Anonymous wrote:11v11 fields at Muldoon’s were only 98 long x 56 wide, and used cheap portable goals. Complete joke, given the quality of teams there in the 06 age group.

Anonymous wrote:11v11 fields at Muldoon’s were only 98 long x 56 wide, and used cheap portable goals. Complete joke, given the quality of teams there in the 06 age group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wags

WAGS doesn’t exist anymore.

Bethesda owns rights to numerous turf fields at high schools for practices. It’s strange that they couldn’t book any of those fields for tournament play. Most high school sports are over now for the season?
Money money money moneeeyyyty! Money!

BSC did book those fields. Still not enough fields in the County for their tournament. And yes, some teams played in Virginia. Tell BSC to get a professional management company to help Brad Roos, tournament director. There are so many things that could be improved for this tournament.

In addition to improving the quality of the fields and the refs for the games, what other suggestions would you have to improve this tournament? I am being sincere in this request, as I know there are BSC people reading these posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wags

WAGS doesn’t exist anymore.

Bethesda owns rights to numerous turf fields at high schools for practices. It’s strange that they couldn’t book any of those fields for tournament play. Most high school sports are over now for the season?
Money money money moneeeyyyty! Money!

BSC did book those fields. Still not enough fields in the County for their tournament. And yes, some teams played in Virginia. Tell BSC to get a professional management company to help Brad Roos, tournament director. There are so many things that could be improved for this tournament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This the tournament where they charge 1200-1400 to sign up a single team right?

For older AGs, yes. But the older AGs also get the better fields. I'm not a defender of the club or the tournament, but the tournament does have a pretty good college recruiting presence so the bang for the buck in terms of exposure may be "worth it" for some older teams. The younger teams pay $800-$1000 for a bad experience on terrible fields, so it is hard for me to understand any reason to do that other than collecting/maximizing Got Soccer points (and for ULittle, why?).

I'm PP above who said the club needs to figure out its prioritize and realign the tournament, and this illustrates that point.

Also, to echo something someone said earlier on this thread or the other one, I do feel bad for all the club parents who volunteer so much time and energy for a tournament that leaves so many people feeling ripped off. The problems with the tournament are not a reflection of their efforts at all.

Anonymous wrote:This the tournament where they charge 1200-1400 to sign up a single team right?

Anonymous wrote:Note: There are different types of grass fields. Some are built to drain more. Some have serious drainage issues - because of where they are located. Some are in very wet areas. Some are overused/some are over-scheduled, so they get destroyed. Some are used for multi- purpose which can have issues depending on the different purposes. Some are graded differently.

In any case, the issue with Bethesda is they have poor quality grass fields with multiple strikes against them. If it was more a local tournament, that probably would be ok. Its knowing your condition of your fields, charging over $1000 per team and having folks travel in from far distances and paying hotel costs - when you know the fields can't host a tournament is highly questionable Whether you are U13 or U11, incurring that level of costs and travel, is significant. There are other tournaments that manage it better for age groups where there is travel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wags

WAGS doesn’t exist anymore.

Bethesda owns rights to numerous turf fields at high schools for practices. It’s strange that they couldn’t book any of those fields for tournament play. Most high school sports are over now for the season?
Money money money moneeeyyyty! Money!

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:So putting lower age groups and maybe lower tiers (where teams are less likely to be traveling) on grass would make sense? But make sure any bracket with teams coming down from NY, Pa., etc., is playing on turf?

The tournament is too big for the number of quality fields available this time of year. Of course the tournament is a fundraiser for the club and likely the biggest one they have. But the club also need to take a serious look at how much (or whether) it cares if the tournament provides a good (and safe) playing experience, particularly for under U15 or so. If they don't care, then they should carry on with what they have been doing and the market eventually will dictate whether they need to make changes or not.

If they do care about the play for younger age groups in addition to the money, then they need to figure out how many fields are likely to be available and playable that time of year and determine the number of teams playing based on that. If they can't get playable fields over additional weekends, then they need to reduce the number of teams playing in the tournament. Summerhill is not, and has never been, a viable option. We've been there for both Premier Cup and Potomac's tournament for a number of years, and have yet to see playable fields at Summerhill. We've yet to see even arguably playable fields at Summerhill. Muldoon's is hit or miss. The fields closer to the stream, obviously, are generally not playable and they don't recover from the wear-and-tear they get every weekend. The fields closer to hill and parking are hit or miss. Sometimes ok. (The boys' schedule currently shows 11 (!) different fields at Summerhill and 6 fields at Muldoons).