ECNL. The C stands for Cartel

[RandomSoccerFan]

What ECNL Boys pro/rel model are you talking about?

He's referencing the ECNL-RL boys promotion/relegation that is in place for NorCal. As stated in posts above, there is nothing as formal for ECNL-NL, but perhaps there will be at some point. Here is a link that describes the pro/rel process for ECNL-RL (the top level of NPL).

National Premier League | Resource | NorCal Premier

norcalpremier.com

 

[NorCalDad]

What ECNL Boys pro/rel model are you talking about?

Yeah we haven't seen a club relegated yet, but I think that's more because the league is expanding. They will definitely need figure out the details. Relegating a team vs a club is different...so it probably needs to be treated differently. The timing is critical as well. The relegation probably needs to happen prior to the tryout window. What does that mean for a club that might have one good team that makes the playoffs?

 

[Yours in futbol]

He's referencing the ECNL-RL boys promotion/relegation that is in place for NorCal. As stated in posts above, there is nothing as formal for ECNL-NL, but perhaps there will be at some point. Here is a link that describes the pro/rel process for ECNL-RL (the top level of NPL).

National Premier League | Resource | NorCal Premier

norcalpremier.com

Got it.

Just FYI, NorCal ECNL-RL girls promotion/relegation works the same way for the girls. It's just not as competitive as the boys' side so there's less actual or potential movement.

I'm 50/50 on the NorCal NPL to ECNL-RL transition. On one hand, the pro/rel is interesting. On the other hand, NPL was one of the only ways you could regularly size up ECNL v. GA or basic NPL teams, and it's a loss that ECNL teams can no longer join the league.

The ECNL girls teams generally dominated NPL in years past, but there are many excellent NPL boys teams that can manhandle ECNL boys teams.

 

[Yours in futbol]

Yeah we haven't seen a club relegated yet, but I think that's more because the league is expanding. They will definitely need figure out the details. Relegating a team vs a club is different...so it probably needs to be treated differently. The timing is critical as well. The relegation probably needs to happen prior to the tryout window. What does that mean for a club that might have one good team that makes the playoffs?

I just happen to disagree with you on the ECNL v MLS debate. Having watched both train and play, I think MLS is a tier above ECNL and we would all see a clear separation if the teams were able to play each other, or if MLS players were allowed to play in high school or non-MLS leagues.

However, I can see how increasing ECNL's visibility by expanding it to include more boys' clubs, along with introducing pro/rel (if that's ever implemented), would help concentrate non-MLS talent to the best ECNL teams and narrow the gap. Pro/rel would be a great thing for boys.

For girls ECNL teams, I think it's a different story because there is not as much participation on the girls' side so the talent pool is much smaller. In NorCal, at least, there are very few non-ECNL teams that can beat even the worst ECNL teams, and it showed when ECNL teams played the bottom girls on their roster in NPL games.

 

[NorCalDad]

Got it.

Just FYI, NorCal ECNL-RL girls promotion/relegation works the same way for the girls. It's just not as competitive as the boys' side so there's less actual or potential movement.

I'm 50/50 on the NorCal NPL to ECNL-RL transition. On one hand, the pro/rel is interesting. On the other hand, NPL was one of the only ways you could regularly size up ECNL v. GA or basic NPL teams, and it's a loss that ECNL teams can no longer join the league.

The ECNL girls teams generally dominated NPL in years past, but there are many excellent NPL boys teams that can manhandle ECNL boys teams.

Yeah there are definitely some solid boys NPL teams. Typically it's a one off team from a smaller club. Perhaps it's the coach or just the team chemistry that keeps them all there. Those same teams would take down most of the Northwest MLS Next teams as well.

 

[NorCalDad]

I just happen to disagree with you on the ECNL v MLS debate. Having watched both train and play, I think MLS is a tier above ECNL and we would all see a clear separation if the teams were able to play each other, or if MLS players were allowed to play in high school or non-MLS leagues.

However, I can see how increasing ECNL's visibility by expanding it to include more boys' clubs, along with introducing pro/rel (if that's ever implemented), would help concentrate non-MLS talent to the best ECNL teams and narrow the gap. Pro/rel would be a great thing for boys.

