Oregon ECNL results to date

[Unregistered]

FCP -> 14 Wins, 28 Losses, 8 Ties -26 GD
CU -> 12 Wins, 31 Losses, 7 Ties -51 GD

I don't think that Oregon is getting a very good chance with two clubs. How anyone on either the Thorns or ECNL side can bash the other is beyond me. Dismal results all around.

I have to admit that I am a little shocked at the -77 goal differential.

[Unregistered]

FCP -> 14 Wins, 28 Losses, 8 Ties -26 GD
CU -> 12 Wins, 31 Losses, 7 Ties -51 GD

I don't think that Oregon is getting a very good chance with two clubs. How anyone on either the Thorns or ECNL side can bash the other is beyond me. Dismal results all around.

Yes, it is pathetic. And to think, I prognosticated earlier this year that it would be a -100 gd overall and you should have heard the kool aid ECNL drinkers here saying how far off that was. Well, right now, I think they are right. It is probably going to be low by 50. However, I think that they were thinking my -100 number was way too high. Sorry folks, it looks like -150 is a better bet.

[Unregistered]

I have to admit that I am a little shocked at the -77 goal differential.

And realize that in showcases, they get matched up with what is supposed to be equal competition. This "equal" competition is still blowing them out.

[Unregistered]

Yes, it is pathetic. And to think, I prognosticated earlier this year that it would be a -100 gd overall and you should have heard the kool aid ECNL drinkers here saying how far off that was. Well, right now, I think they are right. It is probably going to be low by 50. However, I think that they were thinking my -100 number was way too high. Sorry folks, it looks like -150 is a better bet.

Here is the irony to the TA logic. You show all the ECNL commits and they want to take credit for their development, but within hours they post how awful the results are

[Unregistered]

Love to see the Onyx parents on here getting their panties in a wad.

And trust me, they love getting your panties in a wad just as much.

[Unregistered]

Yes, it is pathetic. And to think, I prognosticated earlier this year that it would be a -100 gd overall and you should have heard the kool aid ECNL drinkers here saying how far off that was. Well, right now, I think they are right. It is probably going to be low by 50. However, I think that they were thinking my -100 number was way too high. Sorry folks, it looks like -150 is a better bet.

And yet when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, you're still outside looking in. Why would you care so much? I hate broccoli, as such, I spend zero time "prognosticating" about it.

[Unregistered]

And yet when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, you're still outside looking in. Why would you care so much? I hate broccoli, as such, I spend zero time "prognosticating" about it.

Am I? You know this for sure?

[Unregistered]

Am I? You know this for sure?

Given your obsession and prognosticating about ECNL, yes it is obvious.

[Unregistered]

Yes, it is pathetic. And to think, I prognosticated earlier this year that it would be a -100 gd overall and you should have heard the kool aid ECNL drinkers here saying how far off that was. Well, right now, I think they are right. It is probably going to be low by 50. However, I think that they were thinking my -100 number was way too high. Sorry folks, it looks like -150 is a better bet.

Since you and others have a penchant for referring to GD, did you ever consider the following:

Both FCP and CU have played 50 games (based on what W/L/T that someone posted). FCP has a -26 GD in 28 losses and CU a-51 GD in 31 losses. That would work out to be a-0.92 GD for FCP in their losses, or essentially 1 goal. For CU that would be -1.6, or roughly -2 GD.

The point? if you want to throw out numbers like GD, put them in their proper context. Losses, by an general average of 1 and 2 goals respectively,indicate they are competitive against ECNL level competition.

I'll take that any day than bragging rights at winning medals at crash at the border.

[Unregistered]

Since you and others have a penchant for referring to GD, did you ever consider the following:

Both FCP and CU have played 50 games (based on what W/L/T that someone posted). FCP has a -26 GD in 28 losses and CU a-51 GD in 31 losses. That would work out to be a-0.92 GD for FCP in their losses, or essentially 1 goal. For CU that would be -1.6, or roughly -2 GD.

The point? if you want to throw out numbers like GD, put them in their proper context. Losses, by an general average of 1 and 2 goals respectively,indicate they are competitive against ECNL level competition.

I'll take that any day than bragging rights at winning medals at crash at the border.

"like"👍

[Unregistered]

I have to admit that I am a little shocked at the -77 goal differential.

