ECNL tryouts

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.  When I say the primary D1 gameday roster  is 15 (6 returning + 9 newbies),  I'm removing the 3 ECNL players that are dual rostered..

now my head hurts   

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster, register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season. Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster. The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

Now that I think of it...

I wonder what would happen if 9 "holdover" players signed on July 1, but at some point after the beginning of the LHGCL season, 3 of those players decided to request a release from NTSSA, and the club just happened to have 3 players that were previously not registered to another NTSSA U14 team show up to take those 3 players' spots on the D1 roster...  

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

weatherbug wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

Who said anything about players having to actually play additional games or attend additional practices under this scenario?

weatherbug wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

+1 pullout method

bwgophers wrote:

weatherbug wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

Who said anything about players having to actually play additional games or attend additional practices under this scenario?

You nailed it. Top players will play ECNL games and be used to hold LHGCL roster spots. Unless a game is a must win and not in conflict with an ECNL event, you probably wont see the top girls out at a LHGCL game. CPP will be used heavily this year to field the D1 teams.

weatherbug wrote:

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

Players? There is no thought whatsoever about players in this. Its simply clubs gaming the system. Its about dollars, not players.

tako wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

weatherbug wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

What I don't understand is why would people want their daughters in the middle of this?  I can see the positive for the D1 players of having the possibility of dual rostering on an ECNL team or ECNL bench players getting more playing time, but I see a lot more negatives for the players.  Burnout, increased risk of injury from adding additional practices & games and a lack of cohesion to really bond with a true team seem like real possibilities.  I think it was better when the teams just pulled out.

Who said anything about players having to actually play additional games or attend additional practices under this scenario?

You nailed it. Top players will play ECNL games and be used to hold LHGCL roster spots. Unless a game is a must win and not in conflict with an ECNL event, you probably wont see the top girls out at a LHGCL game. CPP will be used heavily this year to field the D1 teams.

Exactly....enough said!

So ... looks like there is a way to dual roster and hold D1 spot while still playing ECNL.

The next question is which teams are trying to do just that? Solar Red (heard it was done)? Texans? Sting? FCD? Feet?

Which teams have a chance of pulling it off? Which teams clearly don't even want to do that?

bwgophers wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:

ItsMeAgain wrote:Solar won't keep all their players, so let's say they only lose 3 all-together.  That puts their returning D1 players to 6.................basically the bench from prior year.............which means they now have to dual roster 3 of their ECNL players who will either most likely never see a D1 game, or weren't good enough to make the gameday ECNL team and end up playing with D1....So the primary Solar D1 game-day team is formed using 6 of the remaining players from prior year D1 and 9 newbies, most likely not replacing the talent that leaves for ECNL.

Is this how N+1 works?

I thought it was half + 1 of the players from prior year's roster...not half the players that decided to remain on a given team. If solar had 18 wouldn't their n+1 requirement still be 10 players regardless if three left?

Let me clarify my example..................I used the number 16 for their roster.  don't know if that's correct or not, don't really care.  it's an example. If it's n+1 rule then they need 9 players on their ntx roster at time of lake highlands registration. let's say 3 players leave, so there's 13 remaining with Solar from prior year.  6 of those were from prior year D1 team that will stay in D1 and 7 moved up to ECNL.    So the ntx roster will have the 6 returning players from prior year D1 team and would need 3 players dual rostered with ECNL roster and ntx roster.  There's your 9 to keep the bye.

Not to mention that "theoretically", you could also take 3 "new" players, assign them to the ECNL roster,  register all or part of the ECNL roster with NTSSA but don't sign that team up for an NTSSA league, and then use CPP to play those 3 players in the first 15 games of the LHGCL D1 season.  Thus, you could realistically end up keeping your D1 bye with as few as only 3 or 4 full-time holdovers from the previous year's roster.  The other 5-6 players are on the LHGCL D1 roster in name only, and maybe a couple of them help out in the final 3 games of the league season.  

Then, since you've now established the separate ECNL and D1 teams at U14, at U15 the club is pretty much free to do what it wants with that D1 roster again.

Once again you and 4-3-3 are right on the money. This really isn't as difficult or sinister as everyone seems to imply. To pull this off you just need a commitment from the old roster to support the D1 team to the extent needed. 4-3-3 is probably right with his numbers of needing 10 holdover players. So add 8 new players, have a couple from the old roster commit to full time D1 games and then have 3-4 ecnl players help with the D1 games. Roster 6-8 of them so that you spread out the game commitments and then just have ecnl schedule around them to avoid any conflicts. The big clubs control ecnl so they will definitely all work together to avoid any conflicts. Shorten the travel schedule for the D1 team and you easily have a workable situation.

