Composite Shapeshifter

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.

Sure you can.  

During the developmental years, don't think that they necessarily go together per the earlier example of Steph Curry and you could add Larry Bird.  Other example is you don't have Alabama running backs and quarterbacks dominating the NFL as players in significantly less elite environments than SEC/Alabama in college developed into much better players.

Seen many cases where a players weaknesses are hidden and development inhibited by being on a top team during the developmental years, and they flopped at the next level. Witnessed it first hand with one of my DD's teams that was one of the top teams in the country.

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.

That's another dumb statement by yellow. You can put LeBron James on the 76ers right now and they're instantly a playoff team. He leaves Cleveland one year after making it to the finals the next year they only win like 15 games. Randy Moss went to Marshall, in fact he put them on the map, without him there does Chad Pennington ever make it to the pros? Marshall's not even a NCAA Div I team if Randy Moss never shows up. Not nearly as many Bulls fans in Texas as there was in the 90's is it yellow? What did that team do when Jordan retired? What did that same team do when he came back? Like I said a elite player will be elite no matter where you put them.

you aren't even arguing the same thing anymore. The examples you give are professional athletes that are the best in the world.

We are talking about young kids. No where did I ever say you couldn't take Messi, Lebron, Jordan and turn a bad team into a good team. As a matter of fact, I said just the opposite.

I'm making a point just like you. Everyone knew LeBron was going to be a star when he was in the sixth grade. Elite status is earned by the individual not by affiliation. Elite kids don't need other kids to push them to be great, the elite kids have the ability to push themselves. Like I said it doesn't matter where you put them they'll thrive anywhere.

OK.  Been out of pocket for most of the day, so this probably isn't relevant context to the current direction this thread has taken, but here's the detailed breakdown I spoke of earlier  FWIW...

I went back through the LHGCL standings archives on their website that go all the way back to the 2006-2007 season.  For each year, I counted all of the teams in the U11-U17 age groups that were from the 5 NTX ECNL Clubs (D’Feeters/FC Dallas/Solar/Sting/Texans).  I calculated the total overall % of teams in all divisions of LHGCL that were from the ECNL clubs, and also calculated the % of D1 teams each year that were from the 5 ECNL clubs.  That data is plotted below as the SOLID lines on the graph (GREEN line = % for ALL divisions, YELLOW line = % for D1 ONLY).  Starting with the 2010-2011 season, I did a separate calculation where I added LHGCL + ECNL teams and did similar calculations for % share (the DOTTED lines on the graph).

What you see, is that the ECNL clubs overall share of LHGCL teams has stayed very consistent, between 52%-56% over the past 10 years, with one low excursion (2006-2007) and one high excursion (2010-2011).  If you add ECNL into the mix, it has given the ECNL clubs a bump from pre-ECNL years, but it’s a pretty small bump (~4-5%).

Now… here’s the data that really surprised me…  If you look at D1 only, in the 3 years leading up to ECNL + the first 2 years of ECNL, on average, close to 80% of all D1 teams came from the “Big 5”.  However, since ECNL expanded to its current format in NTX in 2011 (5 clubs, each having a team in U14-U17 age groups), the % of LHGCL D1 teams from the Big 5 has dropped into the mid-60% range.  Even if I add all of the ECNL teams into the calculation (keep in mind that when I do so, that portion I am adding in is 100% Big 5), the overall % of top teams (D1 + ECNL) from the Big 5 is still slightly less than the % of top teams they had before ECNL came about.

Now, if we go with the general assumption that the better players are generally attracted to and playing for the better teams (i.e. LH D1 & ECNL teams), this data would suggest that ECNL has NOT resulted in a significant additional migration/accumulation of top talent at the Big 5 compared to what they were getting before ECNL came on the scene.

Furthermore, this data suggests that ECNL has not been a recruiting juggernaut at the younger select ages (since roughly 40-45% of my data comes from pre-ECNL age groups) either.  Kids/Parents aren’t flocking to the Big 5 in greater numbers compared to other clubs based on the potential for ECNL down the road.

So, has ECNL been an advantage to the Big 5 and helped them to MAINTAIN market dominance?  You could certainly make an argument that is the case.  However from the data below, there is no evidence to suggest that they were in any danger of their market share eroding if ECNL didn’t come about.

Again, I’m not trying to make any case for or against ECNL, either from the “business” of NTX club soccer, or from an impact on player development.  I’m also NOT using this data to suggest whether or not the recent advent of Composite/ChL/JDL will have a similar or different and/or larger impact on the “business” of NTX club soccer or development than ECNL did.  I am merely just trying see if the data from the past few years, supports the widespread perceptions about the impact of ECNL on NTX club soccer landscape.

