What is Metro’s tue with GFR? I thought it was pretty much nothing but they’re wearing adidas like GFR. Is metro GFR’s DA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

The kid compressed out at 14 may indeed improve by U16 but will the Elite coach REALLY give that kid a second look and an objective look at that? No. Once a kid is compressed off a top team at U14 they will not make the top team again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

NP, this doesn’t necessarily translate in a need to reduce the number of elite area teams. The slow player who doesn’t belong will get bumped for a faster, better player. Sure, depending on the age group, different clubs will be dominant because of the combination of coaching ability, overall talent level, strategy, and effort. This doesn’t mean that the other, poorer performing clubs should disband and have players playing in other leagues.

The main reason to minimize the number of clubs is to maximize titles, nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

Agree with this. The people who want to draw the “elite” clubs down to 2-4 in the area only want to do so to be in a position to win national titles. It’s meaningless. No one will care about that after a few years. What matters is allowing the greatest number of able girls to develop as much as they can. Having the larger number of clubs we have today allows that kid who wasn’t ready at 13 to keep developing and be a star at 18 or older, instead of relegation to a crappier training environment and shutting her out.

It is much more than titles. The dilution impacts training and play. A single player at a lower level can impact a training session or game. It impacts the entire team.

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

Agree with this. The people who want to draw the “elite” clubs down to 2-4 in the area only want to do so to be in a position to win national titles. It’s meaningless. No one will care about that after a few years. What matters is allowing the greatest number of able girls to develop as much as they can. Having the larger number of clubs we have today allows that kid who wasn’t ready at 13 to keep developing and be a star at 18 or older, instead of relegation to a crappier training environment and shutting her out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wishing the best for MU. There are a lot of families who have great players who are looking for an elite experience or who are on a team and not happy. Some of these clubs seem to already pick the girls before ID sessions or favor kids who they know. Once your child is a certain age, if they are not already on DA or ECNL it is very hard to get on a team even if your child works really hard. It is also hard to go from a bench player to a starter. There is room for another club. I almost feel like some parents want there to be no options because then they will feel like their kid is more special. Many people are watching this club and hoping it works out. I suspect, if they can hang on for the next year, they will see many more people at their ID sessions. Good luck MU!

I can sense that you're a caring person. I appreciate that. However, MU is a pay to play club.They are not Saints providing a charitable service. They will cut your kid in a heartbeat if better talent showed up...just like everyone else.

Fortunately, the bar is low at MU. And it’s not hard for your kid to get on a DA or ECNL team if they can play. Working hard is great, but that has to translate to quality and speed of play.

2 DA’s is enough. Dilution dilution dilution.

And you’d still have 4 NOVA ECNL clubs.

Take away 2 ecnl clubs too. Have 2 da’s and 2 ecnl.

Agree. Soccer is a terrific sport and the opportunity to travel and develop is great. The more avenues the more it will allow kids who started late to finish developing. I am tired of it only being a sport you had to decide for your kid at 8.

Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wishing the best for MU. There are a lot of families who have great players who are looking for an elite experience or who are on a team and not happy. Some of these clubs seem to already pick the girls before ID sessions or favor kids who they know. Once your child is a certain age, if they are not already on DA or ECNL it is very hard to get on a team even if your child works really hard. It is also hard to go from a bench player to a starter. There is room for another club. I almost feel like some parents want there to be no options because then they will feel like their kid is more special. Many people are watching this club and hoping it works out. I suspect, if they can hang on for the next year, they will see many more people at their ID sessions. Good luck MU!

I can sense that you're a caring person. I appreciate that. However, MU is a pay to play club.They are not Saints providing a charitable service. They will cut your kid in a heartbeat if better talent showed up...just like everyone else.

Fortunately, the bar is low at MU. And it’s not hard for your kid to get on a DA or ECNL team if they can play. Working hard is great, but that has to translate to quality and speed of play.

2 DA’s is enough. Dilution dilution dilution.

And you’d still have 4 NOVA ECNL clubs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wishing the best for MU. There are a lot of families who have great players who are looking for an elite experience or who are on a team and not happy. Some of these clubs seem to already pick the girls before ID sessions or favor kids who they know. Once your child is a certain age, if they are not already on DA or ECNL it is very hard to get on a team even if your child works really hard. It is also hard to go from a bench player to a starter. There is room for another club. I almost feel like some parents want there to be no options because then they will feel like their kid is more special. Many people are watching this club and hoping it works out. I suspect, if they can hang on for the next year, they will see many more people at their ID sessions. Good luck MU!

I can sense that you're a caring person. I appreciate that. However, MU is a pay to play club.They are not Saints providing a charitable service. They will cut your kid in a heartbeat if better talent showed up...just like everyone else.

Fortunately, the bar is low at MU. And it’s not hard for your kid to get on a DA or ECNL team if they can play. Working hard is great, but that has to translate to quality and speed of play.

2 DA’s is enough. Dilution dilution dilution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wishing the best for MU. There are a lot of families who have great players who are looking for an elite experience or who are on a team and not happy. Some of these clubs seem to already pick the girls before ID sessions or favor kids who they know. Once your child is a certain age, if they are not already on DA or ECNL it is very hard to get on a team even if your child works really hard. It is also hard to go from a bench player to a starter. There is room for another club. I almost feel like some parents want there to be no options because then they will feel like their kid is more special. Many people are watching this club and hoping it works out. I suspect, if they can hang on for the next year, they will see many more people at their ID sessions. Good luck MU!

I can sense that you're a caring person. I appreciate that. However, MU is a pay to play club.They are not Saints providing a charitable service. They will cut your kid in a heartbeat if better talent showed up...just like everyone else.

Fortunately, the bar is low at MU. And it’s not hard for your kid to get on a DA or ECNL team if they can play. Working hard is great, but that has to translate to quality and speed of play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not the OP asking the question, but this is a very typical response when I do from MU parents. Very defensive about the program.

+1
my experience as well

I'm sorry. Come out and meet the club itself. This board is a very poor sample size.

Well this is one way to get players to your sessions!