The upside to the D1 roster is that you can dual roster all of those girls on the ecnl roster and bring them along as needed or as earned in practice and in games. With CPP in place and the ability to roster 30 girls in ecnl, there is plenty of upside for girls to consider joining one of these teams.

Sure it takes a little brainpower to work thru the potential land mines but its not as difficult as people are saying. The biggest challenge is the cost but the clubs control the coaching and field costs and they have a big incentive to make it all work.

And then once you clear the u14 hurdle as you said, its a non issue for the next 4 years. Genius move and it only took these clubs 3 years to figure it out.

Oh and jm23 is crazy is he thinks that the new D1 competition will be as good as the ecnl conference. Kicks are top dawg but the ecnl club teams will be weaker (good but still weaker) and the other 4-5 teams can't come close to comparing to the 5 teams that are out of the dfw area that make up the balance of the conference.

jm23 loses a little credibility if he is hanging his hat on that argument. Kicks would be the only D1 team that could compete in the ecnl conference but that has been the case for years.

Pinnochio wrote:Oh and jm23 is crazy is he thinks that the new D1 competition will be as good as the ecnl conference. Kicks are top dawg but the ecnl club teams will be weaker (good but still weaker) and the other 4-5 teams can't come close to comparing to the 5 teams that are out of the dfw area that make up the balance of the conference.

jm23 loses a little credibility if he is hanging his hat on that argument. Kicks would be the only D1 team that could compete in the ecnl conference but that has been the case for years.

Umm...you're throwing around a lot of speculative comments with the confidence as if they're facts. Lol. I recognize it because I do it all the time.   

The facts are the only south Texas or Oklahoma 01 team that has had any success against NTX is OFC...which is not an ECNL club. I think one hurricane team won a minor tournament back in academy in PKs....someone correct me if challenge, lonestar, Albion or Texas rush has any results over the years showing they are better than bottom 5 NTX d1... I'd take hilton, kicks gold or Monte over all of them.

We won't really know how many teams were gutted when their top players went to ECNL, and their second tier players jumped on one of these bye retention opportunities..lol. My guess is most these new teams will be figuring out how to play with each other for half the fall.

But JM was saying if clubs are actually following what LH is claiming they must do, and the majority of rosters from last years d1 end up playing LHGCL to keep the byes, then d1 would be stronger than u14 ECNL. And I agree with that 100pct.

But the word now, which big poppy seems to confirm, is the clubs have no intent to use their top players from last year in LH. Those players are still going to ECNL (exclusively), and they're basically playing games with the rostering rules to keep the byes and make new teams.

Obviously  in that scenario lake highlands COULD end up watered down significantly, and the question is whether it ends up even more watered down than it would've been if the teams had given up their byes like past years.

I do think you're drinking grape kook aid if you think 30 girls have a chance at ECNL minutes. Lol. Either you haven't checked the ECNL substitution rules, haven't talked to ECNL parents, or haven't been paying attention at all the last few years. Parents still buying that pitch this late in the game have no one to blame but themselves.

30?! I think 22 is too many

Pinnochio wrote:Oh and jm23 is crazy is he thinks that the new D1 competition will be as good as the ecnl conference. Kicks are top dawg but the ecnl club teams will be weaker (good but still weaker) and the other 4-5 teams can't come close to comparing to the 5 teams that are out of the dfw area that make up the balance of the conference.

jm23 loses a little credibility if he is hanging his hat on that argument. Kicks would be the only D1 team that could compete in the ecnl conference but that has been the case for years.

With what he has accomplished with those teams, after all the doubters and constant trash talkers, attempts to recruit his players... you say he loses a little credibility...      

4-3-3 you need to get your facts straight on the competition. TSC has beat every ECNL team except Flanny and Bates. Those were 1 goal losses in OT. STX Albion and Lonestar are in the Top 5 consistently in ECNL at the age groups.

Kicks will be the best at u-14 and u-15, but these kids will wake up to the ECNL lure. Look at the 00s in NTX. There significantly weaker than the ECNL teams at that age and the 01 ECNL teams could win LHGCL if they played up.

