VA MD DC Girls soccer - thoughts, opinions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDA also shows 2006s. Rumors abound about GDA starting earlier.

?

Soon the question won't be "which Clubs are getting DA?", it will be "which Club doesn't have 'DA?". These teams will essentially become just like the good old "A" teams in CCL when every Club in the area offers them.

Won't they all end up playing themselves when there are 6-8 DA clubs in the local area? You know, just like CCL?

Invite-only tryouts is not casting a wide-net. If anyone thinks the way the DA system is currently set-up is casting a wide-net, I want what their smoking.

Maybe the ladies want to stop following the fellows. They aren't a success story.

First of all the purpose of DA is to create an integrated pyramid structure where clubs develop players organically from within and move the players up the pyramid and prepare them for high level professional and national team play.

One of the challenges in the DC area has been that there are lots of small to midsize clubs - many of whom have had success at the regional and national level, but the development of players has been secondary to building teams to win competitions.

There ultimately will not be 6-8 DA clubs in the DC area. There may end up being a total of 3-4 with feeder clubs at the younger ages. US Soccer will encourage clubs to merge or combine forces. Years ago, they tried to actually get the CCL clubs to all support 1 DA squad, but all of the coaching / TD egos prevented it.

As for will they just all play each other like CCL? Maybe a little bit at the younger ages where they are trying to limit travel, but not st the older ages. Yes, the 3-4 teams in the area will play each other but they will be in conferences aligned regionally and then play competition outside of the region at the two yearly showcase events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U13 USGDA already in place as a pilot in Frontier Division. Talk of expansion to U13 was on other boards as far back as November. With ID sessions for 06s, sounds like they are really getting ready to identify 5th and 6th grade girls in this area for 06 teams starting in 2018-19.

The Atlantic Division will have U13 added this coming Fall as a pilot as well so that is why the call for 06's.

I think this does make sense, but there also have been discussions and rumors of U13 in the far West as well. Have you seen any releases about this new pilot from the Atlantic clubs? I have not.

What is interesting about U13 in the Frontier, is that it includes a club (Rise SC) that does not have the full USGDA at U14 and above. Similar to the boys DA, are large clubs like Loudoun and Arlington applying for U13-only franchises for this Atlantic pilot? Would help them keep their 06s in house an extra year and not defect to ECNL, while then referring their best 06s to the Wash. Spirit the following year for U14 DA. Any info? There used to be an Alliance, but I believe it fell apart over a year ago.

No official release, only what coaches have said. The "Official" meeting has happened via webcast so clubs do in fact know by now.

But, to address some of the other issues, that would depend upon the number of applicants. So while, I seriously doubt Loudoun would apply for a sliver of DA IF USGDA wanted to add U12 in the near future they will need more clubs similar to the boys structure in order to make U12-U13 more feasible travel wise for the obviously younger players. So in this case, yeah, I could see Arlington, Bethesda, etc and other large more local clubs being offered limited DA's, like the boys side, just to keep travel down.

...so does anyone else going to id session today have any thoughts on which story is accurate

a) girls u14 da will be combined next year into 2005/2006 dual age group, majority will come from 2005s with only a few 2006s who will have to fight for play time under u14 restrictive sub rules, most 2006s won't play d. academy until the year after, so it's really just 2006s that are capable of playing up this year, and that is the only reason 2006s invited (other da regions seem to think this is the focus)

vs.

b) there is going to be a new atlantic u13 division (what is being talked about here) like what was started up last year with u13 da in texas where all but 2 of the clubs in frontier division have u13 sides, and where that group is considered only a pilot and the teams aren't held to the same standards as u14 ... i.e., only train 3x per week, kids are able to participate in other sports, no scores/standings, etc.

dd is going next month, but would like to have some advance insight. b sounds much better then a imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
...so does anyone else going to id session today have any thoughts on which story is accurate

a) girls u14 da will be combined next year into 2005/2006 dual age group, majority will come from 2005s with only a few 2006s who will have to fight for play time under u14 restrictive sub rules, most 2006s won't play d. academy until the year after, so it's really just 2006s that are capable of playing up this year, and that is the only reason 2006s invited (other da regions seem to think this is the focus)

vs.

b) there is going to be a new atlantic u13 division (what is being talked about here) like what was started up last year with u13 da in texas where all but 2 of the clubs in frontier division have u13 sides, and where that group is considered only a pilot and the teams aren't held to the same standards as u14 ... i.e., only train 3x per week, kids are able to participate in other sports, no scores/standings, etc.

dd is going next month, but would like to have some advance insight. b sounds much better then a imo.

