Rant: League fracturing is asinine

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

I agree with this, and that's what I'm saying.

Additionally, the policies like "you must have a team at every age level within a league" are really destructive; this basically ensures that every league will have some clubs at each age level which will be garbage. Many smaller clubs (like my son's club) have a few competitive teams, and several more which are conceptually Flight 2 at best. Multiply that across an entire league, and you get garbage match-ups, even if/when there may be more competitive teams within walking distance of your club (but you cannot play them because of league fracturing).

Removing the cross-league play restrictions would at least give clubs a potential "way out", although I'm not sure how overall effective it would be. I know, though, that some of the regional operators are also disliked by clubs as well. It's a crappy situation all around.

I agree with the problem you're describing, but I'm not sure there's really a solution at the individual league level. MLS Next can't realistically tell clubs, “just submit whichever 2 or 3 age groups happen to be good this year.” You'd end up with 20 teams at one age, 11 at another and 6 at another. How do you even build a functional league around that?

I think that'll actually encourage more player hoarding/recruiting/poaching... to construct teams that would be good enough to field into the league...

Some requirement that member clubs field teams throughout the age groups is probably unavoidable or we can't make a league...

We don't need removal of cross-league play restrictions... we need removal and death of entire leagues... and consolidate around one...

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I think that's right. At the top level, all leagues have found it to be a necessary requirement to build and maintain a league (team at every competitive age). Along with the travel and expense requirements they are pushing on to participants, comes an expectation that there will be a full slate of competitive games each weekend that the club can reasonably meet. This generally means much of the club (and its relevant coaches) is often at the same place for much of the season. Secondary/Tertiary leagues below that get to piggyback on the infrastructure enough, so that it isn't as necessary. One example is ECNL-RL boys in Norcal. They established a bracket specifically to allow teams to earn individual promotion to RL, regardless of club.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Club levels as a whole meaning all age groups. Play each other at the same day. This is done so a single coach can have multiple teams. Then they just have to travel to one location. Also different levels play on a different day. This is so a single coach can coach multiple teams at multiple levels. Heres an example all ECNL club teams play on Saturday against another club and all the ECRL club teams play on Sundays.

Theres usually a coach that covers for other coaches if things get weird. But you see how things work. Its all designed to be the lowest cost / hassle for clubs. This is why single team Pro/Rel doesn't work in pay to play. I mean technically it could but clubs would have to forego the revenue of multiple teams which would never happen.

 

[Carlsbad7]

The easiest way to make cross league play happen is for US Soccer to take control of the college coachs and implement showcases themselves inviting all leagues to play.

Visability for playing in front of college coaches is what makes closed leagues valuable. Take that away by providing a single stop shop that college coaches can attend to view all the top players from all the top leagues.

Simple to do but US Soccer is lazy and fat right now.

matchups would be easy to do with the ranking app.

 

[Jamisfoes]

The easiest way to make cross league play happen is for US Soccer to take control of the college coachs and implement showcases themselves inviting all leagues to play.

Visability for playing in front of college coaches is what makes closed leagues valuable. Take that away by providing a single stop shop that college coaches can attend to view all the top players from all the top leagues.

Simple to do but US Soccer is lazy and fat right now.

matchups would be easy to do with the ranking app.

Too many parents are not informed about the amount of college scholarship available. There are no full ride scholarships for boys. For the most part, kids are getting 1/4 scholarships and to crappy schools. We really should only be playing for bragging rights and for the sake of competition. And to me that means CSL.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Too many parents are not informed about the amount of college scholarship available. There are no full ride scholarships for boys. For the most part, kids are getting 1/4 scholarships and to crappy schools. We really should only be playing for bragging rights and for the sake of competition. And to me that means CSL.

Theres more to it than the level of scholorship. Usually athletes get to pick classes first and they often have tutors. Also the landscape for boys and girls when it comes to scholarships is completely different. Hopefully they'll do something about all the 24 year old "freshman" foreign academy washouts.

What US Soccer needs to do is force all leagues to give up doing their own showcase events and take that over so all leagues can participate in a single showcase event. There can still be multiple showcases a year and there can still be multiple regional showcase events. The only differnece would be all leagues were invited and participation would be defined by ranking.

