Socal named as Operator for National 1 League

That's unfortunately the situation - the weaker teams in Norcal RL are *really* weak. The #1 team in that 2010B bracket is at #25 in state, and would be expected to beat them (the last place team) by 8 goals. I can't see anyone arguing with a straight face that they shouldn't be relegated to a lower bracket where they may be able to better compete.

There's nothing to tell about SoCal until they lay out what they actually have in mind about pro/rel between RL & RL Socal, and RL Socal and N1L. I can't find anything documented about it in the ECNL or ECNL-RL rules.
 
CleatSniffer said:
Just for my own education is it possible for a Club's ECRL team and their ECRL II (or NPL) team play in ECRL if the ECRL II (or NPL) gets promoted? Or is it blocked like how Barcelona B cannot go to La Liga even if they win La Liga 2?
Click to expand...
The clubs have access to the leagues and place teams accordingly. Players are then promoted and relegated to various levels vs the entire team based on performance.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
The clubs have access to the leagues and place teams accordingly. Players are then promoted and relegated to various levels vs the entire team based on performance.
Click to expand...
So in NorCal if an NPL1 team finishes at the top of their league, the team doesn't get promoted, just players? So the recently promoted NPL1 kids go to their clubs ECRL team that's in the ECRL tier and then they dump the ECRL kids to where? The NPL1 team which stays in the NPL1? That's confusing.

Or are you saying clubs in general manage players by moving them around? That is not what I am talking about. I understand that some kids move up/down at year end.
 
He's not describing norcal. He's explaining how socal - which doesn't have pro/rel - deals with players that are performing at a level too low (or too high) for their current team placement.

In NorCal, it will happen exactly as you describe. A high-performing NPL1 team will move to RL. A low-performing RL team will move down to NPL (now called N1L).
 
I figured. It was just such a random comment that had nothing to do with the topic at hand I tried to rationalize it into something that fit the conversation and it sounded crazy written out.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
He's not describing norcal. He's explaining how socal - which doesn't have pro/rel - deals with players that are performing at a level too low (or too high) for their current team placement.
Click to expand...
Well, sorta for SoCal. What actually happens, at least in my experience:

Players are almost never "demoted" from their current teams, as this would encourage them to seek other clubs, so clubs almost never do this. The general "workaround" is that as age groups go higher, more higher leagues "open up", and players/teams which are under-performing are simply held in place. So for example, a team playing Flight 1 at U10, which is still playing Flight 1 at U15, has effectively gone down 2+ levels (compared to other teams, where they would have moved F1 -> NPL -> letter league in that same time).

Players who participate in 1-1 sessions with coaches often get elevated beyond their ability, to keep them paying for such. One could speculate that there are some two-directional incentives there too (ie: to demonstrate the value of the 1-1 training, the player would be elevated based on their "improvement" from such).

Players feel pressure to play on "letter league" teams, and if/when their clubs don't have them, they often leave for clubs/teams in those leagues, even if it may mean less playing time, less local practices, a worse environment, etc. This is in addition to the standard way players would "move up" in levels, by moving to clubs with teams at higher levels (eg: ECRL/ECNL primarily, as these are tightly controlled ecosystems of clubs).

That's what I see in my son's club, anyway.
 
Makes sense. It's no different here (NorCal), or many other places as well, I imagine - as clubs often have higher level teams available in the olders compared to the youngers. One thing that has changed over the years is that more and more clubs now have a clearly denoted "top team" even down to U8, and names them Pre-MLS or Pre-ECNL. Kids on that team generally have the opportunity to stay with that top team, as it continues to be placed in the highest available league for that age. Some clubs also consistently play that top team up one year, sometimes all the way to U12. So the U8 top "Pre-MLS" team plays U9. But the U8 "Pre-MLS2" team plays the same highest available league, but at U8. Bay Area Surf is one of the better known clubs that sets themself up this way.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
He's not describing norcal. He's explaining how socal - which doesn't have pro/rel - deals with players that are performing at a level too low (or too high) for their current team placement.