I have no information, but I would lean towards b) above. Option a) doesn't really align with the idea of casting a wide net at the younger ages, and forming a pyramid as you go up. I don't understand why this all has to be a secret unless there is still ongoing discussion at USSDA about it. USSDA seems to play their cards close to the vest. Why would you not want to be open and transparent?

Several DA clubs have pre-DA for the 06's (this year). They just play whatever other league in their area, but these girls are more or less pre-scouted for the coming year. Creating a U13DA next year will only push this sort of thing down to younger girls. One of the arguments for this may be the wide disparity between girls DA teams in the younger (04, 03) age groups. Trying to identify high performing girls younger might help this, but its not clear to me that the coaching depth of these clubs can leverage this properly. It seems to me there just aren't enough quality coaches at this level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
...so does anyone else going to id session today have any thoughts on which story is accurate

a) girls u14 da will be combined next year into 2005/2006 dual age group, majority will come from 2005s with only a few 2006s who will have to fight for play time under u14 restrictive sub rules, most 2006s won't play d. academy until the year after, so it's really just 2006s that are capable of playing up this year, and that is the only reason 2006s invited (other da regions seem to think this is the focus)

vs.

b) there is going to be a new atlantic u13 division (what is being talked about here) like what was started up last year with u13 da in texas where all but 2 of the clubs in frontier division have u13 sides, and where that group is considered only a pilot and the teams aren't held to the same standards as u14 ... i.e., only train 3x per week, kids are able to participate in other sports, no scores/standings, etc.

dd is going next month, but would like to have some advance insight. b sounds much better then a imo.

I have no information, but I would lean towards b) above. Option a) doesn't really align with the idea of casting a wide net at the younger ages, and forming a pyramid as you go up. I don't understand why this all has to be a secret unless there is still ongoing discussion at USSDA about it. USSDA seems to play their cards close to the vest. Why would you not want to be open and transparent?

Several DA clubs have pre-DA for the 06's (this year). They just play whatever other league in their area, but these girls are more or less pre-scouted for the coming year. Creating a U13DA next year will only push this sort of thing down to younger girls. One of the arguments for this may be the wide disparity between girls DA teams in the younger (04, 03) age groups. Trying to identify high performing girls younger might help this, but its not clear to me that the coaching depth of these clubs can leverage this properly. It seems to me there just aren't enough quality coaches at this level.

It's really not a secret. Loudoun, FCV, Mclean, Arlington, Braddock, PWSI, etc. have known about this "on the record" since the January 8th webinar by US Soccer. Parents are in the dark for obvious reasons, and will remain in the dark through these mysterious new ID sessions, especially at the remaining ECNL clubs, and the clubs who didn't get DA last year. A and B are both true. This is a national power play reaction by the USSF after ECNL expanded to U13 last year. Easier to make and market a dual band 06/05 combined U13/U14 alternative to ECNL. Mclean and Braddock will have very limited elite player pools at U13 and not draw top talent. The future is DA for better or worse, and USSF is making it even harder in the DMV for ECNL by adding a U13-only girls DA age group as a pilot. So 06s at FCV, VDA, and WS will not be playing with 05s, like the other parts of the US (other then Frontier). Clubs with ECNL or without DA are probably scrambling, but they also should have known this is coming. They won't tell parents anything though, even though the Atlantic just got this great new opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's really not a secret. Loudoun, FCV, Mclean, Arlington, Braddock, PWSI, etc. have known about this "on the record" since the January 8th webinar by US Soccer. Parents are in the dark for obvious reasons, and will remain in the dark through these mysterious new ID sessions, especially at the remaining ECNL clubs, and the clubs who didn't get DA last year. A and B are both true. This is a national power play reaction by the USSF after ECNL expanded to U13 last year. Easier to make and market a dual band 06/05 combined U13/U14 alternative to ECNL. Mclean and Braddock will have very limited elite player pools at U13 and not draw top talent. The future is DA for better or worse, and USSF is making it even harder in the DMV for ECNL by adding a U13-only girls DA age group as a pilot. So 06s at FCV, VDA, and WS will not be playing with 05s, like the other parts of the US (other then Frontier). Clubs with ECNL or without DA are probably scrambling, but they also should have known this is coming. They won't tell parents anything though, even though the Atlantic just got this great new opportunity.

