ECNL R

I think you're misunderstanding your own point. ECNL chose that club *because they think they deserve it*. It's clear that you don't think they deserve it, and other clubs who wanted the spot are "more worthy". Some people might even agree with you. It doesn't change the reality that your beliefs on what should happen don't translate into what actually happens.
 
soccerdad247 said:
I would argue MLSN on the boys side is just as bad. The league has become nothing more than a glorified rec league for the most part as well - wins and losses don't matter anymore at U13/U14, mandatory playing times regardless if a kid has the level (or even comes to practice) etc....its all pay to play. You pay, you play...all the leagues are the same. MLSN is nothing more than a name that is being used to gobble up all the money out there under the guise of "player development" and "highest level of competitive soccer". And its working - you see all these clubs who now have the 2nd tier of MLSN (which, lets be honest, were just a bunch of NPL or ECNL-RL teams), marketing themselves as MLSN....and its clear parents are falling for it and happily handing over their $5-$6k. Look at some of the results from the 1st week of that tier 2 - 16-0 in some matches, lol.

Nothing will change as long as theres a half dozen or more different leagues all fighting for our money...all it means is everything is diluted and no one is truly good.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by MLSN is "bad". Data show that the league is thriving, more teams join means more revenue for the league. The clubs are happy because parents are lining up to pay $5-6k for their kids. Parents may come for bragging right, college applications, genuine interest in the game, kids happiness/mental health,etc. Whatever the reason is, the league is successful in marketing. From business perspective, the MLSN has not maximized their profits because there are many clubs and parents are desperate to join, ready to spend their money. The creation of MLSN2 is the solution for this. They may create MLSN3 if there are parents still want to join.
If the problem is level playing field, then the league has to solve it. If this keeps happening, another league will be created to solve this. You can say MLSN is "bad" when the league folds due to lack of participation (perhaps E64?even this still exists).

I guess you can say it is bad for US soccer development but that is not MLSN problem, they are a private, for profit business entity.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
I think you're misunderstanding your own point. ECNL chose that club *because they think they deserve it*. It's clear that you don't think they deserve it, and other clubs who wanted the spot are "more worthy". Some people might even agree with you. It doesn't change the reality that your beliefs on what should happen don't translate into what actually happens.
Click to expand...
Blahahahahahaha - oh ya, well I don't think you understand your counterpoint. For fucks sake...
 
joelandren said:
This is moronic statement. Most of these clubs have 3 or more teams per age group, they're not giving up all that revenue and dropping these Norcal teams.
Click to expand...

Many of the MLN clubs struggled to even get MLS2 teams together. There's a couple of clubs that have deep player pools, but not all of them do.
 
What we're seeing the past few weekends is that yes, some of the clubs are just playing a good portion of the same kids on multiple teams (MLS N, MLS2, and RL/NPL). The "MLS2" teams weren't necessarily created from whole cloth, and the new "RL" teams are often just renames of a prior NPL team as well. Creating new teams didn't magically create new kids (that's a different mechanism). All of these aren't going to thrive/survive for an extended period - it doesn't pencil out financially to have so many of the same kids on multiple teams rather than mainly 1 primary (while only paying for 1). I wouldn't bet on CalNorth, but by the same token I wouldn't bet against MLS.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
What we're seeing the past few weekends is that yes, some of the clubs are just playing a good portion of the same kids on multiple teams (MLS N, MLS2, and RL/NPL). The "MLS2" teams weren't necessarily created from whole cloth, and the new "RL" teams are often just renames of a prior NPL team as well. Creating new teams didn't magically create new kids (that's a different mechanism). All of these aren't going to thrive/survive for an extended period - it doesn't pencil out financially to have so many of the same kids on multiple teams rather than mainly 1 primary (while only paying for 1). I wouldn't bet on CalNorth, but by the same token I wouldn't bet against MLS.
Click to expand...
Seeing similar moves in southern CA with each higher team sending 3-5 players down a level (or two) each week for a second game depending on league guesting caps. These players are getting meaningful minutes in their primary game as well which makes you wonder how that is going to play out over the entire season.
 
