Scrub It Kook
SILVER ELITE
interesting. The ECNL website shows 3 leagues in Northern CA. El Camino FC for example has teams in ECNL, ECNL-RL-Golden State and ECNL-RL-NorCal (and then NPL on down). Is RL-Golden State team based or club based?
Socal named as Operator for National 1 League
- Thread starter shankbone
- Start date
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
Promotion/relegation is not a good solution for youth soccer. If an ECNL club is relegated, do all three levels (ECNL, ECRL SW, ECRL SoCal) get relegated one level each? What if a relegated ECNL club opens a big gaping hole geographically for areas served? Or if a promoted club sits right on top of another club? Promotion/relegation would create chaos in youth soccer and incentivize clubs to prioritize results over development.
Scrub It Kook
SILVER ELITE
Of note, some bigger clubs are putting their 3rd or even 4th teams into the third ECNL tier. SD Surf recently announced participation in the ECNL-RL-SoCal league, likely for one of their affiliate locations.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Golden State is supposed to be the club based one, where ECNL clubs can put their second team. Norcal is supposed to be the team based one, which has the more traditional pro/rel from NPL. But it gets weird when you actually look at who joined what. Earlier discussion on this here in this thread.
This is FUD, yet it has been sufficient to carry the day so far. The impact of not having it, means that ECNL can keep bottom-feeder teams around forever, as long as clubs are savvy enough to convince parents that it's a good learning experience for them to lose all games by 5 goals.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
And El Camino FC might not be the best example. They tend to put the same core kids in just about every team, and just name the teams differently.
Pro/rel in a CSL style team based open system (not ecrl halff assed pro/rel) is the best way to concentrate talents and allow talents to move around freely.
In the current system, talents are concentrated in MLS next free to play academies and once you are in they own you. MLS next HD pay to play, ECNL pay to play, MLS next AD pay to play are all the same and all fake pathways designed to make parents feel good about their kids until the time they apply for college. Then they realize none of these kids are going to good colleges and those that do are often getting less than 1/4 scholarships (boys side).
But can you really blame the clubs for doing this?Their primary goal is to make parents happy so their pay to play model can continue. All these fake elite leagues badges make people open their wallets.
The talent moving around freely is the problem part that destroys the economy of scale. In professional pro/rel talent can't just move if it wants to. It is locked in. It is property. To concentrate talent, you have to purchase it, which in return creates the market for talent and a salary for talent. Without that you aren't even building a meritocracy...you are just rewarding the coaches who can recruit the best and take the short cuts needed to earn trophies. To have it work you'd have to lock both players and clubs into their initial recruits and have them trade out from there. Parents and clubs would hate it because of you pick poorly initially you are SOL.
What’s wrong with rewarding coaches who know how to recruit? Initially it will be about recruitment, once a team starts to taste success, players flock to successful coaches. Also you can’t assume a team that prioritize results taking short cuts. You can’t even equate prioritizing results as bad for development. The starters who get the most playing time are developing just fine in a win first system.
You don’t have to bind players to a club to make it work. I am not advocating a professions pro/rel where players get sold. I am advocating a still pay to play but an open system where coaches aren’t tied to the club and any good coach can build a team and take it from bottom flight to top flight.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Pro/rel has been discussed ad nauseum here, just search and you can find all of the arguments for/against in any number of threads. IMO - it solves more problems that it creates, and on balance it would be helpful to add in the leagues that are currently operating without it (MLS N, ECNL, GA).
Formal/informal team-based pro/rel is in place in most all youth soccer, it's how teams go from bronze up through silver, gold, premier, etc. Every season a team that does really well tends to bump up a level, and in other cases a team that didn't do very well at all gets bumped down a level. It may not be a set "2 teams up, 2 teams down" formula, but coaches work to place teams in an environment where they can be successful.
This is common pretty much everywhere, up until the team (or player) reaches the highest levels of youth soccer, and once there - there is very little risk of the team ever being demoted/relegated. The leagues try to provide every justification for why this makes sense for them, which also keeps the process to remove poor performing teams completely opaque (and has everything to do with $, rather than performance).
Yes - it is also true that youth soccer at any level should never be optimized for most number of wins. It's not how to build younger teams, it's not how to run skilled teams, and even at the highest level - there is still a benefit for the club to build winning players rather than winning teams. Putting too much incentive on wins alone leads to poor outcomes, which is one of the reasons that MLS N has tried to not even count wins in the standings for some of the younger age groups. This concept of chasing wins, or taking shortcuts to wins, is often used to denigrate pro/rel at the youth level, but there is a difference between a team trying to get promoted, trying to be successful where they are at, and doing everything they can to avoid relegation.
Formal/informal team-based pro/rel is in place in most all youth soccer, it's how teams go from bronze up through silver, gold, premier, etc. Every season a team that does really well tends to bump up a level, and in other cases a team that didn't do very well at all gets bumped down a level. It may not be a set "2 teams up, 2 teams down" formula, but coaches work to place teams in an environment where they can be successful.
This is common pretty much everywhere, up until the team (or player) reaches the highest levels of youth soccer, and once there - there is very little risk of the team ever being demoted/relegated. The leagues try to provide every justification for why this makes sense for them, which also keeps the process to remove poor performing teams completely opaque (and has everything to do with $, rather than performance).
