OK ECNL prospects

Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?

Interesting rumor... That would imply that whoever started the rumor or, if true, Sting coaches must not think that Sting has enough strong players on their two LH D1 teams to field one ECNL team... Even if true, it is more likely that Sting is trying to coax a couple of studettes from OFC or that Sting is trying to coax OFC to join the Sting nation.

I have heard this rumor as well, my take on it is OFC can keep their top players happy by having access to ECNL. Tsc Hurricane from Tulsa is working on several OFC players. I'm guessing Hurricane are trying to recruit across all age groups from OFC. It's right at two hours from most parts of Oklahoma City to the Tsc hurricane fields.

Sting 01 has 5 LH teams and they have to goto Oklahoma to find talent?

That's an indictment of Sting player development.

Mr.KnowItAll wrote:I have heard this rumor as well, my take on it is OFC can keep their top players happy by having access to ECNL. Tsc Hurricane from Tulsa is working on several OFC players. I'm guessing Hurricane are trying to recruit across all age groups from OFC. It's right at two hours from most parts of Oklahoma City to the Tsc hurricane fields.

.....and it is about 4 hours (give or take) one-way from most parts of OK City to most parts of DFW.

I know of one U16 OFC player who is currently dual rostered with Sting U16 ECNL, but I have no idea what are the logistics behind it.  My guess would be, she just shows up at the games.....and gets a pass on mid-week practices.

If it can work with U16s, may be it can work with U13s (01s) too.

4-3-3 wrote:Sting 01 has 5 LH teams and they have to goto Oklahoma to find talent?

That's an indictment of Sting player development.

Not necessarily.

It could also be a testament on how good and strong the Sting program is........    
(I almost threw up on my keyboard typing that.....  )

If you build, they will come.............. from as far away as OK City and beyond.

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it doesearthly reasonem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

I like all the different opinions!   

Zizou wrote:I like all the different opinions!   

I agree and I also enjoy the revisionist history. 

4-3-3 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

Agree that I was coming at it from a recruiting perspective. A mostly front of the lifecycle perspective.

Another perspective to consider is which clubs are placing kids at which schools and how many $ are they getting. The end point perspective.

Sting and Texans still have a strong endpoint argument relative to the others, though sense the window may be closing for Sting after the 97's.  The other club's  placements have been hit or miss at best and non-existent for some age groups.

Seems the question will be if some of the clubs who are apparently doing a better job of developing players will be able to complete the full lifecycle and improve their college placements, or if Sting is able to improve some of their younger teams by whatever means to be more competitive in ECNL by the time it comes for college placement.

The 98's and on will likely give us the answers.

LMAO what this is, is nervous parents who have "invested" in sting because it was supposed to get them into the ECNL. The reality is when it comes time for ECNL you need to be better than your peers. If the OKFC player is better then congrats. We see it on the boys side, expect to compete for spots with OK, and all directions out from the metroplex. Or I guess as parents you could also get to work polishing the right a$$ and hope that works

Gunners wrote:

Zizou wrote:I like all the different opinions!   

I agree and I also enjoy the revisionist history. 

Do tell what part was revisionist. Sting hasnt historically benefited from recruits developed elsewhere? They still getting all top recruits or are many staying at solar, fcd, texans instead of bolting to Sting. Sting 99, 00 and 01 are already top teams in their age groups...just need Oklahoma to get to unbeatable status? Sting academy pipeline solid all the way back to 08s?

Shed some light on what was inaccurate in my post...if you can.

I would be very careful thinking you are safe because you were developed within the club. If you think for a moment FCD,Texans, Solar, and Feet are not recruiting players then pull your head out of the sand. ECNL clubs and coaches will be looking to pull the top player onto their teams. No one is safe until the fat lady signs and still you will have no guarantees of playing time.

Zizou wrote:I would be very careful thinking you are safe because you were developed within the club. If you think for a moment FCD,Texans, Solar, and Feet are not recruiting players then pull your head out of the sand. ECNL clubs and coaches will be looking to pull the top player onto their teams. No one is safe until the fat lady signs and still you will have no guarantees of playing time.

But wait  they told me thats why we needed to leave our team/club/coach/whetever. So that we could be in the ECNL? Are you telling me thats not true???  

Lefty wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

Agree that I was coming at it from a recruiting perspective. A mostly front of the lifecycle perspective.

Another perspective to consider is which clubs are placing kids at which schools and how many $ are they getting. The end point perspective.

