End of Club soccer as we know it in New England

[Unregistered]

One can understand why people wouldn't like promo-relegation because it IS a rather unpleasant process but the counter reasoning that teams are not diluted now that it no longer impacts the club soccer scene flies in the face logic. Go look up the definition of dilution in any context (finance, chemistry, law, etc) and you will find that they all basically state that whenever you add more of something you are by definition diluting it. It is a law of nature.

We have most certainly added way more teams than we would have had years ago. By my rough count on Gotsoccer we have 83 U14 club teams, 52 U15 club teams, 52 U16 club teams, and 46 U17 club teams active in this state. It is a fact that is more than double the number of teams we would have had years ago. We have in fact diluted club soccer in this state.

The notion that the are still only 4-5 top teams in the state is accurate. That hasn't changed. What isn't accurate is the assumption that those rosters are as strong as they were in the past. The current top teams are not weak at the top of the roster, they are weak at the middle and bottom of their rosters. There are now players on the rosters of those top teams that would not have even been close to making such a team years ago. To put it bluntly, the depth of the current top teams, sucks. The problem is more pronounced at what would have been the bottom of the old MAPLE D1 and in MAPLE D2. Those teams are incredibly diluted now because the players that would peculated up to strengthen them are now spread out over dozens of essentially redundant teams.

The argument that the best players still migrate to the best teams is nothing but pure parental ego speaking. One person choosing what they feel is a "best" team does not constitutes a trend? How was it even determined that their "best" team is in fact the best? That process no longer exists. In its place is nothing more than marketing spin. In the absence of things like promo-relegation and state cups everyone now gets to call their team great, but are they really?

The fact is there nothing forcing players in any particular direction other than marketing hype so there is absolutely no way you have the concentration of talent you once had when there were such forces. Even in this thread, posters are interjecting things like their convenience into the mix of decision making factors when choosing a club. That line of thought absolutely has impacted the quality of teams around now. It stands to reason that when there are dozens of teams to pick from and none really have demonstrated any significant dominance over the others it is normal for personal preferences to become the deciding factor. Everyone basing their club choice on personal preference is not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't lead to a heavy concentration talent at any particular club simply because there is no universal consensus of what constitutes the "best" team.

If people want to argue that the status quo is fine for them, that is their prerogative. Different strokes for different folks and all. The idea however, that things have not changed is simply ridiculous. The fact that environment has changed radically over the last 5 years is indisputable. The fact that we have all these new leagues is the proof. The impact of that change has in fact significantly diluted the competitive levels and the idea that we should all accept that is hardly a universal thought. That is just one myopic view on an anonymous forum.

1) Because there is no consensus of the best team doesn't mean there isn't a best
team.

2) There is still a consensus of who the top 4-5 teams are in each age group. The best teams are obvious to anyone who cares.

3) The top players don't sit around on bad teams. It just doesn't happen.

4) The reason p/r was important was because your league and league results got you spots in tournaments. Tournament placings still occur, and directors still look at results. If a team isn't getting into top showcases and top flights, the top players will have to move on because they aren't getting in front of the coaches they want.

5) To dilute something you add more of the solvent (in this case teams), without adding more players. There are more players. Thus, it is not a given that there is dilution.

I'll agree that there aren't significantly more top players, but where we disagree is where those top players are. I just don't see any evidence of top players being spread on weak team. Look at the signings list, the all-state lists, whatever measures you want. The best kids are still really concentrated in very few teams.

[Unregistered]

One can understand why people wouldn't like promo-relegation because it IS a rather unpleasant process but the counter reasoning that teams are not diluted now that it no longer impacts the club soccer scene flies in the face logic. Go look up the definition of dilution in any context (finance, chemistry, law, etc) and you will find that they all basically state that whenever you add more of something you are by definition diluting it. It is a law of nature.

We have most certainly added way more teams than we would have had years ago. By my rough count on Gotsoccer we have 83 U14 club teams, 52 U15 club teams, 52 U16 club teams, and 46 U17 club teams active in this state. It is a fact that is more than double the number of teams we would have had years ago. We have in fact diluted club soccer in this state.

The notion that the are still only 4-5 top teams in the state is accurate. That hasn't changed. What isn't accurate is the assumption that those rosters are as strong as they were in the past. The current top teams are not weak at the top of the roster, they are weak at the middle and bottom of their rosters. There are now players on the rosters of those top teams that would not have even been close to making such a team years ago. To put it bluntly, the depth of the current top teams, sucks. The problem is more pronounced at what would have been the bottom of the old MAPLE D1 and in MAPLE D2. Those teams are incredibly diluted now because the players that would peculated up to strengthen them are now spread out over dozens of essentially redundant teams.