In NorCal, it will happen exactly as you describe. A high-performing NPL1 team will move to RL. A low-performing RL team will move down to NPL (now called N1L).
Click to expand...
Yes, apologies. That is largely how SoCal has functioned. Random's post earlier with the De Anza Force example was an interesting one in terms of how the pro/rel is functioning.

SoCal put out an FAQ with the below.

"Q: Could you please clarify if the promotion of N1 goes into RL Southwest or RL SoCal?
A: From our understanding, the clubs that meet the criteria would be accepted into the ECNL-RL (Southwest). This will hopefully be defined shortly by the ECNL."
 
sigmabody said:
Players who participate in 1-1 sessions with coaches often get elevated beyond their ability, to keep them paying for such. One could speculate that there are some two-directional incentives there too (ie: to demonstrate the value of the 1-1 training, the player would be elevated based on their "improvement" from such).
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, there are still coaches with enough integrity not to offer private training sessions to players on their own team. In my experience, the coaches who blur that line by pushing privates eventually develop a bad reputation. I know one who lost his team because of this and couldn’t get another job. DOCs all talk to each other, if enough parents complain, it will get you fired.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
Yes, apologies. That is largely how SoCal has functioned. Random's post earlier with the De Anza Force example was an interesting one in terms of how the pro/rel is functioning.

SoCal put out an FAQ with the below.

"Q: Could you please clarify if the promotion of N1 goes into RL Southwest or RL SoCal?
A: From our understanding, the clubs that meet the criteria would be accepted into the ECNL-RL (Southwest). This will hopefully be defined shortly by the ECNL."
Click to expand...
I don't see any evidence ECNL gonna open up their RL SoCal and definitely not thier RL Southwest (2nd tier to ECNL)

This is all window dressing to try to get market share versus GA/DPL on the girls (that's most likely working ok) and MLS Next/EA on the boys (that's most likely not working at all)
 
shankbone said:
I don't see any evidence ECNL gonna open up their RL SoCal and definitely not thier RL Southwest (2nd tier to ECNL)

This is all window dressing to try to get market share versus GA/DPL on the girls (that's most likely working ok) and MLS Next/EA on the boys (that's most likely not working at all)
Click to expand...
Hit reply by accident. The only promise is the best performing teams can play in the ECRL tourney at the end of the season. No promotion talk anywhere - that's just been perculating on this thread.
 
Jamisfoes said:
Believe it or not, there are still coaches with enough integrity not to offer private training sessions to players on their own team. In my experience, the coaches who blur that line by pushing privates eventually develop a bad reputation. I know one who lost his team because of this and couldn’t get another job. DOCs all talk to each other, if enough parents complain, it will get you fired.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain that every coach in my son's entire club has pitched private sessions to some players on their current teams (and I've been suggested this directly by at least one of his coaches). They are not pushy about it, but it comes up in player reviews, and it seems to be accepted as a method by which parents can ensure their kids get on higher-level teams (and I know of one kid for which this was the case). This type of quid pro quo seems to be the generally accepted reality of the business.
 
sigmabody said:
I'm fairly certain that every coach in my son's entire club has pitched private sessions to some players on their current teams (and I've been suggested this directly by at least one of his coaches). They are not pushy about it, but it comes up in player reviews, and it seems to be accepted as a method by which parents can ensure their kids get on higher-level teams (and I know of one kid for which this was the case). This type of quid pro quo seems to be the generally accepted reality of the business.
Click to expand...
Was a little surprised to hear a club director directly recommend one of his coaches for privates on a town hall the other night.
Especially considering more than one does privates. Also got a chuckle out of him implying coaches may not be reporting income since they get coaches fees in cash /venmk
 
sigmabody said:
I'm fairly certain that every coach in my son's entire club has pitched private sessions to some players on their current teams (and I've been suggested this directly by at least one of his coaches). They are not pushy about it, but it comes up in player reviews, and it seems to be accepted as a method by which parents can ensure their kids get on higher-level teams (and I know of one kid for which this was the case). This type of quid pro quo seems to be the generally accepted reality of the business.
Click to expand...
It’s up to the parents to speak up. Go talk to the DOC or write an anonymous email. If enough parents complain, they will put a stop to this practice. Before you join a team, ask the coach if he offers private lessons. A coach with integrity will tell you he does but not to kids on his team.
 
