ECNL vs. DA turf war has created a 'toxic environment'

vegasguy said:
Substitute US Men and MLS for women's and domestically for abroad and you have the US Men's argument for the last 20+ years. We as a soccer country are different and are a different as men and women development. It is ok to be different. There are a multiple ways to develop quality world class players. We need to embrace that instead of a "program".
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that. Isn't there always a "program" of some sort?
 
dk_b said:
I'm well aware of that - I was making no judgment on "deserving" and have a lot of strong thoughts that I would not share on this board about precisely this situation (GDA/ECNL/YNT). My main point is that the end game for nearly all elite-elite players is college soccer because only the tiniest fraction makes a NT and, comparing those two clubs (at least in those age groups), Mustang and Quakes are on par and the Mustang girls had the opportunity to play HS soccer if they wanted (and nearly all did). Other NorCal DA clubs in those age groups don't have close to the same measurable success in terms of college placement and those girls had no choice about HS soccer (since US Soccer made it for them) and a very, very small # (0 at most of these clubs) have been called into camp.
Click to expand...
I wasn't insinuating that you were... more just making the statement myself so nobody thinks I would begrudge any kid that is currently getting an opportunity. I totally agree regarding your point about college being the end game. However, for my DD, college is the beginning of the game because she does want to be on the NT and she most likely won't have that opportunity until she hits college because of her ECNL affiliation. One correction on the college success would be MVLA. MVLA would have similar if not same success college placement as Quakes and Mustang.
 
Dubs said:
I wasn't insinuating that you were... more just making the statement myself so nobody thinks I would begrudge any kid that is currently getting an opportunity. I totally agree regarding your point about college being the end game. However, for my DD, college is the beginning of the game because she does want to be on the NT and she most likely won't have that opportunity until she hits college because of her ECNL affiliation. One correction on the college success would be MVLA. MVLA would have similar if not same success college placement as Quakes and Mustang.
Click to expand...

I was clarifying, not taking issue. I could see that we were on pretty much the same page.

I was leaving out the MVLA group b/c I don't think the 01 and 02 groups have quite the college placement though it is really good. However, their very special 04 group will be really impactful. In fact, some point to that as a big ECNL/GDA/YNT example - they had multiple YNT players at past camps but the most recent one (I think) had zero. (The discussion of MVLA and Quakes that I like is more soccer-based since, in NorCal, it is hard to find better teachers of the game than Albertin and Andres)
 
espola said:
If the European countries ever get serious about women's soccer they will set up women's leagues better than NCAA D1, since they will not be worried about little things like getting passing grades in difficult subjects or finding funding for scholarships.
Click to expand...

Where will they get the players from? Some of these countries are small and we are talking a peak age range of 18-32. If you add up all of the top teams in all of the leagues in Europe you might have 40 teams maybe 50 and many of those players will be American. That still isn't anywhere close to the sheer numbers that even NCAA D1 has (320+ teams). Not to mention that the University of Arkansas women's team, for example, spends more than your typical pro team even has in it's budget.

I hope that they get serious about further growing the women's game so that it becomes economically viable, however, if Boris Johnson looking like he might come to power indicates anything then Europe is going backwards not forward.
 
MakeAPlay said:
Input limits potential output. The foreign academies do not have similar levels of players on the women's side and that has not changed in the equation. Statistically speaking there is no significant difference in professional baseball or hockey careers in our pro leagues between straight to the pros players and players that played any amount of college time if you remove the foreign born players.

The NWSL is not the chief development vehicle for the US in the 18-23 age range the NCAA is. Not to mention that US players can easily get on top flight professional European teams due to their lack of sufficient high end talent. You do remember that the North Carolina Courage won the ICC last year over Lyon right?
Click to expand...

dk_b said:
Hockey and baseball have well-developed minor league systems. And, still, I'd question whether those sports "do fine" except at the very top levels. What about the kid who gets drafted out of HS, goes pro and washes out? You know . . . like the vast, vast majority of pro ballplayers (currently, there are 40 rounds of the draft and 30 teams; that's up to 1,200 drafted every year. Then there are the international players no subject to the draft. There are also 1,200 on the 30 teams' "40 man rosters" (25 from the active roster + 15 minor league players). MOST do not make the top level (most don't even make AAA).

