ECNL Lies: Lie 1

[Unregistered]

First of all, it isn't per team it is for the whole league, and our clubs are just new to ECNL, so check back when the current U16s are U18 and that will give us a more accurate idea. The current U18s are ore ECNL.

Secondly, here is a better "random" sample from June 2014, by a blogger whose daughter did NOT do ECNL. It is also a sample because it only takes into consideration those recruits who reported their commitment, but this is a pretty common practice. Remember that if each ECNL team at U18 had 20 players that would be around 1520 spots (before the new teams joined) anyway, interesting article that applies real "statistical analysis" not cherry picking the bad teams to prove a point!

http://www.d1soccerrecruiting.com/ec...e-data-reveal/

Thank you for posting. It further proves that the 90% number is a lie.

[Unregistered]

To make your method work, you would have to out all of the ECNL clubs in the pool or a "hat", then randomly draw out a sample size and check those clubs. You went straight for the lower performing clubs to prove your bias, not reliable.

Didn't realize that SD Surf was lower performing. That will be news to them.

[Unregistered]

Didn't realize that SD Surf was lower performing. That will be news to them.

That was the only one you cited, and then compared several low teams saying SD surf cannot make up for all of them. Am I mis quoting you? Did you include PDA, or the Dallas Texas, etc? No I didn't think so....

[Unregistered]

Thank you for posting. It further proves that the 90% number is a lie.

I was actually posting to give a balanced perspective. It really shows there are options for everyone, but you can just continue to be a pompous jerk, thank God I don't have to talk to you in person!

[Unregistered]

I was actually posting to give a balanced perspective. It really shows there are options for everyone, but you can just continue to be a pompous jerk, thank God I don't have to talk to you in person!

It is balanced. Even if it really draws the wrong conclusions. The biggest flaw with the analysis is that he implies that ECNL = these offers. No, wrong conclusion. That implies that ECNL is a magic wand. As we all know, the same girls who get top offers before, still get them. They got them years ago, way before ECNL. The way he wrote it it implies that ECNL created top D1 programs. No, they didn't. Instead, top programs recruit the same girls they did before. ECNL has done really one thing. It has created a national league where a number of good players have chosen to play.

It has given players, good players or not, a league that consists of teams from across the country and given them some set venues to play each other. Its no different from pre-ECNL, however it might make it less combersome. Previously, the same teams that were top teams were going into tournaments and were being put up against flights of other top teams. Ditto the lessor teams. This hasn't changed with ECNL. It's just made it more structured and regulated and put more control in the hands of a few folks, along with large sums of money. Meanwhile, tournaments and venues where these teams used to play have whithered and/or gone away.

Perhaps in some parts of the country some clubs have gotten stronger and maybe training has improved there. That hasn't happened here.

[Slow Xavi]

First of all, it isn't per team it is for the whole league, and our clubs are just new to ECNL, so check back when the current U16s are U18 and that will give us a more accurate idea. The current U18s are ore ECNL.

Secondly, here is a better "random" sample from June 2014, by a blogger whose daughter did NOT do ECNL. It is also a sample because it only takes into consideration those recruits who reported their commitment, but this is a pretty common practice. Remember that if each ECNL team at U18 had 20 players that would be around 1520 spots (before the new teams joined) anyway, interesting article that applies real "statistical analysis" not cherry picking the bad teams to prove a point!

http://www.d1soccerrecruiting.com/ec...e-data-reveal/

One of the more thoughtful assessments of this question - thank you for posting! Will create a separate thread for it.

[Unregistered]

It is balanced. Even if it really draws the wrong conclusions. The biggest flaw with the analysis is that he implies that ECNL = these offers. No, wrong conclusion. That implies that ECNL is a magic wand. As we all know, the same girls who get top offers before, still get them. They got them years ago, way before ECNL. The way he wrote it it implies that ECNL created top D1 programs. No, they didn't. Instead, top programs recruit the same girls they did before. ECNL has done really one thing. It has created a national league where a number of good players have chosen to play.

