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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top