@Mullet also mentioned golf and tennis. Again, at the top levels - the players that casual observers like me hear about - they may make a great living. And, in a sense, if people are watching, the sports "do fine". But do the athletes? I'd question that all the pros in golf and tennis who had the opportunity to play in college but went pro instead - even a fraction of those pros - would not have benefitted from a subsidized education, joining the pro ranks later and/or turning their education into something else.

We run the risk of turning anecdote - Push, Horan, Moultrie - into trends or into representatives of the whole. Soon we will have a big group of soccer NT players who did not play HS but will that really be evidence that HS is bad for soccer development? I mean, if US Soccer is focusing on DA (as it is), the resulting sample is not really indicative of anything other than a clear policy for recruitment. The current senior players - and college age players in the older YNT teams - are likely more representative because they had choice. And most chose - overwhelmingly to play HS.
Click to expand...

The women on the current USWNT could have chosen to play Chess in high school instead of soccer and they still would have won the World Cup. In a amateur tournament we have the worlds best amateur development model with college. But how long will the Women's World cup remain a amateur tournament as professional leagues develop?

There were no youth leagues for girls in the UK until 1970. Other nations were also slow to allow girls to even play the game. The girls youth game in Europe is really only starting to grow and as I stated earlier, the Dutch women's team played in their first international tournament in 2009. To go from just entering a tournament to World Cup finalist in just ten years should open some eyes.
 
For the womens game in Europe- If the Euro clubs are paying better than NWSL - then for a while, you'll see lots of American women playing there. A pro league doesn't care where you were born. (Look at MLS - they have homegrown player advantages for teams - But all of the superstars are from other countries).
 
My kid is at Gothia Cup this week (played last year as well) and can see the growth of the youth game by the club teams from around the world attending the event. But the investment at the younger ages AND the reframing of team sports for girls/young women is much greater than a 10 year project. Until then, there will be countries making strides but it needs to be way broader.
 
timbuck said:
For the womens game in Europe- If the Euro clubs are paying better than NWSL - then for a while, you'll see lots of American women playing there. A pro league doesn't care where you were born. (Look at MLS - they have homegrown player advantages for teams - But all of the superstars are from other countries).
Click to expand...

But is that sufficient to grow at the base (youth) levels? In some countries that requires a cultural shift - not that they don’t support women’s athletics but that they support the opportunities for ANY 5 year old, 10 year old, 12 year old girl to play (not just the identified athletic ones). We have a developed sports culture here and for decades it has included girls. Other countries have a “soccer culture” but those are not the same thing. I’d love to see evidence that team sports participation rates in other countries are similar to ours. Title IX was - and continues to be - an amazingly powerful force. Are there similar laws elsewhere or do things need to happen organically? These issues are not simple - not to my tiny brain anyway.
 
dk_b said:
My kid is at Gothia Cup this week (played last year as well) and can see the growth of the youth game by the club teams from around the world attending the event. But the investment at the younger ages AND the reframing of team sports for girls/young women is much greater than a 10 year project. Until then, there will be countries making strides but it needs to be way broader.
Click to expand...

The USA has the population and the resources to support a dozen or more youth teams (both for boys and girls) that would be competitive in international play. We just have to find the WILL.
 
Mullet said:
The women on the current USWNT could have chosen to play Chess in high school instead of soccer and they still would have won the World Cup. In a amateur tournament we have the worlds best amateur development model with college. But how long will the Women's World cup remain a amateur tournament as professional leagues develop?

There were no youth leagues for girls in the UK until 1970. Other nations were also slow to allow girls to even play the game. The girls youth game in Europe is really only starting to grow and as I stated earlier, the Dutch women's team played in their first international tournament in 2009. To go from just entering a tournament to World Cup finalist in just ten years should open some eyes.
Click to expand...


Again I don't disagree with you. You still have to consider what financial commitment are the European countries going to make AND where are they going to get the players. We are talking about an age range of 18-32+ and in order to at least be the equals of our girls they are going to have to be in an organized system since about 10 years of age. Think about it, our girls that are playing college on average have been playing club soccer for 6-10 years prior to getting to college. One of the main reasons that so many European teenagers are Pro-Am players in their top leagues is because of the dearth of sufficiently developed players. It is just a numbers game. One of my daughter's teammates has been playing on her countries full national team since she was 15. That simply is no longer possible in the US due to the size of the player pool. Once, decades ago you could have a Mia Hamm playing with the US WNT at the age of 14/15. That simply isn't the case due to where we are in our soccer development on the women's side as a country. Heck England's starting GK is a SoCal girl born and raised who went to CS Fullerton!
 
