Santa Rosa, Force, Davis, Mustang, Marin, Rage, San Juan, and MVLA are all there. Top half, but not dominant. Three out of four divisions went to non-ECNL clubs. (Pumas, Walnut Creek, and LGU)
I agree with the statement that there are usually some strong players from the valley. Strong high school teams are not a reflection of strong players though. With the exception of a couple SoCal teams I can think of from all the high school I have watched high school teams (not just in the valley but maybe especially there) that have success have one or two really talented soccer players who might go on to play in college and the rest are good athletes and they have a coach who knows how to leverage what they have. The basic economic dont seem to make sense for ecnl in th evalley though. Just not enough upper to middle class money there to pay that kind of money. because it is ridiculous amounts of money. I feel bad for parents who really think they will get college money out of it, or at least meaningful college money. The best valley kids have guest played with ecnl teams for years and I don't see why that just won't continue to be the case.Poaching? No one is kidnapping kids and forcing them to play soccer elsewhere. Players (and their families who can manage it) want to train and play with/against others who will make them better. There is a kind of gravitational pull that draws kids to the stronger teams that makes their time more worthwhile than spending it with less focused, less talented teammates. The Bay Area has enough population and density that talent clusters like MVLA, Mustang, San Juan, and Surf form and draw players from elsewhere, including from some of the other ECNL clubs. College players emerge from other clubs but the recruiting is easier for coaches through established pipelines. And that interest is stoked at the national events, not in league games between teams 30-360 minutes apart.
There are clearly good players in the valley as evidenced by strong high school teams from Clovis every year. Are their enough families there to support the expense of attending the national events and the out of state trips? That is the real question to ask if it makes sense for ECNL to include them in its league.
You’d bet money on 12 and 13 year old girls soccer? That’s some gambling addiction.That Pumas team won state cup and I would bet $$$ that they would beat every ECNL team in NorCal. If they ever disband a bunch of players on San Juan and Davis should pack their bags for the B team. San Juan is already super good...if they took the top 6 players from Pumas they would become the best team in the nation at that age group...which I know is totally stupid to think about for youth soccer, but I have time to burn. LMAO
You’d bet money on 12 and 13 year old girls soccer? That’s some gambling addiction.
I agree with the statement that there are usually some strong players from the valley. Strong high school teams are not a reflection of strong players though. With the exception of a couple SoCal teams I can think of from all the high school I have watched high school teams (not just in the valley but maybe especially there) that have success have one or two really talented soccer players who might go on to play in college and the rest are good athletes and they have a coach who knows how to leverage what they have. The basic economic dont seem to make sense for ecnl in th evalley though. Just not enough upper to middle class money there to pay that kind of money. because it is ridiculous amounts of money. I feel bad for parents who really think they will get college money out of it, or at least meaningful college money. The best valley kids have guest played with ecnl teams for years and I don't see why that just won't continue to be the case.
I will say I think the 09 age group has the most non ECNL quality teams compared to other age groups. Who knows how long it will last but plenty of solid or better non ECNL teams that age. Great for overall competition.That Pumas team won state cup and I would bet $$$ that they would beat every ECNL team in NorCal. If they ever disband a bunch of players on San Juan and Davis should pack their bags for the B team. San Juan is already super good...if they took the top 6 players from Pumas they would become the best team in the nation at that age group...which I know is totally stupid to think about for youth soccer, but I have time to burn. LMAO
Fair enough.Ya, I've got problems. Just joking...I would wager a beer on it for fun though! LOL
Guest playing is the best of both worlds and something kids/families with college-playing ambitions that are not at the ECNL clubs should actively pursue if they can make it work.I agree with the statement that there are usually some strong players from the valley. Strong high school teams are not a reflection of strong players though. With the exception of a couple SoCal teams I can think of from all the high school I have watched high school teams (not just in the valley but maybe especially there) that have success have one or two really talented soccer players who might go on to play in college and the rest are good athletes and they have a coach who knows how to leverage what they have. The basic economic dont seem to make sense for ecnl in th evalley though. Just not enough upper to middle class money there to pay that kind of money. because it is ridiculous amounts of money. I feel bad for parents who really think they will get college money out of it, or at least meaningful college money. The best valley kids have guest played with ecnl teams for years and I don't see why that just won't continue to be the case.
