Another top club leaving the DA to be all in ECNL

[Unregistered]

“GDA has been far better for us than the ECNL was. Better practices, fewer high stress games and no HS. Thats exactly what my daughter needed to prepare for College soccer.”

Fewer high stress games? Could you clarify this, you lost me here. What do you mean by fewer high stress games? How does this prepare your kid better for college play exactly?

Also, how exactly are practices better? I’m not disputing your claim, because I don’t have experience observing training from both leagues, just wondering what makes the GDA practices “better”.

The fields, the balls they use which are donated, and the specific nets and posts that USSF requires are all better. Oh, and the travel, premier, and NPL coaches from last year that are now GDA coaches, now scribble down notes about what they are about to practice in the parking lot before they get out of their car ... oh yeah, and they watched a required 30-minute USSF video about being a better coach. The are so much better at coaching now that 8 months ago thanks to USSF oversight! Thanks USSF!

[Unregistered]

“GDA has been far better for us than the ECNL was. Better practices, fewer high stress games and no HS. Thats exactly what my daughter needed to prepare for College soccer.”

Fewer high stress games? Could you clarify this, you lost me here. What do you mean by fewer high stress games? How does this prepare your kid better for college play exactly?

Also, how exactly are practices better? I’m not disputing your claim, because I don’t have experience observing training from both leagues, just wondering what makes the GDA practices “better”.

obviously it depends where your kid is soccer wise, but I want my kid leaving plenty in the tank to play in College. I want her playing games, but not back to back. I really dont mind the odd easy game as it gives her a chance to work on other stuff or even come off the bench so another kid can get a start. If you are a player that is targeted by the other team for special attention (man marked, etc) its just not worth the risk.

Practices are better because they are mostly attended by girls who actually WANT to be there and bring the right attitude in terms of work rate. I dont care too much about the range of abilities, thats everywhere. I care that the attitude is the same - get better and work hard .

Practices are also attended by top level outside players who raise the level. the practices are more competitive than many of the games and the girls learn a lot watching top male/female amateurs , and ex pros playing in the scrimmages.

[Unregistered]

“GDA has been far better for us than the ECNL was. Better practices, fewer high stress games and no HS. Thats exactly what my daughter needed to prepare for College soccer.”

Fewer high stress games? Could you clarify this, you lost me here. What do you mean by fewer high stress games? How does this prepare your kid better for college play exactly?

Also, how exactly are practices better? I’m not disputing your claim, because I don’t have experience observing training from both leagues, just wondering what makes the GDA practices “better”.

Forgot to add, i did not mean the GDA is better. the implementation of the GDA at the Club is. Ill not bother with the troll post above. My kid had a great experience in the ECNL as well. Now GDA is a better fit for her in prepping for the College season.

[Unregistered]

Your take is exactly what keeps all these Clubs in business and ruins the game here. There is ONLY one true pursuit. enjoying the game and getting better. all the other nonsense you mention is a byproduct of that. In the USA, the game has been segmented and marketed in such a way to promote multiple paths that purely exist to make money.

Neither ECNL nor GDA is not a better platform . They are just more expensive. Its become self fulfilling based on critical mass.

To generalize at league level the way you do in your post is idiotic. its a Club by club question and even more importantly its a LOCAL question for parents unless they plan on increasing costs exponentially by travelling large distances to practices.

You, like many others, are equating the economic bread and butter of a league with talent. Yes, the mass profitability of any league relies on the mid level payer being happy because there are very few eleite players. but that does not mean that the mid level player IS talented. it does nto mean that becasue a league has Elite in its name, the players are.

the USA is the only soccer play country that charges average players huge amounts to play and its that parental ego that allows it to continue. People say thing like the leagues should be smaller and regional. They would be if parents were remotely realistic and there was not this artificial demand created by Title 9.

You have many womens college soccer programs that get less than 100 people at a game. dont get me wrong, its great that our girls get to continue to play, but its also a shade misleading.

As far as your player development formula, you are not correct. the biggest obstruction to player development is the player themselves. there is so much a player can do irrespective of the players around them. the sheer volume of PAYERS means there are players of all abilities even in the so called top levels. that is true at EVERY CLUB in the ECNL or GDA. if you want to say that in your area, its less of an issue in the ECNL, ok, but dont generalize for everyone else.