For girls ECNL teams, I think it's a different story because there is not as much participation on the girls' side so the talent pool is much smaller. In NorCal, at least, there are very few non-ECNL teams that can beat even the worst ECNL teams, and it showed when ECNL teams played the bottom girls on their roster in NPL games.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of the MLS Next and ECNL boys teams play at all ages. There's really not a huge difference. If you take out De Anza, Sac Republic, and the Quakes....the rest would be lucky to be mid-table in ECNL.

 

[NorCalDad]

I just happen to disagree with you on the ECNL v MLS debate. Having watched both train and play, I think MLS is a tier above ECNL and we would all see a clear separation if the teams were able to play each other, or if MLS players were allowed to play in high school or non-MLS leagues.

However, I can see how increasing ECNL's visibility by expanding it to include more boys' clubs, along with introducing pro/rel (if that's ever implemented), would help concentrate non-MLS talent to the best ECNL teams and narrow the gap. Pro/rel would be a great thing for boys.

For girls ECNL teams, I think it's a different story because there is not as much participation on the girls' side so the talent pool is much smaller. In NorCal, at least, there are very few non-ECNL teams that can beat even the worst ECNL teams, and it showed when ECNL teams played the bottom girls on their roster in NPL games.

Also, you don't even have to keep this focused on the Northwest Division -- just look at the Surf Cup and Surf College Cup results. It's a mixed bag. Again, the academy teams are absolutely in a league of their own. The rest not so much.

 

[Grace T.]

I just happen to disagree with you on the ECNL v MLS debate. Having watched both train and play, I think MLS is a tier above ECNL and we would all see a clear separation if the teams were able to play each other, or if MLS players were allowed to play in high school or non-MLS leagues.

However, I can see how increasing ECNL's visibility by expanding it to include more boys' clubs, along with introducing pro/rel (if that's ever implemented), would help concentrate non-MLS talent to the best ECNL teams and narrow the gap. Pro/rel would be a great thing for boys.

For girls ECNL teams, I think it's a different story because there is not as much participation on the girls' side so the talent pool is much smaller. In NorCal, at least, there are very few non-ECNL teams that can beat even the worst ECNL teams, and it showed when ECNL teams played the bottom girls on their roster in NPL games.

Pro/rel for ECNL boys would just do the same thing that happened to the big clubs and Coast (they left, for among other reasons, it's too much of a rat race, demanding exacting standards that distort the game, from both coaches and players). They'd just all leave for MLS Next (which would have an even harder time implementing pro/rel because of the academies and would leave several areas underserved as for MLS Next it's generally the peripheries that are weaker). Pro/rel is hardest on second tier teams because: 1. it causes them to blow up if they are rel from the first team making them even weaker since the quality players leave and they have a hard time getting quality players in, 2. it causes coaches to park certain players who can make the first team on the second team since the second team needs quality players to avoid relegation, and 3. is not always fair because unless you have a championship club like Strikers that can field championship teams across all levels (and therefore are underplaying instead of having a relegation danger) they may be playing first teams of the other clubs.

Pro/rel won't work in combination with letter league because the players are attracted to those teams because they are a certain letter league. Remove the letter league and boom it's the nuclear option for the team because those players have no reason to stay and it gets hard to recruit new players so you are dipping into C level players looking for an opportunity. Pro/rel only works on a unified system like Coast, but as stated before, it has the tradeoff of causing coaches to take short cuts and the coaches don't like it because their jobs ride on the performance (which is in a huge part way beyond their control...that only works if players are required to stay for years on end, which parents wouldn't like because pick poorly and you are stuck with a horrible coach on a team that isn't improving).

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

All true as written. What is also true is that there are terrible ECNL teams and terrible MLS teams with no fear of relegation or anything else, that have no motivation to be anything but terrible. The only attraction is their geography, which is evidently enough to continue to attract players - even though by every definition, the team is terrible. Arguing against pro/rel, with all of its problems, is arguing for allowing terrible teams to continue to stay in the league as is. Both options have downsides, and the letter leagues have picked the former up until now, at least.

