Anonymous wrote:This is ADP, right?

OP here. Yes, I'm proposing that the ADP model be applied beyond age 11.

Smaller clubs that have difficulty competing with large clubs could offer an ADP model for ages 11+. This would give them some product differentiation and perhaps allow them to improve the stability of their rosters from one year to the next.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what your plan is missing is multiple practices per week. That is what my child wanted that caused her to move to travel from rec. She wanted 2-3 practices per week and travel offered that. ADP also has 2 practices per week, one parent led and one pro coach led. And then the parent coach does the weekly games.

The ADP program is being updated for the upcoming year and changes will be implemented, including that both the pool and team practices will be overseen by pro coaches. And a pro coach will be present at every game, supporting the parent coach.

Info here: https://arlingtonsoccer.com/programs/adp

What is the impact of these changes on the cost of ADP? How much per season? I can find the rates on the ASA website.

I like the proposal in concept and agree that there’s a market here until around HS where you have dual-sport athletes who are capable but not soccer stars and who find rec and select/classic leagues to be disappointing.

MSI Classic was great for my kids for the middle school years when the rec teams start to disintegrate (in part because the parents get tired of coaching or feel unqualified to coach the older kids). One did it from 5th to 7th and is now leaving for another sport’s travel club but it was great for her ti have a few years more to play soccer with friends. The other moved to a travel team in 8th grade — it is one of the smaller clubs people scoff at but we like it’ because the coaches are good and he’s played with a lot of the same boys for. Several seasons now. It’s an EDP club which I guess some people think is not good enough.

This is ADP, right?

Anonymous wrote:I think what your plan is missing is multiple practices per week. That is what my child wanted that caused her to move to travel from rec. She wanted 2-3 practices per week and travel offered that. ADP also has 2 practices per week, one parent led and one pro coach led. And then the parent coach does the weekly games.

The ADP program is being updated for the upcoming year and changes will be implemented, including that both the pool and team practices will be overseen by pro coaches. And a pro coach will be present at every game, supporting the parent coach.

Info here: https://arlingtonsoccer.com/programs/adp

Agree. My son just finished his first year of ADP. I wish it went past age 11. He does multiple sports and will probably not move on to travel by choice.

Yes I wish ADP continued past age 11/12. It was the perfect fit for our multi-sport daughter who wanted to play at a higher-level than rec but didn't want the full travel commitment. I assume it cuts off due to field space?

In the dense areas like Arlington, there really are a lot of options for people who have money. You have access to highest levels (MLS-Next and ECNL), strong teams in big clubs, small clubs that specialize in development PLUS loads of travel-lite experiences. ADP is a good model but honestly the lowest teams in MYS and Arlington are travel lite in everything except cost. Meaning, you have fewer practices than high level teams, you can miss training without consequence, people have multiple sports and commitments.

But it comes down to the costs. There are SO many costs associated with playing soccer. The biggest is the professional coaching but in my opinion, you'll never improve if you skimp here. Besides coaching, there are field fees, league fees, tournament fees, uniforms, and so on. It adds up very quickly.

I have seen the breakdown and it is impossible to get it down to $1000 if you have professional coaches. And without professional coaches, I don't think anything above rec is worth paying for.

I think what your plan is missing is multiple practices per week. That is what my child wanted that caused her to move to travel from rec. She wanted 2-3 practices per week and travel offered that. ADP also has 2 practices per week, one parent led and one pro coach led. And then the parent coach does the weekly games.

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to stop making rec sound inferior and start supporting it more as a good thing. All rec leagues are not the same. My kid has done 3 seasons at OBGC now with a great coach and has made good friends. The coach has made some of the girls good enough for travel. The majority don’t want the full year commitment though and the 2-3x a week practice because it limits other activities. So they stay with OBGC and get better together for much less cost.
We need to improve the rec experience.

I've coached rec for 6 years. Yes, it is possible help some kids improve. But many kids are either hopelessly unathletic, or they don't even want to play soccer -- they are doing so because their parents require them to play a team sport. You can put years and years of effort into coaching this type of kid, and produce little or no forward progression.

My rec team is the strongest in the league. We have won the division 3 seasons in a row. Yet even when I place my strongest line-up on the field, about 50% of the players lack basic skills. Connecting passes is difficult under these conditions.

I think the only way to boost rec soccer would be to eliminate the travel clubs, thus forcing all types of players into a single, universal league. This would elevate the average skill-level on each rec team and partially mask the negative effects of those kids that have no desire or capacity to learn the game. However, this radical structural change isn't going to happen, and it wouldn't be fair to those kids seeking a high level of competition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same challenge that has been mentioned on this board before

You want
1. Competitive/more serious kids on your team
2. Professional Coach
3. Not travel far away for games
4. Play against other reasonably competitive kids
5. Want it cheaper than travel
6. A yearlong commitment but also not so committed that you can't play other sports
7. Practice once or twice a week
8. Focus on development
9. Practice location needs to be reasonable commute/decent fields

Am I missing anything?

This sounds a lot like Arlington's ADP program.

I just looked up ADP. Sounds good. Now I just need someone to do that in Loudoun

I think we need to stop making rec sound inferior and start supporting it more as a good thing. All rec leagues are not the same. My kid has done 3 seasons at OBGC now with a great coach and has made good friends. The coach has made some of the girls good enough for travel. The majority don’t want the full year commitment though and the 2-3x a week practice because it limits other activities. So they stay with OBGC and get better together for much less cost.
We need to improve the rec experience.

Anonymous wrote:This is the same challenge that has been mentioned on this board before

You want
1. Competitive/more serious kids on your team
2. Professional Coach
3. Not travel far away for games
4. Play against other reasonably competitive kids
5. Want it cheaper than travel
6. A yearlong commitment but also not so committed that you can't play other sports
7. Practice once or twice a week
8. Focus on development
9. Practice location needs to be reasonable commute/decent fields

Am I missing anything?

This sounds a lot like Arlington's ADP program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vienna used to have "academy-style" programs for U9 and U10 (and maybe older?) in which parents were the official coaches of each team, but each age group's four teams trained together twice a week with the professional staff. Two teams played NCSL; two played ODSL.

Funny thing -- going without a "professional" coach at a lot of games didn't stop the kids from becoming All-District and even All-Met high school players. The best ones typically moved on (aside from some girls players on their best teams a couple of years ago) to DA or ECNL or whichever alphabet seemed more appealing than NCSL, but they didn't suffer from having their peak development years take place with (gasp!) parents.

The parents generally had the same licenses, anyway. The only difference was that the "pros" were younger and had often played at a decent level more recently. But they were less adept than the parents at wrangling 9-year-olds, which is a primary skill of U9 and U10 coaching that they don't teach in the grassroots or D-license courses.

That is an interesting model.

In general...do volunteer rec (parent) coaches get a training curriculum or guidance?

Many do- also the leagues will also subsidize/ reimburse for the cost of the US Soccer Grassroots license.