LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so lost, as a parent. I work during practices, and I'm not a soccer person so I only cheer during games. But there's some very odd reasoning that doesn't make sense. Somebody please help.

LMVSC: "The academy system is what's used in Europe and is the best option for our club to develop our players".

LMVSC academy operation: several age groups are missing 2nd teams (meaning the academy can't exist)

LMVSC parents: we need to be in CCL to lure players in (meaning the academy doesn't work to develop players)

LMVSC parents: we need to lure players in for the academy to work (mean academy is pointless for age groups without two teams)

I can't help but see this situation as: the academy wasn't installed to benefit the players. This makes me question "Then why was the academy installed?" During social distance practices this summer, I would expect it was too difficult to assess. Mixing players as a whole makes me think that COVID had nothing to do with it. So, what is going on? There was no information I recall during the townhall to justify the reasoning for an academy (I know it was a long time ago, which is why I'm asking).

The justification for academy is that it allows players to find their right level and makes training more consistent across the whole of the age group- i.e. U12s are training in the same ways are players are mixing between practices. Cynically, I think it's a way to give out more red team invites to slow player losses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so lost, as a parent. I work during practices, and I'm not a soccer person so I only cheer during games. But there's some very odd reasoning that doesn't make sense. Somebody please help.

LMVSC: "The academy system is what's used in Europe and is the best option for our club to develop our players".

LMVSC academy operation: several age groups are missing 2nd teams (meaning the academy can't exist)

LMVSC parents: we need to be in CCL to lure players in (meaning the academy doesn't work to develop players)

LMVSC parents: we need to lure players in for the academy to work (mean academy is pointless for age groups without two teams)

I can't help but see this situation as: the academy wasn't installed to benefit the players. This makes me question "Then why was the academy installed?" During social distance practices this summer, I would expect it was too difficult to assess. Mixing players as a whole makes me think that COVID had nothing to do with it. So, what is going on? There was no information I recall during the townhall to justify the reasoning for an academy (I know it was a long time ago, which is why I'm asking).

The justification for academy is that it allows players to find their right level and makes training more consistent across the whole of the age group- i.e. U12s are training in the same ways are players are mixing between practices. Cynically, I think it's a way to give out more red team invites to slow player losses.

Thank you; and to my understanding (I don't watch other teams), there is supposed to be a 'core of 7 or so players' with other players getting mixed in. I haven't heard (keyword: heard) of much player movement between teams, some but by no means an overwhelming amount. But since I do follow this thread, I am curious as to how this reflects with the results in the red teams' league (CCL). Somebody posted the overall record and even goals scored/scored on. It appears as though our teams as a whole are not doing well. So:
- is this evidence of the academy not working?
- is this evidence of the academy coaches selecting the wrong players?
- do results not matter, it's about development (which makes me question again why the push for CCL)

[Anonymous]

It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

+1

Results are not an indicator of bad coaching but does point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality. Competition should be close in order to provide the ability to develop and the current situation for the players is not in the best interest of any of them, LMVS or the opposition. If CCL promotes the power of league, there is no power or development when games are not close and they need to make a decision that is right for the players and competitive clubs they represent. Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre and needs to gravitate toward the glorified rec program that it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

+1

Results are not an indicator of bad coaching but does point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality. Competition should be close in order to provide the ability to develop and the current situation for the players is not in the best interest of any of them, LMVS or the opposition. If CCL promotes the power of league, there is no power or development when games are not close and they need to make a decision that is right for the players and competitive clubs they represent. Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre and needs to gravitate toward the glorified rec program that it is.

Thank you for the response; can you please expand? When you say it "point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality", wasn't the academy-style format supposed to increase quality?

Also, when you say "Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre" what does this mean in terms of next few years, etc? I'm trying to extrapolate DS's future; he's a good kid and I don't know just yet if his soccer path should be that of 'highly competitive' or more of 'go have fun with some good players'. I have seen the massive drop-off in players, but do you think this is indicative (quality) or predictive (future quantity, quality, league venue) of anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

+1

Results are not an indicator of bad coaching but does point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality. Competition should be close in order to provide the ability to develop and the current situation for the players is not in the best interest of any of them, LMVS or the opposition. If CCL promotes the power of league, there is no power or development when games are not close and they need to make a decision that is right for the players and competitive clubs they represent. Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre and needs to gravitate toward the glorified rec program that it is.