Sting and Texans still have a strong endpoint argument relative to the others, though sense the window may be closing for Sting after the 97's.  The other club's  placements have been hit or miss at best and non-existent for some age groups.

Seems the question will be if some of the clubs who are apparently doing a better job of developing players will be able to complete the full lifecycle and improve their college placements, or if Sting is able to improve some of their younger teams by whatever means to be more competitive in ECNL by the time it comes for college placement.

The 98's and on will likely give us the answers.

Agree with all of this 100pct.

4-3-3 wrote:

Gunners wrote:

Zizou wrote:I like all the different opinions!   

I agree and I also enjoy the revisionist history. 

Do tell what part was revisionist. Sting hasnt historically benefited from recruits developed elsewhere? They still getting all top recruits or are many staying at solar, fcd, texans instead of bolting to Sting.  Sting 99, 00 and 01 are already top teams in their age groups...just need Oklahoma to get to unbeatable status?  Sting academy pipeline solid all the way back to 08s?

Shed some light on what was inaccurate in my post...if you can.

Primarily this..."For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. "

The implication that FCD and Solar are the best developing clubs in the area (for "years" no less) is curious (at best) as history does not come close to supporting it.  It is an opinion I would expect from parents who lack a historical perspective and concentrate on their kids age group (which are usually sub U12). As Zizou said, though, you're certainly entitled to your "opinion".

One more thing on the topic at hand (ie Sting expanding to OK, if it's even true),  it's not a new approach.  Sting and Texans have had this type of business model for years. Historically it's had very little impact on their top teams, but a significant impact on their bottom line.  If they're able to get a player or two that helps the top teams, then that's icing on the cake.

Lefty wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

Agree that I was coming at it from a recruiting perspective. A mostly front of the lifecycle perspective.

Another perspective to consider is which clubs are placing kids at which schools and how many $ are they getting. The end point perspective.

Sting and Texans still have a strong endpoint argument relative to the others, though sense the window may be closing for Sting after the 97's.  The other club's  placements have been hit or miss at best and non-existent for some age groups.

Seems the question will be if some of the clubs who are apparently doing a better job of developing players will be able to complete the full lifecycle and improve their college placements, or if Sting is able to improve some of their younger teams by whatever means to be more competitive in ECNL by the time it comes for college placement.

The 98's and on will likely give us the answers.

Lefty, I think I would put the 98s in the same boat as the 97s and older in that perspective.  The 2016 recruiting is now in top gear and by HS Junior Year the train will have long departed the station. 99s are not far behind either.

Of the 8 Sting dds who have already given verbal commitment for the class of 2016, only 1 came through the ranks of Sting Academy.  The other 7 were recruited to Sting post-Academy from various other Clubs.  So, overall the end point is still very appealing.

But to me that is beside the point.

I totally agree that the OFC model is probably not the best approach to the situation.  No team can survive on players just showing up for the games and a mediocre few laboring in practices every week only to relinguish the playtime.  Conversely, no players in sound mind will track 8-hours to get 15-minutes per half playtime. Obviously there has to be a balance between the Club and the player to the point in which each side comes out believing they are gaining something out of the situation.

I think the bigger question now becomes what to do with the 99s and younger Stings who also would like to achieve the same 'end point' without being elbowed out by an OFC, FCD or similar transplant when they get to U16?  How much 'developing your own pipeline' is sufficient to sustain the programs and maintain the same end point on which these programs are known for (you mentioned Sting and Texans).

I think in a way it is, and should be, a mixture of both:  build your own pipeline in the best way you can AND recruit as necessary to fill the gaps.

go99 wrote:

Zizou wrote:I would be very careful thinking you are safe because you were developed within the club. If you think for a moment FCD,Texans, Solar, and Feet are not recruiting players then pull your head out of the sand. ECNL clubs and coaches will be looking to pull the top player onto their teams. No one is safe until the fat lady signs and still you will have no guarantees of playing time.

But wait  they told me thats why we needed to leave our team/club/coach/whetever.  So that we could be in the ECNL?  Are you telling me thats not true???  

You know everything on the internet is true!

Pele98 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

Agree that I was coming at it from a recruiting perspective. A mostly front of the lifecycle perspective.

Another perspective to consider is which clubs are placing kids at which schools and how many $ are they getting. The end point perspective.

Sting and Texans still have a strong endpoint argument relative to the others, though sense the window may be closing for Sting after the 97's.  The other club's  placements have been hit or miss at best and non-existent for some age groups.

