LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

No, no, no. I asked how the opposite is more beneficial.
Where there is only one team in an age group, there will only be one team. I don't understand how you're so hung up on more than one team apparating where there is only one. Those age groups will clearly practice in the manner you advocate as the most beneficial to every soccer team/player: not sullied by having "lesser players" involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

No, no, no. I asked how the opposite is more beneficial.
Where there is only one team in an age group, there will only be one team. I don't understand how you're so hung up on more than one team apparating where there is only one. Those age groups will clearly practice in the manner you advocate as the most beneficial to every soccer team/player: not sullied by having "lesser players" involved.

thank you, the age group trains together when there’s one team in age group. what is grand plan for them? oh yeah, nobody cares about them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

No, no, no. I asked how the opposite is more beneficial.
Where there is only one team in an age group, there will only be one team. I don't understand how you're so hung up on more than one team apparating where there is only one. Those age groups will clearly practice in the manner you advocate as the most beneficial to every soccer team/player: not sullied by having "lesser players" involved.

thank you, the age group trains together when there’s one team in age group. what is grand plan for them? oh yeah, nobody cares about them

Why would no one care about them? I think they could just have them train with the age group older. The younger players could be challenged by the older ones. Obviously there are different scenarios to take into account but that could be a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

No, no, no. I asked how the opposite is more beneficial.
Where there is only one team in an age group, there will only be one team. I don't understand how you're so hung up on more than one team apparating where there is only one. Those age groups will clearly practice in the manner you advocate as the most beneficial to every soccer team/player: not sullied by having "lesser players" involved.

thank you, the age group trains together when there’s one team in age group. what is grand plan for them? oh yeah, nobody cares about them

Why would no one care about them? I think they could just have them train with the age group older. The younger players could be challenged by the older ones. Obviously there are different scenarios to take into account but that could be a possibility.

So 2008 trains with 2007? Or 2007 trains with 2005? How does 2007 get better? 2008 wont challenge, 2005 is too much of a challenge (and apparently, 2005 and up aren’t part of academy?). Sounds to me, like, nobody cares about 2007 girls.

Oh I get it, LC is 2007 boys so I’m sure that’s why this decision was made across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So 2008 trains with 2007? Or 2007 trains with 2005? How does 2007 get better? 2008 wont challenge, 2005 is too much of a challenge (and apparently, 2005 and up aren’t part of academy?). Sounds to me, like, nobody cares about 2007 girls.

Oh I get it, LC is 2007 boys so I’m sure that’s why this decision was made across the board.

You're just spewing nonsense. In the non-academy style, within each age group, A-team practices independently from the B-team, which also practices independently from the C-team, which practices independently.
How is that style a better challenge to any of those players? But that isn't the point. This academy idea isn't even true academy; it's just scheduling all teams from each age/gender group at the same time and place. Ostensibly, so the "Red" coach would provide the training plans for the B and C teams. The benefit for players is more consistent training regimens, albeit conducted at their appropriate intensities by their respective coaches.

In this so-called academy concept, where there is only one team in an age group, then they would be able to practice as if not in an academy set up...in other words independently. So there really is no difference for those teams in how they practice this coming year, from previous years. Sure, the club could work to schedule consecutive age groups with only one team to practice in the same location/time blocks, but that doesn't mean they would be mingled...though it would enable scrimmaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

From a boy parent perspective, isn’t Sam the 2005 boys coach? Of course he would be at their practice?! He was probably at the 2004 boys practice too, as he coaches that team as well. I imagine the boys have had cancelled practices too. For the Hayfield situation? I have no idea.

No, he was not. He was the Director for U14 and up. PM was the coach. Now, explain with SO left when the boys left. U14 players were STILL THERE.

Pp here...with all due respect, you are incorrect regarding the red teams. Yes, Sam was indeed the 2005 boys red and the 2004 boys red coach last year in addition to being director of u14 and up. Are you talking about the 2005 boys white team? Sam did not coach the 2005 boys white team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

From a boy parent perspective, isn’t Sam the 2005 boys coach? Of course he would be at their practice?! He was probably at the 2004 boys practice too, as he coaches that team as well. I imagine the boys have had cancelled practices too. For the Hayfield situation? I have no idea.

No, he was not. He was the Director for U14 and up. PM was the coach. Now, explain with SO left when the boys left. U14 players were STILL THERE.

Pp here...with all due respect, you are incorrect regarding the red teams. Yes, Sam was indeed the 2005 boys red and the 2004 boys red coach last year in addition to being director of u14 and up. Are you talking about the 2005 boys white team? Sam did not coach the 2005 boys white team.