I would like to return back to the discussion that seemed to start this thread, as it's become apparent that I either misunderstood the intent of these additional brackets, or NorCal seemed to say one thing and instead do something else. Now that some games have been played and it's more clear about who is where, here's the situation:

ECNL RL Boys NorCal 2025-26 (2011B) and ECNL RL Boys Golden State 2025-26 (2011B)

are now the two RL brackets at the top of Norcal 2011B. According to their press release, the "Norcal" division is the older traditional division, making it seem as if promotions/relegations and related policies that have been in place between it and NPL are still valid. And the new "Golden State" division is the newly created one, which is supposed to be the one given to existing ECNL clubs so they can create/maintain a second team and just always be able to put them there regardless of performance or anything else.

Seems plausible. But then you look at the teams/clubs that have actually entered in both, and the description falls apart. If you look in the Norcal division, the vast majority of teams are ones that performed poorly in NPL, and didn't come close to earning a promotion. MVLA 2011B RL is the single club in the entire bracket (out of 20 teams) that earned its way in by performing well in the NPL bracket the prior season. MVLA is also the only club represented in the Norcal division that carries an ECNL team as well. Otherwise, it seems that in all age groups, a good number of clubs were just newly gifted the RL berth regardless of prior performance. And yes - if you look at the new Golden State bracket, this comes a little closer to the intended description, where all of the teams are in existing ECNL clubs, and it's now clear that this is the place to put the 2nd team. So far this season we've seen the game results for quite a few of these RL teams in the Norcal bracket, and it's not a pretty picture. If people buy into this structure, eventually there will be normalization as talent jockeys for opportunities and moves to perceived greener pastures. But for now it's just weird, non-intuitive, and IMO doesn't show "RL" in the best light.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
I would like to return back to the discussion that seemed to start this thread, as it's become apparent that I either misunderstood the intent of these additional brackets, or NorCal seemed to say one thing and instead do something else. Now that some games have been played and it's more clear about who is where, here's the situation:

ECNL RL Boys NorCal 2025-26 (2011B) and ECNL RL Boys Golden State 2025-26 (2011B)

are now the two RL brackets at the top of Norcal 2011B. According to their press release, the "Norcal" division is the older traditional division, making it seem as if promotions/relegations and related policies that have been in place between it and NPL are still valid. And the new "Golden State" division is the newly created one, which is supposed to be the one given to existing ECNL clubs so they can create/maintain a second team and just always be able to put them there regardless of performance or anything else.

Seems plausible. But then you look at the teams/clubs that have actually entered in both, and the description falls apart. If you look in the Norcal division, the vast majority of teams are ones that performed poorly in NPL, and didn't come close to earning a promotion. MVLA 2011B RL is the single club in the entire bracket (out of 20 teams) that earned its way in by performing well in the NPL bracket the prior season. MVLA is also the only club represented in the Norcal division that carries an ECNL team as well. Otherwise, it seems that in all age groups, a good number of clubs were just newly gifted the RL berth regardless of prior performance. And yes - if you look at the new Golden State bracket, this comes a little closer to the intended description, where all of the teams are in existing ECNL clubs, and it's now clear that this is the place to put the 2nd team. So far this season we've seen the game results for quite a few of these RL teams in the Norcal bracket, and it's not a pretty picture. If people buy into this structure, eventually there will be normalization as talent jockeys for opportunities and moves to perceived greener pastures. But for now it's just weird, non-intuitive, and IMO doesn't show "RL" in the best light.
Click to expand...

And even the Golden State table makes no sense to me. You have ECNL clubs missing from it and you have Club America Stockton randomly in there. The NorCal appears to have some club based membership as well (I think their press release said this would be the case). I don't know what to make of any of this. I was hoping they'd create something so that there would be a soft landing for relegated ECNL clubs -- as that should be one of the goals -- to make ECNL more competitive.
 
Club America Stockton is the RL team coupled with the River Islands Surf ECNL team; they've just gone through a couple different name changes. But yes - both brackets are strange.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
Seeing similar moves in southern CA with each higher team sending 3-5 players down a level (or two) each week for a second game depending on league guesting caps. These players are getting meaningful minutes in their primary game as well which makes you wonder how that is going to play out over the entire season.
Click to expand...
One unexpected and unpleasant change for this fall is that guesting caps were removed from NPL (in NorCal). In prior seasons, you could only have 3 or 4 (I forget the details by age group) club pass players on the game roster, the rest had to be primary players. It was stricken from the rulebook in the offseason, so it's now completely kosher to have 18 guest players make up an entire NPL game roster, as long as they are affiliated with that club. Surprise - there have been games for some clubs where the roster for NPL games is now 75% guests, and the club is breaking no (NorCal) rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top