GDA has been far better for us than the ECNL was. Better practices, fewer high stress games and no HS. Thats exactly what my daughter needed to prepare for College soccer.

My opinion is purely personal and if ECNL is better for another family, great !! I dont get teh parental need to "win" beyond their own child.

I agree that it is a personal choice, but your post does smell a bit of naďveté. There are glaring differences in the United States than other countries that cause the pay to play concept. Size being one of them. There simply isn’t the numbers nor competition level of driven players in any one area to keep everything close. Just look at the EPL compared to the MLS in terms of locations. Distance costs money. Weather is a factor in the US as well. Tons of snow in the east and Midwest. Hard for colleges to recruit in season and if you can’t recruit during the winter, you are limited to a short period of time in the spring—when some states play high school. Time, facilities and travel all cost money. There is no other way around it. You couldn’t have a system here like one in Europe. It wouldn’t work. As for training, I think there is good training at nearly every club. Some poor trainers. Some lazy. But ultimately better than given credit for. For us, 3 times a week from late November to July, plus the option to play high school, is a great thing. I also love the exposure to college coaches the ECNL provides. Maybe your experience was different, but at CFC it is huge. And yes, more difficult for the next tier kid than the stars of the team, but still a good pathway. Is it the only path? Absolutely not. But it is the straightest path. It does what it purports to do. For my kid, college is the end game. She wants to play and be prepared for it. Other than that, club soccer is a social vehicle to meet friends (kids and parents alike) that you wouldn’t otherwise meet. It’s been great for us, but I get that it is expensive. In our club, I have yet to see a kid not be able to swing it though. Whether because the club helps out or other parents or the kid fundraises. We have never been missing anyone and our team isn’t full of loaded families.

Just another perspective.

[Unregistered]

I agree that it is a personal choice, but your post does smell a bit of naďveté. There are glaring differences in the United States than other countries that cause the pay to play concept. Size being one of them. There simply isn’t the numbers nor competition level of driven players in any one area to keep everything close. .....

I do not agree with this. On the girls side, we have far more interest in the sport than ANY other country, especially in larger metropolitan areas. Here is the real difference ...... obviously we are pay-to-play, but we have scores of options in greater Hartford alone. Everyone here gets trophies from day 1 through college too. No cuts, a place to play for everyone, and tons of fragmentation of talent because of the host of options. Furthermore, and I think, most importantly, we do not have clear top leagues (especially this past year) and once a kid is placed on a team, they are their for life. Promotion and relegation for teams as well as players needs to happen more frequently and freely than it does now. Stop appointing clubs to leagues and make teams compete for a finite number of spots. If you don't make it, put them in a lower division until they earn it next year. Sorry, too many parades and trophies for mediocrity here. Everyone can play if you pay your bills on time.

[Unregistered]

I do not agree with this. On the girls side, we have far more interest in the sport than ANY other country, especially in larger metropolitan areas. Here is the real difference ...... obviously we are pay-to-play, but we have scores of options in greater Hartford alone. Everyone here gets trophies from day 1 through college too. No cuts, a place to play for everyone, and tons of fragmentation of talent because of the host of options. Furthermore, and I think, most importantly, we do not have clear top leagues (especially this past year) and once a kid is placed on a team, they are their for life. Promotion and relegation for teams as well as players needs to happen more frequently and freely than it does now. Stop appointing clubs to leagues and make teams compete for a finite number of spots. If you don't make it, put them in a lower division until they earn it next year. Sorry, too many parades and trophies for mediocrity here. Everyone can play if you pay your bills on time.

Its all about the paying customer here. talent takes a back seat.