That's SJ south...not SJ from Folsom. Most ECNL teams are not playing NPL in spring it seems. SJ south is a decent side still but certainly not the main San Juan.Fair enough.
I think the San Juan/Pumas game will be the one to watch in NPL this spring. San Juan might cost you a beer.
Ugh. I was hoping for at least one year with all the top teams in one place. Still have 3 of the top 5, but not quite the same without SJ and Davis.That's SJ south...not SJ from Folsom. Most ECNL teams are not playing NPL in spring it seems. SJ south is a decent side still but certainly not the main San Juan.
How do you know that? With the advent of the ECRL there are very specific metrics used to promote clubs. FC Bay Area doesn't play in the ECRL and I don't think Placer has met those metrics.
Of course nothing would surprise me with ECNL doing this and going around everything they had previously laid out in terms of adding clubs to ECNL.
Logistically those two clubs are about ~150 apart...not sure how that would work as travel buddies.
Businesses don't "need to expand". History is littered with companies that failed relying on that trope. Most businesses do quite well as they are because they don't confuse business with a game of Risk. More importantly, you can't talk about this properly until you understand ECNL is just an association of its member clubs, so you need to look at the business interests of the members, not the league. Although they would certainly like to expand their own clubs if it means more profit, the last thing they want to do is help their competitors take their business to their detriment. Only when adding new clubs benefits existing ones does addition make sense. It is very simple.
Surf is a great case study and people who know what to look for could see the train wreck coming. Surf excluded other local clubs from ECNL because it didn't want to lose business, no matter how little or short term. That was the right decision for many years until it wasn't. Surf wasn't a "monopoly" in the legal sense, but it was kinda like that with elite girls soccer in SD. Go figure, it eventually suffered a similar fate to many monopolies. Specifically, although Surf's ECNL veto allowed it to establish impossible barriers to entry to competitors, its lack of innovation, the market inefficiencies it caused, and its failure to sufficiently consider the long term impacts of its decisions caused it to lose it's perch at the top, or nearly did but for sheer luck.
Fast forward to GDA. SD reached a point that too many customers existed for Surf to adequately serve enough of them. The area is too vast with too many people. It left a gap for other clubs to develop sufficient resources that, in turn, allowed them to provide consistent training and competition that was close enough to what Surf provided at reasonable prices, and often less of a time burden to get to practice and games. Time is money and unnecessary gas money is also money. when the 800-pound national gorilla US Soccer came to Surf's little fiefdom and threatened to crush ECNL like a grape, other clubs had their chance. Suddenly, all Surf's power and control over elite girls soccer vaporized, leaving Surf to panic and join GDA as a hedge against getting killed off completely. All this left Surf unable to control the commodity of elite girls soccer in SD, leaving it no choice but to do what it could to just to stay in the mix.
In hindsight, Surf and ECNL should have admitted a few clubs much earlier, which would have better allowed them to minimize the short term impact on customer loss. In fact, it might have helped business by relieving some of the financial burden on customers for travel and allowing them to charge the same price for a slightly better product. More importantly, GDA probably would have been over before it started because it would have lacked the leverage to make Surf (and Blues) bend the knee using other pretty good clubs as leverage for the hostile takeover. The funny thing is Surf and Blues were saved by US Soccer's utter incompetence, primarily its failure to understand this is all just a business, parents are customers, it is only works by keeping this in mind at all times. When a club like MLVA in NorCal told US Soccer to stick it, it was the best (or maybe luckiest) decision it ever made. Tophat, on the other hand, got what was coming to a bully that has never played nice with its neighbors but now relying on them for forgiveness. It's sad to see what is happening to them, but payback's a bitch.
When people like crushy poo lament that clubs have all the power, they have no idea what they're talking about. Parents collectively have all the power, but things move slowly. What people like him are really railing against, but too stupid to understand, is that they didn't get what they wanted regardless of how unreasonable and how little economic sense it made.
Are you new here?Love this! Great read.
