Movement in the 00s

Why doesn't LHGCL adopt a rule to not allow independents or smaller clubs? Because de facto that is what they promote. It's not about the "team" it's about the club.

I'm sure someone will come on here saying that I should do something about it, but I shouldn't have to, they should - if they care about the integrity of their league.

KnKsDad wrote:Why doesn't LHGCL adopt a rule to not allow independents or smaller clubs? Because de facto that is what they promote. It's not about the "team" it's about the club.

I'm sure someone will come on here saying that I should do something about it, but I shouldn't have to, they should - if they care about the integrity of their league.

Knk,

I asked a question about byes going to clubs on another post. It is my understanding that a team qualifies not a club. So I don't understand why the bye reverts to the club when teams disband, other than it is financially beneficial to the clubs. I would love to see another D3 spot become available for qualifying. Instead of a club filling the bye with a lower lever team or throwing together a team. It seems to have worked out in the past with varying degrees of success. Some perform others get relegated. From a competitive standpoint I say let them play in.

maxskillz wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:Why doesn't LHGCL adopt a rule to not allow independents or smaller clubs? Because de facto that is what they promote. It's not about the "team" it's about the club.

I'm sure someone will come on here saying that I should do something about it, but I shouldn't have to, they should - if they care about the integrity of their league.

Knk,

I asked a question about byes going to clubs on another post.  It is my understanding that a team qualifies not a club.   So I don't understand why the bye reverts to the club when teams disband, other than it is financially beneficial to the clubs.   I would love to see another D3 spot become available for qualifying.  Instead of a club filling the bye with a lower lever team or throwing together a team.  It seems to have worked out in the past with varying degrees of success.   Some perform others get relegated. From a competitive standpoint I say let them play in.    

I tend to agree with you guys, but I have less of a problem with this move than I do with placing a team from outside of LH directly into D1 or D2. The "thinking" on this is that the girls are "club loyal" and will move up the chain into spots on teams above them, the thought must follow that the restocking that should occur within and will make the teams viable...and adding the abuse CPP, it stands a pretty good chance of working...not saying I agree...just saying.

The process is what it is...but I am with you dad...moving teams up like they do from Plano to LH when they are not ready makes for a miserable season. The thinking that the move will attract better players is not always true. But, even if it does, even more advantage to big clubs. But, that is where the money is. That is the American way.

Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
When a team disbands, however, there should be a benchmark (i.e. 8, 9, n+1 players) that allow the club to keep the bye. Playing for that spot would seem to make sense, or, moving a team up to take it.
Nothing is perfect, but seems like there'd be a litmus test as to keeping the bye. My son was the lone one keeping a bye many years ago - it happened to work out as an entire team took over the record, Prem League bye, Classic bye... but, I've seen a Plano team take a spot (with Solar) a few years ago and it didn't work well. They probably picked up a few players as it was now a D1 opportunity, but, to pick up enough is hardly the norm (there's usually not THAT much movement).

Until something drastic happens, the league really has no incentive to change anything really. Is this that big of a problem? Are the refs truly that bad? Do that many kids fake their birthdates? Overall, they do pretty well governing what they need to at a global level. A great example is QT. Look at the griping over seedings, yet, they are, for the most part, very good at their guess.

Plenty of independents/smaller clubs survive, but, normally, their key players get swept up in the big club/academy/ecnl mania and depart - ensuring their eventual demise. If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

clueless wrote:Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
When a team disbands, however, there should be a benchmark (i.e. 8, 9, n+1 players) that allow the club to keep the bye. Playing for that spot would seem to make sense, or, moving a team up to take it.
Nothing is perfect, but seems like there'd be a litmus test as to keeping the bye. My son was the lone one keeping a bye many years ago - it happened to work out as an entire team took over the record, Prem League bye, Classic bye... but, I've seen a Plano team take a spot (with Solar) a few years ago and it didn't work well. They probably picked up a few players as it was now a D1 opportunity, but, to pick up enough is hardly the norm (there's usually not THAT much movement).

Until something drastic happens, the league really has no incentive to change anything really. Is this that big of a problem? Are the refs truly that bad? Do that many kids fake their birthdates?  Overall, they do pretty well governing what they need to at a global level.  A great example is QT. Look at the griping over seedings, yet, they are, for the most part, very good at their guess.

