DA soccer terminating boys and girls? “Rumors”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.

I don’t think we disagree. But in the US, the athletes in boys and men’s soccer are not at the upper range of US athletes. Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally and relative to the size of our population and athletes. I don’t understand what you mean by measurable. Yes, speed and quickness are literally measurable, and one would expect to see faster players as you ascend the talent ladder. Was there a separate point that you were making?

“ Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally”... if you really mean that, no I don’t think we disagree. We are starting to get best athletes onto soccer field (and stay on it). I believe the age brought up was 2006 boys, meaning U14 this seasonal year. If coaches are rewarding athletes more playing time because they’re able to compete (2-2, being man down was the example), it will eventually not matter just how skilled a unathletic player and their style of play. Style of play is temporary. Yes, a clinical touch is needed but the U14 better athlete with horse hooves should be playing more, especially if more competitive than the unathletic kid. Get faster and stronger, but the genes dictate that.

Fair enough. My point only - and it is limited to boys - is that if you had all area high school age athletes run the 40 and 100 in the area, maybe 2 or 3 soccer players would be in the top 100 in the DC area. I would be shocked if it were higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About 1/2 the kids playing elite soccer will no longer be playing. Should be a very stressful time. It does not matter how good your kid is if another kid comes in who is better.

These elite teams are usually driven by 2-3 kids. Maybe this will get ride of the kids with little skill but are good athletes.

Another post from someone with no children playing elite sports.

LOL sure. Must have hit to close too home for you!

[Anonymous]

Then produce the email.

[Anonymous]

To those who got this email about DA dismantling-what is going to be the viable alternative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue of discussion at this year's US Soccer AGM in February was the USWNT gender discrimination lawsuit, the botched and sexist legal challenge from the Federation, and the overwhelming negative PR backlash for organization from fans and sponsors. A short time later, Carlos Cordeiro abruptly resigned as President. US Soccer quickly installed Cindy Parlow Cone, the first female President, who is a two time Gold Medalist and a member of the fabled 1999 World Cup team.

They only national level soccer organization that has deep pockets, with multiple income streams, and is best positioned to weather this current CV situation--is the US Soccer Federation. In general, US Soccer will continue to have a DA in order to be the driving influence on US youth soccer development, just like it controls the national coaching license curriculum. US Soccer will keep having a DA.

USSF will not give up the girls DA, especially with a new female president. Cindy Parlow Cone, in her first few months as head of USSF, and under the heavy strain of CV on the entire world of soccer right now, will not make any big moves with GDA that would be detrimental to the investment and commitment of USSF to bring the girls side up equal to the boys--the reason for launchng the GDA.

Having an MLS-only boys DA league is a non-starter as being unfeasible. How could teenage boys travel all around the country to play weekly games throughout the year? They can't. It's logistically and financially impossible for so many reasons. There will always be a need for available local/regional competition.

So the legitimacy of this so-called anonymous and unsourced "rumor"--no matter how many times repeated--has no merit and does not make it true. There are a lot of ECNL'ers that will perpetuate this "rumor" ad infinitum, with desperate hopes of trying to will the DA out of existence. The only credible "rumor" people should be talking about is US Soccer buying out ECNL and folding it into the DA program. ECNL'ers can only hope that the ECNL mothership will advocate for no current ECNL club to be left behind by US Soccer in the merger.

I don't have a stake in the game nor know or believe any rumours are credible, but I can't for the life of me figure out how Soccer buys out ECNL. How would US Soccer have that much $? ECNL wouldn't give up the program cheap or a fire sale right now. Nor why would US Soccer take on that machinery to run . . .

[Anonymous]

There's no email from any club saying that DA is going away. There may be an email from a club responding to this BS "rumor" thread from DCUM, started by an admitted SoCal parent troll, repeating some random baseless tweet.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a stake in the game nor know or believe any rumours are credible, but I can't for the life of me figure out how Soccer buys out ECNL. How would US Soccer have that much $? ECNL wouldn't give up the program cheap or a fire sale right now. Nor why would US Soccer take on that machinery to run . . .

Who do you think has more money? US Soccer or ECNL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no email from any club saying that DA is going away. There may be an email from a club responding to this BS "rumor" thread from DCUM, started by an admitted SoCal parent troll, repeating some random baseless tweet.

This post will not age well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue of discussion at this year's US Soccer AGM in February was the USWNT gender discrimination lawsuit, the botched and sexist legal challenge from the Federation, and the overwhelming negative PR backlash for organization from fans and sponsors. A short time later, Carlos Cordeiro abruptly resigned as President. US Soccer quickly installed Cindy Parlow Cone, the first female President, who is a two time Gold Medalist and a member of the fabled 1999 World Cup team.

They only national level soccer organization that has deep pockets, with multiple income streams, and is best positioned to weather this current CV situation--is the US Soccer Federation. In general, US Soccer will continue to have a DA in order to be the driving influence on US youth soccer development, just like it controls the national coaching license curriculum. US Soccer will keep having a DA.

USSF will not give up the girls DA, especially with a new female president. Cindy Parlow Cone, in her first few months as head of USSF, and under the heavy strain of CV on the entire world of soccer right now, will not make any big moves with GDA that would be detrimental to the investment and commitment of USSF to bring the girls side up equal to the boys--the reason for launchng the GDA.