-77 GD over 100 games isn't all that bad. Only -.77 per game. That's a whole lot better than most Timbers teams.

[Unregistered]

Since you and others have a penchant for referring to GD, did you ever consider the following:

Both FCP and CU have played 50 games (based on what W/L/T that someone posted). FCP has a -26 GD in 28 losses and CU a-51 GD in 31 losses. That would work out to be a-0.92 GD for FCP in their losses, or essentially 1 goal. For CU that would be -1.6, or roughly -2 GD.

The point? if you want to throw out numbers like GD, put them in their proper context. Losses, by an general average of 1 and 2 goals respectively,indicate they are competitive against ECNL level competition.

I'll take that any day than bragging rights at winning medals at crash at the border.

Exactly. Then look at games where Timbers Alliance teams have played ECNL teams. You'll find lots of scores like Xfire WA U14 8-1 over Eastside Timbers.

[Unregistered]

Since you and others have a penchant for referring to GD, did you ever consider the following:

Both FCP and CU have played 50 games (based on what W/L/T that someone posted). FCP has a -26 GD in 28 losses and CU a-51 GD in 31 losses. That would work out to be a-0.92 GD for FCP in their losses, or essentially 1 goal. For CU that would be -1.6, or roughly -2 GD.

The point? if you want to throw out numbers like GD, put them in their proper context. Losses, by an general average of 1 and 2 goals respectively,indicate they are competitive against ECNL level competition.

I'll take that any day than bragging rights at winning medals at crash at the border.

I agree that GD doesn't tell the whole story. There are probably only 10 games out of the 100 played by both clubs with greater than -5 GD. Conversely there are 15 games that were tied with 0 GD and many losses of only 1 or 2. Honestly, to me it points to a need for consolidation. While I agree there are a couple of teams that do okay there are a few teams that shouldn't be in the league but are because they pay the money. I see it as the same money grab that is occurring throughout youth sports. There is no justification for any team to have a 1% winning ratio competing in a league as "elite" as ECNL. Obviously these teams do not need to travel very far to find competition that is appropriate. Quite frankly they might do much more justice to themselves by traveling to Washington for the occasional tournament. Clash at the Border is not the only tournament out there.

[Unregistered]

Since you and others have a penchant for referring to GD, did you ever consider the following:

Both FCP and CU have played 50 games (based on what W/L/T that someone posted). FCP has a -26 GD in 28 losses and CU a-51 GD in 31 losses. That would work out to be a-0.92 GD for FCP in their losses, or essentially 1 goal. For CU that would be -1.6, or roughly -2 GD.

The point? if you want to throw out numbers like GD, put them in their proper context. Losses, by an general average of 1 and 2 goals respectively,indicate they are competitive against ECNL level competition.

I'll take that any day than bragging rights at winning medals at crash at the border.

You forgot to mention the .250 winning percentage. And also that in the losses, there are a number of 2-0, 3-0 and even 6-0 losses. Basically, when they've lost, they've been beaten soundly. But go ahead and think that the teams are doing pretty well. Being in last place or close to it in league is "doing pretty well" to some of the kool aid drinkers.

[Unregistered]

I agree that GD doesn't tell the whole story. There are probably only 10 games out of the 100 played by both clubs with greater than -5 GD. Conversely there are 15 games that were tied with 0 GD and many losses of only 1 or 2. Honestly, to me it points to a need for consolidation. While I agree there are a couple of teams that do okay there are a few teams that shouldn't be in the league but are because they pay the money. I see it as the same money grab that is occurring throughout youth sports. There is no justification for any team to have a 1% winning ratio competing in a league as "elite" as ECNL. Obviously these teams do not need to travel very far to find competition that is appropriate. Quite frankly they might do much more justice to themselves by traveling to Washington for the occasional tournament. Clash at the Border is not the only tournament out there.

Well said and way to logical for the ECNL crowd. They don't understand that CU should have never been given a bid into ECNL. The teams there are clearly weaker and it's only a matter of time that they turn into something even more putrid. ECNL should pull the plug on CU soon. Tom had his little time in the sunshine, he failed and now should go back to screwing around the local scene. Can't wait for the Thusc paid lackeys to come on now and try to defend him.