Why do smaller clubs devalue as the kids get older?

11v11 and the need to have a strong 15-18 players in total.
And if let's say Lanier constantly has their top 2-3 players leaving for AU or other clubs, it creates a huge void to fill.

The converse is this:
Why is AU so strong.

It's not just that they are picking up the top 1-2 kids from each local club and then across the south --
it's because they really have no weak players. They are strong from player 1 to 18. There bottom is much better than the bottom at most clubs they compete against, and in my humble opinion, when you go against a top side and throw 1-3 week players in the 11, your screwed -- these kids will get exposed. Hate to say it, but your only as strong as your weakest link.

The weaker kids at AU are still very high quality players that typically will at least give you 100% effort and work their butts off in a game.

That's an interesting perspective and brings up another interesting question. 

Is it better to be player 15-18 on a Top team, or take your game to another team (at the same level, such as ECNL) where you may be the star?  Which would you chose for your player?  

Unfortunately, a lot of those people are college coaches.

Spot on

Frankly I think playing time is better than sitting the bench.  I am running into that issue right now with my son.  The team he is on now is almost a complete restart as 11 kids either left and quit playing all together or went to other clubs.  The sad thing was it was a very good team.  Now he is probably #1 on this team in the rebuild.  He plays full games and if he didn't play full games the team would get beat at least 2x worse than it already is because he is an excellent defender and most goals that get scored off of the defense is either keeper fault or the rest of his inexperienced line in which he saves their butts 90% of the time.  He has told me that if the team keeps losing like this that he wants to look elsewhere.  He only has 3 years left to play club and all the clubs around me are either I feel like suck for what team he would likely make or carry like 24 kids on a team and all kids don't get on the roster each week.  Likely he wouldn't be 1-11 on the team that carries 24 on the team.  So I almost feel like him staying where he is for 3 more years and playing full games is more useful (even if losing and not as fun for him) than trying to go somewhere else at his age and likely seeing a severe drop off in minutes.  I'm not sure he would get a scholarship unless it was a Division 3 type school somewhere.  He just wants to be able to make the high school team and walk on a team in college (club or normal team) if possible.

For college exposure, how important are those larger tourneys (like Jeff Cup which folks don’t seem too happy with given how they handled this current year’s event? And what if you’re the team who’s not winning all (or most) of your games in those large tourneys? Will those recruiters come watch anyway? I don’t know much about this process but one would seem to think they would focus more on the winning teams (strong win-loss record coming in) at those tournaments. Would that be a correct assumption?

And if your team doesn’t get the necessary college exposure at the tournaments, how much of that can be offset by attending ID camps and the like?

Understand the odds of competing at the college level, but would like to consider all possible avenues of college admission and overall experience (academic and athletic)...even if some could be remote possibilities.

Personally I think you would need to take more into consideration than just the soccer aspect. If you are moving clubs you need to think about how your child will react to being on a new team where they are now also trying to make new friends and just try to fit in.

Again, for development purposes, I think training plays a big part.  If you are towards the top on the team, you might not be getting the most out of training and thus not necessarily developing as much.  The player might remain at the top of that team, but in comparison to others at other clubs the player might be starting to fall behind.

Another consideration is where will tournaments be played, and how much exposure can the player get.  If it is a smaller club (only 1 team for the age group), there might not be as much exposure at tournaments or in games in general.  If this is the case, moving to the second team at a bigger club might be beneficial.  However, you really need to scout the club you would be moving to so you are sure there is a good coach, dedication from the new teammates, and the second team isn't treated as inferior by the club when compared to the first team.

I think that it depends on the mission of the club.  Some clubs only have the resources to support younger ages.  This can be a good thing.  Develop the talent and establish a pipeline to other clubs.  I have seen the converse happen at smaller clubs though.  My son spent 4 years at a small club.  There were challenges such as scheduling games. Many small clubs get left out because academies tend to play other academies spanning multiple ages. If you only have a few teams, you may not get on a schedule and even setting up friendly games can be challenging.

Overall, it takes resources to run a club and there can be a different set of challenges at every age.

All good observations and points. Having been a part of LSA for approximately 10 years, from both a rec and club standpoint, they lack leadership on the girls side. Yes they do lack programs, however, they also lack vision and true leadership to create a solid foundation on which to build a successful program
LSA would do well to try and identify their strengths and lean into them, offer girls better exposure and think outside of the box to retain them.

Which is kind of funny as I have always said the reverse of SSA.  SSA is more about their girl's programs than boys.  At least from being in the club that long that is how it seems.