It has given players, good players or not, a league that consists of teams from across the country and given them some set venues to play each other. Its no different from pre-ECNL, however it might make it less combersome. Previously, the same teams that were top teams were going into tournaments and were being put up against flights of other top teams. Ditto the lessor teams. This hasn't changed with ECNL. It's just made it more structured and regulated and put more control in the hands of a few folks, along with large sums of money. Meanwhile, tournaments and venues where these teams used to play have whithered and/or gone away.

Perhaps in some parts of the country some clubs have gotten stronger and maybe training has improved there. That hasn't happened here.

I think it might show a trend where college coaches are going to recruit, since the top girls are going there across the country, they can consolidate their recruiting budget to ECNL events. If trying to go to a local school, this might not change anything unless there is ECNL in your market, then they will come watch that program's games, both the local teams and their competition.

Bottom line, you can get recruited not playing ECNL, that is a fact. The question then becomes that each player and her family has to choose what experience they want right now with the options they have and that includes how strong teams are at specific age groups in the area. It also includes what school they want to go to, and whether they would get enough playing time to be seen at whatever level they are playing at. My daughter wanted a specific conference, with specific academic requirements, and not local, ECNL has helped to get those school's attention.

I know for us, while she was already getting recruited prior to ECNL with offers at not so great of schools/programs, the quantity and quality of options immediately went up with ECNL. we have also heard a lot of positive things from college coaches, that they like that she will be playing ECNL for the couple years before going into college. That has just been our daughter's experience, I cannot speak for anyone else. And besides that, she is enjoying her current youth experience, which is really what I really care about as her parent.

Every family has to make their own decision. Talk to parents on the actual teams your daughter would be trying out for and get an idea of how it is going for them. That is better than the advice being handed out on this board. Even go watch practices, you can compare what they are doing in practice compared to what your team is doing. And depending on the age group you might even meet some parents, although not at older ages like my daughter, they all drive themselves by U17!

[Unregistered]

It is balanced. Even if it really draws the wrong conclusions. The biggest flaw with the analysis is that he implies that ECNL = these offers. No, wrong conclusion. That implies that ECNL is a magic wand. As we all know, the same girls who get top offers before, still get them. They got them years ago, way before ECNL. The way he wrote it it implies that ECNL created top D1 programs. No, they didn't. Instead, top programs recruit the same girls they did before. ECNL has done really one thing. It has created a national league where a number of good players have chosen to play.

It has given players, good players or not, a league that consists of teams from across the country and given them some set venues to play each other. Its no different from pre-ECNL, however it might make it less combersome. Previously, the same teams that were top teams were going into tournaments and were being put up against flights of other top teams. Ditto the lessor teams. This hasn't changed with ECNL. It's just made it more structured and regulated and put more control in the hands of a few folks, along with large sums of money. Meanwhile, tournaments and venues where these teams used to play have whithered and/or gone away.

Perhaps in some parts of the country some clubs have gotten stronger and maybe training has improved there. That hasn't happened here.

All trueish statements, but I might add that nothing has changed. The two ECNL teams in Oregon were also the two clubs that were pumping out the most college players prior to ECNL However, it is to early to tell if either club will get 'stronger' due to ECNL.

[KeeperDad]

It is balanced. Even if it really draws the wrong conclusions. The biggest flaw with the analysis is that he implies that ECNL = these offers. No, wrong conclusion. That implies that ECNL is a magic wand. As we all know, the same girls who get top offers before, still get them. They got them years ago, way before ECNL. The way he wrote it it implies that ECNL created top D1 programs. No, they didn't. Instead, top programs recruit the same girls they did before. ECNL has done really one thing. It has created a national league where a number of good players have chosen to play.