Yes - it is also true that youth soccer at any level should never be optimized for most number of wins. It's not how to build younger teams, it's not how to run skilled teams, and even at the highest level - there is still a benefit for the club to build winning players rather than winning teams. Putting too much incentive on wins alone leads to poor outcomes, which is one of the reasons that MLS N has tried to not even count wins in the standings for some of the younger age groups. This concept of chasing wins, or taking shortcuts to wins, is often used to denigrate pro/rel at the youth level, but there is a difference between a team trying to get promoted, trying to be successful where they are at, and doing everything they can to avoid relegation.
The problem is if you don't tie to the players to the club, no one is happy with stay where they are at. That's what happened to my kid's first club (and 1 of only 2 great coaches he ever had)....the best players would leave for the winning clubs so every year you had to rebuild. The stated goal of banding at the younger ages isn't to aggregate talent...it's to prevent blow outs of 20-1 which aren't fun for either team. The stated goal of banding at the older ages is to provide a forum where players can be evaluated for pro markets and college. If the former and the latter are the same (because levels create access) you are incentivizing the worst behavior at the younger ages because obtaining the highest banding is vital for recruitment. The clubs don't make money by developing or selling players then...instead they only make money by producing winning teams with access to college recruiters...so coaches are paid to do that. Sorry guys, unless you are prepared to either 1) knock college and pro recruiting completely out of the equation (like Europe) so that pro/rel doesn't have such big distorting incentives, or 2) lock players/clubs/coaches once they sign, it's never going to work.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
And that's the perspective from club operators. Anything possible they can do to bind kids to one club, for as long as possible, is helpful to their bottom line. Even if it runs counter to allowing players to try and move to a team they'd want to (and a team that they could make). Letting talent move freely doesn't necessarily result in 20-1 blowouts. It allows teams to compete fairly in attracting players; let the strongest clubs/teams win. Everyone can't move there, not only for roster size reasons, but for simple logistics.
The current system is actually less work for parents too. We already know the college soccer scholarship doesn’t exist anymore after NIL(especially on boys side). The prospect of turning pro is even less likely. Basically we are all just paying for weekend entertainment and prestige of the badge. Now if they go pro/rel and you actually have to work for the badge, it may become too much work for what it’s worth.
It’s the way the professional clubs operate. It’s why pro rel works on the pro level because it creates a value to the transfer. Without it you aren’t rewarding who has the best players or best development. You are just rewarding the club that can market to get tall kids at the early ages and then upgrade to keep their slots. From an economics point of view you are changing a system where the player has value (including negative value if you have to get rid of them) to one where the club holds all the power because players are free. Doesn’t work because college will distort the system throughout and will infect the younger ages, where it’s only about balanced play. In Europe where pro rel works on an amateur level is where there’s no money (college/pro ambitions) on the line. You can’t have a system where the stakes are high but players have no economic power…the wolves run the hen house.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I am nodding in agreement with most of your points. It's just that with the lack of fear of relegation, the "wolves" can do whatever they want in terms of keeping punching-bag teams around, for as long as they want, as long as the club is good on fees. There is no real incentive for a team or club to do whatever's necessary not to have a last-place team year after year. Changing the rule book to state that if a team performs below a certain level, it's no longer welcome, doesn't change the fundamental economics of the league.
The Soccer Dr
BRONZE
A great "experience" is what should binds a player to a team or club not a contract. The closed "club based" model serves the few who are in the desirable leagues but it makes clubs focus on the wrong things. The USSF claims it makes decisions to support the development of elite athletes, yet their decisions have the opposite effect. Closed leagues promote recruit and steal not development. Early specialization creates slower athletic development, leads to burn out, and causes more injuries. The DA gave birth to the closed "club based" model and it has had a detrimental effect on the game from the grass roots to the National team. Participation is below 2010 levels, the USMNT has not performed better - the stated goal of the DA - and the lack of access has led to the creation of the alphabet soup of closed club based leagues that has led to higher costs and more travel without better outcomes. The latest "Pathways" strategy is more of the same and highlights that the USSF has lost its way. Southern California is the number one soccer region in the US and we are the poster child for how not to build a healthy soccer ecosystem.
On the girls side specifically - the ECNL-RL is the little fiefdom - in Socal. And US Club/ECNL is adding to it with ECNL-Socal and most likely adding to it with this latest "original thread" plan.
Good reply and yes why not talk about Norcal - maybe that's a better way to do things. Socal and Norcal are definitley a bit different - just a ton more teams down south.
Selling the dream. The primary goal of clubs is to make parents happy - yes. The number of kids who can actually play is very small - and those kids are out of this whole scheme by age 10-11 (boys side).
If the structure is set up - and most club fees have gone up at least 25% maybe a lot more in the past 5-8 years - and everybody marches on grousing yet paying...
Bill would ban private equity 'vulture investors' from youth sports.
The bill, which would require private equity companies to divest from their youth-sports businesses, comes on the heels of a USA TODAY investigation.
www.usatoday.com
I doubt this goes anywhere but I admire the effort.
Geography is one of the key points. ECNL nominally has 'territories" but they add 2nd teams for prestige and deception (and most parents aren't that educated) - A lot of families drive all over for "elite" soccer instead of playing locally and developing.
Things that should get shut down by parent collective outrage - that doesn't happen
Stay and play tourneys. This should get eliminated. That's low hanging fruit. (there is some evidence this isn't holding up as well as clubs/tournament directors planned)
Kit and backpack packages should top out at 250-300 - it shouldn't be a profit part of clubs.
Clubs should be responsible for ref fees not parents (I know this one will get a lot of grief)