I believe you've stated the same point repeatedly (top teams in ECNL are good, bottom are particularly weak), but even if objectively true - the data just doesn't show anything different going on in ECNL, ECRL, GA, or even NPL. I looked at the 2010G and 2009G teams for ECNL SW, ECNL-R SW, GA SW, and NPL Norcal for fun. Here's what the gap in goal ratings are from the #1 team to the bottom team in each bracket:
ECNL 2010: 4 goals, 6 goals,
ECNL 2009: 5 goals, 4 goals
ECNL R 2010: 5 goals, 5 goals
ECNL R 2009: 5 goals, 7 goals
GA 2010: 5 goals
GA 2009: 3 goals
NPL 2010: 6 goals
NPL 2009: 2 goals
The closest from top to bottom was the 2009 NPL bracket, but in pretty much every other bracket - you can see the results above. The top team will beat the bottom team by 5 goals, give or take a goal - whether NL, RL, GA, or NPL. The belief that ECNL is doing something either different or nefarious to keep the top teams matched up against cannon fodder is either ubiquitous in every league, or it's as nonexistent there as anywhere else. It's certainly clear that the top teams (in NL, but also in RL, GA, and elsewhere) do attract a larger amount of the talent pool, allowing them to maintain and even strengthen their position over time. But there doesn't need to be a stated goal or specific actions to make it happen - it's what happens naturally, as kids and parents gravitate to the winning teams while the weaker teams have a harder time of retention and recruitment. Having a club with so many players that could make up a second NL team can be a problem for that club and those players, as they then have a choice to either go to RL or to sit on the bench for a huge roster. But immediately allowing 2 teams doesn't necessarily fix the problem as described either. It means there is another choice of team in the top league, keeping someone playing NL instead of bumping some down to RL - but in doing so bumping other NL players down to RL if the brackets stay similar sizes and the bottom team or teams do need to make the switch.
