End of Club soccer as we know it in New England

[Unregistered]

What are you talking about? Look at the old state cup results. It was the same teams every year.

I think the poster wasn't talking about the very top teams, but all the other regional and mid-level teams that were being ousted by small clubs at times. The big clubs want to fill rosters on those teams too and being relegated is not good for business.

[Unregistered]

What are you talking about? Look at the old state cup results. It was the same teams every year.

I understand the top teams from the big clubs were the best but those are not the ones that make them money it is lower teams that were getting relegated to masc. The smaller clubs would have a couple of teams scattered throughout the top three divisions.

[Unregistered]

I think the poster wasn't talking about the very top teams, but all the other regional and mid-level teams that were being ousted by small clubs at times. The big clubs want to fill rosters on those teams too and being relegated is not good for business.

Exactly when my older daughters team for a smaller south shore club was in D2 maple and 3 scorpion teams from that age group got sent to masc we ended up with 6 new players on our team at the next tryout. That helped us win D2 and move to D1 when all the major teams were in maple. People wanted to stay in maple and not masc it helped all the better teams recruit players at age 14 when kids found out they were getting relegated.

[Unregistered]

I understand the top teams from the big clubs were the best but those are not the ones that make them money it is lower teams that were getting relegated to masc. The smaller clubs would have a couple of teams scattered throughout the top three divisions.

But you said...
"The reason is they would lose their edge recruiting and you would get some smaller club teams winning spots n the converted NPL and ECNL that would not be good for the larger clubs"

The small clubs almost never won NERP/R1P slots and they would never win NPL/ECNL slots.

The more I think about it the more it looks like just going back to the way things were. This doesn't address any of them, it just changes the names of the leagues.

[Unregistered]

Not a bad idea but the big clubs would never give up their strong hold on NEP,NPL and ECNL. The reason is they would lose their edge recruiting and you would get some smaller club teams winning spots n the converted NPL and ECNL that would not be good for the larger clubs. That is why they started these leagues because maple gave every team a chance and only the good ones did not get regulated. That cut into the big clubs money when half go their teams got relegated to Masc and parents started to see that other clubs can have good teams and compete with the big ones.

Nice spin, but not accurate. Those smaller clubs might be capable of having a top 4 team every few years, but they can't sustain the momentum over time. The bigger clubs always win out in the end. The idea that the big clubs started NPL or ECNL because their better teams were ever in danger of relegation is laughable. Their 3rd or 4th teams might slide up or down among the various maple divisions, but their top teams didn't. They got tired of having their top teams beat the smaller clubs by 5 or 6 goals every Sunday, and needed to find better competition.

[Unregistered]

Exactly when my older daughters team for a smaller south shore club was in D2 maple and 3 scorpion teams from that age group got sent to masc we ended up with 6 new players on our team at the next tryout. That helped us win D2 and move to D1 when all the major teams were in maple. People wanted to stay in maple and not masc it helped all the better teams recruit players at age 14 when kids found out they were getting relegated.

And if your team had been relegated you would have lost 3 or 4 kids. How is blowing up teams a good thing?

[Unregistered]

Nice spin, but not accurate. Those smaller clubs might be capable of having a top 4 team every few years, but they can't sustain the momentum over time. The bigger clubs always win out in the end. The idea that the big clubs started NPL or ECNL because their better teams were ever in danger of relegation is laughable. Their 3rd or 4th teams might slide up or down among the various maple divisions, but their top teams didn't. They got tired of having their top teams beat the smaller clubs by 5 or 6 goals every Sunday, and needed to find better competition.

Exactly. The relegation problem that these club faced was not with the second teams or third teams. Those teams are commodity teams and they would still be able to fill the lower teams, even if they were in much lower leagues.

[Unregistered]

And if your team had been relegated you would have lost 3 or 4 kids. How is blowing up teams a good thing?

This is precisely the thinking that helped create this mess in the first place. You prune teams for the same reason you prune plants, to promote healthy growth. As it stands now teams can hang around indefinitely and there is no pressure for the clubs to perform. A club can throw crappy players together with an unmotivated coach and there is nothing but upside for them because as long as the team stays around they are collecting revenue. Instituting a produce or perish mindset into the whole equation forces them to work to keep the team around and everyone actually benefits.

[Unregistered]

This is precisely the thinking that helped create this mess in the first place. You prune teams for the same reason you prune plants, to promote healthy growth. As it stands now teams can hang around indefinitely and there is no pressure for the clubs to perform. A club can throw crappy players together with an unmotivated coach and there is nothing but upside for them because as long as the team stays around they are collecting revenue. Instituting a produce or perish mindset into the whole equation forces them to work to keep the team around and everyone actually benefits.

Exactly, if the club/coach/team cannot produce positive results why should the team hang on to those 3-4 players? How is that good for the players?

[Unregistered]

Exactly, if the club/coach/team cannot produce positive results why should the team hang on to those 3-4 players? How is that good for the players?

The kids that are staying on a crappy team with a crappy coach are doing it because they want to be there. Why does it matter what their motivation is?

