We will never solve it because there are too many parents too dumb or lazy or smug to do something different or better. Thanks bozos!

Anonymous wrote:And lastly, I described a free market. As in you are free to choose the product to purchase at your own free will and the producer is free to produce the product. The consumer will decide. The winners will win and the loser will lose

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theory is all wrong here

In a pro/rel the lowest team will lose money and no one will try out. A club will rather be in the middle pack of CCL for example than be in the lowest division of a nationwide league. Imagine your top team being last

There is no question that the clubs prefer safety of being in the "elite" league without fielding elite level teams, but that is not in the best interests of players.

Anonymous wrote:Theory is all wrong here

In a pro/rel the lowest team will lose money and no one will try out. A club will rather be in the middle pack of CCL for example than be in the lowest division of a nationwide league. Imagine your top team being last

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crash dummies. The lot of you

You can’t have a pro/reg in a play to pay model. What don’t you understand? Seriously, it’s getting ridiculous.

EDP does and so does NCSL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crash dummies. The lot of you

You can’t have a pro/reg in a play to pay model. What don’t you understand? Seriously, it’s getting ridiculous.

EDP does and so does NCSL.

Anonymous wrote:Crash dummies. The lot of you

You can’t have a pro/reg in a play to pay model. What don’t you understand? Seriously, it’s getting ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Promotion / regulation will NEVER work in a pay to play model. It works in the professional ranks because of paid contracts. In the amateur ranks, all the best kids will leave the team/club as soon as it is regulated. The club will not be able to attracted the top kids and will forever remain regulated. This is not debatable. This is exactly what will happen despite your philosophical beliefs.

2. The GAL was formed by Tophat to save face. Tophat is losing players. The former #1 club in America was regulated and players are leaving for neighboring ECNL clubs. There is your test case in regulation.

3. The NJ GAL clubs are also losing their kids to neighboring ECNL clubs. Again, here is your test case in regulation (Because you obviously need one)

4. GAL is a league. Nothing more. The former DA clubs that didn't get into ECNL could have gone into EDP, an established league with a national platform. It already existed. However, once again, egos were in play and clubs like Tophat and FCV knew they would lose their players to ECNL clubs is that happened.

Re 1, what's so bad if the kids leave the bad team with an incompetent coach for better teams wiht better coaches? If ECNL team or GA team has bad coaching and finishes at the bottom of the league, how does it benefit the players,if they stay with the team and continue to receive mediocre coaching? With promotion/relegation, the clubs will have an insentive to recruit the coaches that produce and cut the coaches that don't. The coaches will have an incentive to field the players who are good on the field, which will diminish the influence of club politics.

Then leave. If enough people leave it will regulate the club. That’s how it works in a pay to play model. Free markets determines the winners and losers. Good products will win. Understand? That’s what a club is...a business...you are the paying customer.

What you described is an oligopoly, not a free market. Your approach limits that number of participants and lowers the level of competition, because the closed "elite" league will have teams with really bad coaching and low level of play. In contrast, if you open the system like the free market, these bad teams will be relegated and replaced by better teams, which have better coaching, player identification and development.

That would threaten the status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Promotion / regulation will NEVER work in a pay to play model. It works in the professional ranks because of paid contracts. In the amateur ranks, all the best kids will leave the team/club as soon as it is regulated. The club will not be able to attracted the top kids and will forever remain regulated. This is not debatable. This is exactly what will happen despite your philosophical beliefs.

2. The GAL was formed by Tophat to save face. Tophat is losing players. The former #1 club in America was regulated and players are leaving for neighboring ECNL clubs. There is your test case in regulation.

3. The NJ GAL clubs are also losing their kids to neighboring ECNL clubs. Again, here is your test case in regulation (Because you obviously need one)

4. GAL is a league. Nothing more. The former DA clubs that didn't get into ECNL could have gone into EDP, an established league with a national platform. It already existed. However, once again, egos were in play and clubs like Tophat and FCV knew they would lose their players to ECNL clubs is that happened.

Re 1, what's so bad if the kids leave the bad team with an incompetent coach for better teams wiht better coaches? If ECNL team or GA team has bad coaching and finishes at the bottom of the league, how does it benefit the players,if they stay with the team and continue to receive mediocre coaching? With promotion/relegation, the clubs will have an insentive to recruit the coaches that produce and cut the coaches that don't. The coaches will have an incentive to field the players who are good on the field, which will diminish the influence of club politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Promotion / regulation will NEVER work in a pay to play model. It works in the professional ranks because of paid contracts. In the amateur ranks, all the best kids will leave the team/club as soon as it is regulated. The club will not be able to attracted the top kids and will forever remain regulated. This is not debatable. This is exactly what will happen despite your philosophical beliefs.

2. The GAL was formed by Tophat to save face. Tophat is losing players. The former #1 club in America was regulated and players are leaving for neighboring ECNL clubs. There is your test case in regulation.

3. The NJ GAL clubs are also losing their kids to neighboring ECNL clubs. Again, here is your test case in regulation (Because you obviously need one)

4. GAL is a league. Nothing more. The former DA clubs that didn't get into ECNL could have gone into EDP, an established league with a national platform. It already existed. However, once again, egos were in play and clubs like Tophat and FCV knew they would lose their players to ECNL clubs is that happened.

Re 1, what's so bad if the kids leave the bad team with an incompetent coach for better teams wiht better coaches? If ECNL team or GA team has bad coaching and finishes at the bottom of the league, how does it benefit the players,if they stay with the team and continue to receive mediocre coaching? With promotion/relegation, the clubs will have an insentive to recruit the coaches that produce and cut the coaches that don't. The coaches will have an incentive to field the players who are good on the field, which will diminish the influence of club politics.

Then leave. If enough people leave it will regulate the club. That’s how it works in a pay to play model. Free markets determines the winners and losers. Good products will win. Understand? That’s what a club is...a business...you are the paying customer.

What you described is an oligopoly, not a free market. Your approach limits that number of participants and lowers the level of competition, because the closed "elite" league will have teams with really bad coaching and low level of play. In contrast, if you open the system like the free market, these bad teams will be relegated and replaced by better teams, which have better coaching, player identification and development.