 

[NorCalDad]

I think for pro/rel to work in ECNL it really would need to be well thought out. Relegating a club (u13 through u19) is much different than relegating a single team. There are clubs that have 2-3 teams performing well, while the others would struggle in NPL. Does that mean the club should lose ECNL status? I'm on the fence there. At the very least, if a club has no top of the table teams, it's probably time to go different ways. Players/families have already decided that club is not a good choice. I would also think the players/families still at that club would actually be fine with the relegation as they're getting tired of losing all the time. I think you start there.

 

[dad4]

For girls ECNL teams, I think it's a different story because there is not as much participation on the girls' side so the talent pool is much smaller. In NorCal, at least, there are very few non-ECNL teams that can beat even the worst ECNL teams, and it showed when ECNL teams played the bottom girls on their roster in NPL games.

All the more reason to get annoyed with ECNL. The ECNL map doesn't look like a map of the best soccer players. It's a map of where the rich families live. So, we have five clubs north of San Pablo Bay, and zero clubs in the Central Valley.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I think for pro/rel to work in ECNL it really would need to be well thought out.

Yes - you're probably right - but that team, and that club, has already decided that the benefits to staying in the league as a terrible team/club, outweigh any downsides. Relegation shouldn't be up to them - it should be up to the league.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I'm glad that people are starting to see through the XYZ league smokescreen + are identifying that there's good clubs and there's bad clubs in every league. ECNL or GA or MLSN or whatever aren't the pathway to success. Leagues are a platform to showcase ability + skills that's all.

Here's my list of priorities...
1. Coach
2. DOC
3. Players
4. Club Leadership
5. League

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I'd venture that most folks that thought about it for more than a second always saw that. There is also a clear league hierarchy, that can be understood by everyone as well. Choosing a terrible team in a top league or a good team in a lesser league is a fair question, that certainly has pros and cons - rational folks will argue for both options. Similar discussion for mid-table teams. But the existence of terrible teams in top leagues does nothing to validate leagues that aren't competing as well, and also have terrible teams.

Regardless of anyone's personal hierarchy, a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership all don't mean as much if they are playing in a league that will be seen by nobody, and competing against lower-level teams that aren't helping them grow. It's a bit of a hypothetical, granted, as a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership will do what they can to place the team where it has the best chance of success and continuity long-term. If the first 4 are in place, odds are the 5th is either there or will be there at some point soon.

 

[crush]

All the more reason to get annoyed with ECNL. The ECNL map doesn't look like a map of the best soccer players. It's a map of where the rich families live. So, we have five clubs north of San Pablo Bay, and zero clubs in the Central Valley.

Sparkletts Water Service got in trouble for redlining and so did the old Yellow Pages. No Yellow Pages for those in certain low-income areas and no water service and no Elite Soccer.

 

[Grace T.]

I'd venture that most folks that thought about it for more than a second always saw that. There is also a clear league hierarchy, that can be understood by everyone as well. Choosing a terrible team in a top league or a good team in a lesser league is a fair question, that certainly has pros and cons - rational folks will argue for both options. Similar discussion for mid-table teams. But the existence of terrible teams in top leagues does nothing to validate leagues that aren't competing as well, and also have terrible teams.

Regardless of anyone's personal hierarchy, a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership all don't mean as much if they are playing in a league that will be seen by nobody, and competing against lower-level teams that aren't helping them grow. It's a bit of a hypothetical, granted, as a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership will do what they can to place the team where it has the best chance of success and continuity long-term. If the first 4 are in place, odds are the 5th is either there or will be there at some point soon.

I'd venture that most folks that thought about it for more than a second always saw that. There is also a clear league hierarchy, that can be understood by everyone as well. Choosing a terrible team in a top league or a good team in a lesser league is a fair question, that certainly has pros and cons - rational folks will argue for both options. Similar discussion for mid-table teams. But the existence of terrible teams in top leagues does nothing to validate leagues that aren't competing as well, and also have terrible teams.

