NCSL divisions released for spring

[Anonymous]

Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

[Anonymous]

U12 boys Div 1 - very good, fairly even
U10 Girls - not much competition except for 1 game; need to play stronger teams
U9 boys - team isn't strong so def getting blown out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U12 boys Div 1 - very good, fairly even
U10 Girls - not much competition except for 1 game; need to play stronger teams
U9 boys - team isn't strong so def getting blown out

there is no grouping based on ability at U10 and U9- the primary consideration is distance at that age

page 23 lays out divisions at that age- primary consideration is distance, secondary is competitive games http://www.ncsl-soccer.com/_files/rules-amp-procedures/RPManual_August2017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

Sadly, no. Most of the games thus far have been far too easy. This is U9 however, and others report that there is no effort put into parity at this age, only proximity. Seems very foolish to me.

[Anonymous]

U10 girls - we are in Fairfax. Have two games in Calvert County and one in Waldorf. Definitely not doing it based on distance. Games are also uneven, which sucks even more to drive to a horrible grass field and win by 7+ goals.

[Anonymous]

Our team was promoted a division and is getting slaughtered so far. Everyone is just waiting for the season to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U10 girls - we are in Fairfax. Have two games in Calvert County and one in Waldorf. Definitely not doing it based on distance. Games are also uneven, which sucks even more to drive to a horrible grass field and win by 7+ goals.

U9 and U10 barely count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

Sadly, no. Most of the games thus far have been far too easy. This is U9 however, and others report that there is no effort put into parity at this age, only proximity. Seems very foolish to me.

With nary a match played on the fall / hardly any data, how do you propose the schedule makers create a competitive schedule? And for new teams forming for this fall at U9, what is your genius solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

Sadly, no. Most of the games thus far have been far too easy. This is U9 however, and others report that there is no effort put into parity at this age, only proximity. Seems very foolish to me.

With nary a match played on the fall / hardly any data, how do you propose the schedule makers create a competitive schedule? And for new teams forming for this fall at U9, what is your genius solution?

Just humor pp. She hasn’t figured out yet that U10 is a meaningless cash grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

Sadly, no. Most of the games thus far have been far too easy. This is U9 however, and others report that there is no effort put into parity at this age, only proximity. Seems very foolish to me.

With nary a match played on the fall / hardly any data, how do you propose the schedule makers create a competitive schedule? And for new teams forming for this fall at U9, what is your genius solution?

Nary a match? We played a full fall season. Is it too much to ask to organize a division so that there’s parity among the teams? It’s not good for anyone when my boy’s team wins 11-0 even after playing “only left foot shots” from 7-0 on; it’s not good for the winning players (who get complacent, don’t learn from their bad habits, etc.) and it’s not good for the losing team obviously, who get down on the game and can’t try to execute what they’re learning in practice because they are so outmatched.

As for the snark about U9 being a meaningless cash grab — news for you sweetheart, it’s all a cash grab at every age. But not even good life skills are taught by repeatedly being on the winning or losing end of heavily lopsided games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are folks finding their DC's team /level of competition (even if losing or winning all their matches) is sufficient this Spring? I am for DS and DD with rare exceptions.

Sadly, no. Most of the games thus far have been far too easy. This is U9 however, and others report that there is no effort put into parity at this age, only proximity. Seems very foolish to me.

With nary a match played on the fall / hardly any data, how do you propose the schedule makers create a competitive schedule? And for new teams forming for this fall at U9, what is your genius solution?

Nary a match? We played a full fall season. Is it too much to ask to organize a division so that there’s parity among the teams? It’s not good for anyone when my boy’s team wins 11-0 even after playing “only left foot shots” from 7-0 on; it’s not good for the winning players (who get complacent, don’t learn from their bad habits, etc.) and it’s not good for the losing team obviously, who get down on the game and can’t try to execute what they’re learning in practice because they are so outmatched.

As for the snark about U9 being a meaningless cash grab — news for you sweetheart, it’s all a cash grab at every age. But not even good life skills are taught by repeatedly being on the winning or losing end of heavily lopsided games.

DP. At U9 and U10, the divisions are done more by geography than by perceived skill because (1) these are still little kids and there’s no value in hauling them all over the region for the same level of competition they can get close to home, and (2) because these are little kids, it is a total crapshoot how good a team will be season to season, even if the roster doesn’t change. In those years, you’re not in travel because travel is developmentally appropriate, you’re just buying a slot for your kid for future years.

[Anonymous]

Starting at U13 about 60% of the time, teams are only scoring one, two, or three goals a game, as long as a team is placed correctly in a division.

Scores start to reflect reality and the 9 goal extravaganzas rarely happen anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U10 girls - we are in Fairfax. Have two games in Calvert County and one in Waldorf. Definitely not doing it based on distance. Games are also uneven, which sucks even more to drive to a horrible grass field and win by 7+ goals.

Interesting. Same category and location, but no travel any further than Arlington.

Now I’m even more grateful than I was!

[Anonymous]

Some of the more extreme traveling locally may come down to trying to accommodate coaches with multiple teams. They deconflict as best they can.

[Anonymous]

I have the U10 girl. I have been involved with soccer for a while and know it is a money grab. My point is... can't she just play local and get slaughtered or beat up on a team. I don't need to drive to Calvert to do that.