MakeAPlay said:
Again I don't disagree with you. You still have to consider what financial commitment are the European countries going to make AND where are they going to get the players. We are talking about an age range of 18-32+ and in order to at least be the equals of our girls they are going to have to be in an organized system since about 10 years of age. Think about it, our girls that are playing college on average have been playing club soccer for 6-10 years prior to getting to college. One of the main reasons that so many European teenagers are Pro-Am players in their top leagues is because of the dearth of sufficiently developed players. It is just a numbers game. One of my daughter's teammates has been playing on her countries full national team since she was 15. That simply is no longer possible in the US due to the size of the player pool. Once, decades ago you could have a Mia Hamm playing with the US WNT at the age of 14/15. That simply isn't the case due to where we are in our soccer development on the women's side as a country. Heck England's starting GK is a SoCal girl born and raised who went to CS Fullerton!
Click to expand...

I think we are talking past each other a bit here.

I'm looking at and talking much further downstream than the current 18-32+ age range. I'm looking at the kids who are truly the next generation in Europe who will have grown up never knowing a lack of women's professional leagues and have watched this world cup. The infrastructure, system, acceptance AND expectations are now being laid by the pro clubs in general.

Also things have happened pretty quickly in short order elswhere. Japan won a world cup 8 years ago, lost in the finals 4 years ago and managed only one win in this years world cup. To go from US rival to escaping group stage to be eliminated in the first knockout game to a ten year startup in Netherlands. And lets not forget that this is only the eighth Women's World Cup. Mia Hamm is not even a grandmother yet so the women's game is still in its infancy internationally.

I believe going forward that European nations will no longer have any trouble developing a large and very competitive player pool that can match ours. Title 9 will always drive high achieving interest in club soccer but the college game will stagnate our development in comparison in the long run. Our over confidence and complacency will dig us a hole we not be able to climb out.
 
Mullet said:
I think we are talking past each other a bit here.

I'm looking at and talking much further downstream than the current 18-32+ age range. I'm looking at the kids who are truly the next generation in Europe who will have grown up never knowing a lack of women's professional leagues and have watched this world cup. The infrastructure, system, acceptance AND expectations are now being laid by the pro clubs in general.

Also things have happened pretty quickly in short order elswhere. Japan won a world cup 8 years ago, lost in the finals 4 years ago and managed only one win in this years world cup. To go from US rival to escaping group stage to be eliminated in the first knockout game to a ten year startup in Netherlands. And lets not forget that this is only the eighth Women's World Cup. Mia Hamm is not even a grandmother yet so the women's game is still in its infancy internationally.

I believe going forward that European nations will no longer have any trouble developing a large and very competitive player pool that can match ours. Title 9 will always drive high achieving interest in club soccer but the college game will stagnate our development in comparison in the long run. Our over confidence and complacency will dig us a hole we not be able to climb out.
Click to expand...

People have been saying the same thing for 20 years, yet nothing changes. Every four years fools like MAP freak out when France beats the U.S. in a friendly that our WNT wasn't even trying to win. There have always been a handful of countries that can compete with the U.S. in the short term, but they all come and go. The only constant is that the U.S. always stays at the top of the food chain. Always. Why is that?

Sheer volume. In the U.S., there are good reasons for 16-17 year old girls - and lots of them - to continue playing soccer. First, it is fun. Second, there is a legitimate financial reason for a lot of 16-17 year old girls to train and play hard, which is that doing so provides college opportunities that might otherwise not be available. In every other country in the world, it is virtually always a really dumb idea for a 16-17 year old girl to spend any significant amount of their time playing soccer, let alone giving up everything else and jeopardizing their future in order to play in a soccer academy. First, training all day every day is no fun. Second, a European or Japanese girl training hard at 16 so she can play soccer at 21 is the dumbest thing I've ever heard (and any remotely intelligent European or Japanese parent has ever heard) with the exception of maybe one or two players in an entire country, whereas it's a great idea for thousands of girls in the U.S. who are trying to improve their college prospects. As much as people denigrate college soccer, the U.S. will always have the advantage because of it. The U.S. will always have the sheer numbers - unless and until USSF "succeeds" with its GDA and, in doing so: (1) drives kids out of the sport in volumes by taking the fun out of it (e.g. the HS ban and relegating millions of youth girls to lower tier leagues due either to geography or the high cost of participation); (2) downplays the only legitimate reason a 17 year old girl should be playing so much soccer (college); and (3) injures the bulk of the talent like it did with the 6 U18 YNT players who played GDA and tore ACLs in a 12 month period. That last one was just for you.