[Unregistered]

I agree that it is a personal choice, but your post does smell a bit of naďveté. There are glaring differences in the United States than other countries that cause the pay to play concept. Size being one of them. There simply isn’t the numbers nor competition level of driven players in any one area to keep everything close. Just look at the EPL compared to the MLS in terms of locations. Distance costs money. Weather is a factor in the US as well. Tons of snow in the east and Midwest. Hard for colleges to recruit in season and if you can’t recruit during the winter, you are limited to a short period of time in the spring—when some states play high school. Time, facilities and travel all cost money. There is no other way around it. You couldn’t have a system here like one in Europe. It wouldn’t work. As for training, I think there is good training at nearly every club. Some poor trainers. Some lazy. But ultimately better than given credit for. For us, 3 times a week from late November to July, plus the option to play high school, is a great thing. I also love the exposure to college coaches the ECNL provides. Maybe your experience was different, but at CFC it is huge. And yes, more difficult for the next tier kid than the stars of the team, but still a good pathway. Is it the only path? Absolutely not. But it is the straightest path. It does what it purports to do. For my kid, college is the end game. She wants to play and be prepared for it. Other than that, club soccer is a social vehicle to meet friends (kids and parents alike) that you wouldn’t otherwise meet. It’s been great for us, but I get that it is expensive. In our club, I have yet to see a kid not be able to swing it though. Whether because the club helps out or other parents or the kid fundraises. We have never been missing anyone and our team isn’t full of loaded families.

Just another perspective.

Naive in what regard ? the biggest single input into any kids journey is talent/attitude. there is no way you can judge my personal choices without knowing those 2 things.

Parents are not honest and there is no one outside of top College coaches who has any real cost to making poor decisions.

I dont see Youth soccer as a social medium at all. I can have a pool party at home every weekend for all her friends and still come out ahead financially. I not a believer in anything but talent IF you want to use the word Elite.

Im glad you are happy. hope she does well in College.

[Unregistered]

I agree that it is a personal choice, but your post does smell a bit of naďveté. There are glaring differences in the United States than other countries that cause the pay to play concept. Size being one of them. There simply isn’t the numbers nor competition level of driven players in any one area to keep everything close. Just look at the EPL compared to the MLS in terms of locations. Distance costs money. Weather is a factor in the US as well. Tons of snow in the east and Midwest. Hard for colleges to recruit in season and if you can’t recruit during the winter, you are limited to a short period of time in the spring—when some states play high school. Time, facilities and travel all cost money. There is no other way around it. You couldn’t have a system here like one in Europe. It wouldn’t work. As for training, I think there is good training at nearly every club. Some poor trainers. Some lazy. But ultimately better than given credit for. For us, 3 times a week from late November to July, plus the option to play high school, is a great thing. I also love the exposure to college coaches the ECNL provides. Maybe your experience was different, but at CFC it is huge. And yes, more difficult for the next tier kid than the stars of the team, but still a good pathway. Is it the only path? Absolutely not. But it is the straightest path. It does what it purports to do. For my kid, college is the end game. She wants to play and be prepared for it. Other than that, club soccer is a social vehicle to meet friends (kids and parents alike) that you wouldn’t otherwise meet. It’s been great for us, but I get that it is expensive. In our club, I have yet to see a kid not be able to swing it though. Whether because the club helps out or other parents or the kid fundraises. We have never been missing anyone and our team isn’t full of loaded families.

Just another perspective.

Exposure to College coaches is pretty standard in the GDA or ECNL .

[Unregistered]

Exposure to College coaches is pretty standard in the GDA or ECNL .

And unwarranted for 70% of the players who are riding coat tails.

[Unregistered]

I do not agree with this. On the girls side, we have far more interest in the sport than ANY other country, especially in larger metropolitan areas. Here is the real difference ...... obviously we are pay-to-play, but we have scores of options in greater Hartford alone. Everyone here gets trophies from day 1 through college too. No cuts, a place to play for everyone, and tons of fragmentation of talent because of the host of options. Furthermore, and I think, most importantly, we do not have clear top leagues (especially this past year) and once a kid is placed on a team, they are their for life. Promotion and relegation for teams as well as players needs to happen more frequently and freely than it does now. Stop appointing clubs to leagues and make teams compete for a finite number of spots. If you don't make it, put them in a lower division until they earn it next year. Sorry, too many parades and trophies for mediocrity here. Everyone can play if you pay your bills on time.

This reads a little like someone who is upset their kid didn’t make a particular team. Do you honestly believe coaches won’t take good players that will help their team? Maybe they have it wrong, but I’m sure it isn’t the intent to not take the best players. Where there is difficulty is when it is close. I’m certain the coaches err on the side of the player they know, so they don’t need to retract everything to someone new. But when it is clear, the best kids make it. Also don’t agree with the promotion/relegation concept for the following reason. Those of us that have older kids that were around prior to the recent landscape, saw what state cups and promotion created. Kids constantly jumping from team to team. It isn’t the EPL or Champions league. I think that is detrimental to development with constant changes. I think it is one of the reasons I don’t favor the DA. Constant change of teams due to the combined age groups. To go further, I think it is a reason our national teams struggle at times. We would be better off with a constant pool of players that trained together more frequently. Something to be said for consistency.