Thank you for the response; can you please expand? When you say it "point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality", wasn't the academy-style format supposed to increase quality?

Also, when you say "Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre" what does this mean in terms of next few years, etc? I'm trying to extrapolate DS's future; he's a good kid and I don't know just yet if his soccer path should be that of 'highly competitive' or more of 'go have fun with some good players'. I have seen the massive drop-off in players, but do you think this is indicative (quality) or predictive (future quantity, quality, league venue) of anything?

Not OP but offer a perspective after being around the landscape for a few years. First off, the term "academy" is tossed around like it's some magical strategy. It's not and it only works when you have enough players to tier teams by performance levels for games. The theory is more skilled players will challenge less skilled players during training sessions to bring the best out of them and propel development. If teams are training only based on the groups' skill level, the only time they'll face stronger players is during competition. If the less skilled team is completely outmatched, it can be demoralizing and even turn players off to the sport. The academy approach also allows coaches to identify potentially stronger players that may have had a bad tryout or were dealing with an awkward state in their development but have now started to improve and show potential to be a core part of the higher tiered team. This entire approach relies on having enough players to build out more than one team. If there is only one team per age group, the variability in skill, athleticism, passion for the game, and soccer IQ may be so significant that a team will suffer.

It's the club's responsibility to ensure teams are playing at an appropriate level and if they do not have enough players to be competitive for CCL, then NCSL is appropriate. LMVSC has lost so many players over the past few years, it is no longer viable to play a full slate of CCL and should not lure families in under the pretense they will do so. I think that's called bate and switch and, because CCL doesn't allow for mid-season transfers to another CCL affiliated club, you're locked in until after the spring.

If your child is having fun with their team and the competition isn't a big deal, then no reason to leave. The risk, however, is when teammates want more and are not happy and they leave. That's what's happened over the past few years. Families have realized the product doesn't meet with their expectations and the kid (or parent) want to quit or go somewhere more in line with their expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

+1

Results are not an indicator of bad coaching but does point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality. Competition should be close in order to provide the ability to develop and the current situation for the players is not in the best interest of any of them, LMVS or the opposition. If CCL promotes the power of league, there is no power or development when games are not close and they need to make a decision that is right for the players and competitive clubs they represent. Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre and needs to gravitate toward the glorified rec program that it is.

Thank you for the response; can you please expand? When you say it "point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality", wasn't the academy-style format supposed to increase quality?

Also, when you say "Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre" what does this mean in terms of next few years, etc? I'm trying to extrapolate DS's future; he's a good kid and I don't know just yet if his soccer path should be that of 'highly competitive' or more of 'go have fun with some good players'. I have seen the massive drop-off in players, but do you think this is indicative (quality) or predictive (future quantity, quality, league venue) of anything?

I believe you are correct about the academy format. If the player pool exists, an academy could be a good tool for providing a challenging practice environment. That is not the case at LMVS, as many have said previously, most age groups have 1 team so the term academy is being used improperly. The few age groups that do have 2 teams rarely have player movement in practices so the middle of the group players will always stay middle or regress. If your DS enjoys the game now, imagine what it may be like when his team is getting blown out every week. He will likely want to quit the sport.

The past is the best prediction of the future. This overall inability to attract new players of quality will cripple any club. In the DMV, families will come and go. I’ve seen with my own DS, when a top player moves on, it creates fear among those remaining and it is not long before others decide to move on as well.

LMVS has hemorrhaged players, coaches and technical staff. Nobody in their right mind will come work for the club and, why would you send your DS to a club that has a revolving door? The fact is travel soccer is similar to that of a private school where you are required to pay to attend/participate. Would you continue to send your DS to a school where the turnover amongst teachers and administration is high? Do you feel your DS will be provided a higher level of service at a school with turnover or one with stability and teacher/admin retention? If the latter, there are plenty of great choices locally that will provide the stability and who have plenty of levels within age groups. Alexandria, Arlington and SYC are solid choices that are within a 15 minute drive from most living near Rose Hill or Springfield Town Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

+1

Results are not an indicator of bad coaching but does point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality. Competition should be close in order to provide the ability to develop and the current situation for the players is not in the best interest of any of them, LMVS or the opposition. If CCL promotes the power of league, there is no power or development when games are not close and they need to make a decision that is right for the players and competitive clubs they represent. Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre and needs to gravitate toward the glorified rec program that it is.

