White or Blue

[Unregistered]

People don't seem to understand that these teams operate as separate CLUBS. There is zero co-mingling. In fact, movement between the teams (within the same age group) is the same equivalency as switching clubs. It does happen sure, but it is rare.

Also the #1 reason White can compete is that (especially at the older ages) these teams have been developing and ADDING new players every year. The White coaches are treating this as an independent ECNL club where they are constantly recruiting and getting better. Add in the fact that many of the very best HS aged players are looking to join ECNL from other clubs, including some of those clubs top players, and White becomes a landing spot. Plus some of these coaches are very good at recruiting or have a good pipeline of incoming talent.

I know it doesn't fit the narrative on TS or even on this thread, but most of these whining about "A and B" are just trolls or bitter. The reality is that White and Blue are both viable because there is plenty enough talent in New England to support 3 ECNL clubs. And a lot of that talent is aggregating at Stars, White or Blue.

This is sort of true, maybe mostly true. Yes, they are treated as separate clubs. But, and this is a big but, Stars wants to make Blue the top team and Blue gets first pick of the offers. That doesn't mean all the best players necessarily end up on Blue because player choice is a real thing but it does mean that most tend to end up on Blue with exceptions for certain teams, in certain years, in certain age groups based on the player choice piece. I don't think White and Blue are separately recruiting with White coaches signing players Blue coaches don't even know about. But I certainly agree they are both viable and competitive.

[Unregistered]

No question. Why 2/3 of those are with one club is the real question.

I'd argue New England (not just MA as you referenced) can support 8 clubs, spread out to cover much more of the region. Will every single player on every single team on every single club by supahstaaaahh material? Likely no. Not much different than today.

Well the point is that to try to fit most (not all) of the available excellent players on 3 teams should make each those teams very strong 1-18. How many teams is the right number to keep the league "elite"? Well that is arbitrary. You could set that number at 1 or 3 or 8 or 12. There's no right answer. IMO 3 is a good number.

As for the "superstar" question, that's probably a good measuring stick. If you define "superstar" as a kid who would be plastered all over the local papers if they played for their town HS and make All State and never come off the field, then yes pretty much every player on Blue or White is a "superstar" and that would disappear if you went to 8 teams. **If a current player doesn't fit this description, they won't be on the team for long.

If you define it as national team or headed for a top 10 college as a starter than there are barely enough of those to field one team per age group.

PS They are currently drawing from all 6 New England states (fact), so I'm not sure why you think there is a need for more teams or how much more of the region you'd need to cover.

[Unregistered]

This is sort of true, maybe mostly true. Yes, they are treated as separate clubs. But, and this is a big but, Stars wants to make Blue the top team and Blue gets first pick of the offers. That doesn't mean all the best players necessarily end up on Blue because player choice is a real thing but it does mean that most tend to end up on Blue with exceptions for certain teams, in certain years, in certain age groups based on the player choice piece. I don't think White and Blue are separately recruiting with White coaches signing players Blue coaches don't even know about. But I certainly agree they are both viable and competitive.

I agree with you at the youngest age group. When the teams are built in the U12-13 time frame this is true, Blue will generally get most of the top players. No doubt. But by the time they reach U17-U19 the roster construction has changed so much that the 2 original teams are barely recognizable. We have seen it first hand where half or more of both rosters has completely turned over.

Then add in developmental differences, and coaching impact, and team chemistry and you quickly will see why the Blue/White debate is stupid.

[Unregistered]

Well the point is that to try to fit most (not all) of the available excellent players on 3 teams should make each those teams very strong 1-18. How many teams is the right number to keep the league "elite"? Well that is arbitrary. You could set that number at 1 or 3 or 8 or 12. There's no right answer. IMO 3 is a good number.

As for the "superstar" question, that's probably a good measuring stick. If you define "superstar" as a kid who would be plastered all over the local papers if they played for their town HS and make All State and never come off the field, then yes pretty much every player on Blue or White is a "superstar" and that would disappear if you went to 8 teams. **If a current player doesn't fit this description, they won't be on the team for long.

If you define it as national team or headed for a top 10 college as a starter than there are barely enough of those to field one team per age group.

