Composite Shapeshifter

4-3-3 wrote:I'll play.  Of course ECNL resulted in a stronger market position for big clubs at the expense of non ecnl clubs BW. The composite thing is the next move to capitalize further on that position.  It's not about the total teams in play for the big clubs. It's about having full control over the rules, playing structure  and costs for all revenue players without interference or competition from USYS.

Tiki-taka wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:I'll play.  Of course ECNL resulted in a stronger market position for big clubs at the expense of non ecnl clubs BW. The composite thing is the next move to capitalize further on that position.  It's not about the total teams in play for the big clubs. It's about having full control over the rules, playing structure  and costs for all revenue players without interference or competition from USYS.

I don't have the numbers but a good measurement of market share would be the number of independent teams prior to 2009 versus 2016, and then number of Big five teams per age group prior to 2009 versus now.   My guess (and only a guess and probably somewhat biased) is that independent clubs have shrunk/disappeared and big five (even with D'Feeters) has increased.  

4-3-3 wrote:I'll play.  Of course ECNL resulted in a stronger market position for big clubs at the expense of non ecnl clubs BW. The composite thing is the next move to capitalize further on that position.  It's not about the total teams in play for the big clubs. It's about having full control over the rules, playing structure  and costs for all revenue players without interference or competition from USYS.

Tiki-taka wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:I'll play.  Of course ECNL resulted in a stronger market position for big clubs at the expense of non ecnl clubs BW. The composite thing is the next move to capitalize further on that position.  It's not about the total teams in play for the big clubs. It's about having full control over the rules, playing structure  and costs for all revenue players without interference or competition from USYS.

I don't have the numbers but a good measurement of market share would be the number of independent teams prior to 2009 versus 2016, and then number of Big five teams per age group prior to 2009 versus now.   My guess (and only a guess and probably somewhat biased) is that independent clubs have shrunk/disappeared and big five (even with D'Feeters) has increased.  

4-3-3 wrote:

Tiki-taka wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:I'll play.  Of course ECNL resulted in a stronger market position for big clubs at the expense of non ecnl clubs BW. The composite thing is the next move to capitalize further on that position.  It's not about the total teams in play for the big clubs. It's about having full control over the rules, playing structure  and costs for all revenue players without interference or competition from USYS.

I don't have the numbers but a good measurement of market share would be the number of independent teams prior to 2009 versus 2016, and then number of Big five teams per age group prior to 2009 versus now.   My guess (and only a guess and probably somewhat biased) is that independent clubs have shrunk/disappeared and big five (even with D'Feeters) has increased.  

Tiki-taka, I've debated with BW enough to know he already had the #s and was setting a trap for whomever wanted to dive in it.  

Wait till the dust settles in this discussion though... I think a case will still be made this is at least as much about business as it is about anything else.

CBTeamworks wrote:Those numbers fly in the face of my hypothesis that it's about market share. How about a variance of the original theory. What if the biggest value of ECNL to the big clubs is stability? How many have gone out of business since inception compared to the other competing clubs? Is stability and ease of making a buck a possible motivation? What about profit per player or per team? Is it possible that the big clubs can negotiate long term leases on fields or loans that keep their profits at higher margins than their competitors?

Who are the biggest clubs who disadvantaged the most by not having ECNL membership? Liverpool or Andro come to mind. How are they disadvantaged? They still have numerous teams but they probably have to work harder. In the 04 group we saw the coach of the top team (Liverpool) give up that team and move to FCD. Is there any doubt why he went to FCD? I agree that ECNL is good for development of the highest level player but it does nothing to encourage the top clubs to develop their own talent when all they have to is wait for the top talent to get old enough for ECNL and the top talent will eventually come to them already developed.

yellowcard5 wrote:If you want to be the best, you have to play with and against the best.

Read_These_Nikes wrote:

yellowcard5 wrote:If you want to be the best, you have to play with and against the best.

Not always true! Confidence comes from how prepared a individual is. As long as you have a good foundation and self-belief you can thrive in any environment.

yellowcard5 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, but the discussion is about ECNL composite teams, not U6-U10 youth academies.

Once you get to a certain age, you can't just thrive in any environment.  Maybe confidence can thrive, but there is much to being a good soccer player than just confidence.  Being surrounded by mediocrity does not promote development.

Lefty wrote:

yellowcard5 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, but the discussion is about ECNL composite teams, not U6-U10 youth academies.

Once you get to a certain age, you can't just thrive in any environment.  Maybe confidence can thrive, but there is much to being a good soccer player than just confidence.  Being surrounded by mediocrity does not promote development.