My conclusion is that the data paints a different story to what many perceive.

John Calipari didn't develop those players. They were studs before he got them. They would've skipped Kentucky entirely if the NBA allowed them to come in right out of high school. They go to Calipari because he's the best recruiter. He's the best recruiter because his buddy World Wide Wes funnels Nike money to the players. They also go to Kentucky to play on an all-star team where there's less pressure (blame) on them as individuals if they fail (it gets spread around to the other all-stars). I think Kentucky is a great analogy to use since they recruit great teams rather than developing great players.

I interpret your data differently. D1 went from 80% to 60% because the other 20% of their D1 teams went to ECNL. So 20% of the teams that used to be in D1 no longer have to compete to retain their positions. The good news for everyone else is that there was 20% more availability in D1 for the clubs not in the Big 5 but that 20% is fluid for the small clubs who compete for it and not locked in revenue each year like it is for the Big 5.

CBTeamworks wrote:I interpret your data differently. D1 went from 80% to 60% because the other 20% of their D1 teams went to ECNL. So 20% of the teams that used to be in D1 no longer have to compete to retain their positions. The good news for everyone else is that there was 20% more availability in D1 for the clubs not in the Big 5 but that 20% is fluid for the small clubs who compete for it and not locked in revenue each year like it is for the Big 5.

If that was the case, the dotted yellow line from the past 4 years would be at the same level as the solid yellow line from the first 4 years on the graph.  That's not the case.

And while those D1 spots were never guaranteed like the ECNL spots are, the reality was (as shown by the numbers) that the clubs could pretty much count on having those D1 spots every year, even if they had to compete for them.  

However, I think the prevailing perception was that when the ECNL teams left, that the #2 & #3 teams from the ECNL clubs would slide up the ladder to fill those spots, and that the ECNL clubs would have an advantage in attracting 2nd tier talent over the non-ECNL clubs because of the chance that you might get an opportunity to slide up into an ECNL spot.  Again, the numbers don't support that.  What the numbers say is that teams from non-ECNL clubs are sliding in to those vacated spots more often then the #2/#3 teams from the ECNL clubs are.

Also, I don't think anyone would deny that the rule changes that went into place in 2014 (50% roster rule for bye retention and CPP), clearly provide more advantage to the ECNL clubs than the non-ECNL clubs, especially as it pertains to retaining and adding D1 byes.  Yet the early returns from the 1st 2 years suggest that those rule changes haven't resulted in the ECNL clubs gaining D1 spots compared to the other clubs.  Not what most people would've predicted.

Have you run the numbers when counting total number of players instead of % of teams? ECNL skews the number with larger roster sizes.

Or U14+ instead of U11+. That would help to predict the JDL effect.

Exactly CB. ECNL had unintended consequences in that  it allowed smaller clubs to more easily get control of the exposure opportunities for non ecnl players, who represent a much bigger rung on the revenue pyramid than the top few. Clubs want parents to feel they can pay to guarantee access for those 2nd tier players.  

Pulling the B and C teams into a closed league is meant to leave non us club teams in ntx with no one decent to play locally. Kicks throwing in the towel despite already having massive exposure for their 01s is proof positive this strategy of closing off access is having the desired effect. Kicks sees the big clubs closing the door behind their 01s, and putting structural changes in to make what 01s did near impossible to be repeated for younger age groups. So even JM, independent as they come, whose only recruiting age team has no need for ecnl, is forced to get in line or risk getting his younger teams shut out.

The shame of it all is LH used to be one of the most competitive and well respected leagues in the country, and it was entirely local. Nothing in NTX demographics have changed such that an extraordinarily high quality LOCAL league should not thrive. Maybe once big clubs  kill off LH entirely, something new can fill the void.

The number that I believe is reality...is where did the ecnl players come from? I don't have a problem with ecnl or the composite silliness, my point is in the real world this is called collusion. If say fcd...which is a perfect example right now has an ecnl team filled with 90% of players from lp or elsewhere....that says something.....and that's the problem and it is anti-competitive. Which means with time, prices will go up and quality at the younger ages won't necessarily improve. The clubs that developed these kids are getting screwed and don't get the windfall.

CBTeamworks wrote:Have you run the numbers when counting total number of players instead of % of teams? ECNL skews the number with larger roster sizes.

Oh, the truly proper way to look at this would be to get the # of players and the actual revenue numbers for each club for each year, but none of that data is readily available, so I am only going with what I can get my hands on.