[Unregistered]

This reads a little like someone who is upset their kid didn’t make a particular team. Do you honestly believe coaches won’t take good players that will help their team? Maybe they have it wrong, but I’m sure it isn’t the intent to not take the best players. Where there is difficulty is when it is close. I’m certain the coaches err on the side of the player they know, so they don’t need to retract everything to someone new. But when it is clear, the best kids make it. Also don’t agree with the promotion/relegation concept for the following reason. Those of us that have older kids that were around prior to the recent landscape, saw what state cups and promotion created. Kids constantly jumping from team to team. It isn’t the EPL or Champions league. I think that is detrimental to development with constant changes. I think it is one of the reasons I don’t favor the DA. Constant change of teams due to the combined age groups. To go further, I think it is a reason our national teams struggle at times. We would be better off with a constant pool of players that trained together more frequently. Something to be said for consistency.

Not OP, but the nature of the Club P2P system means that most of the roster is relatively close. the gaps betwen 1-3 and say 6 are usually bigger than the gaps between say 7-20. On a lot of teams the drop off from 1 to 2 is bigger than 2 to 10.


Its also based on how you rank. i dont think coaches have any incentive to add kids who have high potential but cannot help them win games now.

the jumping from team to team part would be an issue becasue parents coattail success. Very few are interested in the hard grind to get there. Many parents of female players do not handle the physical and mental make up changes that occur very well and these often play out during a Club career


I feel in the USA there is something to be said for consistent mediocrity in Club world becasue its built for the average player. How many average players can we sign up to make the most $$. There si no incentive to produce excellent individual players. the system does not value it.

A top player going to a top school is "worth" 4x 60k in post tax earnings . so at a marginal rate of 40% that is 400k. Thats why parents foot the bill. Thats more than a female domestic non allocated US pro makes. about 50 pct more. So all the money is spent in what should really be the development phase, chasing wins and hoping to get "noticed"

Clubs milk that.

[Unregistered]

This reads a little like someone who is upset their kid didn’t make a particular team. Do you honestly believe coaches won’t take good players that will help their team? Maybe they have it wrong, but I’m sure it isn’t the intent to not take the best players. Where there is difficulty is when it is close. I’m certain the coaches err on the side of the player they know, so they don’t need to retract everything to someone new. But when it is clear, the best kids make it. Also don’t agree with the promotion/relegation concept for the following reason. Those of us that have older kids that were around prior to the recent landscape, saw what state cups and promotion created. Kids constantly jumping from team to team. It isn’t the EPL or Champions league. I think that is detrimental to development with constant changes. I think it is one of the reasons I don’t favor the DA. Constant change of teams due to the combined age groups. To go further, I think it is a reason our national teams struggle at times. We would be better off with a constant pool of players that trained together more frequently. Something to be said for consistency.

National teams ? are you talking youth ones? Ifs o, I could not disagree more. they struggle becasue we have abandoned the development phase for wins. wins are gotten the easiest by physical dominance at early ages. later on it comes home to roost as the game gets more sophisticated and other nations can match athleticism.

The women are going to hit that wall at the full level very soon.

[Unregistered]

This reads a little like someone who is upset their kid didn’t make a particular team. Do you honestly believe coaches won’t take good players that will help their team? Maybe they have it wrong, but I’m sure it isn’t the intent to not take the best players. Where there is difficulty is when it is close. I’m certain the coaches err on the side of the player they know, so they don’t need to retract everything to someone new. But when it is clear, the best kids make it. Also don’t agree with the promotion/relegation concept for the following reason. Those of us that have older kids that were around prior to the recent landscape, saw what state cups and promotion created. Kids constantly jumping from team to team. It isn’t the EPL or Champions league. I think that is detrimental to development with constant changes. I think it is one of the reasons I don’t favor the DA. Constant change of teams due to the combined age groups. To go further, I think it is a reason our national teams struggle at times. We would be better off with a constant pool of players that trained together more frequently. Something to be said for consistency.