Where did Steph Curry play college ball before destroying the NBA competition?

yellowcard5 wrote:Great question.  He played at Davidson College, a team that had a combined 85-20 record while he was there.  A team that is in NC and played against top 10 non-conference competition every season.  A team that made an Elite 8 appearance while he was there.  Curry also competed every summer with players from UNC and Duke.

If you want to dig a little deeper, Curry was on an undefeated state championship team in high school and played summer ball with and against many current and former NBA players.

While my response, is tongue in cheek, I get where you are going.  To compare the greatest shooter (shooting is a skill and he can also dribble, another skill, and see the game another skill) to ever play basketball to a soccer player is a big stretch.  There is no comparable skill in soccer to being able to shoot a basketball. Really? What does Messi do besides shoot the ball, dribble the ball and see the game faster than others? That is like comparing a 6'7" left handed pitcher who throws 97 mph that played on a crappy high school team to a soccer player.  Doesn't work.

A better question to ask would be:  Why do small YourApeeIn soccer academies sell their brightest talents at a very young age (12-16) to bigger academies.  The answer is because these small academies know that they can't provide the competition in order for that player to reach his peak. Think you may be a bit naive.  They do it to make money, why else.

4-3-3 wrote:Not really. The small clubs sell the players because the big clubs come in with big offers of real money.

Dont agree with the premise that the league competition makes a great player. Not in soccer. The players effort, training and coaching, and passion matter far more. College coaches Ive talked to confirm. They dont care where talent is found. They just want them found.

Second, even if it were  true that league is a primary factor in development, ntx composite teamst playing against B teams from other areas that struggle to compete against ntx CANNOT represent an improvement in competitive level. Many  NTX non ecnl teams are on par with mid to bottom half ecnl teams from other areas of the country. Having them play OK, houston and austin B and C teams, instead of other strong NTX sides, reduces their level of comp, and forces them to travel to do it.

My dds former team played a stx B team, after having already beaten this particular clubs A team that eventually became their ecnl team. The score was 9-0, and that was with defenders playing forward and forwards playing defense after 5-0 at half time. Any argument that a composite  league with stx and oklahoma B teams increases competitive level for a market like NTX has a tough hurdle to explain away results.

All this does is effectively replace usys rpl where you (used to) have to win your way in, with a us club soccer  league where participation is guaranteed every year.

yellowcard5 wrote:Once you get to a certain age, you can't just thrive in any environment.  Maybe confidence can thrive, but there is much to being a good soccer player than just confidence.  Being surrounded by mediocrity does not promote development.

yellowcard5 wrote:I clearly feel that shooting a basketball is a skill that can be developed in a gym by yourself with thousands and thousands of reps.  The hoop is ten feet high and a rim is 18 inches in diameter, whether in an empty YMCA or the NBA Finals.  Let's not make this about Steph Curry - he isn't half the player he is without being the greatest shooter in history.

Realize, I have no animosity toward you opinions, but you can't honestly believe that an elite player is an elite player no matter the environment.  There are exceptions to every rule, but odds are an elite 2A running back would not be elite at the 6A level.  The best female soccer player in India would most likely not be the best soccer female soccer player in the US.  The best player in Norway's top flight could not just walk in to Barcelona's squad.  Individual sports, I might give you, but not team sports.

Preparation through competition is what gets athletes to the top.  It's the reason that potential top 20 draft picks give up playing time and go to Kentucky to play basketball, become the 6th man and still get drafted in the 1st round. It's the reason that the Championship, League 1 and League 2 are littered with United, Arsenal and Chelsea academy cast offs.  It's the reason that Alabama is a top college football team year in and year out.  It's the reason that the best player in LH D3 that scores 3 goals a game isn't on one of the ECNL teams.  In order to get to the top you have to be challenged in practice and in games.  The sooner it begins the better you will become.

Being elite has everything to do with the environment and you can't (or very, very rarely) be elite if you are not competing at the highest level.

Funny, I always thought that elite players make the environment elite rather than an elite environment making the players elite.

Disclosure - if you are talking about 6-12 year old kids, then I somewhat agree with you.  But at some point (not exactly sure when) you have to prove yourself against the best.

I could go off on a tangent here, but won't because I don't have the time.  But, I would argue that men's soccer in this country is where we are because too many have the same thoughts as you lot.  Too many parents would rather have their kid be surrounded by mediocrity and be the superstar than they would being the 7th best player on a very strong team.  Then they complain when the time comes to move to better competition and they can't cope with the speed, the physicality, or the soccer IQ of kids that have been playing at higher levels in their youth.

yellowcard5 wrote:Funny, I always thought that elite players make the environment elite rather than an elite environment making the players elite.

Correct, and I never said otherwise.  You can't have one without the other.