Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looks who is leaving DA for ECNL

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    GDA and boys ECNL are similar in that both trying to battle uphill against a well entrenched opponent.
    GDA is battle uphill for sure, especially after this news but the Spring Showcase was massive success from a scouting perspective.

    If the turnout for the boys ECNL is similar to San Diego, (17 schools) or even close to the winter showcase numbers were, then it will be fully evident how college coaches view the boys ECNL. Any club that sent their kids across the country to that showcase will have some explaining to do to their parents.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      See that is the point. Both the federation and ECNL want the control and the only ones worried about being just like ECNL is ECNL. Pulling the trigger on boys ECNL was knee jerk reaction that has failed miserably. HS and sub rules are very flexible items that those clubs thought they could compromise on.

      Part of the issue is also financial because many of those private school players the PDA DOC mentioned inthe article link above need to play sports to get their financial support meaning: they are good players who were being forced to make a choice. As the article pointed out, the PDA club chose to make it a policy NOT to apply for waivers even though that option was available; their DOC's words - not mine.

      Regardless of what any of us think, the federation is going look at this and decide either to carry on or do something about it.

      Agree, it is about control. Just an fyi, it was mass. stars not nj pda doc cited in the article. Stars DOc has been on the ecnl board for years so he was probably not all in on the program and hawks did not require their top players to shift over either. How has boys ecnl failed? I do think ussf is expecting its players to be at a gda program, if possible, 16/20 for u16 team are at gda programs.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        GDA is battle uphill for sure, especially after this news but the Spring Showcase was massive success from a scouting perspective.

        If the turnout for the boys ECNL is similar to San Diego, (17 schools) or even close to the winter showcase numbers were, then it will be fully evident how college coaches view the boys ECNL. Any club that sent their kids across the country to that showcase will have some explaining to do to their parents.
        There will e more than 17 schools represented because not all schools register but the numbers will be sparse. Also, on Sunday, there will be less scouts there because of coaches leaving on early flights, etc. The breakdown on the 17 schools that did register coaches:

        DI - 5
        DII - 4
        DIII - 7
        JC - 1

        That's pretty sad. If I were a parent of a kid travelling to SD from across the country I would be livid. There will be plenty of matches played in front of no college coaches. I do not expect the Boys ECNL to survive. And, quite honestly, it was probably started as a knee-jerk reaction in attempt to get back at the USSF for starting the GDA and is just a bunch of political crap. It wasn't thought out, IMHO. I'm not a fan of the GDA and believe that the Girls ECNL is a better model but at least the GDA seems to have put more thought into things compared to the Boys ECNL.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          There will e more than 17 schools represented because not all schools register but the numbers will be sparse. Also, on Sunday, there will be less scouts there because of coaches leaving on early flights, etc. The breakdown on the 17 schools that did register coaches:

          DI - 5
          DII - 4
          DIII - 7
          JC - 1

          That's pretty sad. If I were a parent of a kid travelling to SD from across the country I would be livid. There will be plenty of matches played in front of no college coaches. I do not expect the Boys ECNL to survive. And, quite honestly, it was probably started as a knee-jerk reaction in attempt to get back at the USSF for starting the GDA and is just a bunch of political crap. It wasn't thought out, IMHO. I'm not a fan of the GDA and believe that the Girls ECNL is a better model but at least the GDA seems to have put more thought into things compared to the Boys ECNL.
          As for knee jerk - Yes and no. I think there are lots of clubs in this country that feel squeezed by US Soccer and state associations - US Club in its multiple manifestations seems to be focused on serving those clubs.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Agree, it is about control. Just an fyi, it was mass. stars not nj pda doc cited in the article. Stars DOc has been on the ecnl board for years so he was probably not all in on the program and hawks did not require their top players to shift over either. How has boys ecnl failed? I do think ussf is expecting its players to be at a gda program, if possible, 16/20 for u16 team are at gda programs.

            I'n not sure I'm following the last part of your post but, my comment on boys ECNL is because ECNL primary sell is around college recruiting. If colleges don't show up to your showcase, then you lose the main benefit of what the league is offering.

            17 colleges for San Diego is indefensible as is sending your team across the country to play there when you did not need to. The winter showcase was better but still a relatively small showing, like 70 or 80 schools schools. If they get a bounce back for PDA, then all is good. But if not, then you can consider boys ECNL a failure because you can play travel ball, go to CASL or Jefferson cup and get more than 70 coaches.

            Comment


              #21
              trump

              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              I'n not sure I'm following the last part of your post but, my comment on boys ECNL is because ECNL primary sell is around college recruiting. If colleges don't show up to your showcase, then you lose the main benefit of what the league is offering.

              17 colleges for San Diego is indefensible as is sending your team across the country to play there when you did not need to. The winter showcase was better but still a relatively small showing, like 70 or 80 schools schools. If they get a bounce back for PDA, then all is good. But if not, then you can consider boys ECNL a failure because you can play travel ball, go to CASL or Jefferson cup and get more than 70 coaches.
              First part was responding to:
              "Also, if they move to taking NT players only from GDA clubs then it's proof this was all about them controlling the market, not doing what is best for soccer."
              I think that ussf is favoring gda programs for the nts, always exceptions, but those will likely become more rare as time goes on.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                See that is the point. Both the federation and ECNL want the control and the only ones worried about being just like ECNL is ECNL. Pulling the trigger on boys ECNL was knee jerk reaction that has failed miserably. HS and sub rules are very flexible items that those clubs thought they could compromise on.

