Why US Soccer should not grant Arlington older DA teams

[Anonymous]

Just take away DA status from McLean and give McLean fields to Arlington DA. Problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lower teams are profit centers that allow all these high salaries for DOC and TDs that are necessary to keep DA status.
They won't be dropped but squeezed further because switching from Red to DA for top teams adds practices and thus takes away field space.
Lower teams get 1/8th of a field, as 6 teams get crammed into a field, with the top 2 teams sharing half a field. The plan would be to cut into that and put 8 teams sharing one field at lower age weekly practices, to free up fields for the required # of DA practices going on from boys + girls U12 to U19 DA when expansion happens.
Basically, imagine Monday night skills every night for teams in younger age groups or lower on food chain. This is the price of DA FBOW.

Well then I guess your kid better make DA then.

The added practice night is where the real squeeze comes in, BUT 4 practices is not a requirement for U12 or U13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just take away DA status from McLean and give McLean fields to Arlington DA. Problem solved!

McLean hasn't had a DA for many years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just take away DA status from McLean and give McLean fields to Arlington DA. Problem solved!

McLean hasn't had a DA for many years now.

They got a U12 DA status a couple years ago.

http://mlys.ussoccerda.com/home.phphttp://mlys.ussoccerda.com/home.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just take away DA status from McLean and give McLean fields to Arlington DA. Problem solved!

McLean hasn't had a DA for many years now.

They got a U12 DA status a couple years ago.

http://mlys.ussoccerda.com/home.phphttp://mlys.ussoccerda.com/home.php

McLean is all in on ECNL for both boys and girls. They no longer have any DA teams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you they should add a boys DA program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you think they should add a boys DA program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you think they should add a boys DA program?

They did drop the boys DA program for McLean. Having a good team doesn't guarantee that your DA program is safe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you think they should add a boys DA program?

They did drop the boys DA program for McLean. Having a good team doesn't guarantee that your DA program is safe!

Loudoun may lose boys DA (Maybe they will join boys ECNL too.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you think they should add a boys DA program?

They did drop the boys DA program for McLean. Having a good team doesn't guarantee that your DA program is safe!

McLean's DA teams were never very good though. Same with Potomac's. Not sure how/why those two clubs were ever awarded DA in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus you cutting lots and lots of Arlington players to the benefit of not Arlington players (da teams)

Ummm, Arlington is a soccer club based in a community, not a community based soccer club. It generally serves the geographic area of Arlington but being a Arlington resident is not a requirement of joining ASA.

Translation:

Ummm, that's OK.

Tell that to the Arlington parents who’s taxes pay for those fields but then they can’t get access to.

ASA also pays taxes and pays for the fields. Being a resident does not guarantee a spot on a ASA team. ASA is not a County Department or organization that you are entitled to.

I'm pretty sure ASA does not pay taxes (501(c)3)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you think they should add a boys DA program?

They did drop the boys DA program for McLean. Having a good team doesn't guarantee that your DA program is safe!

Yes, when they were in the DA back in the DA, apparently they were cut over lighting. US Soccer said they didn't have enough lighted fields to meet the requirements of the program. That's interesting in light of this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you they should add a boys DA program?

That is laughable when Loudoun already has DA and DCU is moving into Bolen Park. Adding a third DA within 5 square miles of each would be a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASA already has a field availability problem! (See other thread.)

Currently Arlington DA stops at U15 for both boys and girls. If they add older teams that will take even more fields away from other programs rec/ADP etc. Arlington DA assumes they will be granted older teams each year going forward. DA teams practice 4 times a week. They demand premium field space (not going to be satisfied sharing a field with 3 other teams).

Unless they get more lit turf fields, they should not get more DA teams.

At the older age groups Arlington DA players could try out for other DA programs (DC United/Washington Spirit etc.)

Under that premise, they should probably drop FCV too though. Don't they have field space issues? How is this any different?

FCV has girls DA up to U19 already. Do you they should add a boys DA program?

That is laughable when Loudoun already has DA and DCU is moving into Bolen Park. Adding a third DA within 5 square miles of each would be a terrible idea.

DCU has full DA up to U19. Arlington and Loudoun have DA up to U15 for now.