U15 ECNL Flight Assignments

They have the Challenge "A" and Challenge "B" brackets broken out online now. Some pretty stout clubs in Challenge "B" still.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/docs/2010-2011%20ECNL%20Flight%20Assignments.pdf

Tough group Zygor. No patsies, for sure.

They also have schedules out for the California event in 2 weeks.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/schedules/2010-2011/28051334.html

Some surprises for me:
Sereno, Neusport and Alanta Fire not in "A" group. Real So Cal and Solar might have an argument too.

Looking at the schedules...one thing puzzles me. It shows Slammers in the A bracket but their schedule is against B bracket teams. On the other hand Neusport is in B bracket but they're scheduled against A bracket teams.

On another note...I heard that Solar Red will get the '96 spot for ECNL and will be coached by Matt Colvin. Apparently they'll add a few other kids from Solar and/or Solar Blue. Can anyone confirm?

[quote="socrocks"]Tough group Zygor. No patsies, for sure.

They also have schedules out for the California event in 2 weeks.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/schedules/2010-2011/28051334.html

Some surprises for me:
Sereno, Neusport and Alanta Fire not in "A" group. Real So Cal and Solar might have an argument too.

Looking at the schedules...one thing puzzles me. It shows Slammers in the A bracket but their schedule is against B bracket teams. On the other hand Neusport is in B bracket but they're scheduled against A bracket teams.



I have been told bracket placement has to do with each club's overall results from their older teams, not individual team results

[quote="justbecause"]

socrocks wrote:Tough group Zygor. No patsies, for sure.

They also have schedules out for the California event in 2 weeks.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/schedules/2010-2011/28051334.html

Some surprises for me:
Sereno, Neusport and Alanta Fire not in "A" group. Real So Cal and Solar might have an argument too.

Looking at the schedules...one thing puzzles me. It shows Slammers in the A bracket but their schedule is against B bracket teams. On the other hand Neusport is in B bracket but they're scheduled against A bracket teams.



I have been told bracket placement has to do with each club's overall results from their older teams, not individual team results

Read that elsewhere as well, makes zero sense.

socrocks wrote:Tough group Zygor. No patsies, for sure.

They also have schedules out for the California event in 2 weeks.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/schedules/2010-2011/28051334.html

Some surprises for me:
Sereno, Neusport and Alanta Fire not in "A" group. Real So Cal and Solar might have an argument too.

Looking at the schedules...one thing puzzles me. It shows Slammers in the A bracket but their schedule is against B bracket teams. On the other hand Neusport is in B bracket but they're scheduled against A bracket teams.

On another note...I heard that Solar Red will get the '96 spot for ECNL and will be coached by Matt Colvin. Apparently they'll add a few other kids from Solar and/or Solar Blue. Can anyone confirm?

Have to agree with you here. AFC was who I thought would be TX's toughest competition at Regionals (had they made it to Regionals) and Neusport was the most impressive team I saw at Nike.

I've heard that is one of the criteria (how the specific club did overall the previous year)....but hopefully not all of it. IF that were the sole factor, it seems to me a pretty ineffective (maybe even lazy) way of doing it. Clearly their goal is to make a dileneation between A and B. So why not use all available resources and get it as close to correct as possible the first time rather than use 2-3 years of promotion/relegation to try to get it right?

socrocks wrote:


On another note...I heard that Solar Red will get the '96 spot for ECNL and will be coached by Matt Colvin. Apparently they'll add a few other kids from Solar and/or Solar Blue. Can anyone confirm?

Right. "Solar" for ECNL = Solar Red + others TBD. As I understand it, we'll roster 26 but only travel 18 to each event. I can't resist pointing out that a team comprised of SR and Solar players should be pretty feisty.

I am not sure that they even intend to keep Bracket A and Bracket B in 2011-2012 because word is that they will go to more of a regional model then.

ChelseaFan wrote:I am not sure that they even intend to keep Bracket A and Bracket B in 2011-2012 because word is that they will go to more of a regional model then.

I think you're probably right. I guess this is the toe-stubbing and way-finding that we're going to have to be patient with.

When the 95s came in, the separate A and B flights were hand-picked (with some degree of input and logic). Now with the 96s it looks like emphasis is based on how all of the older groups within your own club did. Next year....it doesn't seem to matter since it will probably be geographically denominated. Hmmmmm.

socrocks wrote:

ChelseaFan wrote:I am not sure that they even intend to keep Bracket A and Bracket B in 2011-2012 because word is that they will go to more of a regional model then.

I think you're probably right. I guess this is the toe-stubbing and way-finding that we're going to have to be patient with.

When the 95s came in, the separate A and B flights were hand-picked (with some degree of input and logic). Now with the 96s it looks like emphasis is based on how all of the older groups within your own club did. Next year....it doesn't seem to matter since it will probably be geographically denominated. Hmmmmm.

A regional ECNL league sounds tougher than Region III Championships, since a lot of the tough opponents are in TX/OK.

Don't really care how the league works out next year, but I wish there was some widely known certainty about it. It's unfortunate that the 96s willl be the guinea pigs during what is probably their most important year of select soccer (U16).

I feel fairly confident that ECNL's (and it's member clubs) objectives will be met. This includes college coach exposure, quality competition and talent recognition. But as with any new growth/development model, there will be some floundering. The big question remains....at what cost (costs is not limited to finances)?