Plenty of independents/smaller clubs survive, but, normally, their key players get swept up in the big club/academy/ecnl mania and depart - ensuring their eventual demise. If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

Amen! Welcome back Clue

clueless wrote:Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
When a team disbands, however, there should be a benchmark (i.e. 8, 9, n+1 players) that allow the club to keep the bye. Playing for that spot would seem to make sense, or, moving a team up to take it.
Nothing is perfect, but seems like there'd be a litmus test as to keeping the bye. My son was the lone one keeping a bye many years ago - it happened to work out as an entire team took over the record, Prem League bye, Classic bye... but, I've seen a Plano team take a spot (with Solar) a few years ago and it didn't work well. They probably picked up a few players as it was now a D1 opportunity, but, to pick up enough is hardly the norm (there's usually not THAT much movement).

Until something drastic happens, the league really has no incentive to change anything really. Is this that big of a problem? Are the refs truly that bad? Do that many kids fake their birthdates?  Overall, they do pretty well governing what they need to at a global level.  A great example is QT. Look at the griping over seedings, yet, they are, for the most part, very good at their guess.

Plenty of independents/smaller clubs survive, but, normally, their key players get swept up in the big club/academy/ecnl mania and depart - ensuring their eventual demise. If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

Therein lies the basis for what I am saying. Do those same key players leave for the big clubs if their independent/smaller club team had the same opportunity to rise up the ranks and play at the highest level of competition they were capable of? I would venture to say no. Sure, some might due to ego (of parents) and the ECNL lure, but I would think the majority would not. Just logistics and cost would serve as a strong motivation to stay put - again, that's provided that the same opportunity exists. Ultimately the desire to play at the highest level of competition trumps the other motivations.

maxskillz wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:Why doesn't LHGCL adopt a rule to not allow independents or smaller clubs? Because de facto that is what they promote. It's not about the "team" it's about the club.

I'm sure someone will come on here saying that I should do something about it, but I shouldn't have to, they should - if they care about the integrity of their league.

Knk,

I asked a question about byes going to clubs on another post.  It is my understanding that a team qualifies not a club.   So I don't understand why the bye reverts to the club when teams disband, other than it is financially beneficial to the clubs.   I would love to see another D3 spot become available for qualifying.  Instead of a club filling the bye with a lower lever team or throwing together a team.  It seems to have worked out in the past with varying degrees of success.   Some perform others get relegated. From a competitive standpoint I say let them play in.    

Agree. There should be a way to decide it on the field in these situations.

I like Clueless' N+1 or some other standard, or as I have said, drop their level at least.

clueless wrote:Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
When a team disbands, however, there should be a benchmark (i.e. 8, 9, n+1 players) that allow the club to keep the bye. Playing for that spot would seem to make sense, or, moving a team up to take it.
Nothing is perfect, but seems like there'd be a litmus test as to keeping the bye. My son was the lone one keeping a bye many years ago - it happened to work out as an entire team took over the record, Prem League bye, Classic bye... but, I've seen a Plano team take a spot (with Solar) a few years ago and it didn't work well. They probably picked up a few players as it was now a D1 opportunity, but, to pick up enough is hardly the norm (there's usually not THAT much movement).

Until something drastic happens, the league really has no incentive to change anything really. Is this that big of a problem? Are the refs truly that bad? Do that many kids fake their birthdates?  Overall, they do pretty well governing what they need to at a global level.  A great example is QT. Look at the griping over seedings, yet, they are, for the most part, very good at their guess.

Plenty of independents/smaller clubs survive, but, normally, their key players get swept up in the big club/academy/ecnl mania and depart - ensuring their eventual demise. If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

Clueless,
I get what you are saying but I keep coming back to the fact that the "team" qualifies not the club. So if the team can't meet the criteria to maintain the bye then other teams should be afforded the chance to play for it. Like you said it is really a moot point at this time since that is the way the system is currently setup. We know the rules and as long as they don't change them mid-stream you won't hear too much griping out of me. I do however like a appreciate open discussion.