Got a bit more info on the NPL -> N1L transition from my son's club. I don't think this was posted here yet (and apologies if it was and I missed), but might be interesting to some.

To "stay" in N1L, a team must have a reasonable record (unspecified, but aligns with the "not bottom three" mentioned before), but must also have 8 or more players returning from the former NPL team. This disqualified over half of our club's former NPL teams, particularly with the age changes this year.

Maybe more interesting was the club's perspective on the whole N1L integration change with ECNL, though, as stated:

There's no current promotion path into ECRL+ from N1L (just the "opportunity" for high N1L to maybe play some of those lower teams); ECNL is a walled garden of existing large member clubs, who will preserve this to poach the good players (as the only chance for them to move "up"). SoCal League is being encouraged to preserve this, by not allowing players registered in any external leagues to play in their league at all (basically, to try to coerce clubs to not seek alternative paths like EA/MLSN, as this creates an internal wall for their players). More materially, the club also views this structure as a "dead end path" for team/club progression: by playing in SoCal League, you're essentially designating and limiting your club as a "feeder club" for the clubs in ECNL (and if you get good enough, your good players will just be forced to leave). This is considered an unacceptable state for the club, which aspires to have high-level teams within the club.

As a result, the club will be looking to move away from SoCal League, focus on EA+ on the boys side (and DPL on the girls side), and seek alternative leagues for lower teams (eg: PSSLU). This won't happen completely immediately (momentum), but they seem convinced that future SoCal League participation will be detrimental to the club, given the "pathway" which ECNL clubs are pushing, and they intend to try to avoid it entirely in the future.

I'm unsure how much this applies to any other clubs, but it certainly feels like this is going to push the wedge further between the different competing pathways, given the club's perspective. I suppose this is an opportunity for expansion of competing leagues now.
 
sigmabody said:
As a result, the club will be looking to move away from SoCal League, focus on EA+ on the boys side (and DPL on the girls side), and seek alternative leagues for lower teams (eg: PSSLU). This won't happen completely immediately (momentum), but they seem convinced that future SoCal League participation will be detrimental to the club, given the "pathway" which ECNL clubs are pushing, and they intend to try to avoid it entirely in the future.
Click to expand...
Kudos to the club. Wish more clubs would have a backbone like them.
 
sigmabody said:
Got a bit more info on the NPL -> N1L transition from my son's club. I don't think this was posted here yet (and apologies if it was and I missed), but might be interesting to some.

To "stay" in N1L, a team must have a reasonable record (unspecified, but aligns with the "not bottom three" mentioned before), but must also have 8 or more players returning from the former NPL team. This disqualified over half of our club's former NPL teams, particularly with the age changes this year.

Maybe more interesting was the club's perspective on the whole N1L integration change with ECNL, though, as stated:

There's no current promotion path into ECRL+ from N1L (just the "opportunity" for high N1L to maybe play some of those lower teams); ECNL is a walled garden of existing large member clubs, who will preserve this to poach the good players (as the only chance for them to move "up"). SoCal League is being encouraged to preserve this, by not allowing players registered in any external leagues to play in their league at all (basically, to try to coerce clubs to not seek alternative paths like EA/MLSN, as this creates an internal wall for their players). More materially, the club also views this structure as a "dead end path" for team/club progression: by playing in SoCal League, you're essentially designating and limiting your club as a "feeder club" for the clubs in ECNL (and if you get good enough, your good players will just be forced to leave). This is considered an unacceptable state for the club, which aspires to have high-level teams within the club.

As a result, the club will be looking to move away from SoCal League, focus on EA+ on the boys side (and DPL on the girls side), and seek alternative leagues for lower teams (eg: PSSLU). This won't happen completely immediately (momentum), but they seem convinced that future SoCal League participation will be detrimental to the club, given the "pathway" which ECNL clubs are pushing, and they intend to try to avoid it entirely in the future.