Sting will always have the draw for players at the highest level so there will still be the mass migration in two years. Don't kid yourself, the top kids aren't all on ECNL teams yet. They will be over the next couple of years. With my older DD the landscape changed dramatically at u16. We pulled from everyone. Of course there was no jm to battle with at that time.

Ntxrocks wrote:4-3-3 you need to get your facts straight on the competition.  TSC has beat every ECNL team except Flanny and Bates.  Those were 1 goal losses in OT.  STX Albion and Lonestar are in the Top 5 consistently in ECNL at the age groups.  

Kicks will be the best at u-14 and u-15, but these kids will wake up to the ECNL lure.  Look at the 00s in NTX.  There significantly weaker than the ECNL teams at that age and the 01 ECNL teams could win LHGCL if they played up.

Sting will always have the draw for players at the highest level so there will still be the mass migration in two years.  Don't kid yourself, the top kids aren't all on ECNL teams yet.  They will be over the next couple of years.  With my older DD the landscape changed dramatically at u16.  We pulled from everyone.  Of course there was no jm to battle with at that time.

I'm talking about 01s. There are no 01 ECNL teams as of yet. We've been down to Stx several times and the only one that seemed competitive with NTX d1 or d2 was Albion...and that was primarily because they thugged it up to a level I havent seen before or since. When did TSC beat every 01 except flanny or bates? You're saying they beat Grubb?

edit...did some quick fact checking. Rolled up ECNL standings for non NTX teams u14 to u17....left out u18 for obvious reasons. Only lonestar averages top 5 in Texas conference.

Lonestar 3 (u14), 6 (u15), 4 (u16), 3 (u17)...Avg 4
Rush 6 (u14), 3 (u15), 10(u16), 9 (u17)...Avg 7
Albion 7 (u14), 9 (u15), 8 (u16), 6 (u17)...Avg 7.5
Challenge 9 (u14), 7 (u15), 9 (u16), 10(u17)...Avg 8.75
TSC 10(u14), 4 (u15), 5 (u16), 5 (u17)...Avg 6

Cobra_Kai wrote:30?!  I think 22 is too many

15 players will see most of the minutes.

Ntxrocks wrote:4-3-3 you need to get your facts straight on the competition.  TSC has beat every ECNL team except Flanny and Bates.  Those were 1 goal losses in OT.  STX Albion and Lonestar are in the Top 5 consistently in ECNL at the age groups.  

Kicks will be the best at u-14 and u-15, but these kids will wake up to the ECNL lure.  Look at the 00s in NTX.  There significantly weaker than the ECNL teams at that age and the 01 ECNL teams could win LHGCL if they played up.

Sting will always have the draw for players at the highest level so there will still be the mass migration in two years.  Don't kid yourself, the top kids aren't all on ECNL teams yet.  They will be over the next couple of years.  With my older DD the landscape changed dramatically at u16.  We pulled from everyone.  Of course there was no jm to battle with at that time.

More fact checking for you Zizou/HookIt/TotalSoccer/NtxRocks (no we're not stupid, and we know you don't have a u16 daughter...lol)

TSC Hurricane notable results vs NTX

4/13/2014 vs Jazz 01G @ tulsa cup: 1-0 win...this is the arlington team bracketed with Kicks SC in state cup

2/9/2014 vs FC Dallas White 01 @ Jr. Ecnl event: 1-3 loss

11/13/2013 vs GSSC Girls @ Adidas showcase: 6-0 win...GSSC is not a LH team....for comparison sake, DTFW has beaten them 8-0, diamonds 6-0 and Kicks Blue 4-0

11/13/2013 vs Andromeda @ Adidas showcase: 0-1 loss

9/1/2013 vs Dfeeters @ plano labor day: 0-1 loss

8/31/2013 vs Sting North Angell @ plano labor day: 0-1 loss

8/31/2013 vs FCD '01 (the 7th place D3 team) @ plano labor day: 1-1 draw

12/9/2012 vs TFC 01G @ TFC Blue cup: 0-3 loss

12/8/2012 vs Blue Diamonds @ TFC Blue cup: 0-1 loss

12/8/2012 vs sting East guttierrez: 0-0 Draw

I could go back further but it's more of the same. They've not beaten any LH D1 teams I could find, and appear to be neck and neck with with d3, plano and arlington teams.

Not knocking them or their program, but folks oughta quit with the nonsense claiming a group of players BECOMES elite when they sew on an ECNL patch.

If you can post up any facts justifying an argument this type of ECNL team represents better competition than bottom of NTX D1, I'd sure appreciate it. And I'm not talking about '00 or other age groups, we're talking '01s at u14.

