Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:17
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
Not true. My DS is at ASA and they don’t prioritize winning.
Thanks, coach. Please stop now.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:17
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
Not true. My DS is at ASA and they don’t prioritize winning.
If he is on the top team, they prioritize this way and even roster accordingly. There have been awful issues with coaching due to just playing for winning and not having development in mind. There is biobanding, too, as well as guest players in tournaments and league games who entirely replace existing players for the match.
You talking about Arlington?
Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:14
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Let's be real, all MLSN clubs in the area prioritize winning at u14.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:11
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
Not true. My DS is at ASA and they don’t prioritize winning.
If he is on the top team, they prioritize this way and even roster accordingly. There have been awful issues with coaching due to just playing for winning and not having development in mind. There is biobanding, too, as well as guest players in tournaments and league games who entirely replace existing players for the match.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:11
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
How did you address the point being made?
If you're not blowing people out the water or winning, doesn't mean your program isn't focused on winning.
Why with all the kids available in each age group, why would Bethesda need 3 biobanded kids on every team?
Ok, I see ur point. Instead of biobanding, they should put in what they have so they can develop. Having biobanded players just keep them competitive.
As an outsider who wants competitive matches, I don’t mind the bio banding. But if I were at the club, I guess it would be annoying. It is def not like that at DS club.
Not sure biobanding is about teams being competitive.
Perhaps, I was just responding to the PP implication that it was for BSC to stay competitive in certain age groups.
I’m sure there are other reasons for it. I think it’s supposed to be mainly a developmental tool but parents prob think it just takes up a spot for an on age player.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 10:02
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
How did you address the point being made?
If you're not blowing people out the water or winning, doesn't mean your program isn't focused on winning.
Why with all the kids available in each age group, why would Bethesda need 3 biobanded kids on every team?
Ok, I see ur point. Instead of biobanding, they should put in what they have so they can develop. Having biobanded players just keep them competitive.
As an outsider who wants competitive matches, I don’t mind the bio banding. But if I were at the club, I guess it would be annoying. It is def not like that at DS club.
Not sure biobanding is about teams being competitive.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 09:39
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
How did you address the point being made?
If you're not blowing people out the water or winning, doesn't mean your program isn't focused on winning.
Why with all the kids available in each age group, why would Bethesda need 3 biobanded kids on every team?
Ok, I see ur point. Instead of biobanding, they should put in what they have so they can develop. Having biobanded players just keep them competitive.
As an outsider who wants competitive matches, I don’t mind the bio banding. But if I were at the club, I guess it would be annoying. It is def not like that at DS club.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 09:35
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
Not necessarily with the bio banded kids will blow everyone out of the park. It couldn't been they suck and with the biobanded kid, the games are closer.
So isn't that good for every other team playing them? Blowing a team out isn't good for either team, close games are.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 09:32
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
How did you address the point being made?
If you're not blowing people out the water or winning, doesn't mean your program isn't focused on winning.
Why with all the kids available in each age group, why would Bethesda need 3 biobanded kids on every team?
Anonymous
10/28/2024 09:23
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
Not necessarily with the bio banded kids will blow everyone out of the park. It couldn't been they suck and with the biobanded kid, the games are closer.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 09:21
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
We’ve played BSC this season and I don’t really notice any biobanded players though. I mean we played a competitive game. Isn’t it only an issue if the additional biobanded players means they are blowing everyone out of the park?
They aren’t though. So I don’t know if anyone but the club players should care too much.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 08:50
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
If your MLS Next club maximizes the quota of 3 Bio-banded kids on all their teams, even the older teams, then they are clearly about winning over development.
Based on the number of kids available to Bethesda in each age group at the club, there is absolutely no reason to have 3 Bio-banded players on every MLS Next team.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 08:23
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
Not true. My DS is at ASA and they don’t prioritize winning.
Anonymous
10/28/2024 08:17
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.
What do people mean when they say a club focuses on winning?
Is it by the style of their play (kickball)? That they don’t play their subs so those kids never get developed? Or that they take new already developed kids every year instead of bringing up their second team?
Are we implying that winning clubs aren’t developing the players?
Anonymous
10/28/2024 07:07
Subject: MLS Next Standings U13 and U14 removed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U14
A club prioritizing winning at U14 should lose their accreditation
My bet is Bethesda or SYC.
It's most likely ASA. Their coaching is terrible. Due to performance and other shenanigans, they might lose their MLS next status, as it happened to their GA status.