There will never be enough money in women's soccer to tip the scales, because the sport just isn't that great. The Netherlands will never maintain a great team long term, nor will France. They will both fade like Japan, like Germany before Japan, and like China before Germany. Occasionally, a foreign academy will produce one or two circus jugglers who also happen to be tremendous athletes who can rival or exceed the best the U.S. has to offer. Sometimes those two plus their middling supporting cast will, on their best day, beat the U.S. But no one will ever be able to consistently put 11 studs on the field like the U.S., with more in the stable. It will never happen. Just like basketball. Just like softball.
 
End of the Line said:
People have been saying the same thing for 20 years, yet nothing changes. Every four years fools like MAP freak out when France beats the U.S. in a friendly that our WNT wasn't even trying to win. There have always been a handful of countries that can compete with the U.S. in the short term, but they all come and go. The only constant is that the U.S. always stays at the top of the food chain. Always. Why is that?

Sheer volume. In the U.S., there are good reasons for 16-17 year old girls - and lots of them - to continue playing soccer. First, it is fun. Second, there is a legitimate financial reason for a lot of 16-17 year old girls to train and play hard, which is that doing so provides college opportunities that might otherwise not be available. In every other country in the world, it is virtually always a really dumb idea for a 16-17 year old girl to spend any significant amount of their time playing soccer, let alone giving up everything else and jeopardizing their future in order to play in a soccer academy. First, training all day every day is no fun. Second, a European or Japanese girl training hard at 16 so she can play soccer at 21 is the dumbest thing I've ever heard (and any remotely intelligent European or Japanese parent has ever heard) with the exception of maybe one or two players in an entire country, whereas it's a great idea for thousands of girls in the U.S. who are trying to improve their college prospects. As much as people denigrate college soccer, the U.S. will always have the advantage because of it. The U.S. will always have the sheer numbers - unless and until USSF "succeeds" with its GDA and, in doing so: (1) drives kids out of the sport in volumes by taking the fun out of it (e.g. the HS ban and relegating millions of youth girls to lower tier leagues due either to geography or the high cost of participation); (2) downplays the only legitimate reason a 17 year old girl should be playing so much soccer (college); and (3) injures the bulk of the talent like it did with the 6 U18 YNT players who played GDA and tore ACLs in a 12 month period. That last one was just for you.

There will never be enough money in women's soccer to tip the scales, because the sport just isn't that great. The Netherlands will never maintain a great team long term, nor will France. They will both fade like Japan, like Germany before Japan, and like China before Germany. Occasionally, a foreign academy will produce one or two circus jugglers who also happen to be tremendous athletes who can rival or exceed the best the U.S. has to offer. Sometimes those two plus their middling supporting cast will, on their best day, beat the U.S. But no one will ever be able to consistently put 11 studs on the field like the U.S., with more in the stable. It will never happen. Just like basketball. Just like softball.
Click to expand...


You are just so stupid that you can't get out of your own way. Even your good points are stupid because of the crybaby victim who is delivering them. I suggest that you change your screen name. Too many people don't really care what you have to say because you are a fucking whiner.

Keep whining. Let's hope that you don't pass it along.
 
vegasguy said:
In an article about DA v. ECNL, USSoccer called DA a "program" and ECNL a league. Yes they are all programs but in the end they are also leagues.
Click to expand...

The statement summarizes US Soccer's view of ECNL. In fact, they viewed ECNL even more narrowly than just a "league", but a "college showcase league." They said that with a full amount of condescension, as if catering to college recruiting and college coaches was incongruous with elite youth soccer.
 
MakeAPlay said:
You are just so stupid that you can't get out of your own way. Even your good points are stupid because of the crybaby victim who is delivering them. I suggest that you change your screen name. Too many people don't really care what you have to say because you are a fucking whiner.