The argument that the best players still migrate to the best teams is nothing but pure parental ego speaking. One person choosing what they feel is a "best" team does not constitutes a trend? How was it even determined that their "best" team is in fact the best? That process no longer exists. In its place is nothing more than marketing spin. In the absence of things like promo-relegation and state cups everyone now gets to call their team great, but are they really?

The fact is there nothing forcing players in any particular direction other than marketing hype so there is absolutely no way you have the concentration of talent you once had when there were such forces. Even in this thread, posters are interjecting things like their convenience into the mix of decision making factors when choosing a club. That line of thought absolutely has impacted the quality of teams around now. It stands to reason that when there are dozens of teams to pick from and none really have demonstrated any significant dominance over the others it is normal for personal preferences to become the deciding factor. Everyone basing their club choice on personal preference is not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't lead to a heavy concentration talent at any particular club simply because there is no universal consensus of what constitutes the "best" team.

If people want to argue that the status quo is fine for them, that is their prerogative. Different strokes for different folks and all. The idea however, that things have not changed is simply ridiculous. The fact that environment has changed radically over the last 5 years is indisputable. The fact that we have all these new leagues is the proof. The impact of that change has in fact significantly diluted the competitive levels and the idea that we should all accept that is hardly a universal thought. That is just one myopic view on an anonymous forum.

If you write lots of ranting paragraphs that hint at years of experience and knowledge, and use words like "indisputable" "ridiculous" "myopic" and "law of nature," you are sure to cow more than a few readers on TS. Others, however, will see through your rant to the true agenda.

I'll grant you that significant dilution has occurred at the local club level or for teams outside the top 10 in the area. That's logical. The rest is bluster.

[Unregistered]

One can understand why people wouldn't like promo-relegation because it IS a rather unpleasant process but the counter reasoning that teams are not diluted now that it no longer impacts the club soccer scene flies in the face logic. Go look up the definition of dilution in any context (finance, chemistry, law, etc) and you will find that they all basically state that whenever you add more of something you are by definition diluting it. It is a law of nature.

This is NOT a law. I could have 50 gallons of water and add another 50 gallons of water and it is not diluted at all.

I could have 4 sales guys that bring in a $1 million of business and add another that brings in the same. And I am still averaging $1 mil per sales guy.

There are of course examples that support your "Law" statement but it is far from a law.

[Unregistered]

1) Because there is no consensus of the best team doesn't mean there isn't a best team.

Silly logic like this created the BCS system in college football which is a farce. In this situation beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder.

2) There is still a consensus of who the top 4-5 teams are in each age group. The best teams are obvious to anyone who cares.

That point wasn't debated. The strength of those teams was.

3) The top players don't sit around on bad teams. It just doesn't happen.

Perfect example is the Scorpions right now. Those are some pretty weak teams. There are however some pretty good players on them. Why are they there and not on the Stars if they are supposedly all looking for the best team? Convenience and familiarity is likely the answer.

4) The reason p/r was important was because your league and league results got you spots in tournaments. Tournament placings still occur, and directors still look at results. If a team isn't getting into top showcases and top flights, the top players will have to move on because they aren't getting in front of the coaches they want.

The decline of showcases is a completely different discussion. Years ago the showcases were smaller and you had to really fight to earn your way into a good one. Now getting into them is more a political issue than a competitive one. Now the showcases have gotten much bigger and they are much easier to get in to so now if a group of parents decide they want to attend one of the big tournaments they go. A perfect example is a team like the CSU 17's getting into a tournament like Disney. According to Gotsoccer they are the 14th ranked U17 team. Years ago that wouldn't happen.

There just isn't the demand for the roster spots on the top teams that you think. The idea that the need for exposure is what is driving all of this is actually passe. Yes parents who believe that showcase exposure is what drives recruiting do tend to flock to teams that will travel more but that doesn't necessarily mean those are the best players. I think you will find that most parents now believe that their player can achieve their goals with more modest travel and that this actually serves to keep players AWAY from teams that will travel heavily. If you look at Gotsoccer you'll see that there are actually very few teams travelling to top showcases any longer and that most of the teams are going the more modest route of doing more local tournaments.

5) To dilute something you add more of the solvent (in this case teams), without adding more players. There are more players. Thus, it is not a given that there is dilution.

Add more teams you dilute competition. Same logic

I'll agree that there aren't significantly more top players, but where we disagree is where those top players are. I just don't see any evidence of top players being spread on weak team. Look at the signings list, the all-state lists, whatever measures you want. The best kids are still really concentrated in very few teams.