Actually I do have a u16 in NTX. PM me and you will know who I am.

As far as your facts, you have the wrong TSC team. That's the second (B) team results. TSC beat Grubb 1-0 in Austin, lost to Flanny in Finals at Texas Cup 3-2 in OT after beating Hilton Lonestar and Challenge, and lost to Bates 1-0 in Austin.

Ntxrocks wrote:Actually I do have a u16 in NTX.  PM me and you will know who I am.

As far as your facts, you have the wrong TSC team.  That's the second (B) team results.  TSC beat Grubb 1-0 in Austin, lost to Flanny in Finals at Texas Cup 3-2 in OT after beating Hilton Lonestar and Challenge, and lost to Bates 1-0 in Austin.

PM Sent.

And you're right...Beattie team is the top team. I got caught with gotsoccer, as Beattie is ranked significantly lower than the B team because they play mostly 00s in tournaments.

Same thing has happened to Kicks gotsoccer ranking as well...but I digress...Beatti's record still doesn't have much to indicate they are significantly better, if at all, than top D2 or bottom D1 teams in NTX.

They appear consistenly stronger than STX except Albion, but that makes my point about strength of bottom end of TX conf ECNL at u14.

Beattie hasn't won anything in NTX since select.

Best they've done is they played silver division of PLD at U11, and lost in finals to FCD East Gray. They made it to finals before losing to Flanagan at last year's texas cup, but that didn't have any NTX d1 teams except for Sting if I recall, and they were beaten 3-1 by Guzman en route to the finals.

Other than the one Grubb victory at the "Jr ECNL Event" in Feb. 2013, they haven't beaten any NTX D1 team since select. There are several D2 teams that have one off wins against the top 5 in D1...hilton/kicks gold/monte have all beaten top 5 teams at one time or another.

So TSC may not be the plano level team their B team looks to be, but nothing in their record says they're in a different class than the 6 to 14 teams in NTX.

TSC Hurricane Beattie notable results vs NTX or Stx

2/9/2014 vs Bates @ Austin Jr ECNL Event - 0-1 Loss
2/8/2014 vs FCD @ Austin Jr ECNL Event 1-1 Draw
2/8/2014 vs Albion @ Austin JR Ecnl event 1-3 loss
12/1/2013 vs Sting Flanagan @ Texas Cup 2-3 loss
12/1/2013 vs Sting Hilton @ Texas Cup 2-1 win
11/30/2013 vs Sting Guzman @ Texas Cup 1-3 loss
11/30/2013 vs Lonestars Red @ Texas Cup 2-1 win
11/29/2013 vs lonestars black @ Texas Cup 2-0 win
11/29/2013 vs challenge sc @ Texas Cup 1-0 win
02/2/2013 vs Grubb @ Jr ECNL event 1-0 win
11/25/2012 vs Flanagan @ Texas Cup 2012 0-1 loss
11/24/2014 vs Bates @ Texas cup 2012 0-1 loss
11/18/2012 vs sting East Gray @ Adidas Showcase 0-2 loss
11/17/2012 vs sting East Gray @ Adidas 2-1 win

Zactly

I think we are looking at this all wrong! These are all past results. How many player will each team lose to ECNL. Hilton, Monty, Ft. worth Texans, Andromeda, and Guzman could be losing thier top 3-5 players. Add this to already loosing 4 out of the top five teams in LHGCL. Potentially losing the top 60 players out of 150 d-1 LHGCL.

Zizou wrote:I think we are looking at this all wrong! These are all past results. How many player will each team lose to ECNL. Hilton, Monty, Ft. worth Texans, Andromeda, and Guzman could be losing thier top 3-5 players. Add this to already loosing 4 out of the top five teams in LHGCL. Potentially losing the top 60 players out of 150 d-1 LHGCL.

As someone on the recruiting end of this situation, I can asssure you that you are exactly right. The best players on Guzman, Texans FW, Andromeda as well as some of the D2, D3 studs...will all be moving to ECNL or D1 rosters. This is not an opinion...it is fact and it has been taking place over the past month. Most, if not all of the free agent studs have been recruited and have multiple offers from the top clubs. All current LH D1 teams going to ECNL will only get better, stronger, faster and have more depth due to adding those 10-15 free agent players. At this point, retention seems to be relatively high with all teams moving to ECNL...thus...most coaches won't have to recreate strategies, lineups or playing schemes.