ECNL swings back at DA

Will you please point to the source where it reflects the Lonestar Club Declining the DA?

Lone star has the boys DA their is no evidence stating they have declined the GDA at this point.

Lonestar has the boys DA, so there won't be a big announcement that makes a big show of it, but they informed all ECNL players Thursday night verbally of the plans for next year.
They chose to play ECNL and declined the DA invite.

Teufel Hunden wrote:Will you please point to the source where it reflects the Lonestar Club Declining the DA?

Donald trump tweeted it yesterday.

It seems USYSA may have to play hard ball and decline lone star the boys DA. I would be very careful if I were lone star. This could work against them!

simple formula. The USSF should require all DA clubs to have the boys and girls. Start there for your girls league. Those that decline just simply hand the spot to someone else. Let's say solar declines (hypothetical) I am sure let's say Liverpool would take their spot. At that point the top solar players would make the jump to new clubs.

It's a simple formula, USSF has the national team and the branding of "real" soccer in the US. Move your national team players to the DA, everyone who is in the window or competing to get in the window follows.

Also the USSF needs to understand that infrastructure is the most important thing to development. Players, coaches are all migratory. Infrastructure is not. For example Sting should not be in the DA. Sure they have the this and that and have won this or that, but they lack the infrastructure to not be severely hampered by the DA. That spot should have gone to LP. Oh "but they don't have any older team". With a DA spot they would have gotten not only players but also coaches. Saw the same with the boys when the DA removed Andromeda and kept Solar. Andro had the infrastructure to provide totally free (better deal than FCD) and the ending result was cost went up for the DA because solar lacks the resources. Very strong on the girls side as teams go but very weak as a club

go99 wrote:simple formula.   That spot should have gone to LP.  

lol

Sorry NSZ no sorry grapes. I don't even have a kid at LP. In fact I have one at solar.

DA is expensive. It requires investment better suited to economies of scale. Apparently, unlike you I have no personal investment in any club. my involvement goes as far as me cutting checks for their services. LP could fold, sting, Texans whoever and I could care less. So if you have any substance to add feel free.

Now locally the DA should included (boys and girls)
NTX:
FCD
LP
Texans
Solar (possible the new andro/solar mix but still major issues so have them as a bubble club)

OK:
TSC (give them boys should do the trick)
OKFC

STX:
SAFC
lonestars (as the lone and dominant club in the area will be the toughest. Girls needs to be a condition of participation in boys)
Houston dynamo
Albion or challenge (no partnership and offer boys DA)
Houston Texans

Current DA Colorado and Kansas teams

go99 wrote:simple formula.  The USSF should require all DA clubs to have the boys and girls.  Start there for your girls league.  Those that decline just simply hand the spot to someone else.  Let's say solar declines (hypothetical) I am sure let's say Liverpool would take their spot.  At that point the top solar players would make the jump to new clubs.

It's a simple formula, USSF has the national team and the branding of "real" soccer in the US.  Move your national team players to the DA, everyone who is in the window or competing to get in the window follows.  

Also the USSF needs to understand that infrastructure is the most important thing to development.  Players, coaches are all migratory.  Infrastructure is not.  For example Sting should not be in the DA.  Sure they have the this and that and have won this or that, but they lack the infrastructure to not be severely hampered by the DA. That spot should have gone to LP.  Oh "but they don't have any older team".  With a DA spot they would have gotten not only players but also coaches.  Saw the same with the boys when the DA removed Andromeda and kept Solar.  Andro had the infrastructure to provide totally free (better deal than FCD) and the ending result was cost went up for the DA because solar lacks the resources.  Very strong on the girls side as teams go but very weak as a club

What type of infrastructure do you mean? What's most important for a DA spot? I can see where FCD has a leg up on the rest, but what separates Texans/Sting/Solar when it comes to the infrastructure you refer to?

Two things are becoming clear to me with so many regional teams (Challenge, TSC, Albion, Lonestar) choosing the lower standards and higher profit margins of ECNL over the DA:
1. The soccer landscape is going to be a mess for a couple of years. Having both conferences with geography that resemble collegiate conferences is inefficient, expensive, and unsustainable. For example, a single Houston team in a conference with 4 Dallas teams, 2 KC teams, and 2 Colorado teams simply will not work long term. Something needs to shake out.
2. It may take a couple of years, but just like what happened with the boys, the girls DA will indeed win this "battle" when it's all said and done. Those clubs choosing to forego the DA investment in return for the short term gains are risking their existence as a regional powerhouse.

Timmyh, some of what you said may become true in the years ahead but for now there are a lot of unknowns with girls DA. In TSC's opinion having girls compete on yearly levels in ECNL and the use of composite allows more girls to compete and develop. DA may roster 22-24 girls from two age groups but how much playing time will they actually see. With more restrictive sub rules and fewer games where do all these girls get a chance to play and make game decisions. These are just a few of the playing issues, costs are whole nother issue.

timmyh wrote:Two things are becoming clear to me with so many regional teams (Challenge, TSC, Albion, Lonestar) choosing the lower standards and higher profit margins of ECNL over the DA:
1. The soccer landscape is going to be a mess for a couple of years.  Having both conferences with geography that resemble collegiate conferences is inefficient, expensive, and unsustainable.  For example, a single Houston team in a conference with 4 Dallas teams, 2 KC teams, and 2 Colorado teams simply will not work long term.  Something needs to shake out.
2.  It may take a couple of years, but just like what happened with the boys, the girls DA will indeed win this "battle" when it's all said and done.  Those clubs choosing to forego the DA investment in return for the short term gains are risking their existence as a regional powerhouse.