The top teams were usually built around the top players. They usually started with the team at its inception and were the foundation that the team was built upon. They seldom left it. As stated the issue is with the depth on these top teams now. Those are the kids that are now staying with their team instead of migrating to the top teams. They stay with those teams now because their team is familiar/convenient to them, they believe that they will standout on it more, and that it will give them the same level of exposure as any other team.

Basically there is now more parity at the top than in the past. In the past there was a clear lineage. Who was the best was clear because they usually beat everyone pretty soundly. The teams don't really even play each other all that often any longer and when they do the results are usually fairly mixed. That is dilution.

[Unregistered]

Silly logic like this created the BCS system in college football which is a farce. In this situation beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder.



That point wasn't debated. The strength of those teams was.



Perfect example is the Scorpions right now. Those are some pretty weak teams. There are however some pretty good players on them. Why are they there and not on the Stars if they are supposedly all looking for the best team? Convenience and familiarity is likely the answer.



The decline of showcases is a completely different discussion. Years ago the showcases were smaller and you had to really fight to earn your way into a good one. Now getting into them is more a political issue than a competitive one. Now the showcases have gotten much bigger and they are much easier to get in to so now if a group of parents decide they want to attend one of the big tournaments they go. A perfect example is a team like the CSU 17's getting into a tournament like Disney. According to Gotsoccer they are the 14th ranked U17 team. Years ago that wouldn't happen.

There just isn't the demand for the roster spots on the top teams that you think. The idea that the need for exposure is what is driving all of this is actually passe. Yes parents who believe that showcase exposure is what drives recruiting do tend to flock to teams that will travel more but that doesn't necessarily mean those are the best players. I think you will find that most parents now believe that their player can achieve their goals with more modest travel and that this actually serves to keep players AWAY from teams that will travel heavily. If you look at Gotsoccer you'll see that there are actually very few teams travelling to top showcases any longer and that most of the teams are going the more modest route of doing more local tournaments.



Add more teams you dilute competition. Same logic



The top teams were usually built around the top players. They usually started with the team at its inception and were the foundation that the team was built upon. They seldom left it. As stated the issue is with the depth on these top teams now. Those are the kids that are now staying with their team instead of migrating to the top teams. They stay with those teams now because their team is familiar/convenient to them, they believe that they will standout on it more, and that it will give them the same level of exposure as any other team.

Basically there is now more parity at the top than in the past. In the past there was a clear lineage. Who was the best was clear because they usually beat everyone pretty soundly. The teams don't really even play each other all that often any longer and when they do the results are usually fairly mixed. That is dilution.

This debate is getting tired. I've offered at least some sort of evidence - signing lists, and HS all-state lists. What evidence do you have other than your gut feeling?

[Unregistered]

This is NOT a law. I could have 50 gallons of water and add another 50 gallons of water and it is not diluted at all.

I could have 4 sales guys that bring in a $1 million of business and add another that brings in the same. And I am still averaging $1 mil per sales guy.

There are of course examples that support your "Law" statement but it is far from a law.

If you add 4 more DAP teams or 4 more ECNL teams in Mass, that would be dilution. If you hold a State Cup tournament in the Fall as well as the Spring, and both are weighted the same in importance, that would be dilution. If Rush adds 4 more teams per age group and NEFC adds 4 more teams per age group, this will dilute MPS' market share, but this has minimal effect on the top 2-3 teams in any age group. Those 40-60 players are still going to jockey for playing time and exposure.

[Unregistered]

This is NOT a law. I could have 50 gallons of water and add another 50 gallons of water and it is not diluted at all.

Law of nature. Your 50 gallon container either broke or you couldn't fit the other 50 gallons in. Something had to change. In your example your container would to have had to expand to hold the additional 50 gallons of water. That is dilution.

I could have 4 sales guys that bring in a $1 million of business and add another that brings in the same. And I am still averaging $1 mil per sales guy.

Great example. You either have to increase the size of the market so each persons % share drops or you reduce each persons dollar share of it. In either case you diluted.

There are of course examples that support your "Law" statement but it is far from a law.

Really?

[Unregistered]

This debate is getting tired. I've offered at least some sort of evidence - signing lists, and HS all-state lists. What evidence do you have other than your gut feeling?

What you have supported is that the demand for all of these players we now have has in fact remained constant. That doesn't mean that those players or those around them are necessarily better than before. You are actually buttressing the argument that the environment is watered down.

[Unregistered]

Boring

[Unregistered]

Perfect example is the Scorpions right now. Those are some pretty weak teams. There are however some pretty good players on them. Why are they there and not on the Stars if they are supposedly all looking for the best team? Convenience and familiarity is likely the answer.