KnKsDad wrote:

clueless wrote:Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
When a team disbands, however, there should be a benchmark (i.e. 8, 9, n+1 players) that allow the club to keep the bye. Playing for that spot would seem to make sense, or, moving a team up to take it.
Nothing is perfect, but seems like there'd be a litmus test as to keeping the bye. My son was the lone one keeping a bye many years ago - it happened to work out as an entire team took over the record, Prem League bye, Classic bye... but, I've seen a Plano team take a spot (with Solar) a few years ago and it didn't work well. They probably picked up a few players as it was now a D1 opportunity, but, to pick up enough is hardly the norm (there's usually not THAT much movement).

Until something drastic happens, the league really has no incentive to change anything really. Is this that big of a problem? Are the refs truly that bad? Do that many kids fake their birthdates?  Overall, they do pretty well governing what they need to at a global level.  A great example is QT. Look at the griping over seedings, yet, they are, for the most part, very good at their guess.

Plenty of independents/smaller clubs survive, but, normally, their key players get swept up in the big club/academy/ecnl mania and depart - ensuring their eventual demise. If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

Therein lies the basis for what I am saying. Do those same key players leave for the big clubs if their independent/smaller club team had the same opportunity to rise up the ranks and play at the highest level of competition they were capable of? I would venture to say no. Sure, some might due to ego (of parents) and the ECNL lure, but I would think the majority would not. Just logistics and cost would serve as a strong motivation to stay put - again, that's provided that the same opportunity exists. Ultimately the desire to play at the highest level of competition trumps the other motivations.  

The problem this would not solve is the big club taking away the better players, because, for them, there would be zero cost with the big club if they are good enough. Having been involved with a small club (that was at the top of U8-11) it was an uphill battle as the big boys could scholarship any of our players and we had to survive on ramen and rat droppings. I am amazed at how little consideration is really given with respect to logistics and costs when the shiny new car decal is proposed. I've had people inquire from 90 min away consistently - 'is that truly worth it?'. You do realize this will end fairly soon, right? That's always a head scratcher.

clueless wrote:Catering to larger clubs makes sense in terms of stability and likelihood of sustaining competitive teams. ECNL is club-based, there's a reason for that.
..... If all the small club teams left, you'd still have a league, if all the big clubs left, well.....

Disagree. The reason ECNL is club based has little to do with stability and sustaining competitive teams. This can be seen by the ECNL standings showing a good # of bottom dwellers routinely pulverized by other teams. ECNL is club based so the member clubs can create market leverage. That's all there is to it.

If all the big clubs left, you'd have more small clubs and independents  fill the void, and you'd be more likely to see merit based leagues as the destination for top talent vs member only leagues. If all the small clubs and indies left, the costs for big clubs and coaches' salaries would quickly spiral to the point where girls select soccer becomes a bourgeois only sport.

Stability for the league and clubs, not just the league. The likelihood of getting decent teams for every age group increases exponentially being club-based vs the administration required to take individual teams. Tophat has stellar teams, but not for every age group - so, ECNL probably isn't an option. Ironically, in GA - the ECNL teams are the subpar teams.

We played National League this year and it's really superior in that you have to earn your place into the league. All the top teams outside of ECNL and even some ECNL teams (mixture most likely) play in it and the competition is very good. The worst team was not very bad.

If all the big clubs left, there'd be an entrepreneur stepping in to create the next big club. Hassan picked up the snowball and created what's here today with multiple clubs. I'm really surprised FCD hasn't spun off totally from all leagues - they will have the ability to do that soon (not sure how that would work on the girl's side however).

Wow. This is the most civil and rational discussion I've been a part of since joining the forum two years ago. I like it. Clueless, you alluded to something above that I've been wondering about for awhile now and that has to do with scholarshipping. I guess I'm a little naive, but how prevalent is that? I've been assuming it's financial need based, but I'm beginning to get the sense that it goes beyond that, more based on a players talent. Can you clue me in?

KnKsDad wrote:Wow. This is the most civil and rational discussion I've been a part of since joining the forum two years ago. I like it. Clueless, you alluded to something above that I've been wondering about for awhile now and that has to do with scholarshipping. I guess I'm a little naive, but how prevalent is that? I've been assuming it's financial need based, but I'm beginning to get the sense that it goes beyond that, more based on a players talent. Can you clue me in?