US Soccer just needs to tie letting them take over showcases with sanctioning.

If all showcases had all the leagues participating college coahes would be ecstatic because the number of events they need to attend would drop dramatically.

 

[Grace T.]

The easiest way to make cross league play happen is for US Soccer to take control of the college coachs and implement showcases themselves inviting all leagues to play.

Visability for playing in front of college coaches is what makes closed leagues valuable. Take that away by providing a single stop shop that college coaches can attend to view all the top players from all the top leagues.

Simple to do but US Soccer is lazy and fat right now.

matchups would be easy to do with the ranking app.

It's not just that. You'd have to decouple it from the MLS. Remember the MLS Academies are supposed to be creating pros (the side effect that their washout players are the ones picked up for D1 is just a side effect). The MLS tournaments are created for evaluation of those pro prospects in 1 place. So a US take over of the boys side and creation of all league college showcase would solicit yawns from the academies.

The other way to go would be MLS HG is just separate and drop AD, but the entire point of AD was to get the long benches in HG a place to play as well as the p2p clubs more revenue so unlikely to kill that cash cow. But without MLSN HG on the boys side, who is really going to attend the showcases (like who attends the EA one now)???

Doesn't work on the boys side. Again the problem is that the leagues are trying to be different things to different people and the priority for MLSN is developing pros and cannon fodder for them to practice, with everything else just being side benefits to keep those not selected in line.

 

[Grace T.]

I think there's convincing research out there (tho I'm sure you can find ones to refute it too..) that points to firstborns being better with academics (exactly for the reasons you mention: more one-on-one parental attention, parents read to them more, talk to them more, hear more adult language before siblings arrive and parental time gets divided...) but younger borns being better with sports (or arts/extracurriculars).

Academically:

• A large Norwegian study found that educational attainment declined with birth order within the same families.
• Another Norwegian study using essentially the entire population of 5th graders found that firstborns had a significant academic-achievement advantage in families with two, three and four children.
• National Bureau of Economic Research in the US has spelled the pattern out pretty clearly in a paper published in 2018: firstborns tend to have the highest educational attainment, second-borns next, third-borns next, and so on...

From sports / learned skill front...

• A 2015 paper, Sibling Dynamics and Sport Expertise, compared athletes at three levels: elite (senior int'l level), pre-elite (jr int'l or senior national level) and non-elite (below national). Elite athletes were more likely to be later-born children, while pre-elite and non-elite athletes were more likely to be firstborn.
• Then there’s the Hungarian researcher who decided before having children that he wanted to test his theory that elite ability could be trained rather than simply inherited. He and his wife (who agreed to marry for the purpose of conducting this lifelong experiment...) set out to see if they can make their 3 kids into master chess players. All three became exceptional players. The oldest became a grandmaster and the top-rated woman in the world at one point. The middle daughter also became an elite player but not as good as the first. But the youngest surpassed both and became by far the strongest female chess player in history.

Like you mention, parents for younger siblings know how to navigate the system... and also focus on what's important and cut out the noise and the FOMO and only do things that are "worth it" and is a higher ROI of time and money...

Michael Sandel in his Harvard Class on Justice every year conducted an experiment and asks those who are first born to stand up. It's usually between 65-75% of the class (he does it as part of his lecture on Rawls, Rawls' big point being that a lot of circumstances is just random happenstance of birth fortune including traits for work ethics, birth order, culture and obsession (e.g., autistics)).

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

One fun thing about those first-born statistics, is that among the highly educated families that successfully pursue Harvard, the average number of kids is *way* lower than the broader average. Which means that there are way more 1st borns there in the first place. There aren't as many 2nd or 3rd borns in the family, let alone ones that chose Harvard as well.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Michael Sandel in his Harvard Class on Justice every year conducted an experiment and asks those who are first born to stand up. It's usually between 65-75% of the class (he does it as part of his lecture on Rawls, Rawls' big point being that a lot of circumstances is just random happenstance of birth fortune including traits for work ethics, birth order, culture and obsession (e.g., autistics)).

I dont want math to get in the way of a good story but 100% of families have a first born, theres less second born, and even less 3rd born. The way this would carry more weight is by finding the number of first borns of a family of three that are atrending Harvard. Not simply saying first borns.

