Anonymous wrote:This is really your criticism of SYC. There are other issues with the program, but this seems like the least of the concerns. If it is developing players, then who cares.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the promotion of the SYC players from lower teams to their upper team, as I do on other clubs. They almost never promote players to their upper team from within their Academy. They are one of the best Academies around at actively recruiting players from other clubs, or their sister clubs like Manassas United, directly onto their upper team.

Plus, SYC is great at branding and selling both players and parents on the MLS Next name and logo. I've personally talked to several parents who where sold on being part of the MLS Next team, but were later told their player would only be able to practice with the MLS team.

Most of the big clubs do all of this. They are trying to build the best team, not promoting from within. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will make the best decisions for your child and not trust the club to do it.

From what I've seen, its not really about building the best team.
They are always trying to bring in more people willing to pay. Why move up a current second or third or fourth team player when thst family has shown they will pay for the lower team when they could bring over a family who will only pay for top team and get their money and keep the lower team family paying as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.

That's because it's not a mixed team. There are one or two players who will sometimes guest, but it's not a mixed team. The vast majority of these kids are on age. On multiple boy ages at SYC, there are kids starting and playing who are playing up with the team as well, meaning a few kids have a net effect of playing up two years when they play. So being worried about how the team is named and if they have a guest player or two at one of those tournaments gets sillier when you actually start to break it apart too. More often than not, there are more double age group under kids on the pitch when this happens than on age guests.

As far as ranking go, playing up isn't how you rig the system, that's not how they work. Gotsoccer ranking are tournament accumulation points based on the "level" of the tournament, which is mostly ranked on what tier software service the tournament organizer has paid for. This system rewards teams for playing many tournaments, but almost exclusively winning or at worst making a championship in higher rated tournaments. There are no extra points for playing up unless there are better teams. This systems is actually harder to move up in.

The other one people use here is the soccer rankings app, which is similar to all the computer polls you've seen in football for years. These tend to reward teams who either blow out teams rated similarly to them or beat higher rated teams, whether on age or not. Older teams are typically rated higher as a group than the collective of teams a year younger, so there may be some advantage to playing older teams that are more highly rated, but only if you're competitive with those highly rated teams.

Using the 2012 SYC boys teams as the example, had they played and won out at EDP on age, they would have picked up nearly twice as many points as they did for finishing upper-mid table an age up. In the soccer ranking app, they'd slot in as the #5 team at 2011 age group based on their rating, so anytime they don't have big GD wins against the majority of 2011 teams, their rating also suffers. That's how the systems each work, their inputs are pretty publicly available, so feel free to check them out yourself. On the other hand though, it doesn't really matter, because they're still in elementary school. My personal opinion is that they play up because it helps with the development of their players to play with faster, stronger kids who can test them. For all the second team whining on these boards, it also gives an opportunity for that second team to play in the top brackets of local tournaments and work against top team kids, helping their development as well. It's a win for everybody, in all the situations that are normally complained about on this board. Let's give them some credit for working hard, finding competition to push their kids, and giving their second teams a shot at playing in higher level tournaments to push them.

Of all the messed up things that go on there this is certainly the oddest criticism of all. I agree who cares if they have kids playing up?? This actually a good thing.

You did not understand. No one said playing up rigs the system. If you are playing up at anytime and winning with older players and and you're ranked as a younger team, this skews the system when you are being compared to a younger team who does not use older players. No matter how much you write, this is not difficult to understand.

Got it. Yes, that’s messed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.

That's because it's not a mixed team. There are one or two players who will sometimes guest, but it's not a mixed team. The vast majority of these kids are on age. On multiple boy ages at SYC, there are kids starting and playing who are playing up with the team as well, meaning a few kids have a net effect of playing up two years when they play. So being worried about how the team is named and if they have a guest player or two at one of those tournaments gets sillier when you actually start to break it apart too. More often than not, there are more double age group under kids on the pitch when this happens than on age guests.

As far as ranking go, playing up isn't how you rig the system, that's not how they work. Gotsoccer ranking are tournament accumulation points based on the "level" of the tournament, which is mostly ranked on what tier software service the tournament organizer has paid for. This system rewards teams for playing many tournaments, but almost exclusively winning or at worst making a championship in higher rated tournaments. There are no extra points for playing up unless there are better teams. This systems is actually harder to move up in.