You are correct, that ECNL rosters are typically bigger than LHGCL rosters, but not by as much as you might think when you take into account dual rostering. I'm guestimating a bit here, but I would put the average LH roster size at around 17 across the entire U11-U17 landscape, while the average ECNL roster size (if you count players that are ONLY on the ECNL roster and aren't dual rostered with an LHGCL team), at around 21 or 22. So, lets say 5 additional players per ECNL team vs if those teams were in LH. 5 * 20 ECNL teams = 100 additional players. Over the past 4 years, the number of LHGCL + ECNL teams in U11-U17 for the big 5 clubs has averaged right around 125. If all 125 teams were LHGCL at an average of 17 per roster, that's 125 * 17 = 2125 players.

So 100 additional players out of a pool of 2125 = 4.7% increase in the number of players due to ECNL rosters being larger. An increase? Yes. Eye-popping, pocket-lining growth? Not-really.

bwgophers wrote:

CBTeamworks wrote:Have you run the numbers when counting total number of players instead of % of teams? ECNL skews the number with larger roster sizes.

Oh, the truly proper way to look at this would be to get the # of players and the actual revenue numbers for each club for each year, but none of that data is readily available, so I am only going with what I can get my hands on.

You are correct, that ECNL rosters are typically bigger than LHGCL rosters, but not by as much as you might think when you take into account dual rostering.  I'm guestimating a bit here, but I would put the average LH roster size at around 17 across the entire U11-U17 landscape, while the average ECNL roster size (if you count players that are ONLY on the ECNL roster and aren't dual rostered with an LHGCL team), at around 21 or 22.  So, lets say 5 additional players per ECNL team vs if those teams were in LH.  5 * 20 ECNL teams = 100 additional players.  Over the past 4 years, the number of LHGCL + ECNL teams in U11-U17 for the big 5 clubs has averaged right around 125.  If all 125 teams were LHGCL at an average of 17 per roster, that's 125 * 17 = 2125 players.

So 100 additional players out of a pool of 2125 = 4.7% increase in the number of players due to ECNL rosters being larger.  An increase?  Yes.  Eye-popping, pocket-lining growth?  Not-really.

Fair enough on the stats, but I think it's obvious on the goal. Didn't quite get there with ecnl.....let's start another closed league with the next tier. That's the problem I have with the whole thing.

soccerjack wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

CBTeamworks wrote:Have you run the numbers when counting total number of players instead of % of teams? ECNL skews the number with larger roster sizes.

Oh, the truly proper way to look at this would be to get the # of players and the actual revenue numbers for each club for each year, but none of that data is readily available, so I am only going with what I can get my hands on.

You are correct, that ECNL rosters are typically bigger than LHGCL rosters, but not by as much as you might think when you take into account dual rostering.  I'm guestimating a bit here, but I would put the average LH roster size at around 17 across the entire U11-U17 landscape, while the average ECNL roster size (if you count players that are ONLY on the ECNL roster and aren't dual rostered with an LHGCL team), at around 21 or 22.  So, lets say 5 additional players per ECNL team vs if those teams were in LH.  5 * 20 ECNL teams = 100 additional players.  Over the past 4 years, the number of LHGCL + ECNL teams in U11-U17 for the big 5 clubs has averaged right around 125.  If all 125 teams were LHGCL at an average of 17 per roster, that's 125 * 17 = 2125 players.

So 100 additional players out of a pool of 2125 = 4.7% increase in the number of players due to ECNL rosters being larger.  An increase?  Yes.  Eye-popping, pocket-lining growth?  Not-really.

Fair enough on the stats, but I think it's obvious on the goal. Didn't quite get there with ecnl.....let's start another closed league with the next tier. That's the problem I have with the whole thing.

I don't think the goal is as altruistic as "it's all about what's best for development", but I also don't think it's purely about a money grab, or forcing all of the other clubs out of business. I actually think the goal is more along the lines of what 4-3-3 stated in his first reply to me, which is that it's mostly about controlling the rules and the environment.

Now, the natural thought process would lead you down the path that controlling the rules and the environment would result in increased ability to control and increase the market share and/or increase the costs and thus revenue. For whatever reason, it doesn't look like to me like ECNL led to that. Maybe this new round of changes will be different and will result in a more significant reshaping of the club landscape and cost structure here in NTX. Only time will tell.

All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

Let me, as one who almost put some PE money together to invest in this industry, throw some cold water on the money-making. Youth soccer provides some jobs, but it is not a money-making enterprise. Is there a lot of money in it and are there some trying to profit? Sure, but on the whole youth soccer is very much like the airline business. A lot of customers, a lot of money, but not much average profit industry-wide.