The Poster before you was talking about the year before when PM was still coach and SO had just been hired towards the end of the season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

From a boy parent perspective, isn’t Sam the 2005 boys coach? Of course he would be at their practice?! He was probably at the 2004 boys practice too, as he coaches that team as well. I imagine the boys have had cancelled practices too. For the Hayfield situation? I have no idea.

No, he was not. He was the Director for U14 and up. PM was the coach. Now, explain with SO left when the boys left. U14 players were STILL THERE.

Pp here...with all due respect, you are incorrect regarding the red teams. Yes, Sam was indeed the 2005 boys red and the 2004 boys red coach last year in addition to being director of u14 and up. Are you talking about the 2005 boys white team? Sam did not coach the 2005 boys white team.

The Poster before you was talking about the year before when PM was still coach and SO had just been hired towards the end of the season.

Thanks for clarifying. I forgot there was a short period of overlap. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

So just to recap, SO doesn’t care about girls side. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So 2008 trains with 2007? Or 2007 trains with 2005? How does 2007 get better? 2008 wont challenge, 2005 is too much of a challenge (and apparently, 2005 and up aren’t part of academy?). Sounds to me, like, nobody cares about 2007 girls.

Oh I get it, LC is 2007 boys so I’m sure that’s why this decision was made across the board.

You're just spewing nonsense. In the non-academy style, within each age group, A-team practices independently from the B-team, which also practices independently from the C-team, which practices independently.
How is that style a better challenge to any of those players? But that isn't the point. This academy idea isn't even true academy; it's just scheduling all teams from each age/gender group at the same time and place. Ostensibly, so the "Red" coach would provide the training plans for the B and C teams. The benefit for players is more consistent training regimens, albeit conducted at their appropriate intensities by their respective coaches.

In this so-called academy concept, where there is only one team in an age group, then they would be able to practice as if not in an academy set up...in other words independently. So there really is no difference for those teams in how they practice this coming year, from previous years. Sure, the club could work to schedule consecutive age groups with only one team to practice in the same location/time blocks, but that doesn't mean they would be mingled...though it would enable scrimmaging.

Yes I believe this was made clearly by somebody else earlier. Academy benefits the coaching schedule and that’s it.

[Anonymous]

Academy style becomes less and less effective after U12.

It's great for U9-10 when kids should mostly be learning skills. It's excellent for U7-U8 also.


It's OK for U11-U12, but you start to see more separation between the top players in the group, who need more challenge, and the bottom players, who need more individual development. Physical differences also start to come into play. Motivation and effort / interest levels also begin to separate at these ages.

By U13, players need to be training with others around their own level (in terms of skill level, physical ability, and motivation level) to keep moving forward.

From U13 and up, during the season, teams should be working with their teams. During the winter or summer, for technical training you can go to academy style, or MAYBE once a week for technical training in addition to their team training.

But academy style is really geared towards younger age groups (U7-U12) and for developing technical ability and skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just to recap, SO doesn’t care about girls side. Thanks.

I think it’s incorrect to make such a statement about someone bc of one incident. I think he had just arrived at the club when that happened. I have seen him at both boys and girls practices often. Also at one or two games for my DD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to recap, SO doesn’t care about girls side. Thanks.

I think it’s incorrect to make such a statement about someone bc of one incident. I think he had just arrived at the club when that happened. I have seen him at both boys and girls practices often. Also at one or two games for my DD.

Two incidents. Don’t forget, SO didn’t cover for U14 girls coaches so it had to get canceled. Instead, SO was with JN at U12 boys practice. He doesn’t care about the girls. Please stop making excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academy style becomes less and less effective after U12.

It's great for U9-10 when kids should mostly be learning skills. It's excellent for U7-U8 also.


It's OK for U11-U12, but you start to see more separation between the top players in the group, who need more challenge, and the bottom players, who need more individual development. Physical differences also start to come into play. Motivation and effort / interest levels also begin to separate at these ages.

By U13, players need to be training with others around their own level (in terms of skill level, physical ability, and motivation level) to keep moving forward.

From U13 and up, during the season, teams should be working with their teams. During the winter or summer, for technical training you can go to academy style, or MAYBE once a week for technical training in addition to their team training.

But academy style is really geared towards younger age groups (U7-U12) and for developing technical ability and skills.

Don’t bother. Club doesn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Of course they don’t, ever since the change.