Having an MLS-only boys DA league is a non-starter as being unfeasible. How could teenage boys travel all around the country to play weekly games throughout the year? They can't. It's logistically and financially impossible for so many reasons. There will always be a need for available local/regional competition.

So the legitimacy of this so-called anonymous and unsourced "rumor"--no matter how many times repeated--has no merit and does not make it true. There are a lot of ECNL'ers that will perpetuate this "rumor" ad infinitum, with desperate hopes of trying to will the DA out of existence. The only credible "rumor" people should be talking about is US Soccer buying out ECNL and folding it into the DA program. ECNL'ers can only hope that the ECNL mothership will advocate for no current ECNL club to be left behind by US Soccer in the merger.

One thing to note is that something like this is already developing. There are young kids, U-14 and older, who are now basically fulltime in residential programs connected with MLS clubs with scholarships to private schools. Is there 30 MLS team's DA's worth of kids for each age group? No, not yet. But we are seeing some movement to this sort of thing, such that we may see a league of say U16s and above who are traveling and living nothing but football every week.

[Anonymous]

https://www.soccerwire.com/resources/opinion-covid-19-provides-opportunity-for-u-s-soccer-to-shut-down-development-academy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no email from any club saying that DA is going away. There may be an email from a club responding to this BS "rumor" thread from DCUM, started by an admitted SoCal parent troll, repeating some random baseless tweet.

This post will not age well

Well, for now where's the email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.[/quote]

I don’t think we disagree. But in the US, the athletes in boys and men’s soccer are not at the upper range of US athletes. Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally and relative to the size of our population and athletes. I don’t understand what you mean by measurable. Yes, speed and quickness are literally measurable, and one would expect to see faster players as you ascend the talent ladder. Was there a separate point that you were making?

“ Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally”... if you really mean that, no I don’t think we disagree. We are starting to get best athletes onto soccer field (and stay on it). I believe the age brought up was 2006 boys, meaning U14 this seasonal year. If coaches are rewarding athletes more playing time because they’re able to compete (2-2, being man down was the example), it will eventually not matter just how skilled a unathletic player and their style of play. Style of play is temporary. Yes, a clinical touch is needed but the U14 better athlete with horse hooves should be playing more, especially if more competitive than the unathletic kid. Get faster and stronger, but the genes dictate that.

Fair enough. My point only - and it is limited to boys - is that if you had all area high school age athletes run the 40 and 100 in the area, maybe 2 or 3 soccer players would be in the top 100 in the DC area. I would be shocked if it were higher.

Really? I do not know what teams you are watching but everyone is fast(or fast enough) on any elite team. The technical players are the one that are most sought after not the ones that are phased out. A fast player with minimal skill and no awareness will have little impact on the game. It’s not track. I see these type of players all the time. They break play, slow play down and are turn over machines. Speed of play is so much more important vs one players speed as the teams get older(because everyone is fast enough or they are not on the field).

Technical skill and speed of play are interdependent. If you do not have them you will be phased out. I know a lot of college players(both sexes) the thing I hear over and over is- I wish I was more technical.

Travel soccer selects players at u9 based first on aggression followed by speed and physicality. These are important and will let you win in the younger years but if that’s all you got it makes you a very one dimensional player. These type of players a dime a dozen. Europeans and South Americans select for different criteria and really do not care about winning at 12 or 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't have a stake in the game nor know or believe any rumours are credible, but I can't for the life of me figure out how Soccer buys out ECNL. How would US Soccer have that much $? ECNL wouldn't give up the program cheap or a fire sale right now. Nor why would US Soccer take on that machinery to run . . .

Who do you think has more money? US Soccer or ECNL?

Would it make sense for US soccer to spend that money now with potential liability from the lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no email from any club saying that DA is going away. There may be an email from a club responding to this BS "rumor" thread from DCUM, started by an admitted SoCal parent troll, repeating some random baseless tweet.

This post will not age well

Well, for now where's the email?

Hello DA Families,

We are receiving communication from parents and other coaches on rumors and the uncertainty of the continuation of the Development Academy. We wanted to fill you in on what we have heard thus far and make sure you guys are brought up to speed on any other communication moving forward. It is true that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the stability of the Development Academy is being questioned on the boys and girls side. We have a strong feeling the Girls DA will be eliminated not only due to the pandemic but also other factors that have played part over the season. The Boys DA has also been brought into question due to the financial commitment that the US Soccer Federation has set forth and a decision will be made over the next few days on whether the Boys DA is to continue to operate as usual or a change will be made. Either way, we will be communicating all solid and firm communication with you at all times good or bad.
No matter what happens, you can be res assured we will continue to keep the same standards and product on the field. The landscape of this country for youth Soccer could have drastic change if this is true. We have great contact from within the league and will be working diligently all weekend to see what transpires as well as planning for what's next. Communication is something we keep striving to improve and will continue to keep you guys up to date with everything we hear.
Thank you all

[Anonymous]

I don't think politically US Soccer is going to spend $8-9 million funding just a boys program. I am also not sure MLS teams will help fund girls soccer teams. I think it makes more sense for MLS teams to have academies for 16-18 year olds and run their own youth league just like it is done in Europe.