1. Agree. It will be a mess for a few years.
2. Disagree. DA will shake out to 2 clubs in NTX at some point. Every year about 100 kids sign with D1 college programs. DA is unquestionably not for everyone. The next tier acronym league, whether its ECNL or something else is needed to serve these kids. I think a club or two would be wise to focus their efforts there.

go99 wrote:simple formula.  The USSF should require all DA clubs to have the boys and girls.  Start there for your girls league.  Those that decline just simply hand the spot to someone else.  Let's say solar declines (hypothetical) I am sure let's say Liverpool would take their spot.  At that point the top solar players would make the jump to new clubs.

It's a simple formula, USSF has the national team and the branding of "real" soccer in the US.  Move your national team players to the DA, everyone who is in the window or competing to get in the window follows.  

Also the USSF needs to understand that infrastructure is the most important thing to development.  Players, coaches are all migratory.  Infrastructure is not.  For example Sting should not be in the DA.  Sure they have the this and that and have won this or that, but they lack the infrastructure to not be severely hampered by the DA. That spot should have gone to LP.  Oh "but they don't have any older team".  With a DA spot they would have gotten not only players but also coaches.  Saw the same with the boys when the DA removed Andromeda and kept Solar.  Andro had the infrastructure to provide totally free (better deal than FCD) and the ending result was cost went up for the DA because solar lacks the resources.  Very strong on the girls side as teams go but very weak as a club

Lol,

LP couldn't even get a ECNL bid, and with all the shake up haven't been offered an ECNL bid yet. Hell club elite out SanAntonio received a bid.

Lefty wrote:

tpitty wrote:

Lefty wrote:

Son_ofa_Pitch wrote:FCD can corner the market now will they, is the question.

Have they done it on the boys side?

Basically, in terms of talent pool.

In terms of Cost at U13 and up:
FCD: Everything is paid
Texans: Dues/Uni/Coaching paid, Travel is on the parents.
Solar: Discounted Dues.

FCD can probably make a pretty clear business case for DA investment based on the economics on the boys side.  i.e in developing talent (assets) which they sell in the open market or use on their own professional team.

Not sure what the revenue source (or cost avoidance) would be on the girls side to be able to create a reasonable business case.

If you believe that the Clubs are a business, then don't think they view boys and girls DA as the same product as the economics of the two are very different.

It seems FCD has been using the girls to pay for the boys. Texans / Solar have been doing the same. Who will fund both now?

TulsaFootballDad wrote:Timmyh, some of what you said may become true in the years ahead but for now there are a lot of unknowns with girls DA. In TSC's opinion having girls compete on yearly levels in ECNL and the use of composite allows more girls to compete and develop. DA may roster 22-24 girls from two age groups but how much playing time will they actually see. With  more restrictive sub rules and fewer games where do all these girls get a chance to play and make game decisions. These are just a few of the playing issues, costs are whole nother issue.

My understanding per DA rules each player on the 18 man roster is guaranteed 50% playing time. This could be more time than a player is seeing on an ECNL team that guarantees none.

Academy Teams are required to provide a minimum of 18 full-time players on their Academy Team Roster. There is no maximum limit on the number of players on the Team Roster as long as each player starts a minimum of 25% of the Academy team’s matches.

That seems to be more than is guaranteed at the ECNL level.

Zizou wrote:

TulsaFootballDad wrote:Timmyh, some of what you said may become true in the years ahead but for now there are a lot of unknowns with girls DA. In TSC's opinion having girls compete on yearly levels in ECNL and the use of composite allows more girls to compete and develop. DA may roster 22-24 girls from two age groups but how much playing time will they actually see. With  more restrictive sub rules and fewer games where do all these girls get a chance to play and make game decisions. These are just a few of the playing issues, costs are whole nother issue.

My understanding per DA rules each player on the 18 man roster is guaranteed 50% playing time. This could be more time than a player is seeing on an ECNL team that guarantees none.

Where do you find these rules?

Zizou wrote:LP couldn't even get a ECNL bid, and with all the shake up haven't been offered an ECNL bid yet. Hell club elite out SanAntonio received a bid.

Who the SA club have to compete with?

LP doesn't need an ecnl bid it is old news. They should focus on putting themselves in a position of boys/girls DA. oh as far as the infrastructure goes you can look up the double pass company from Belgium that is working with the USSF They have documentation that explains it all (so far the USSF is completely ignoring)

[quote="go99"]LP doesn't need an ecnl bid it is old news.  They should focus on putting themselves in a position of boys/girls DA.  oh as far as the infrastructure goes you can look up the double pass company from Belgium that is working with the USSF  They have documentation that explains it all (so far the USSF is completely ignoring)
[/quote]

Was the Doublepass report ever published? Haven't seen a copy of it. How a club is run makes a huge difference.

go99 wrote:LP doesn't need an ecnl bid it is old news.  They should focus on putting themselves in a position of boys/girls DA.  oh as far as the infrastructure goes you can look up the double pass company from Belgium that is working with the USSF  They have documentation that explains it all (so far the USSF is completely ignoring)

Blah, blah , blah seems that the work from Liverpool should have already been done. To many excuses why they have not received bids into these top flight leagues. Now, I will say they have many within the system that will not vote them in for one reason or another.

Son_ofa_Pitch wrote:

Zizou wrote:LP couldn't even get a ECNL bid, and with all the shake up haven't been offered an ECNL bid yet. Hell club elite out SanAntonio received a bid.

Who the SA club have to compete with?

Liverpool the great, you would think ECNL would be licking their chops to get them in.