Message
soccermom4608 wrote:For anyone interested in an update, last night we got an email from the purple coach asking our son to practice with purple rather than cyan again this week but no comment on whether DS might even play with purple this weekend. It's pretty clear the purple coach isn't looking to bring our kid up to his team permanently, he's just trying to stack his bench with options without making a commitment. We responded that he would not be able to practice with purple because we felt it was important for him to practice with his actual team, as it wouldn't be fair to cyan to have someone just drop in for games who hasn't practiced with the team, doesn't understand their play style/strategy, etc.
DS is pissed at us because he thinks we tanked his chances to play with purple. Maybe we did, but I cannot condone this behavior by playing along with it. And I legitimately believe what I said to the purple coach - I think DS bailing on practices for what may be a better opportunity at some point at the expense of his current team is really poor character and sportsmanship. If the purple coach wants DS to commit to his team, he needs to put DS on his team officially so everyone can plan accordingly (including cyan) instead of jerking everyone around.
You are way nicer than I would have been to Purple Coach. In the meantime, I would be requesting a partial refund from the club because you weren't able to play in the tournament this weekend.
socalsori1980 wrote:soccerVA1 wrote:It sounds like the clear answer is to not have your kids play in the tournament. You have scoped out the fields and you aren’t satisfied. Nothing anyone says here is going to change your mind.
If these fields are acceptable, why are no games ever played on them? Would you be fine with your 11 and 12 year old kids playing on fields in this condition?
I am not disagreeing with you about the quality of the fields. My kid played in a tournament a few weeks ago on uncut grass and a goalie box that was a mud pit. It was a messy game but it wasn’t unsafe. If the field doesn’t look safe, pull your kids from the tournament.
It sounds like the clear answer is to not have your kids play in the tournament. You have scoped out the fields and you aren’t satisfied. Nothing anyone says here is going to change your mind.
For this summer, I would have him rest until his wrist is healed. Going forward, if he plays futsal, I would have him stop that and take the winters off. My DD’s goalie trainer has said that futsal is terrible for goalies because the ball is heavier and more likely to result in a broken wrist. My DD plays futsal occasionally but is not on a regular team over the winter.
RedCard wrote:Heloise wrote:RedCard wrote:Heloise wrote:I think it’s completely unrealistic to expect ASA to stop accepting non-Arlington residents into its travel program. We get so many out of county residents because it’s a strong program, but it’s somewhat circular - ASA is a strong program in part because it draws talent from a wide geographic area, and it draws from that wide area because of the strength of its program. But ASA is a private club, not part of the county government, so it has zero obligation to prioritize county residents over the strength of its program.
That said, the lack of field space is a real problem on many levels. It would be great to expand ADP, just like it would be great if travel teams didn’t have to practice on, let alone play games on, the hellscape of Kenmore’s field. Unfortunately I don’t see field availability increasing anytime soon, and ASA certainly isn’t going to shrink the club, so we are stuck with it unless we want to go out-of-county.
If the pro coaches are indeed worth the money, surely they don't need to grab talent that has been developed outside of Arlington?
How about ASA travel figures out how to better develop the talents of its resident population, as opposed to kicking its own residents aside in favor of kids from elsewhere?
ASA is a private company, but it doesn't own Arlington's fields -- it rents them. The fields are owned by the government. Surely that gives the government some leverage?
Are there any other clubs in the region that limit themselves to only residents of a particular locality?
I doubt the county government would be interested in battling this with ASA, for a whole host of reasons. The optics of trying to force a local private business to prioritize (largely more affluent) county residents over non-residents who simply cannot afford to live in Arlington would be pretty bad on its own.
I'm not sure if there are residency requirements for other travel leagues, but keep in mind that Arlington could potentially be facing space constraints that are more severe than in neighboring counties.
While I don't have the data, it seems possible that the number of non-resident kids in Arlington's travel program might be about equal to the total number in Arlington's ADP program. This means that ADP could double in size if non-resident kids were excluded from the travel program.
At the very least, it would be useful if the ASA would share their data. Exactly how many non-resident kids are in the travel program?
Assuming this is a zero sum game in terms of number of kids that can participate, ASA makes more money from travel players than it does from ADP players, so financially, it makes sense to allow the non-resident travel players. ASA also charges a small surcharge to non-resident players (I think it is around $30 per season). Also, if enough ADP players decide to play rec, the competitive level of rec would improve.