I also posted on the "A Thoughtful Analysis of ECNL Recruitment" thread, but just in case someone reading this thread has not looked at my posts there, I'm the owner of the d1soccerrecruiting.com website.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. It wasn't my intent in my blog post to suggest that without ECNL, there would be no offers. Since my daughter wasn't part of an ECNL club, it would be kind of silly for me to suggest that. In most conversations I have online about college recruiting, I'm the one saying you don't have to be part of an ECNL club to be recruited by a D1 school. And you're right - players were recruited before ECNL and if ECNL were to go away tomorrow, they would still be recruited. ECNL didn't somehow create the players and suddenly make them worthy of colleges' consideration. ECNL may have contributed to their development as players, but ECNL certainly doesn't have a monopoly on development.

At the same time, I think it's important for families to understand the current paradigm. ECNL is here now (whether or not it will disappear in the future), it provides a venue which to a certain extent facilitates the process for college coaches, and it warrants consideration by families whose daughters want to play in college. Does the data somehow prove that ECNL is the best way (or only way) to be recruited to play soccer in college? No, of course not. I believe the data I reviewed should play a part in persuading families to consider ECNL, but I also believe families should be making much more nuanced decisions than just looking at the aggregate data. Questions of geography (whether or not there is a strong ECNL program within driving distance as well as what other options are available), finances (not only for club fees but the cost of commuting as well), club connections, required time commitments, etc. should all play a part in deciding whether an ECNL club is appropriate. I also believe that families should be targeting specific schools and the identity of those schools can inform the decision as to whether ECNL is advantageous or not.

For example, in our daughter's case, she was strongly recruited by an ECNL club during the college recruiting process. But she was involved in an intensive academic program her last two years of high school, and we decided that the extra time it would take for her to commute to practices would not be wise from an academic perspective. We also believed that because of the connections her admittedly less prominent club had with her target schools, ECNL participation was not necessary for her to be seen by the coaches of her target schools. So she chose not to accept the ECNL club's offer.

I think each family has to approach the question with their own circumstances in mind, and there really is no right or wrong decision.

[Unregistered]

While I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the discussion I think it important to note that keepers are a it different. Keepers are almost better off on weaker teams. If there are few opportunities to shine then they can't prove themselves. Now I know that many of the top tournaments are now also running keeper showcases to allow the coaches to see keepers technical prowess. The tactical - when she comes off her line and how quickly, how brave she is etc is still only well evaluated in game situations. But these attributed can be evaluated without consideration to the quality of the players around her.
In contrast consider a smaller technical, great vision attacking midfielder. This player needs players around her who are technical enough to play the ball to her feet because she isn't great at winning 50-50s. She needs kids around her making good runs so the clever balls she plays get noticed and she needs the players around her to see her movement off the ball to get her the ball at the right times for her to create the magic.
She is heavily reliant on the players around her to be able to "show" to the colleges. I am not saying this has to be an Ecnl team only that the overall quality of the team has to be at a certain level for that type of player to really shine. Same could be said for a striker who gets no service.
I think that the ecnl model lends certain advantages to kids in the recruiting process. Not that it's the only way to be recruited at all; that would be a silly conclusion. I do believe that some kids will have to do more work themselves to be recruited than they might have had to do at an ecnl school. Unfortunately I also believe that some kids will, despite their efforts, be less attractive to the schools of their choice if they are not on at least a national league level non ECNL team. The national league in region 4 is dominated by SoCal and is also as expensive as the ecnl. The regional leagues do not generally attract the coaches that they once did before the ecnl.
I personally hate the ecnl because it limits choices and removes the opportunity for a lesser known club with an outstanding coach to produce a powerhouse team. I think in some regions it dilutes talent and in others eliminates what is becoming the top level from geographic reach. That said if it is feasible, at this time, it probably gives most kids, with the possible exception of keepers, an edge in the recruiting game.

[Unregistered]

So now that we have proven that ECNL lies about their recruitment numbers, we can move on to how they have lied about their competition level and the value of paying $1,000 to fly to a destination to play average teams.

[Unregistered]

Lmfao!!!! Ok!!