Yes and yes.

Scholarships are a lot like judges and elections. On paper they are impartial, in reality, anything but.
I've seen the following receive scholarships
- kids in need who are able to contribute to the team
- kids in need who fill a spot (roster size/legacy player....) - contribution is minimal
- kids not in need, but are superstar or major contributor

On paper - it's need-based, but, probably 50% applicable and probably 10% part of the decision to provide need. Keep in mind, for the vast majority of coaches, it's money out of their pocket. Sometimes, it's not if other teams can foot the bill, but, that's a limited situation.

The ironic part of all that is, on the boys side, the demographic of the top teams has changed dramatically as those players are funded 100%. Amazing what that does to teams where the players wouldn't have been able to do the travel or pay dues had there been zero scholarships.

A lot of parents just need the satisfaction of knowing their kid is getting aide - whether or not it's truly needed. Like a billionaire getting a 2 for 1 at the grocery store - it still has some internal value to the recipient.

clueless wrote:Scholarships are a lot like judges and elections. On paper they are impartial, in reality, anything but.
I've seen the following receive scholarships
- kids in need who are able to contribute to the team
- kids in need who fill a spot (roster size/legacy player....) - contribution is minimal
- kids not in need, but are superstar or major contributor

On paper - it's need-based, but, probably 50% applicable and probably 10% part of the decision to provide need. Keep in mind, for the vast majority of coaches, it's money out of their pocket. Sometimes, it's not if other teams can foot the bill, but, that's a limited situation.

The ironic part of all that is, on the boys side, the demographic of the top teams has changed dramatically as those players are funded 100%. Amazing what that does to teams where the players wouldn't have been able to do the travel or pay dues had there been zero scholarships.

A lot of parents just need the satisfaction of knowing their kid is getting aide - whether or not it's truly needed. Like a billionaire getting a 2 for 1 at the grocery store - it still has some internal value to the recipient.

Not from what I have seen. A lot of teams (Sting/Texans/etc) financial responsibility to the club (where coaches salary comes from) is based on 14 fully paid players. Any dues money taken in beyond those 14 paid players the club doesn't get any part of. This basically gives the coach the ability to have as many scholarships as he can roster above the 14 number without affecting his pay whatsoever.

Gunners wrote:

clueless wrote:Scholarships are a lot like judges and elections. On paper they are impartial, in reality, anything but.
I've seen the following receive scholarships
- kids in need who are able to contribute to the team
- kids in need who fill a spot (roster size/legacy player....) - contribution is minimal
- kids not in need, but are superstar or major contributor

On paper - it's need-based, but, probably 50% applicable and probably 10% part of the decision to provide need. Keep in mind, for the vast majority of coaches, it's money out of their pocket. Sometimes, it's not if other teams can foot the bill, but, that's a limited situation.

The ironic part of all that is, on the boys side, the demographic of the top teams has changed dramatically as those players are funded 100%. Amazing what that does to teams where the players wouldn't have been able to do the travel or pay dues had there been zero scholarships.

A lot of parents just need the satisfaction of knowing their kid is getting aide - whether or not it's truly needed. Like a billionaire getting a 2 for 1 at the grocery store - it still has some internal value to the recipient.

Not from what I have seen. A lot of teams (Sting/Texans/etc) financial responsibility to the club (where coaches salary comes from) is based on 14 fully paid players. Any dues money taken in beyond those 14 paid players the club doesn't get any part of. This basically gives the coach the ability to have as many scholarships as he can roster above the 14 number without affecting his pay whatsoever.

That's a good point - I've been in that situation once in 12 years (having 14 fully paid players, that is).

It's actually based upon the number of kids. Usually ,there will be 1 full scholarship for rosters of 16 and 2 for rosters of 18. Very rarely is a scholarship ever given in full. More likely it is halves and quarters. Figure $2,500 for club dues. That would be $5,000 at a roster of 18 for a coach to use. Usually, you will see maybe 4-5 players "share" some portion of those funds. Maybe $500, maybe $2,000.