Seems the question will be if some of the clubs who are apparently doing a better job of developing players will be able to complete the full lifecycle and improve their college placements, or if Sting is able to improve some of their younger teams by whatever means to be more competitive in ECNL by the time it comes for college placement.

The 98's and on will likely give us the answers.

Lefty, I think I would put the 98s in the same boat as the 97s and older in that perspective.  The 2016 recruiting is now in top gear and by HS Junior Year the train will have long departed the station. 99s are not far behind either.

Of the 8 Sting dds who have already given verbal commitment for the class of 2016, only 1 came through the ranks of Sting Academy.  The other 7 were recruited to Sting post-Academy from various other Clubs.  So, overall the end point is still very appealing.

But to me that is beside the point.

I totally agree that the OFC model is probably not the best approach to the situation.  No team can survive on players just showing up for the games and a mediocre few laboring in practices every week only to relinguish the playtime.  Conversely, no players in sound mind will track 8-hours to get 15-minutes per half playtime. Obviously there has to be a balance between the Club and the player to the point in which each side comes out believing they are gaining something out of the situation.

I think the bigger question now becomes what to do with the 99s and younger Stings who also would like to achieve the same 'end point' without being elbowed out by an OFC, FCD or similar transplant when they get to U16?  How much 'developing your own pipeline' is sufficient to sustain the programs and maintain the same end point on which these programs are known for (you mentioned Sting and Texans).

I think in a way it is, and should be, a mixture of both:  build your own pipeline in the best way you can AND recruit as necessary to fill the gaps.

You don't build your pipeline by giving kids a free path in, you get your coaches to develop players. If they do a good enough job there then the kids will make the ECNL no matter how many kids they have to compete against. Do a poor job and they will be beat out by kids who had better coaches as a youth.

4-3-3 wrote:Sting 01 has 5 LH teams and they have to goto Oklahoma to find talent?

That's an indictment of Sting player development.

But many teams follow the coach regardless of club, no?

go99 wrote:

Pele98 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Pitch'n wrote:Any truth to the rumor that OFC (OK) players will be playing ECNL with Sting?  

Makes some sense to try and expand the talent pool for their ECNL teams in all age groups.

Based on performance and standings, it does not seem that the existing NTX talent pool has enough players to field 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group.

Could provide another source of talent for Sting, particularly for the age groups that they don't win the recruiting battles for local NTX talent to field a top two Texas Conference ECNL team.

That is a recruiting perspective. As if a team is good because it won recruiting battles. I think recruiting is only a piece of it. You also need to improve the recruited players. It does look like once the 95s left Sting doesn't have the dominant teams to reinforce their brand. 97s and 98s are solid, but they want champions...not solid. 99s, 00s and 01s are not the top team in their age group, and you need to go all the way down to 05s to find an age group where Sting has a pipeline positioning them for the top.

This looks like chickens coming home to roost. For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. Now if a kid on Bates or Grub wants to learn the game, there is no earthly reason to defect to Sting.

Expanding their recruiting net is just a band aid....at some point you need to.address the model and put some heavyweight coaches at academy and pre ECNL ages so you can compete with your own pipeline. I don't think adding OK players who show up on game day is putting them on level with clubs who developed the majority of their rosters for several years.

Agree that I was coming at it from a recruiting perspective. A mostly front of the lifecycle perspective.

Another perspective to consider is which clubs are placing kids at which schools and how many $ are they getting. The end point perspective.

Sting and Texans still have a strong endpoint argument relative to the others, though sense the window may be closing for Sting after the 97's.  The other club's  placements have been hit or miss at best and non-existent for some age groups.

Seems the question will be if some of the clubs who are apparently doing a better job of developing players will be able to complete the full lifecycle and improve their college placements, or if Sting is able to improve some of their younger teams by whatever means to be more competitive in ECNL by the time it comes for college placement.

The 98's and on will likely give us the answers.

Lefty, I think I would put the 98s in the same boat as the 97s and older in that perspective.  The 2016 recruiting is now in top gear and by HS Junior Year the train will have long departed the station. 99s are not far behind either.

Of the 8 Sting dds who have already given verbal commitment for the class of 2016, only 1 came through the ranks of Sting Academy.  The other 7 were recruited to Sting post-Academy from various other Clubs.  So, overall the end point is still very appealing.

But to me that is beside the point.

