Confused on new ECNL clubs

CuriousSoccerMom wrote:Nope, not confused about the ECNL layers.  I completely understand the various leagues under the main ECNL umbrella.  For the u18/u19 teams, there will be two ECRL teams because the ECNL Comp teams are now under the ECRL as ECRL Comp.  There will still be three "top" teams, but now the second and third teams will be ECRL, as opposed to two ECNL teams (ECNL & Comp) and one ECRL team.  The ECRL NTX and USC RL teams will be the 4th teams (and possibly 5th teams) for the u18/u19 age group.

I do not think this is the case. It makes no sense that the 3rd team in the u18/19 age group would play 2nd teams in ECNL-RL TX conf. Especially w/ STX clubs as they do not have near the depth that NTX does. Regardless, our understanding and what we are hearing is that the 3rd teams WILL be playing in a STX (i.e. USC) and NTX RL. U18/19 will be basically be like all other age groups. ECNL (1st team TX conf), ECNL-RL (2nd team TX conf), ECNL-RL (3rd team and below NTX/USC conf with probably different tiers).

Honestly, I think this whole thing is still in flux and won't be hashed out until we get to the off-season.

Swirvin wrote:Here's an example, Solar SC, America's #1 girls' club:
ECNL: #1 No doubt
ECRL or ECNL-RL, same same (Regional): #2 No doubt and can compete with lower ECNL teams
ECNL-RL-NTXx2 (Local) #3 in name and theory
FDL x2: #4 in theory
LHD1 and NPL: Further down
Plano: might as well be Rec

No mention of DPL and yet the league was formed for teams that werent given ECNL. Those clubs went DA and are now back to DPL. I would put DPL alongside ECRL

No way. No North Texas member, according to website, except Kernow Storm. They were never DA. Now in some states possibly true. But our main North Texas clubs avoided the purge and are in ECNL. And ECNL is trying to head off the Federation by setting up these "subleagues" with the smaller clubs, like the much expanded ECRL-N. Texas league. And selectively adding back old DA clubs.

Triumph FC wrote:

Swirvin wrote:Here's an example, Solar SC, America's #1 girls' club:
ECNL: #1 No doubt
ECRL or ECNL-RL, same same (Regional): #2 No doubt and can compete with lower ECNL teams
ECNL-RL-NTXx2 (Local) #3 in name and theory
FDL x2: #4 in theory
LHD1 and NPL: Further down
Plano: might as well be Rec

No mention of DPL and yet the league was formed for teams that werent given ECNL. Those clubs went DA and are now back to DPL. I would put DPL alongside ECRL

I agree with your breakdown. For STX, you would just replace NTX w/ USC (#3 team ECNL RL would play other STX teams HTX, ATX, SATX), then USC (#4 and below would just play in your local area).

For DPL are you basically talking about GA? Would DPL == GA? If so, yes, I'd put most of GA at the bottom of ECNL TX Conf or ECNL TX conf RL. GA also has "GA2" which is probably lower ECNL RL TX conf or ECNL USC RL.

Why can't we all just be under one system lol?

smugrr wrote:No way. No North Texas member, according to website, except Kernow Storm. They were never DA. Now in some states possibly true. But our main North Texas clubs avoided the purge and are in ECNL. And ECNL is trying to head off the Federation by setting up these "subleagues" with the smaller clubs, like the much expanded ECRL-N. Texas league. And selectively adding back old DA clubs.

I wasn’t meaning North Texas. I was talking about other areas. So like I said I would put that league up alongside ECRL. It will definitely be more competitive than ECNL RL Nth Texas

It is more fun with multiple leagues. Everyone can have bragging rights. Notice how many boxing federations there are. Perhaps some can meet in tournaments.

smugrr wrote:It is more fun with multiple leagues. Everyone can have bragging rights. Notice how many boxing federations there are. Perhaps some can meet in tournaments.

As long as they bring the belts!
Totally agree why can’t there be more leagues

In the 05’s: It’s a shame Sting has 2 ecnl teams. Neither team is outstanding. The second team will go from the worst team to a little better, by taking girls who don’t make Solar and FCD ecnl and the ones leaving toxic Texans.  Solar has the top ECRL team with Defeeters second and Sting Spence third. Solar and Defeeters would be better clubs to have 2 ECNL teams. Sting Spence ECRL should replace Sting Royal ECNL.

In the 06’s: solar has an ECNL roster big enough for 2 teams. Will be interesting what happens to Audreys players. Do they move with her or stay?
And I miss Big Ern and Foxy on here.

Yes, I miss them both. Did they leave (run out of) town or just graduate to blogging on some other topic?

Ladycougar wrote:And I miss Big Ern and Foxy on here.

Me too!! They kept this place entertaining!

dtk9119 wrote: It makes no sense that the 3rd team in the u18/19 age group would play 2nd teams in ECNL-RL TX conf. Especially w/ STX clubs as they do not have near the depth that NTX does. Honestly, I think this whole thing is still in flux and won't be hashed out until we get to the off-season.

I absolutely agree that STX clubs do not have near the depth as NTX. Except in the u18/u19 age group. We are basically taking 5 teams (03 ECNL, 03 ECNL Comp, 03 ECRL, 04 ECNL, and 04 ECRL) and combining them into three top teams. This does not include the players who are already on the teams that play in ECNL USC RL and Champions League. Granted, several of the players from the 03 teams are graduating, but more are not than are. The 03/04 '22 graduates group is pretty large in the Houston area, at least. So, I do see how a club could field two ECRL teams in the u18/u19 age group only in STX. As it is right now, Sting has two ECRL teams in the u18/u19 age group (Black and Royal). So, it would likely be similar to that.

Also agree that things are still being decided and we won't know for a few months. My original post was just to get a feel of what anyone was hearing up in the NTX area once tryouts were complete. The Houston area completed tryouts this week, I believe.

Yes, I understand signing day is June 1.

Triumph FC wrote:

Swirvin wrote:Here's an example, Solar SC, America's #1 girls' club:
ECNL: #1 No doubt
ECRL or ECNL-RL, same same (Regional): #2 No doubt and can compete with lower ECNL teams
ECNL-RL-NTXx2 (Local) #3 in name and theory
FDL x2: #4 in theory
LHD1 and NPL: Further down
Plano: might as well be Rec

No mention of DPL and yet the league was formed for teams that werent given ECNL. Those clubs went DA and are now back to DPL. I would put DPL alongside ECRL

No mention of DPL because my example, Solar- #1 Girls Club in the nation consistently, has no DPL. And I disagree with your lateral competition assessment. The GA teams have a hard enough time vs. the ECRL teams in the friendlies. No way DPL is on the same level.

Ladycougar has it right: Sting should never have had two ECNL and two ECRL teams. It dilutes the brand, so to speak. In all fairness, though, and I'm currently a Solar parent, I don't believe any club should have more than one ECNL and one true ECRL (NTX and USC do NOT count). Put your best side into ECNL. Put your 'close but not quite ready' side into ECRL. Call the next level ECLL (local league) if ECNL really wants to grab market share. This ECRL NTX and USC nomenclature is maddening and unnecessary.

The dual Sting teams was a disaster -run forest run

Run Forest, we all running !
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=run+forest&t=iphone&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCWn1LYrFXLM