Pardon my ignorance but what is the obvious reason that parents are in the dark? Wouldn't it be to USSDA's advantage to circulate this widely?

You sound like you have some info but that just sounds awkward. You're saying for much of the US but not the DMV, 05's and 06's in a combined U13/U14, then 04's at U15, 03's and 02's at a joint U16/17, 02's and 01's at U18/19. Seems like it would be more likely single age groups at U13, U14, U15, and then U16/17, U18/19. Heh, maybe they will add U12 next year and do U12/13, U14/15, U16/17, U18/19.

I can see how this could be a competitive attempt to cut off ECNL's pipeline, and catch ALL the minnows. ECNL will still survive at U16 and above, if only from the winnowing down of DA ranks at those ages. One might think they would break those age groups apart too if they were trying to erase ECNL, however I suppose that is kinda counter to the pyramid scheme.

[Anonymous]

^^ not starting a problem but that sounds like a parent in the dark. ))

pp should know they don't tell us jack. did anyone go to spirit today and get answers?

[Anonymous]

So why did BSC not go DA on the girls side? It seem really short sighted.

[Anonymous]

BSC, Mclean, all of them. USSF don't? play that dual-club tune in the DMV.

Could be worse @ Loudoun or Arlington sporting away in U13 CCL next season.

Ask your DOC why USSF is not "circulating" this:

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BSC, Mclean, all of them. USSF don't? play that dual-club tune in the DMV.

Could be worse @ Loudoun or Arlington sporting away in U13 CCL next season.

Ask your DOC why USSF is not "circulating" this:

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

I’m not clear what you are saying about loudon at arlington sporting away. Can you clarify?

[Anonymous]

wow ...

2018-19 GIRLS’ AGE GROUPS:

U-13/U-14 (2006/2005)
U-15 (2004)
U-16/17 (2003/2002)
U-18/19 (2001/2000)

2018-19 GIRLS’ PILOT AGE GROUPS:

Atlantic Division U-13
Frontier Division U-13 and U-16

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why did BSC not go DA on the girls side? It seem really short sighted.

I'm at BSC and thought the same thing. They actually sent out a survey to the membership about it explaining the options. Seemed so clear to me that they ought to especially given that ECNL will not be sustainable. The boys DA is well run and has been a big draw. My daughter is a bit younger, but I'm definitely unhappy that she wouldn't have a nearby option in a couple years if she's good enough for DA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BSC, Mclean, all of them. USSF don't? play that dual-club tune in the DMV.

Could be worse @ Loudoun or Arlington sporting away in U13 CCL next season.

Ask your DOC why USSF is not "circulating" this:

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

Thanks for posting this, very helpful to hear it from the horse's mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BSC, Mclean, all of them. USSF don't? play that dual-club tune in the DMV.

Could be worse @ Loudoun or Arlington sporting away in U13 CCL next season.

Ask your DOC why USSF is not "circulating" this:

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

I’m not clear what you are saying about loudon at arlington sporting away. Can you clarify?

probably referring to their choices to continue with club champions league (versus da or ecnl).
bryc left champions league and bet on ecnl.
loudoun refers its best players over to join fcv girls da, or can encourage them to stay in loudoun with champions league.
arlington does champions league only on girls side.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blackandredunited.com/platform/amp/youth-development/2017/2/6/14526454/washington-spirit-girls-development-academy-bryc-loudoun-arlington-soccer-nwsl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why did BSC not go DA on the girls side? It seem really short sighted.

I'm at BSC and thought the same thing. They actually sent out a survey to the membership about it explaining the options. Seemed so clear to me that they ought to especially given that ECNL will not be sustainable. The boys DA is well run and has been a big draw. My daughter is a bit younger, but I'm definitely unhappy that she wouldn't have a nearby option in a couple years if she's good enough for DA.

Here the thing, if she is good enough it’s not like you have to leave your area. You can just go down the street or basically go to the same fields you practice on now but at a different time. This will hurt BSC is the long run. It’s not like US Soccer is just going to go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BSC, Mclean, all of them. USSF don't? play that dual-club tune in the DMV.

Could be worse @ Loudoun or Arlington sporting away in U13 CCL next season.

Ask your DOC why USSF is not "circulating" this:

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

BSC polled the membership and the overwhelming majority of members wanted to play high school, and were interested primarily in College recruiting, over national/international/professional play. Thus, the decision to stick with ECNL