Lately, I've been tuning into the ECNL podcasts, where the hosts present strong opinions on college, professional, and youth soccer. Listening to them raises questions about their experience and understanding of youth development history. They continuously advocate for a school-aged approach over a birth-year model, as if everything was ideal back then and none of the issues they highlight existed. It almost feels like they stepped into a thriving league without acknowledging its evolution.
In my high school days, there were attempts to create national leagues like the Super Y, but those initiatives never gained momentum. Today, leagues like ECNL, MLS Next, GA, EA, NPL, and others are relatively new developments. While they have certainly enhanced competitiveness at the higher levels, this shift has also led to increased costs for families.
In Tulsa, the higher-end competition is becoming diluted because some individuals misrepresent their children's skills and the prestige of their clubs, their coaching abilities at the top end and the potential to parents.
It’s remarkable how OEFC has managed to maintain its size in OKC, especially in light of the current situation here. I’m uncertain whether this is due to effective leadership at the top or a lack of competition. With 12 boys' teams and seven girls' teams in the 2014 age group, their numbers rival those in Dallas. While the lower-tier teams may not be particularly strong, their presence is a crucial support for funding the upper-tier teams.