 

[Jamisfoes]

It's not just that. You'd have to decouple it from the MLS. Remember the MLS Academies are supposed to be creating pros (the side effect that their washout players are the ones picked up for D1 is just a side effect). The MLS tournaments are created for evaluation of those pro prospects in 1 place. So a US take over of the boys side and creation of all league college showcase would solicit yawns from the academies.

The other way to go would be MLS HG is just separate and drop AD, but the entire point of AD was to get the long benches in HG a place to play as well as the p2p clubs more revenue so unlikely to kill that cash cow. But without MLSN HG on the boys side, who is really going to attend the showcases (like who attends the EA one now)???

Doesn't work on the boys side. Again the problem is that the leagues are trying to be different things to different people and the priority for MLSN is developing pros and cannon fodder for them to practice, with everything else just being side benefits to keep those not selected in line.

Average pro salary in mls next is like $75k. Someone can provide the % of kids not washed out and make it to the senior team. It’s not that many. The washed out ones who make to D1 aren’t majoring in engineering. We really can only be playing for bragging rights and sake of competition.

 

[Grace T.]

I dont want math to get in the way of a good story but 100% of families have a first born, theres less second born, and even less 3rd born. The way this would carry more weight is by finding the number of first borns of a family of three that are atrending Harvard. Not simply saying first borns.

1. The studies do show the effect carries on to sole borns
2. He deals with this too. He asks the sole horned to sit down. It’s still well over 1/2. But the math point is well taken.

 

[Carlsbad7]

It's not just that. You'd have to decouple it from the MLS. Remember the MLS Academies are supposed to be creating pros (the side effect that their washout players are the ones picked up for D1 is just a side effect). The MLS tournaments are created for evaluation of those pro prospects in 1 place. So a US take over of the boys side and creation of all league college showcase would solicit yawns from the academies.

The other way to go would be MLS HG is just separate and drop AD, but the entire point of AD was to get the long benches in HG a place to play as well as the p2p clubs more revenue so unlikely to kill that cash cow. But without MLSN HG on the boys side, who is really going to attend the showcases (like who attends the EA one now)???

Doesn't work on the boys side. Again the problem is that the leagues are trying to be different things to different people and the priority for MLSN is developing pros and cannon fodder for them to practice, with everything else just being side benefits to keep those not selected in line.

MLSN is just another league. People buy into the (justifiable) hype. The difference is MLSNs "power" is the connection to pro teams not college. Unfortunately on this pathway theres a lot of hands out looking to get greased and its in their best interest not the players to keep the pipeline closed off. If there wasnt so many hand out playing in US Soccer controlled showcases would make sense. Either way if there was US Soccer controlled cross league showcases I guarantee MLSN scouts would be there watching for talent.

 

[Grace T.]

MLSN is just another league. People buy into the (justifiable) hype. The difference is MLSNs "power" is the connection to pro teams not college. Unfortunately on this pathway theres a lot of hands out looking to get greased and it’s in their best interest not the players to keep the pipeline closed off. If there wasnt so many hand out playing in US Soccer controlled showcases would make sense. Either way if there was US Soccer controlled cross league showcases I guarantee MLSN scouts would be there watching for talent.

Pro scouts? No. They don’t even take their starting academies players let alone their benchers. Mlsn academy scouts? Absolutely but for Youngers and mostly to finals games. MLS pay2play team coaches? Sure again mostly finals…no one will be going to qualifying rounds and college showcases don’t become important until sophomore year anyways due to the contact rule. But there would be no incentive for existing Mlsn hg academies and p2p teams to go…again flex is a closed eco system and that’s where the college scouts will be. And without mlsn hg teams you won’t get the college coaches…best you can hope for is the ea college showcases before they all got demoted.

There’s also a logistics issues. Given the size of the pool they’ll have to be regional showcases before national ones. No one is going to the regional showcases without the mlsn academies present. You might get some mild interest for the national like the old ea showcase but that will mostly be d3s and will benefit only a handful of teams locked out of mls hg.