I totally agree that the OFC model is probably not the best approach to the situation.  No team can survive on players just showing up for the games and a mediocre few laboring in practices every week only to relinguish the playtime.  Conversely, no players in sound mind will track 8-hours to get 15-minutes per half playtime. Obviously there has to be a balance between the Club and the player to the point in which each side comes out believing they are gaining something out of the situation.

I think the bigger question now becomes what to do with the 99s and younger Stings who also would like to achieve the same 'end point' without being elbowed out by an OFC, FCD or similar transplant when they get to U16?  How much 'developing your own pipeline' is sufficient to sustain the programs and maintain the same end point on which these programs are known for (you mentioned Sting and Texans).

I think in a way it is, and should be, a mixture of both:  build your own pipeline in the best way you can AND recruit as necessary to fill the gaps.

You don't build your pipeline by giving kids a free path in, you get your coaches to develop players.  If they do a good enough job there then the kids will make the ECNL no matter how many kids they have to compete against.  Do a poor job and they will be beat out by kids who had better coaches as a youth.

My original points were about what clubs my be doing to be able to build a COMPETITIVE ECNL team in each age group rather than what girls may need to do to make ANY ECNL team.

To date the NTX clubs have not been sucessful in building and fielding 5 competitive ECNL teams in each age group with the existing pool of players in NTX. Even with all the developing taking place NTX is not producing enough ECNL caliber players to field 5 strong teams and clubs may be looking at how better to ensure they can field a COMPETITIVE ECNL team for each age group.

They haven't been producing enough talent to field a competitive team because there aren't that many good coaches here in NTX

Gunners wrote:
Primarily this..."For years FCD, Solar and others have done the best job developing young players and Sting relied on recruiting them away when they got older. "

The implication that FCD and Solar are the best developing clubs in the area (for "years" no less) is curious (at best) as history does not come close to supporting it.  It is an opinion I would expect from parents who lack a historical perspective and concentrate on their kids age group (which are usually sub U12). As Zizou said, though, you're certainly entitled to your "opinion".

Kid's age group is '01, so my perspective is looking a couple years ahead and a few behind.

99's - don't know THAT much about them. Outside looking in, it looked like Solar and Texans developed their young talent.

00s - I recall Sting had several top teams at one point, but from what I saw they were BFS teams and Pulp and Solar lead the way in developing technical players

01s - Solar, FCD, Texans and Kicks all developed their own core. Flanagan built on '01 team starting u9, but cut/otherwise lost 30 to 40% of the roster each year. The team now is majority non-sting academy players. They acquired 2 '01 teams from TFC, one from FCD and one from Texans in the past 2 years to give them 5 '01 teams in LH...I'm not counting the guttierez bye that was given to Sting 02s after her '01 team imploded.

Dfeeters put Pfeil in the 01 age group, and in 2 years he's built a team that plays a technical style totally different from the prior Scarfone feet teams.

02 - Texans and FCD developed their core and lead the pack.

03 - Solar

04 - Liverpool, Texans

05 - Sting has a slew of teams, and has what looks like a solid pipeline after acquiring Kicks diaz. But Pulp is now on the scene.

06 - Too early to tell much, but Kicks, Missimo and Texans lead the way.

It looks to me David May / Ian Farley built a pipeline of technical players for years...they had a gap when they retired, and Texans are addressing it putting Scott down in academy.

Grubb built a FCD pipeline for years. I don't see him in academy anymore, so will be interesting to see if other FCD youngers coaches keep it going.

Solar's pipeline has been incredible from my vantage point. Now adding pulp into academy just continues what they've been doing developing academy age players.

Liverpool's pipeline is solid in several age groups using former Texans coaches, remains to be seen if they'll stay put.

Sting has a ton of teams yes, but their academy development seems the weakest of all the big clubs. They've added Scarfone, but given what was happening when he was running the dfeeters pipeline - is that enough? I think they'd be better off putting more development focused coaches into academy (Angel, Q, Hilton), or even trying to acquire the remaining top liverpool academy teams/coaches, instead of relying on shaking trees in Oklahoma City as the way forward.

As soon as FCD / Solar put a couple classes through with a solid college commit list, the lack of a development pipeline turns Sting into a house of cards.

okay now break that list down further and you probably have a handful of coaches doing the development and everyone else in the club doing as poorly as the rest of their peers. Sting is no worse off than the feet or solar. and the only reason FCD and Texans are better off is the economies of scale