Keep whining. Let's hope that you don't pass it along.
Click to expand...

Funny, you seem to care quite a lot about what I have to say.

Speaking of not being able to get out of the way, what happened at your kid's sixth grade graduation? You might also want to change your screen name.
 
dk_b said:
I'm well aware of that - I was making no judgment on "deserving" and have a lot of strong thoughts that I would not share on this board about precisely this situation (GDA/ECNL/YNT). My main point is that the end game for nearly all elite-elite players is college soccer because only the tiniest fraction makes a NT and, comparing those two clubs (at least in those age groups), Mustang and Quakes are on par and the Mustang girls had the opportunity to play HS soccer if they wanted (and nearly all did). Other NorCal DA clubs in those age groups don't have close to the same measurable success in terms of college placement and those girls had no choice about HS soccer (since US Soccer made it for them) and a very, very small # (0 at most of these clubs) have been called into camp.
Click to expand...
We do have to be a little careful about drawing conclusions about the implementation of DA by the first two years. Just changing league badges doesn't automatically mean things fall into place right away and can be used as a predictor for how things will be the future. IIRC, the boy's DA program was considered dead two years in and they didn't have even have an ECNL equivalent. Mustang girls didn't have huge college placement success the years right prior to 01/02 (yes those two years are really, really strong) and the Quakes weren't even on the map yet as Deza had to drag his best players with him from Griffins to Force and then again to Earthquakes in order to create his 02-04 power groupings (which are extremely impressive). Prior to 01/02 I believe Force, Lamorinda and MVLA had significantly more recruiting success (all with YNT field player placements, Gothia success, Surf Cup Super Black titles, #1 state/national rankings, elite college placements). These things go in cycles (I know the younger Mustang teams are good as well but they are not on the level of the 01s/02s at this point. The Quakes have extremely strong younger teams and the infrastructure and developmental vision to maintain this as long as Deza is given power) so it will be a bit of a wait and see as to what will happen as things do eventually fall into place.

While I do hear you that at this very specific point in time it doesn't make much of a difference which league a player is in for college purposes and it is great that the ECNL kids get to choose, that could change as things evolve - especially if non-DA players are edged off YNTs and maybe even pushed away from NTC opportunities in the near future (geographic limitations not withstanding, US Soccer could just say "hey we think you have potential but you need to go join a DA team for us to take this any further"). In theory, DA will produce better players if they have similar talent as those players are getting 2-3 months more of development per year for four years. Maybe this doesn't effect the very best but what about those who aren't? How will college coaches view this developmental difference? I have honestly have no idea. There are still some non-DA boys getting offers and there are fewer of those scholarships to go around. Honestly the biggest losers in this 'feud' to me is that NPL kids aren't going to get much of a chance at all. College coaches just don't have the bandwidth to go see those kids play and they won't know what they are watching when they see it. It used to be the plenty of NPL kids were given college spots but now those showcases (and teams) are just going to be overlooked as the college coaches go straight for the ECNL/DA brackets.
 
If DA wants to squash ecnl- they can do one of 3 things:
1. Allow high school
2. Fully fund girls DA
3. Pay DA coaches a US soccer stipend in addition to their current pay. Then you’ll have the guys/girls coaching top ECNL programs fighting for DA jobs.
 
This is why it would be so much better to discuss these topics over beverages ... @offtopic - I completely agree with the cyclical nature of all of this. I used those two clubs simply because they are the initial grouping of GDA v ECNL (and those Quakes teams were ECNL DeAnza Force the season prior). But your depth is something I can get behind and I wish we could knock it around over a beer or coffee or some other cool beverage.
 
dk_b said:
This is why it would be so much better to discuss these topics over beverages ... @offtopic - I completely agree with the cyclical nature of all of this. I used those two clubs simply because they are the initial grouping of GDA v ECNL (and those Quakes teams were ECNL DeAnza Force the season prior). But your depth is something I can get behind and I wish we could knock it around over a beer or coffee or some other cool beverage.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add, @offtopic , that your comment re NPL is important. My other kids will prob remain NPL for various reasons. It means a much more challenging road if they want to get “seen”. I can think of a couple of notables from the Bay Area - including the daughter of a commenter on this board - who are D1 contributors and played NPL. If my other kids are good enough, they will try to follow their paths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top