PS They are currently drawing from all 6 New England states (fact), so I'm not sure why you think there is a need for more teams or how much more of the region you'd need to cover.

Agree with everything you said, and I think other posters claim for 8 in New England isn’t far off. We have 4 in MA already (3 ECNL + GAL) add in CT and that gets us to at least 7 (2 ECNL and 1 GAL (or are there 2?). Align better regionally and the player pool is there. Springfield could serve western MA, no. CT, and VT (off 91) and Haverhill area on 495 could also serve ME, NH. Scorpions in Taunton serves So Shore and RI

[Unregistered]

If you define "superstar" as a kid who would be plastered all over the local papers if they played for their town HS and make All State and never come off the field, then yes pretty much every player on Blue or White is a "superstar"
.

This is a pretty accurate description of the rosters.
Last Sunday’s game between NEFC and Stars Blue seniors was basically the Globe/Herald all-scholastics and EMGSCA/United Soccer Coaches All State, All New England, and All-American recipients.

And amongst all those accolades and D1 commitments 2 (max 3) are committed to consistent Top 10 programs. Ivy teams crack top 10 now and then, but not consistently so I excluded those

[Unregistered]

Agree with everything you said, and I think other posters claim for 8 in New England isn’t far off. We have 4 in MA already (3 ECNL + GAL) add in CT and that gets us to at least 7 (2 ECNL and 1 GAL (or are there 2?). Align better regionally and the player pool is there. Springfield could serve western MA, no. CT, and VT (off 91) and Haverhill area on 495 could also serve ME, NH. Scorpions in Taunton serves So Shore and RI

Exactly. Spread it around and you'll do a much better job of getting all the best players.

[Unregistered]

This is a pretty accurate description of the rosters.
Last Sunday’s game between NEFC and Stars Blue seniors was basically the Globe/Herald all-scholastics and EMGSCA/United Soccer Coaches All State, All New England, and All-American recipients.

And amongst all those accolades and D1 commitments 2 (max 3) are committed to consistent Top 10 programs. Ivy teams crack top 10 now and then, but not consistently so I excluded those

Makes sense... around 10%. Perhaps could’ve been more but others chose not to go Power D1 because of fit or academics? I consider any player getting money at any division a success, they all choose schools for different reasons.

[Unregistered]

Based on this weekend its pretty obvious White has the better teams. I know Blue is “supposed” to be better but accumulating the best players doesn’t always translate into wins or, even more important, development. It’s Whites to lose right now

[Unregistered]

Based on this weekend its pretty obvious White has the better teams. I know Blue is “supposed” to be better but accumulating the best players doesn’t always translate into wins or, even more important, development. It’s Whites to lose right now

Nah. Blue is better. White will win one here and there though

[Unregistered]

Blue IS better teams they play higher competition, higher divisions which means sometimes while seeking the challenge lose a game. White usually plays in a lower division and often wins more in lower divisions.

[Unregistered]

Blue IS better teams they play higher competition, higher divisions which means sometimes while seeking the challenge lose a game. White usually plays in a lower division and often wins more in lower divisions.

Are you drunk? Stars Blue and Stars White play in the same division in ECNL. They play all the same teams in their league games. They all played in the Stars tournament this past weekend and I can’t think of any situation where they weren’t in the same division—maybe different brackets within a division, but not different levels.

[Unregistered]

Not drunk
Was talking about younger kids not ECNL

[Unregistered]

Are you drunk? Stars Blue and Stars White play in the same division in ECNL. They play all the same teams in their league games. They all played in the Stars tournament this past weekend and I can’t think of any situation where they weren’t in the same division—maybe different brackets within a division, but not different levels.

Most blue teams played up one age group, and whites played top (premier) in their own. If blue stayed in their own age group, white would have played a level below this weekend.

[Unregistered]

Most blue teams played up one age group, and whites played top (premier) in their own. If blue stayed in their own age group, white would have played a level below this weekend.

Not the ECNL teams. With the exception of JD’s 2008s.

[Unregistered]

Not the ECNL teams. With the exception of JD’s 2008s.

Of course.