Regardless of anyone's personal hierarchy, a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership all don't mean as much if they are playing in a league that will be seen by nobody, and competing against lower-level teams that aren't helping them grow. It's a bit of a hypothetical, granted, as a top coach/DOC/players/club leadership will do what they can to place the team where it has the best chance of success and continuity long-term. If the first 4 are in place, odds are the 5th is either there or will be there at some point soon.

1. The market seems to belie this point. As from the other thread, you have boys willing to take a futures or reserve slot at mls next with even the worst teams and huge ass commutes knowing they probably won’t get playtime or any significant amount of playtime. Mls next for that reason seems to have gone with a build it and they will come approach with the Red Bulls and lasc
2. as dad 4 points out in nor cal, geography is important. In SoCal there is a Latino triangle around downtown that had no Latino presence in ecnl as I’ve been informed by this forum, at least on the girls sde. The girls in this region as pointed out by the downtown la article are effectively locked out or have a long commute. Potentially opens up ecnl (mls next has 2 teams in that area but no real valley team) to a lawsuit particularly in A disparate impact jurisdiction. Even if they were to add a club it might not help as dad4 has pointed out ecnl tends to cluster in richer whiter areas
3. There are plenty of clubs with great leadership that are locked out for a variety of reasons. What those reasons are go to the legality. SoCal elite for instance has the winning teams but supposedly what happened in SoCal league counts against them (though winning is a hard justification if you take the Red Bulls….certainly SoCal elite has had more success than the Red Bulls on the boys side). There’s ayso United which has one of the largest player pool out there… no doubt the ayso philosophy not to mention some resentment that they’ve maintain a separate org goes into that. There’s downtown la which is the most obvious example particularly with great club leadership. And then there are small clubs, like power evolution, that couldn’t field a team at every level but who have had some success at turning out lower level pros and direct towards European and Mexican id. If visibility weren’t an issue I’d totally have put my kid in power evolution (I’m gonna get subpoenaed now too :-( )

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

1. The market seems to belie this point. As from the other thread, you have boys willing to take a futures or reserve slot at mls next with even the worst teams and huge ass commutes knowing they probably won’t get playtime or any significant amount of playtime. Mls next for that reason seems to have gone with a build it and they will come approach with the Red Bulls and lasc
2. as dad 4 points out in nor cal, geography is important. In SoCal there is a Latino triangle around downtown that had no Latino presence in ecnl as I’ve been informed by this forum, at least on the girls sde. The girls in this region as pointed out by the downtown la article are effectively locked out or have a long commute. Potentially opens up ecnl (mls next has 2 teams in that area but no real valley team) to a lawsuit particularly in A disparate impact jurisdiction. Even if they were to add a club it might not help as dad4 has pointed out ecnl tends to cluster in richer whiter areas
3. There are plenty of clubs with great leadership that are locked out for a variety of reasons. What those reasons are go to the legality. SoCal elite for instance has the winning teams but supposedly what happened in SoCal league counts against them (though winning is a hard justification if you take the Red Bulls….certainly SoCal elite has had more success than the Red Bulls on the boys side). There’s ayso United which has one of the largest player pool out there… no doubt the ayso philosophy not to mention some resentment that they’ve maintain a separate org goes into that. There’s downtown la which is the most obvious example particularly with great club leadership. And then there are small clubs, like power evolution, that couldn’t field a team at every level but who have had some success at turning out lower level pros and direct towards European and Mexican id. If visibility weren’t an issue I’d totally have put my kid in power evolution (I’m gonna get subpoenaed now too :-( )

1 - I think you're proving the point. Some think it's worth it to sit on teams in a certain league, or even join terrible teams in a certain league, rather than spend the time on a successful team in another league. Neither choice is wrong, but there are some pretty clear drawbacks to either.

2 - Geography (for practices) plays a point, but affluence matters more as at some point the costs are more about ongoing travel for most games and tournaments - not only the player, but anyone who wants to watch or participate. Four Seasons only runs hotels in the priciest cities, and isn't sued because they don't serve low-income areas (other than licensing their name to landscaping firms who put on presidential press conferences). The map overlaying richer areas makes sense - and it's where anyone starting or running a league for club/travel soccer would probably concentrate on.