 

[Jamisfoes]

Kids in mls next hd and ECNL have their identity/self worth all wrapped up in them playing in the “best league”. Then over the short recruiting period in their junior year that image gets shattered by the crappy scholarship and crappy college offerings they get. ECNL is supposedly the college pathway but if you really want to go to a good school, ECNL pathway is a hindrance. The amount of effort and money spend on club soccer is all a waste.

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

I dont want math to get in the way of a good story but 100% of families have a first born, theres less second born, and even less 3rd born. The way this would carry more weight is by finding the number of first borns of a family of three that are atrending Harvard. Not simply saying first borns.

To me, for data, only children should be statistically removed from being counted as firstborns when comparing first born relative achievement vs later borns... I think the same benefit would apply to the only child as the firstborn in terms of attention and undivided resources... but it's not really in the mix of firstborn vs later born dynamic...

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

Too many parents are not informed about the amount of college scholarship available. There are no full ride scholarships for boys. For the most part, kids are getting 1/4 scholarships and to crappy schools. We really should only be playing for bragging rights and for the sake of competition. And to me that means CSL.

Unfortunately, I think folks are misinformed on both ends...

Yes, the scholarships are super limited... and as @Grace T. points out, desirable D1 scholarships go to MLS academy standouts who were pretty good but not quite pro level... At places like Cal, or Stanford, or UCLA it's littered with academy kids... all their rosters and bios are online so it's an eye opening exercise to see who gets roster spots at these places...

BUT IT'S WAY WORSE THAN THAT... most of the desirable D1 schools recruit 50%+ from overseas...
Take the current UCLA roster for example: https://uclabruins.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster

16 out of 30 on the roster are from overseas (mainly Germany and Spain).

Of the 14 American players:
8 MLS academy
3 club
2 transfer
1 USL

So only 3 kids on UCLA roster played "regular club" but they were all players of the year in their state playing MLS Next or ECNL or on nationwide all star teams...

Now the ones who get the scholarship are doing OK.. Much better than 1/4 tuition to crappy schools.

I know a kid who played a non MLS academy here in SoCal and got a scholarship to a really good UC.

His offer was:
- tuition paid (this is doable since for in state it's like $18k)
- no room and board paid BUT gave him a $3k/mo stipend to spend on room or food or whatever
- then you're left with books and some incidentals which he worked a part time job and parents helped to cover

4 years and left with a great UC degree and no debt.

And even if there's no D1 offer, it's a great way to get into a high academic D3 and being a recruited athlete vs being a regular admit is a world of difference... Kids are stressed as heck into senior year but a recruited athlete (despite not being a scholarship-ed athlete) has coach's commitment and apply early decision and you have your acceptance before Christmas... and somehow even tho there is no "scholarship", the financial aid package looks surprisingly generous for the amount of money your parents make...

In summary, D1 offers are really really difficult and it shouldn't be in the calculus for most families...
But there are tangible benefits of being a recruited athlete even if you're not going to Stanford on a full ride...

 

[Jamisfoes]

Unfortunately, I think folks are misinformed on both ends...

Yes, the scholarships are super limited... and as @Grace T. points out, desirable D1 scholarships go to MLS academy standouts who were pretty good but not quite pro level... At places like Cal, or Stanford, or UCLA it's littered with academy kids... all their rosters and bios are online so it's an eye opening exercise to see who gets roster spots at these places...

BUT IT'S WAY WORSE THAN THAT... most of the desirable D1 schools recruit 50%+ from overseas...
Take the current UCLA roster for example: https://uclabruins.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster

16 out of 30 on the roster are from overseas (mainly Germany and Spain).

Of the 14 American players:
8 MLS academy
3 club
2 transfer
1 USL

So only 3 kids on UCLA roster played "regular club" but they were all players of the year in their state playing MLS Next or ECNL or on nationwide all star teams...

Now the ones who get the scholarship are doing OK.. Much better than 1/4 tuition to crappy schools.

I know a kid who played a non MLS academy here in SoCal and got a scholarship to a really good UC.

His offer was:
- tuition paid (this is doable since for in state it's like $18k)
- no room and board paid BUT gave him a $3k/mo stipend to spend on room or food or whatever
- then you're left with books and some incidentals which he worked a part time job and parents helped to cover

4 years and left with a great UC degree and no debt.