Businesses don't "need to expand". History is littered with companies that failed relying on that trope. Most businesses do quite well as they are because they don't confuse business with a game of Risk. More importantly, you can't talk about this properly until you understand ECNL is just an association of its member clubs, so you need to look at the business interests of the members, not the league. Although they would certainly like to expand their own clubs if it means more profit, the last thing they want to do is help their competitors take their business to their detriment. Only when adding new clubs benefits existing ones does addition make sense. It is very simple.
Surf is a great case study and people who know what to look for could see the train wreck coming. Surf excluded other local clubs from ECNL because it didn't want to lose business, no matter how little or short term. That was the right decision for many years until it wasn't. Surf wasn't a "monopoly" in the legal sense, but it was kinda like that with elite girls soccer in SD. Go figure, it eventually suffered a similar fate to many monopolies. Specifically, although Surf's ECNL veto allowed it to establish impossible barriers to entry to competitors, its lack of innovation, the market inefficiencies it caused, and its failure to sufficiently consider the long term impacts of its decisions caused it to lose it's perch at the top, or nearly did but for sheer luck.
Fast forward to GDA. SD reached a point that too many customers existed for Surf to adequately serve enough of them. The area is too vast with too many people. It left a gap for other clubs to develop sufficient resources that, in turn, allowed them to provide consistent training and competition that was close enough to what Surf provided at reasonable prices, and often less of a time burden to get to practice and games. Time is money and unnecessary gas money is also money. when the 800-pound national gorilla US Soccer came to Surf's little fiefdom and threatened to crush ECNL like a grape, other clubs had their chance. Suddenly, all Surf's power and control over elite girls soccer vaporized, leaving Surf to panic and join GDA as a hedge against getting killed off completely. All this left Surf unable to control the commodity of elite girls soccer in SD, leaving it no choice but to do what it could to just to stay in the mix.
In hindsight, Surf and ECNL should have admitted a few clubs much earlier, which would have better allowed them to minimize the short term impact on customer loss. In fact, it might have helped business by relieving some of the financial burden on customers for travel and allowing them to charge the same price for a slightly better product. More importantly, GDA probably would have been over before it started because it would have lacked the leverage to make Surf (and Blues) bend the knee using other pretty good clubs as leverage for the hostile takeover. The funny thing is Surf and Blues were saved by US Soccer's utter incompetence, primarily its failure to understand this is all just a business, parents are customers, it is only works by keeping this in mind at all times. When a club like MLVA in NorCal told US Soccer to stick it, it was the best (or maybe luckiest) decision it ever made. Tophat, on the other hand, got what was coming to a bully that has never played nice with its neighbors but now relying on them for forgiveness. It's sad to see what is happening to them, but payback's a bitch.
When people like crushy poo lament that clubs have all the power, they have no idea what they're talking about. Parents collectively have all the power, but things move slowly. What people like him are really railing against, but too stupid to understand, is that they didn't get what they wanted regardless of how unreasonable and how little economic sense it made.
Nevermind I just read a whole thread about it lol
So ECNL rejected Tophat when DA folded and ECNL allows Concorde to have 2 teams per age group?
What politics are involved here , because Tophat was clearly the best girls program in the state, maybe in South ( excluding Texas ) when I lived in GA from 85- 2004ish
Makes you wonder if its ECNL not letting GA clubs in or if GA clubs are refusing to play ECNL.After first year of girls DA the ECNL offered clubs with teams in both leagues (e.g., Slammers) 2 teams in ECNL as an incentive to ditch DA entirely.
I have no direct knowledge of Tophat's situation but I've seen it mentioned here on the forum that Tophat got on the wrong side of the political game.
After first year of girls DA the ECNL offered clubs with teams in both leagues (e.g., Slammers) 2 teams in ECNL as an incentive to ditch DA entirely.
I have no direct knowledge of Tophat's situation but I've seen it mentioned here on the forum that Tophat got on the wrong side of the political game.
Is this just in talks or actually happening? I’d really think about bringing my DD back to Placer if it’s true.Expansion is coming. FC Bay Area Surf and Placer United joining ECNL for the fall. This has to be in pairs due to travel. No current ECNL club can stop norcal expansion this year. ECNL will set itself apart from the Norcal GA and Norcal MLS Next leagues this year by expanding teams.
Is this just in talks or actually happening? I’d really think about bringing my DD back to Placer if it’s true.