The kids that want out are getting out and moving up.

Low level, crappy teams aren't the ones getting blown up because they don't have enough upwardly mobile players to be vulnerable.

[Unregistered]

But you said...
"The reason is they would lose their edge recruiting and you would get some smaller club teams winning spots n the converted NPL and ECNL that would not be good for the larger clubs"

The small clubs almost never won NERP/R1P slots and they would never win NPL/ECNL slots.

The more I think about it the more it looks like just going back to the way things were. This doesn't address any of them, it just changes the names of the leagues.

The whole problem with US Club Soccer is they essentially create country club leagues that do not necessarily promote healthy competition. This would essentially fix that.

The issue of the small clubs has always been same, they just don't have the resources to compete head to head with the real big boys. The issue right now is the small clubs are almost forced into building up a huge infrastructure if they want to try to stay relevant and most of them just don't have the where with all to do that. I say let the NEFC's and MPS's do that. Let them create the monster clubs to compete with the likes of PDA and Rush just open the door for a smaller more nimble organization to come in compete with them if they can. Remember, back in time most our clubs didn't even have a team in every age group, let alone multiple teams in each one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a future FM or JD putting all of their resources into building a "super team" every two or three years and then being completely focused on that team. If you look at both the Stars and Scorpions that is pretty much how they got started. That is actually a niche a lot of small clubs could potentially fulfill if they could really do the job of developing players. The issue presently is access to the leagues. This idea would seem to open the doors again for the small club to be able to demonstrate that.

[Unregistered]

This is precisely the thinking that helped create this mess in the first place. You prune teams for the same reason you prune plants, to promote healthy growth. As it stands now teams can hang around indefinitely and there is no pressure for the clubs to perform. A club can throw crappy players together with an unmotivated coach and there is nothing but upside for them because as long as the team stays around they are collecting revenue. Instituting a produce or perish mindset into the whole equation forces them to work to keep the team around and everyone actually benefits.

It's youth sports buddy. Prune your bushes if you want some pruning.

[Unregistered]

The whole problem with US Club Soccer is they essentially create country club leagues that do not necessarily promote healthy competition. This would essentially fix that.

The issue of the small clubs has always been same, they just don't have the resources to compete head to head with the real big boys. The issue right now is the small clubs are almost forced into building up a huge infrastructure if they want to try to stay relevant and most of them just don't have the where with all to do that. I say let the NEFC's and MPS's do that. Let them create the monster clubs to compete with the likes of PDA and Rush just open the door for a smaller more nimble organization to come in compete with them if they can. Remember, back in time most our clubs didn't even have a team in every age group, let alone multiple teams in each one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a future FM or JD putting all of their resources into building a "super team" every two or three years and then being completely focused on that team. If you look at both the Stars and Scorpions that is pretty much how they got started. That is actually a niche a lot of small clubs could potentially fulfill if they could really do the job of developing players. The issue presently is access to the leagues. This idea would seem to open the doors again for the small club to be able to demonstrate that.

So now you've morphed into a champion of the small mom and pop teams?

[Unregistered]

The whole problem with US Club Soccer is they essentially create country club leagues that do not necessarily promote healthy competition. This would essentially fix that.

The issue of the small clubs has always been same, they just don't have the resources to compete head to head with the real big boys. The issue right now is the small clubs are almost forced into building up a huge infrastructure if they want to try to stay relevant and most of them just don't have the where with all to do that. I say let the NEFC's and MPS's do that. Let them create the monster clubs to compete with the likes of PDA and Rush just open the door for a smaller more nimble organization to come in compete with them if they can. Remember, back in time most our clubs didn't even have a team in every age group, let alone multiple teams in each one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a future FM or JD putting all of their resources into building a "super team" every two or three years and then being completely focused on that team. If you look at both the Stars and Scorpions that is pretty much how they got started. That is actually a niche a lot of small clubs could potentially fulfill if they could really do the job of developing players. The issue presently is access to the leagues. This idea would seem to open the doors again for the small club to be able to demonstrate that.

Great theory, only we tried that - it didn't work. Small clubs were no more successful then than they are now.

[Unregistered]

The kids that are staying on a crappy team with a crappy coach are doing it because they want to be there. Why does it matter what their motivation is?

The kids that want out are getting out and moving up.

Low level, crappy teams aren't the ones getting blown up because they don't have enough upwardly mobile players to be vulnerable.

This sounds like a union mentality being applied to soccer. Dead wood is dead wood. Half the problem with youth soccer right now is none of the kids have to work for anything to maintain their spot on a team. It is all wrong. In my eyes your thinking is every bit the source of the problem. This solution doesn't prevent a motivated player from playing soccer, it doesn't even automatically destroy teams. If a player wants to play there are plenty of options out there for them. If a team/coach is really committed to each other then there is nothing that says they have to disband. Worst case is they might be relegated out of a spot, but under this proposal there are still leagues for that team to go to. The issue is people like you really want to ensure that everyone stays committed to each other by not forcing them to produce and be accountable for their performance. This is a sport, not a social welfare program.