3 - Of course there are exceptions to every rule - but the fact that we have to list the clubs that aren't able to join the top leagues pretty much seals it, doesn't it? Sure - there are some examples like Tudela, SoCal Elite, or some others that might be strong additions to MLS N or ECNL, but there aren't a ton of well-run, successful clubs with strong coaches/DOCs/players that for whatever reason are languishing in leagues below their stature. Team based pro/rel would fix this entirely, but it probably isn't a large enough problem to warrant that solution.

 

[NorCalDad]

All the more reason to get annoyed with ECNL. The ECNL map doesn't look like a map of the best soccer players. It's a map of where the rich families live. So, we have five clubs north of San Pablo Bay, and zero clubs in the Central Valley.

Huh? River Island Surf and Odyssey are both central valley clubs.

 

[NorCalDad]

Huh? River Island Surf and Odyssey are both central valley clubs.

Oh nevermind -- you were talking about the girl's side. I think this issue is bigger than ECNL.

 

[Grace T.]

1 - I think you're proving the point. Some think it's worth it to sit on teams in a certain league, or even join terrible teams in a certain league, rather than spend the time on a successful team in another league. Neither choice is wrong, but there are some pretty clear drawbacks to either.

2 - Geography (for practices) plays a point, but affluence matters more as at some point the costs are more about ongoing travel for most games and tournaments - not only the player, but anyone who wants to watch or participate. Four Seasons only runs hotels in the priciest cities, and isn't sued because they don't serve low-income areas (other than licensing their name to landscaping firms who put on presidential press conferences). The map overlaying richer areas makes sense - and it's where anyone starting or running a league for club/travel soccer would probably concentrate on.

3 - Of course there are exceptions to every rule - but the fact that we have to list the clubs that aren't able to join the top leagues pretty much seals it, doesn't it? Sure - there are some examples like Tudela, SoCal Elite, or some others that might be strong additions to MLS N or ECNL, but there aren't a ton of well-run, successful clubs with strong coaches/DOCs/players that for whatever reason are languishing in leagues below their stature. Team based pro/rel would fix this entirely, but it probably isn't a large enough problem to warrant that solution.

Re 2, yes but ECNL is hardly a starter league, and MLS Next has been able to establish 2+.5+.5 teams in the downtown triangle (LAUFA, TFA, and I'd count LASC, which is supposed to be the valley team, and LA Surf, which is supposed to be the Glendale/Pasadena team) there. It would be a matter of fact over whether it's a lack of initiative on the part of ECNL, that teams don't want to pay the price, that teams in those areas can't furnish the facilities, or some cultural argument that Latino girls don't want to play that would be necessary to counter. On the boys side it's been done.

Re 3, it depends upon the reasons why they've been excluded. FCGS saying that it didn't want SoCal Elite drawing its players away and getting others to vote against for that reason would be a bad reason legally. Excluding SoCal Elite for irregularities leading to its suspension on SoCal League is a better one. I mentioned 4 instances of clubs being locked out. Off the top of my head, I can name another dozen being locked out of some letter league somewhere at some level, again given that performance doesn't seem to be a deciding criteria (given the Red Bulls and LASC) for MLS Next. Part of the reason is MLS Next doesn't seem to have a firm published objective criteria for deciding who gets in and out. They might have a secret one, but we really don't know...the legality of it all turns on what that reason is and whether it is just pretexual.

Part of this issue is that it's the old problem of Aristotle's Flute. Aristotle poised the question if we have a 100 flute players and 1 golden flute capable of making the most enchanting music, who should get the flute. Aristotle's answer was "the best flute player" because Aristotle felt the best was the most virtuous (Rawls later attacked this on the grounds that Wilt Chamberlain was the best at basketball quite due to some random issue including genetics). There are other possible answers: randomly, by who wants it the most (and pays the most), the most disadvantaged (social justice), equity (everyone shares it), democratically (by vote), deontologically (by whoever found it), etc (BTW the same issue with first tier college admissions). Legally, there are a lot of o.k. answers when it comes to soccer. Each has side effects. The wrong answer, however, is any attempt to limit competition and based on the evidence right now, we just don't know.