                Part of the issue is also financial because many of those private school players the PDA DOC mentioned inthe article link above need to play sports to get their financial support meaning: they are good players who were being forced to make a choice. As the article pointed out, the PDA club chose to make it a policy NOT to apply for waivers even though that option was available; their DOC's words - not mine.

                Regardless of what any of us think, the federation is going look at this and decide either to carry on or do something about it.
                Respect the DOC and Michigan Stars club for doing the fair thing. Like he said, how can you look one kid in the eyes and tell them they can not do HS soccer but then tell the private kids they can play HS soccer. The US Soccer Federation should be requiring GDA clubs to pay for more of the fees so it isn't pay to play.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  First part was responding to:
                  "Also, if they move to taking NT players only from GDA clubs then it's proof this was all about them controlling the market, not doing what is best for soccer."
                  I think that ussf is favoring gda programs for the nts, always exceptions, but those will likely become more rare as time goes on.
                  Totally agree. And the real problem here is that, seen from this perspective, we don't have a "national team". We have a team owned and operated by a private enterprise which favors or pre-selects players based upon whether or not those players have lined USSF's pockets over the years. Its total b.s. - on both the girls and boys sides - and it explains, in part, why the men's team is such a disaster.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    First part was responding to:
                    "Also, if they move to taking NT players only from GDA clubs then it's proof this was all about them controlling the market, not doing what is best for soccer."
                    I think that ussf is favoring gda programs for the nts, always exceptions, but those will likely become more rare as time goes on.
                    Ok, got it. Makes sense.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      As for knee jerk - Yes and no. I think there are lots of clubs in this country that feel squeezed by US Soccer and state associations - US Club in its multiple manifestations seems to be focused on serving those clubs.
                      I agree with what you are saying about US Club attempting to serve clubs feeling squeezed by US Soccer & state organizations. The very nature of US Club gives clubs more control and is not as bureaucratic. However, make no mistake about it, I believe that the Boys ECNL was started primarily as an attempt to go after the Boys DA and make inroads there. I don't believe for a second that it was done in the best interests of the kids. It was a matter of US Soccer setting up the GDA to go after the ECNL so the ECNL attempted to retaliate to go after the Boys DA. A much more suitable model could have been found and for many of the Boys ECNL clubs was probably already in place.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        https://www.socceramerica.com/public...ree-major.html

                        PDA, Michigan Hawks and Stars of Massachusetts
                        You know who this matters to most? The kids at those clubs or in those areas. With anything you have to pick the best option available to you. PDA is not an option that is avaialble to me so it doesn't really matter.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Also not mentioned is the high costs, travel and time and lack of a pro path for women AND that girls don't care about a pro path regardless. Part of the reason BDA works is the MLS clubs, free tuition and dreams of playing pro, even though very few will ever realize that dream. Having professional teams in the system gives it credibility and definitely ups the level of competition. But, the majority of BDA clubs are pay to play with the same high costs and travel and variable club quality. USSF thought they could wave a wand and re-recreate BDA in an instant but it's two different marketplaces. In reality both should be much smaller and focused on the nation's top talent. Trying to be everything to everybody will get them nowhere
                          Is the "costs" argument really valid on the girls side? I'm asking honestly, I have a boy in DA, non-mls, and our initial fee in the beginning of the year covers the players costs for travel and showcases. Now if I want to go watch then yes costs rise, but that's my choice on whether or not I travel to watch. I have friends who have sons in boys ecnl and the costs seem much higher in that with the travel and showcases not being included in their initial fee, at least at their club. Are GDA clubs charging higher fees than the BDA clubs, obviously non-mls speaking

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Totally agree. And the real problem here is that, seen from this perspective, we don't have a "national team". We have a team owned and operated by a private enterprise which favors or pre-selects players based upon whether or not those players have lined USSF's pockets over the years. Its total b.s. - on both the girls and boys sides - and it explains, in part, why the men's team is such a disaster.
                            Best thing they could do is take clubs about the process all together. USSF could do that if they made DA infinitely smaller and put some effort and money behind it. Instead they expect the clubs to do the heavy lifting

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Is the "costs" argument really valid on the girls side? I'm asking honestly, I have a boy in DA, non-mls, and our initial fee in the beginning of the year covers the players costs for travel and showcases. Now if I want to go watch then yes costs rise, but that's my choice on whether or not I travel to watch. I have friends who have sons in boys ecnl and the costs seem much higher in that with the travel and showcases not being included in their initial fee, at least at their club. Are GDA clubs charging higher fees than the BDA clubs, obviously non-mls speaking
                              GDA is marginally cheaper, definitely not cheap. About $1500 less vs ECNL for us; varies some club to club. For most middle to upper income soccer families that doesn't matter much. It makes the more important factors matter more - coaching quality, fit with player, quality of competition etc. Unless you're on a mls squad you're still paying a lot of money for club soccer.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                GDA is marginally cheaper, definitely not cheap. About $1500 less vs ECNL for us; varies some club to club. For most middle to upper income soccer families that doesn't matter much. It makes the more important factors matter more - coaching quality, fit with player, quality of competition etc. Unless you're on a mls squad you're still paying a lot of money for club soccer.

                                Pretty accurate though for us GDA is looking t be about $2500 less than ECNL was last year.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X