Thank you for the response; can you please expand? When you say it "point toward the lack of player pool and that of quality", wasn't the academy-style format supposed to increase quality?

Also, when you say "Unfortunately, LMVS has lost its lustre" what does this mean in terms of next few years, etc? I'm trying to extrapolate DS's future; he's a good kid and I don't know just yet if his soccer path should be that of 'highly competitive' or more of 'go have fun with some good players'. I have seen the massive drop-off in players, but do you think this is indicative (quality) or predictive (future quantity, quality, league venue) of anything?

Not OP but offer a perspective after being around the landscape for a few years. First off, the term "academy" is tossed around like it's some magical strategy. It's not and it only works when you have enough players to tier teams by performance levels for games. The theory is more skilled players will challenge less skilled players during training sessions to bring the best out of them and propel development. If teams are training only based on the groups' skill level, the only time they'll face stronger players is during competition. If the less skilled team is completely outmatched, it can be demoralizing and even turn players off to the sport. The academy approach also allows coaches to identify potentially stronger players that may have had a bad tryout or were dealing with an awkward state in their development but have now started to improve and show potential to be a core part of the higher tiered team. This entire approach relies on having enough players to build out more than one team. If there is only one team per age group, the variability in skill, athleticism, passion for the game, and soccer IQ may be so significant that a team will suffer.

It's the club's responsibility to ensure teams are playing at an appropriate level and if they do not have enough players to be competitive for CCL, then NCSL is appropriate. LMVSC has lost so many players over the past few years, it is no longer viable to play a full slate of CCL and should not lure families in under the pretense they will do so. I think that's called bate and switch and, because CCL doesn't allow for mid-season transfers to another CCL affiliated club, you're locked in until after the spring.

If your child is having fun with their team and the competition isn't a big deal, then no reason to leave. The risk, however, is when teammates want more and are not happy and they leave. That's what's happened over the past few years. Families have realized the product doesn't meet with their expectations and the kid (or parent) want to quit or go somewhere more in line with their expectations.

💯

Coach and club collaboration is key to academy working in the few age groups with multiple teams. There seems to be a massive breakdown in this department.

[Anonymous]

In my DC age group where there are two teams, a few players from white have played w red and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my DC age group where there are two teams, a few players from white have played w red and vice versa.

We've noticed that too; I was skeptical at first of the small-core-red-squad-players concept but gave it a chance. Not buying it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my DC age group where there are two teams, a few players from white have played w red and vice versa.

We've noticed that too; I was skeptical at first of the small-core-red-squad-players concept but gave it a chance. Not buying it now.

Curious as to why. If the best white team players are getting the chance to play with red than why isn't it working in your opinion? Are they not all training together in your age group? In ours they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my DC age group where there are two teams, a few players from white have played w red and vice versa.

We've noticed that too; I was skeptical at first of the small-core-red-squad-players concept but gave it a chance. Not buying it now.

Curious as to why. If the best white team players are getting the chance to play with red than why isn't it working in your opinion? Are they not all training together in your age group? In ours they are.

Well, because "if" is a big word when deciding "the best white team players". I expect there's about as much depth of analysis in determining that as there was with our 'evaluation'.

[Anonymous]

P.P. here... just to be fair, we're not unhappy with anything specifically, just more of not that impressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:P.P. here... just to be fair, we're not unhappy with anything specifically, just more of not that impressed.

Got it. I also think the experience is different at each age group. With the decision of player movement I don't think he has been 100% accurate but pretty close to it for those that were given opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's evidence that LMCSV doesn't have enough of the quality of player that they need to win in the leagues that register for, but, instead of admitting it, they keep on signing them up to lose.

That might not be true. CCL can be difficult to get out of and not the most friendly when a club wants to make changes.