Quite the contrary. My kids have all been very successful on mediocre, big 3 teams that I thought were always held back because clubs did not want to upset loyal customers. While they sometimes took an extra player, they never trimmed the fat. If each of their teams had turned over just 2 kids per year (and I mean let go of the bottom 2, not retained them and replaced them with a new player or two), then their teams would have been substantially better. Certainly they would have become deeper and got several new starters, but they also would have not had to continue to play short with kids that were not keeping up. Sorry, it sounds mean, but it is supposed to be competitive. I always think if a team or club were to do this, they would become an uber club around here. The best we have seen was the CFC 16's but only for the past year or two and they are finding success with it and it will probably help them to attract even more talent if it continues across all of their United age groups. If we had better options for my oldest (that did not mean driving to NYC or Boston), then we would have looked at them when she was about U15.

[Unregistered]

Quite the contrary. My kids have all been very successful on mediocre, big 3 teams that I thought were always held back because clubs did not want to upset loyal customers. While they sometimes took an extra player, they never trimmed the fat. If each of their teams had turned over just 2 kids per year (and I mean let go of the bottom 2, not retained them and replaced them with a new player or two), then their teams would have been substantially better. Certainly they would have become deeper and got several new starters, but they also would have not had to continue to play short with kids that were not keeping up. Sorry, it sounds mean, but it is supposed to be competitive. I always think if a team or club were to do this, they would become an uber club around here. The best we have seen was the CFC 16's but only for the past year or two and they are finding success with it and it will probably help them to attract even more talent if it continues across all of their United age groups. If we had better options for my oldest (that did not mean driving to NYC or Boston), then we would have looked at them when she was about U15.

I agree. hate the way people take objective comment adn try and spin it as a reflection of your own kids strength or weakness.

There is no incentive in losing families who PAY , attend every function and dont complain. you can be a poor player, do the above, and have a long Club career. now from my PoV I have no clue why the parents would want to do that, but many do.

[Unregistered]

Your take is exactly what keeps all these Clubs in business and ruins the game here. There is ONLY one true pursuit. enjoying the game and getting better. all the other nonsense you mention is a byproduct of that. In the USA, the game has been segmented and marketed in such a way to promote multiple paths that purely exist to make money.

Neither ECNL nor GDA is not a better platform . They are just more expensive. Its become self fulfilling based on critical mass.

To generalize at league level the way you do in your post is idiotic. its a Club by club question and even more importantly its a LOCAL question for parents unless they plan on increasing costs exponentially by travelling large distances to practices.

You, like many others, are equating the economic bread and butter of a league with talent. Yes, the mass profitability of any league relies on the mid level payer being happy because there are very few eleite players. but that does not mean that the mid level player IS talented. it does nto mean that becasue a league has Elite in its name, the players are.

the USA is the only soccer play country that charges average players huge amounts to play and its that parental ego that allows it to continue. People say thing like the leagues should be smaller and regional. They would be if parents were remotely realistic and there was not this artificial demand created by Title 9.

You have many womens college soccer programs that get less than 100 people at a game. dont get me wrong, its great that our girls get to continue to play, but its also a shade misleading.

As far as your player development formula, you are not correct. the biggest obstruction to player development is the player themselves. there is so much a player can do irrespective of the players around them. the sheer volume of PAYERS means there are players of all abilities even in the so called top levels. that is true at EVERY CLUB in the ECNL or GDA. if you want to say that in your area, its less of an issue in the ECNL, ok, but dont generalize for everyone else.

GDA has been far better for us than the ECNL was. Better practices, fewer high stress games and no HS. Thats exactly what my daughter needed to prepare for College soccer.

My opinion is purely personal and if ECNL is better for another family, great !! I dont get teh parental need to "win" beyond their own child.

I commend you for representing your side of this debate with reasoned logic and free of hyperbole and vitriol.

I'm a high school coach and a premier coach at one of the lesser clubs in the glamour hunt. Each year, I send kids to college who have never played a moment in an ECNL or DA game. These kids love to play and for those who have the motivation, they find ways to continue to play.

Play because you love the game. That's the only reason to play, so play where you find your love most rewarded.