Hot Takes on Arlington U9 Tryouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the team names mean? Are the 2016 teams ranked like the older teams that use colors? Confused by the premier league names of the teams instead of the usual Red, White, Blue.

Even the color names are confusing to me. On what planet is silver higher than gold,or Arsenal the TOP team (according to someone who follows premier/champion league and insisted he was not being biased.)

Can’t we just give them numbers or letters?

[Anonymous]

All these clubs do this. It’s weird. Why not just A, B, C ? Makes more sense.

[Anonymous]

DS heard back from Arlington and McLean today. We were more impressed with Arlington, so accepted the offer. Best of luck to those still waiting. Offers are starting to roll out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these clubs do this. It’s weird. Why not just A, B, C ? Makes more sense.

Marketing. Parents want to say their kid is on the "silver" team and not The F Team lol.

[Anonymous]

We were at girls tryouts, at the 630 time slot for the second session, and my daughter played on the third field the whole time. She didn't get an offer. I was surprised to hear that there were a good number of girls in the earlier time slot (2016s, not 2017s) who did get offers. Any thoughts on this? Would the league answer a follow-up inquiry? Just curious as to where they saw her/had her slotted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were at girls tryouts, at the 630 time slot for the second session, and my daughter played on the third field the whole time. She didn't get an offer. I was surprised to hear that there were a good number of girls in the earlier time slot (2016s, not 2017s) who did get offers. Any thoughts on this? Would the league answer a follow-up inquiry? Just curious as to where they saw her/had her slotted.

I would ask them what happened. Seems like an odd turnout, as the later time slots were the more competitive girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at girls tryouts, at the 630 time slot for the second session, and my daughter played on the third field the whole time. She didn't get an offer. I was surprised to hear that there were a good number of girls in the earlier time slot (2016s, not 2017s) who did get offers. Any thoughts on this? Would the league answer a follow-up inquiry? Just curious as to where they saw her/had her slotted.

Those girls were probably in the new futures program at Arlington. The more cynical DCUM’ers among us would decry this as pay-to-play $$ grab, but at the same time, the futures coaches (who were at the tryouts) know those kids well, for better or worse, and it may not be any more a naked money grab than all the ADP kids who eventually make travel.🤷 It can’t hurt to follow up with them, I’m curious to see if they mention futures as a reason.

I would ask them what happened. Seems like an odd turnout, as the later time slots were the more competitive girls.

I’m going to throw my 2 cents in and say I disagree the later time slot was intended to be more competitive.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, did not quote correctly in the last post, trying again:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were at girls tryouts, at the 630 time slot for the second session, and my daughter played on the third field the whole time. She didn't get an offer. I was surprised to hear that there were a good number of girls in the earlier time slot (2016s, not 2017s) who did get offers. Any thoughts on this? Would the league answer a follow-up inquiry? Just curious as to where they saw her/had her slotted.

Those girls were probably in the new futures program at Arlington. The more cynical DCUM’ers among us would decry this as pay-to-play $$ grab, but at the same time, the futures coaches (who were at the tryouts) know those kids well, for better or worse, and it may not be any more a naked money grab than all the ADP kids who eventually make travel.🤷 It can’t hurt to follow up with them, I’m curious to see if they mention futures as a reason.

I would ask them what happened. Seems like an odd turnout, as the later time slots were the more competitive girls.

I disagree that the second time slot was overall more competitive. But that’s just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were at girls tryouts, at the 630 time slot for the second session, and my daughter played on the third field the whole time. She didn't get an offer. I was surprised to hear that there were a good number of girls in the earlier time slot (2016s, not 2017s) who did get offers. Any thoughts on this? Would the league answer a follow-up inquiry? Just curious as to where they saw her/had her slotted.

The field assignments at Sunday 6:30 did not correlate to final team placement, especially for fields 2 and 3. Girls on those fields ended up on a variety of teams or no team.

[Anonymous]

I initially thought this post was a joke. These kids are 8 years old. At this age, soccer should be about getting exercise, developing skills, and, having fun with friends. My kid played rec at 8 and has multiple college offers. I promise their U9 placement is not going to make or break their future in the sport…