And even if there's no D1 offer, it's a great way to get into a high academic D3 and being a recruited athlete vs being a regular admit is a world of difference... Kids are stressed as heck into senior year but a recruited athlete (despite not being a scholarship-ed athlete) has coach's commitment and apply early decision and you have your acceptance before Christmas... and somehow even tho there is no "scholarship", the financial aid package looks surprisingly generous for the amount of money your parents make...

In summary, D1 offers are really really difficult and it shouldn't be in the calculus for most families...
But there are tangible benefits of being a recruited athlete even if you're not going to Stanford on a full ride...

Unfortunately, I think folks are misinformed on both ends...

Yes, the scholarships are super limited... and as @Grace T. points out, desirable D1 scholarships go to MLS academy standouts who were pretty good but not quite pro level... At places like Cal, or Stanford, or UCLA it's littered with academy kids... all their rosters and bios are online so it's an eye opening exercise to see who gets roster spots at these places...

BUT IT'S WAY WORSE THAN THAT... most of the desirable D1 schools recruit 50%+ from overseas...
Take the current UCLA roster for example: https://uclabruins.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster

16 out of 30 on the roster are from overseas (mainly Germany and Spain).

Of the 14 American players:
8 MLS academy
3 club
2 transfer
1 USL

So only 3 kids on UCLA roster played "regular club" but they were all players of the year in their state playing MLS Next or ECNL or on nationwide all star teams...

Now the ones who get the scholarship are doing OK.. Much better than 1/4 tuition to crappy schools.

I know a kid who played a non MLS academy here in SoCal and got a scholarship to a really good UC.

His offer was:
- tuition paid (this is doable since for in state it's like $18k)
- no room and board paid BUT gave him a $3k/mo stipend to spend on room or food or whatever
- then you're left with books and some incidentals which he worked a part time job and parents helped to cover

4 years and left with a great UC degree and no debt.

And even if there's no D1 offer, it's a great way to get into a high academic D3 and being a recruited athlete vs being a regular admit is a world of difference... Kids are stressed as heck into senior year but a recruited athlete (despite not being a scholarship-ed athlete) has coach's commitment and apply early decision and you have your acceptance before Christmas... and somehow even tho there is no "scholarship", the financial aid package looks surprisingly generous for the amount of money your parents make...

In summary, D1 offers are really really difficult and it shouldn't be in the calculus for most families...
But there are tangible benefits of being a recruited athlete even if you're not going to Stanford on a full ride...

The thing with D3 is you won’t get an offer if you major in pre-med or engineering. The coach knows the likelihood of you quitting the team is greater if you take difficult classes.

It becomes a debate of why you are going to a college, are you there for education or there to play soccer?

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

The difference is MLSNs "power" is the connection to pro teams not college.

"Connections" to pro teams really don't mean anything for 99% of MLS Next players...

And Fest and Cup seem like great events where lots of college scouts and coaches attend so...

 

[Grace T.]

The thing with D3 is you won’t get an offer if you major in pre-med or engineering. The coach knows the likelihood of you quitting the team is greater if you take difficult classes.

It becomes a debate of why you are going to a college, are you there for education or there to play soccer?

My kid actually ran into the same issue for Film of all things. Too many weekend shoots. Knew he'd drop soccer when he was vying for a capstone directing or writing project at the end of sophomore year. Maybe the sole exceptions to this rule are Caltech and MIT.

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

The thing with D3 is you won’t get an offer if you major in pre-med or engineering. The coach knows the likelihood of you quitting the team is greater if you take difficult classes.

It becomes a debate of why you are going to a college, are you there for education or there to play soccer?

Well there might be some truth to that... but D3 philosophically emphasizes academics first then athletics so I think it's a coach by coach thing even if it's remotely true that they don't prefer hard majors...

I don't think "you won't get an offer if you major in pre-med or engineering" is accurate.

As an example, these are all D3 schools with men's soccer and it's kind of hard to avoid pre-med/engineering at these schools.. it's basically all pre-med or engineering haha... (ok some econ and business mixed in)

• MIT
• Carnegie Mellon
• Johns Hopkins
• Washington University in St. Louis
• University of Chicago
• Emory