I'm unsure how much this applies to any other clubs, but it certainly feels like this is going to push the wedge further between the different competing pathways, given the club's perspective. I suppose this is an opportunity for expansion of competing leagues now.
Click to expand...
this is the funniest thing I've read on the forums. We're less than a decade from the implosion of coast and the migration of all the clubs to Socal and now there's talk about a new path forward (PSSLU or otherwise?) I suppose the reality is that as long as there's this age line separating MLS/EA & ECNL/ECRL from the youngers it's always going to be unstable. There's always going to be this economic problem as long as you have closed systems about middle clubs not wanting to be feeders for the big letter leaguers but not having a place where they can compete themselves (otherwise coast would have survived and kept going). The choices seem to be the Socal Elite model (which is what your club is choosing to do) or the Ole model (focus on the youngers and becoming the best feeder you can be).
 
Doesn't matter if you play NPL, SoCal, DPL or PSSLU. If a kid is good and wants to move on they will move on. I would be more concerned with club directors at small clubs that DON'T want a player to progress in their development by moving on to a larger club and are intentionally holding back their development.
 
Grace T. said:
this is the funniest thing I've read on the forums. We're less than a decade from the implosion of coast and the migration of all the clubs to Socal and now there's talk about a new path forward (PSSLU or otherwise?) I suppose the reality is that as long as there's this age line separating MLS/EA & ECNL/ECRL from the youngers it's always going to be unstable. There's always going to be this economic problem as long as you have closed systems about middle clubs not wanting to be feeders for the big letter leaguers but not having a place where they can compete themselves (otherwise coast would have survived and kept going). The choices seem to be the Socal Elite model (which is what your club is choosing to do) or the Ole model (focus on the youngers and becoming the best feeder you can be).
Click to expand...
The A team parents have their MLS next HD and ECNL. The B, C and D team parents need a reason to keep paying for club soccer. Let them create all the pathways they want. All these fake pathways are keeping players in soccer. It’s a good thing if you look at it from that perspective.
 
sigmabody said:
Got a bit more info on the NPL -> N1L transition from my son's club. I don't think this was posted here yet (and apologies if it was and I missed), but might be interesting to some.

To "stay" in N1L, a team must have a reasonable record (unspecified, but aligns with the "not bottom three" mentioned before), but must also have 8 or more players returning from the former NPL team. This disqualified over half of our club's former NPL teams, particularly with the age changes this year.

Maybe more interesting was the club's perspective on the whole N1L integration change with ECNL, though, as stated:

There's no current promotion path into ECRL+ from N1L (just the "opportunity" for high N1L to maybe play some of those lower teams); ECNL is a walled garden of existing large member clubs, who will preserve this to poach the good players (as the only chance for them to move "up"). SoCal League is being encouraged to preserve this, by not allowing players registered in any external leagues to play in their league at all (basically, to try to coerce clubs to not seek alternative paths like EA/MLSN, as this creates an internal wall for their players). More materially, the club also views this structure as a "dead end path" for team/club progression: by playing in SoCal League, you're essentially designating and limiting your club as a "feeder club" for the clubs in ECNL (and if you get good enough, your good players will just be forced to leave). This is considered an unacceptable state for the club, which aspires to have high-level teams within the club.

As a result, the club will be looking to move away from SoCal League, focus on EA+ on the boys side (and DPL on the girls side), and seek alternative leagues for lower teams (eg: PSSLU). This won't happen completely immediately (momentum), but they seem convinced that future SoCal League participation will be detrimental to the club, given the "pathway" which ECNL clubs are pushing, and they intend to try to avoid it entirely in the future.

I'm unsure how much this applies to any other clubs, but it certainly feels like this is going to push the wedge further between the different competing pathways, given the club's perspective. I suppose this is an opportunity for expansion of competing leagues now.
Click to expand...
I know at least 2 clubs doing this. What comes around goes around for Socal league - this is what they did to Coast a few years ago.

ECNL can't hoard all the "talent" as much as they are trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top