The other one people use here is the soccer rankings app, which is similar to all the computer polls you've seen in football for years. These tend to reward teams who either blow out teams rated similarly to them or beat higher rated teams, whether on age or not. Older teams are typically rated higher as a group than the collective of teams a year younger, so there may be some advantage to playing older teams that are more highly rated, but only if you're competitive with those highly rated teams.

Using the 2012 SYC boys teams as the example, had they played and won out at EDP on age, they would have picked up nearly twice as many points as they did for finishing upper-mid table an age up. In the soccer ranking app, they'd slot in as the #5 team at 2011 age group based on their rating, so anytime they don't have big GD wins against the majority of 2011 teams, their rating also suffers. That's how the systems each work, their inputs are pretty publicly available, so feel free to check them out yourself. On the other hand though, it doesn't really matter, because they're still in elementary school. My personal opinion is that they play up because it helps with the development of their players to play with faster, stronger kids who can test them. For all the second team whining on these boards, it also gives an opportunity for that second team to play in the top brackets of local tournaments and work against top team kids, helping their development as well. It's a win for everybody, in all the situations that are normally complained about on this board. Let's give them some credit for working hard, finding competition to push their kids, and giving their second teams a shot at playing in higher level tournaments to push them.

Of all the messed up things that go on there this is certainly the oddest criticism of all. I agree who cares if they have kids playing up?? This actually a good thing.

You did not understand. No one said playing up rigs the system. If you are playing up at anytime and winning with older players and and you're ranked as a younger team, this skews the system when you are being compared to a younger team who does not use older players. No matter how much you write, this is not difficult to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.

That's because it's not a mixed team. There are one or two players who will sometimes guest, but it's not a mixed team. The vast majority of these kids are on age. On multiple boy ages at SYC, there are kids starting and playing who are playing up with the team as well, meaning a few kids have a net effect of playing up two years when they play. So being worried about how the team is named and if they have a guest player or two at one of those tournaments gets sillier when you actually start to break it apart too. More often than not, there are more double age group under kids on the pitch when this happens than on age guests.

As far as ranking go, playing up isn't how you rig the system, that's not how they work. Gotsoccer ranking are tournament accumulation points based on the "level" of the tournament, which is mostly ranked on what tier software service the tournament organizer has paid for. This system rewards teams for playing many tournaments, but almost exclusively winning or at worst making a championship in higher rated tournaments. There are no extra points for playing up unless there are better teams. This systems is actually harder to move up in.

The other one people use here is the soccer rankings app, which is similar to all the computer polls you've seen in football for years. These tend to reward teams who either blow out teams rated similarly to them or beat higher rated teams, whether on age or not. Older teams are typically rated higher as a group than the collective of teams a year younger, so there may be some advantage to playing older teams that are more highly rated, but only if you're competitive with those highly rated teams.

Using the 2012 SYC boys teams as the example, had they played and won out at EDP on age, they would have picked up nearly twice as many points as they did for finishing upper-mid table an age up. In the soccer ranking app, they'd slot in as the #5 team at 2011 age group based on their rating, so anytime they don't have big GD wins against the majority of 2011 teams, their rating also suffers. That's how the systems each work, their inputs are pretty publicly available, so feel free to check them out yourself. On the other hand though, it doesn't really matter, because they're still in elementary school. My personal opinion is that they play up because it helps with the development of their players to play with faster, stronger kids who can test them. For all the second team whining on these boards, it also gives an opportunity for that second team to play in the top brackets of local tournaments and work against top team kids, helping their development as well. It's a win for everybody, in all the situations that are normally complained about on this board. Let's give them some credit for working hard, finding competition to push their kids, and giving their second teams a shot at playing in higher level tournaments to push them.

Of all the messed up things that go on there this is certainly the oddest criticism of all. I agree who cares if they have kids playing up?? This actually a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.

That's because it's not a mixed team. There are one or two players who will sometimes guest, but it's not a mixed team. The vast majority of these kids are on age. On multiple boy ages at SYC, there are kids starting and playing who are playing up with the team as well, meaning a few kids have a net effect of playing up two years when they play. So being worried about how the team is named and if they have a guest player or two at one of those tournaments gets sillier when you actually start to break it apart too. More often than not, there are more double age group under kids on the pitch when this happens than on age guests.

