LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academy style or tier team training doesn't really matter in the end. LMVSC, Alexandria, SYC ,etc.. They all cost about the same and ALL produce they same level of talent as the kids age out of travel soccer. I challenge you to find 1 top tier team at any club who finished 1st or 2nd place in their division EVERY single year from u9 until they aged out. You're seeing this thru blind parent eyes. My little Sally and her team are so good they will be the next US national team. Or my DDs team lost the game only because of bad refs. I can't see why you are so bothered about mixed training other than your DD will fit right in and not stand out. For the love of god man, take your DD to a higher level club and watch her advance thru the ranks their and come back and brag how cool it was for her to win a World Cup. Maybe better yet get the big picture. Your DD is 1 of 60-90 LOCAL girls who all pay the same club the same 2k-3k per year as the others do at the 30-50 other clubs in the DMV. So stop bitching and pay to play either at LMVSC or whatever club you choose to have your DD dominate at.

Really? It doesn't matter? That 2k-3k/year doesn't fly out of my pockets, and I'm not saying it does/doesn't for anybody else. My 2k-3k needs to be spent appropriately, meaning I'm trying to maximize my value. So yes, while no club is #1 across the boards, I am noticing a bit of a trend on how many clubs finish so close to last.

I'm trying to make sure my kid gets best environment (which is what most people on here are complaining about).

Fine take your kid to Arlington see how the develop un noticed in the middle of the pack. and at the end of their soccer run not a real noticeable difference will be seen because your kid is just like every kid in the world "NOT A STANDOUT TALENT"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academy style or tier team training doesn't really matter in the end. LMVSC, Alexandria, SYC ,etc.. They all cost about the same and ALL produce they same level of talent as the kids age out of travel soccer. I challenge you to find 1 top tier team at any club who finished 1st or 2nd place in their division EVERY single year from u9 until they aged out. You're seeing this thru blind parent eyes. My little Sally and her team are so good they will be the next US national team. Or my DDs team lost the game only because of bad refs. I can't see why you are so bothered about mixed training other than your DD will fit right in and not stand out. For the love of god man, take your DD to a higher level club and watch her advance thru the ranks their and come back and brag how cool it was for her to win a World Cup. Maybe better yet get the big picture. Your DD is 1 of 60-90 LOCAL girls who all pay the same club the same 2k-3k per year as the others do at the 30-50 other clubs in the DMV. So stop bitching and pay to play either at LMVSC or whatever club you choose to have your DD dominate at.

Really? It doesn't matter? That 2k-3k/year doesn't fly out of my pockets, and I'm not saying it does/doesn't for anybody else. My 2k-3k needs to be spent appropriately, meaning I'm trying to maximize my value. So yes, while no club is #1 across the boards, I am noticing a bit of a trend on how many clubs finish so close to last.

I'm trying to make sure my kid gets best environment (which is what most people on here are complaining about).

Fine take your kid to Arlington see how the develop un noticed in the middle of the pack. and at the end of their soccer run not a real noticeable difference will be seen because your kid is just like every kid in the world "NOT A STANDOUT TALENT"

"NOT A STANDOUT TALENT". Great selling point stay. "LMVSC: We're not standout talents and we don't care to be". Perhaps you and I are just different in this regard, but I want my kid to do as much as she can and as best as she can. And if she ends up not loving soccer, I can save that money. But I'm not going to just throw it away. And to be honest, what sounds better to me? Being middle of the pack in Arlington, training in an environment of 3-4 teams per age group, or, 12-13 kids at a practice and then never seeing the ball when playing against Arlington and everybody else?

I don't even know what you're arguing for. Sign up because I did last year? What's your point?

[Anonymous]

White team parent here. ...is DD in the only age group where she's never seen the 'academy coach' before? Past couple years, it's been tryout and then that's it. Not at training, not at games. Maybe a couple times during the group nights but never any focus. Call me a skeptic, but I don't think there will be an actual willingness for this to be effective.

Also still waiting on more info of this 'Proven internationally-informed methodology and published curriculum' and 'Clear player remediation programs'.

[Anonymous]

Academy style worked in Belgium where kids are already playing street soccer constantly 24/7. Thousands of kids play so they don't want to rush them into academies so they will burn out too quickly.

Then as they get older academy style filters into older age groups where they can select and identify talent for professional clubs.

Academy style wasn't designed to be used this way for this purpose. we are glad that someone from the club staff watched a YouTube video on how academy style is supposed to work in Belgium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academy style worked in Belgium where kids are already playing street soccer constantly 24/7. Thousands of kids play so they don't want to rush them into academies so they will burn out too quickly.

Then as they get older academy style filters into older age groups where they can select and identify talent for professional clubs.

Academy style wasn't designed to be used this way for this purpose. we are glad that someone from the club staff watched a YouTube video on how academy style is supposed to work in Belgium.

Well there’s definitely a distance between Belgium and the United States (namely the “thousands” and “24/7” parts). I cannot tell if you’re being sarcastic or facetious but yes it does appear that it’s just some forced-version onto us. Because... we’re not Belgians.. If you ask me, it seems like they’re attempting to reset the club without losing the remaining red players. Eating the cake and having it, too. Maybe this does work but it would take years, but we’re still not Belgians so I doubt it works.