I was really trying not to mention specific clubs or leagues because every time we do the debate goes off topic. But since you brought it up, I think that is a perfect example. Because the Scorps are generally out of sight, you don't really have a context for how good or bad they are. But if you look at the body of evidence from those events where they do cross over, they don't fall into the category of pretty weak teams.

u18 at Scorpion Bowl
beat NEFC Elite, lost 1-0 to MPS (State Cup finalist last 3 years)

u17 at the NEFC tournament
beat NEFC United, beat Fuller who beat Stars Central (NERP Champions), ties
Seacoast.

u16 at Scorpion Bowl
beat Blazers 5-1 (R1P team, state cup semi-finalist)

u15 Scorpion Bowl
lost to MP 1-0, beat the team that beat MPS 1-0
going further back, tied Aztecs at Needham


While Scorpions are "bad" in the context of ECNL, they are still quite good in the context of Mass. They are probably top 5 in most age groups.

[Unregistered]

What you have supported is that the demand for all of these players we now have has in fact remained constant. That doesn't mean that those players or those around them are necessarily better than before. You are actually buttressing the argument that the environment is watered down.

There are x number of all-state players. Are you now saying that they have all gotten weaker and that is why things are watered down?

If the demand for Mass players hasn't fallen, and the players in demand are concentrated on a small handful of teams, isn't it fair to say that the top players are still seeking each other? Or is your thesis that the other top players are no longer capable of seeing that they need to be together to be seen? Or are you saying that they are just to comfortable and thus are acting against their own interests, even though they know if they don't find a better team they won't be able to get recruited as much?

[Unregistered]

If you add 4 more DAP teams or 4 more ECNL teams in Mass, that would be dilution. If you hold a State Cup tournament in the Fall as well as the Spring, and both are weighted the same in importance, that would be dilution. If Rush adds 4 more teams per age group and NEFC adds 4 more teams per age group, this will dilute MPS' market share, but this has minimal effect on the top 2-3 teams in any age group. Those 40-60 players are still going to jockey for playing time and exposure.

Your argument is based upon faulty logic. If you add 4 more DAP teams or 4 more ECNL teams the concentration of top players has to be more diffuse. No way around it.

The situation is simple to visualize. If you take a 2 inch hose with water running through it at a casual pace and then suddenly dump the water that was running through it into a 4 inch hose, the amount of forward force in that 4 inch hose will drop as the water stream expands to fill the space. That is what is happening in club soccer. We are simply expanding the pipe and that means that the force pushing players towards the top teams has dropped.

There is no question that these teams today are diluted and the argument that they are diluted everywhere but the top is simply parental ego speaking. Yes those 40-60 players are still trying to jokey for playing time and exposure but the reality is they are spread out amongst more teams than ever. That has decreased the overall competitiveness of the environment and ultimately that will hamper the development of all the players. You can already see it happening.

[Unregistered]

I was really trying not to mention specific clubs or leagues because every time we do the debate goes off topic. But since you brought it up, I think that is a perfect example. Because the Scorps are generally out of sight, you don't really have a context for how good or bad they are. But if you look at the body of evidence from those events where they do cross over, they don't fall into the category of pretty weak teams.

u18 at Scorpion Bowl
beat NEFC Elite, lost 1-0 to MPS (State Cup finalist last 3 years)

u17 at the NEFC tournament
beat NEFC United, beat Fuller who beat Stars Central (NERP Champions), ties
Seacoast.

u16 at Scorpion Bowl
beat Blazers 5-1 (R1P team, state cup semi-finalist)

u15 Scorpion Bowl
lost to MP 1-0, beat the team that beat MPS 1-0
going further back, tied Aztecs at Needham


While Scorpions are "bad" in the context of ECNL, they are still quite good in the context of Mass. They are probably top 5 in most age groups.

Agree about not using specific names but the example is actually a good one. What you are actually showing that there is more parity than ever before and that supports the idea that the environment is diluted.

[Unregistered]

why do they have to be spread out. they could remain on the same teams no matter what number of teams exist.

[Unregistered]

There are x number of all-state players. Are you now saying that they have all gotten weaker and that is why things are watered down?

If the demand for Mass players hasn't fallen, and the players in demand are concentrated on a small handful of teams, isn't it fair to say that the top players are still seeking each other? Or is your thesis that the other top players are no longer capable of seeing that they need to be together to be seen? Or are you saying that they are just to comfortable and thus are acting against their own interests, even though they know if they don't find a better team they won't be able to get recruited as much?

The issue is more about over supply than demand. What is going on actually makes it harder for the players to become one of the x number of all state players because there is more competition for that recognition.

The so called dilution hurts the top players because they end up playing beside players that are not as good so they get less challenge.