The biggest motivation is to have some control so that the NTX parental-led environment of win now at all costs and at the expense of any manner of tactics or development can be muted - at least to some extent. And the control is not necessarily from small club to big club but from parents to clubs/coaches. The smaller clubs are much more influenced by parent attitudes. This is all IMHO.

4-3-3 wrote:

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

Agreed....I don't think most are complaining because their poor dd is not involved and zizou might be surprised to learn that several have a dd involved. It's the bigger picture from the biz side that is concerning for anyone that steps back and takes off the rose colored glasses for a minute. Bw said there is probably a mix of good intentions and control if I read it right. I am of the opinion that power, control and money are 90% of the equation.

Great discussion. Thanks, Guys.
I'm pro ECNL. Been in LH for a long time. Also ECNL.
IMO LH spends too much time trying to either qualify or stay alive in whatever division they're in. It affects development, style and creativity. A lot of unnecessary pressure on staff and players.
ECNL is more relaxed as the priority is not winning at all cost. Players seem to be more free to showcase themselves . The exposure is a great benefit,Both are good. The showcases are so much fun. Great memories for everyone.

4-3-3 wrote:

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

I can agree with that. It is forever changing. Training and coach are very important at our stage in the game.

soccerjack wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

Agreed....I don't think most are complaining because their poor dd is not involved and zizou might be surprised to learn that several have a dd involved. It's the bigger picture from the biz side that is concerning for anyone that steps back and takes off the rose colored glasses for a minute. Bw said there is probably a mix of good intentions and control if I read it right. I am of the opinion that power, control and money are 90% of the equation.  

Man you are debating an age old problem that you nor I will ever be able to change. The NTX model has been in place before we were involved and will continue well after we are gone. Rose colored glasses or not you and your DD will have to continuously evaluate and make decision good or bad throughout their entire career. What decisions you choose will work for your DD.

One thing I will say is that my DD in her club situations has been given the opportunity play with and against a lot of different players that a year or two ago would have never happened. A lot of good players, and even better wonderful young ladies.

Zizou wrote:

soccerjack wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

Agreed....I don't think most are complaining because their poor dd is not involved and zizou might be surprised to learn that several have a dd involved. It's the bigger picture from the biz side that is concerning for anyone that steps back and takes off the rose colored glasses for a minute. Bw said there is probably a mix of good intentions and control if I read it right. I am of the opinion that power, control and money are 90% of the equation.  

Man you are debating an age old problem that you nor I will ever be able to change. The NTX model has been in place before we were involved and will continue well after we are gone. Rose colored glasses or not you and your DD will have to continuously evaluate and make decision good or bad throughout their entire career. What decisions you choose will work for your DD.

Ohh I'll get it changed....I've been in conversations with soapbox mom and she's agreed to take up the cause. It's all being posted on real scam as we speak and lawsuits are being filed. She should be giving us an update shortly.

She'll get it fixed, thank goodness.

soccerjack wrote:

Zizou wrote:

soccerjack wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Zizou wrote:All this amounts to is, the luster on that diamond has faded. Those who three years ago missed the boat are now jumping ship to become or to stay relevant. This plan for the big clubs to take control of the local scene has been in the works for years. Some have decided to imbrace it and of course those who decided to fight it. Of course, those who fought it are the ones looking to get in now.

Players should look for situations that fit their goals, abilities and desired environment. Whether big clubs plan to take control of leagues should have little to nothing to do with it, and rest assured when clubs evaluate players, they care more about who can do what on the field.  Being the first to write a check has some advantages, but being good matters more in the long run. Always does.

Agreed....I don't think most are complaining because their poor dd is not involved and zizou might be surprised to learn that several have a dd involved. It's the bigger picture from the biz side that is concerning for anyone that steps back and takes off the rose colored glasses for a minute. Bw said there is probably a mix of good intentions and control if I read it right. I am of the opinion that power, control and money are 90% of the equation.  

Man you are debating an age old problem that you nor I will ever be able to change. The NTX model has been in place before we were involved and will continue well after we are gone. Rose colored glasses or not you and your DD will have to continuously evaluate and make decision good or bad throughout their entire career. What decisions you choose will work for your DD.

Ohh I'll get it changed....I've been in conversations with soapbox mom and she's agreed to take up the cause. It's all being posted on real scam as we speak and lawsuits are being filed. She should be giving us an update shortly.

Now that is funny!