That’s why I don’t understand their decision to stay in CCL. This season, our second teams were promoted to first teams and played CCL, then our third teams became second but stayed in NCSL instead of CCL2. Why don’t we just do CCL2 and NCSL? It would still be an academy system, but there’s no game development when the rest of CCL is beating us. Especially for age groups that only have 1 or 2 teams (which are several in both boys and girls... which again is why this academy system isn’t a good idea).

[Anonymous]

The club doesn't want to lose its ccl1 spot. If it does that it will take years to get it back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The club doesn't want to lose its ccl1 spot. If it does that it will take years to get it back

So club status > my kid’s development/community. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The club doesn't want to lose its ccl1 spot. If it does that it will take years to get it back

If they lose it, they are never getting it back! The Club's current motto is, Who cares if the teams stay at the bottom we're still CCL.

[Anonymous]

if they lose the CCL 1 spot, there's no way they can attract better players. The CCL 1 slot is the only thing that has "pull" for higher level outside players looking to join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if they lose the CCL 1 spot, there's no way they can attract better players. The CCL 1 slot is the only thing that has "pull" for higher level outside players looking to join.

I don't know about all this. SYC left the CCL after one year several years ago and will be back in it next year. McLean and BRYC could not hang in there, but if they wanted to come back at younger ages and had talented teams, I don't think it would be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they lose the CCL 1 spot, there's no way they can attract better players. The CCL 1 slot is the only thing that has "pull" for higher level outside players looking to join.

I don't know about all this. SYC left the CCL after one year several years ago and will be back in it next year. McLean and BRYC could not hang in there, but if they wanted to come back at younger ages and had talented teams, I don't think it would be a problem.

So either be ECNL (McLean, BRYC) or change your entire structure, with success and a bigger program (SYC). I’m not seeing us do those steps, so I think we are going backwards.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I think it's important to say what many of us are thinking. We're not going to be what we once were. It's a matter of accepting that. Personally, I think we should pull out of CCL and just play all of our teams in NCSL while we do this academy thing. If we're going to have such a big change in the program, it should be across the board.

Did anybody else see the table position of our CCL teams that was posted? Is anybody else noticing how many players left and that most were red players? Our CCL teams, for the most part, left. Our CCL2 and NCSL teams stayed, so let's just be CCL2 and/or NCSL. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I think it's important to say what many of us are thinking. We're not going to be what we once were. It's a matter of accepting that. Personally, I think we should pull out of CCL and just play all of our teams in NCSL while we do this academy thing. If we're going to have such a big change in the program, it should be across the board.

Did anybody else see the table position of our CCL teams that was posted? Is anybody else noticing how many players left and that most were red players? Our CCL teams, for the most part, left. Our CCL2 and NCSL teams stayed, so let's just be CCL2 and/or NCSL. There's nothing wrong with that.

+1

For the morale of the players, absolutely yes. Doesn't help they're being told this academy is going to make them better and then go out into CCL and not be competitive. Circle the wagons in NCSL, there's plenty of competition. I'd imagine that NCSL is cheaper, as well. Which might expedite that refund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I think it's important to say what many of us are thinking. We're not going to be what we once were. It's a matter of accepting that. Personally, I think we should pull out of CCL and just play all of our teams in NCSL while we do this academy thing. If we're going to have such a big change in the program, it should be across the board.

Did anybody else see the table position of our CCL teams that was posted? Is anybody else noticing how many players left and that most were red players? Our CCL teams, for the most part, left. Our CCL2 and NCSL teams stayed, so let's just be CCL2 and/or NCSL. There's nothing wrong with that.

+1

For the morale of the players, absolutely yes. Doesn't help they're being told this academy is going to make them better and then go out into CCL and not be competitive. Circle the wagons in NCSL, there's plenty of competition. I'd imagine that NCSL is cheaper, as well. Which might expedite that refund.

+1

I said that days ago here. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I don't see our Technical Directors being very approachable or looking to do what's best for the kids, 20 plus years of experience and all they could come up with is an Academy Style of play... long gone the good days at LMVSC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I think it's important to say what many of us are thinking. We're not going to be what we once were. It's a matter of accepting that. Personally, I think we should pull out of CCL and just play all of our teams in NCSL while we do this academy thing. If we're going to have such a big change in the program, it should be across the board.

Did anybody else see the table position of our CCL teams that was posted? Is anybody else noticing how many players left and that most were red players? Our CCL teams, for the most part, left. Our CCL2 and NCSL teams stayed, so let's just be CCL2 and/or NCSL. There's nothing wrong with that.

+1

For the morale of the players, absolutely yes. Doesn't help they're being told this academy is going to make them better and then go out into CCL and not be competitive. Circle the wagons in NCSL, there's plenty of competition. I'd imagine that NCSL is cheaper, as well. Which might expedite that refund.

+1

I said that days ago here. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I don't see our Technical Directors being very approachable or looking to do what's best for the kids, 20 plus years of experience and all they could come up with is an Academy Style of play... long gone the good days at LMVSC.

I've heard three of our coaches' kids left the Club to play at SYC last year. Even those coaches knew what was best for their own kids...