As far as ranking go, playing up isn't how you rig the system, that's not how they work. Gotsoccer ranking are tournament accumulation points based on the "level" of the tournament, which is mostly ranked on what tier software service the tournament organizer has paid for. This system rewards teams for playing many tournaments, but almost exclusively winning or at worst making a championship in higher rated tournaments. There are no extra points for playing up unless there are better teams. This systems is actually harder to move up in.

The other one people use here is the soccer rankings app, which is similar to all the computer polls you've seen in football for years. These tend to reward teams who either blow out teams rated similarly to them or beat higher rated teams, whether on age or not. Older teams are typically rated higher as a group than the collective of teams a year younger, so there may be some advantage to playing older teams that are more highly rated, but only if you're competitive with those highly rated teams.

Using the 2012 SYC boys teams as the example, had they played and won out at EDP on age, they would have picked up nearly twice as many points as they did for finishing upper-mid table an age up. In the soccer ranking app, they'd slot in as the #5 team at 2011 age group based on their rating, so anytime they don't have big GD wins against the majority of 2011 teams, their rating also suffers. That's how the systems each work, their inputs are pretty publicly available, so feel free to check them out yourself. On the other hand though, it doesn't really matter, because they're still in elementary school. My personal opinion is that they play up because it helps with the development of their players to play with faster, stronger kids who can test them. For all the second team whining on these boards, it also gives an opportunity for that second team to play in the top brackets of local tournaments and work against top team kids, helping their development as well. It's a win for everybody, in all the situations that are normally complained about on this board. Let's give them some credit for working hard, finding competition to push their kids, and giving their second teams a shot at playing in higher level tournaments to push them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.

That's because it's not a mixed team. There are one or two players who will sometimes guest, but it's not a mixed team. The vast majority of these kids are on age. On multiple boy ages at SYC, there are kids starting and playing who are playing up with the team as well, meaning a few kids have a net effect of playing up two years when they play. So being worried about how the team is named and if they have a guest player or two at one of those tournaments gets sillier when you actually start to break it apart too. More often than not, there are more double age group under kids on the pitch when this happens than on age guests.

As far as ranking go, playing up isn't how you rig the system, that's not how they work. Gotsoccer ranking are tournament accumulation points based on the "level" of the tournament, which is mostly ranked on what tier software service the tournament organizer has paid for. This system rewards teams for playing many tournaments, but almost exclusively winning or at worst making a championship in higher rated tournaments. There are no extra points for playing up unless there are better teams. This systems is actually harder to move up in.

The other one people use here is the soccer rankings app, which is similar to all the computer polls you've seen in football for years. These tend to reward teams who either blow out teams rated similarly to them or beat higher rated teams, whether on age or not. Older teams are typically rated higher as a group than the collective of teams a year younger, so there may be some advantage to playing older teams that are more highly rated, but only if you're competitive with those highly rated teams.

Using the 2012 SYC boys teams as the example, had they played and won out at EDP on age, they would have picked up nearly twice as many points as they did for finishing upper-mid table an age up. In the soccer ranking app, they'd slot in as the #5 team at 2011 age group based on their rating, so anytime they don't have big GD wins against the majority of 2011 teams, their rating also suffers. That's how the systems each work, their inputs are pretty publicly available, so feel free to check them out yourself. On the other hand though, it doesn't really matter, because they're still in elementary school. My personal opinion is that they play up because it helps with the development of their players to play with faster, stronger kids who can test them. For all the second team whining on these boards, it also gives an opportunity for that second team to play in the top brackets of local tournaments and work against top team kids, helping their development as well. It's a win for everybody, in all the situations that are normally complained about on this board. Let's give them some credit for working hard, finding competition to push their kids, and giving their second teams a shot at playing in higher level tournaments to push them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen at the younger ages, SYC is very good about recruiting fast, strong kids with some technical teaching them how to play a rough, physical game. The boys get yelled at a lot by parents and coaches throughout games. They know how to win. But at what cost?

+1000 very hostile environment at the younger ages. Since teams play up, they always have 1 year older kids play down an age to help stack wins.

How does this happen since refs are required to check roster player cards prior to the game?

If a team is playing up a year, a year older player is playing on age.

Yeah, teams that play up are full of talented kids but we’ve played enough of them to know a few of the kids are on age, especially goalkeepers.

SYC sort of "plays up" some age groups, but then will put a few key on-age players on the team (e.g., a strong on-age goalkeeper) making it just a mixed team with some players playing up and some players playing on-age. They get to pretend they're "playing up" though because they are all such superstars lol.

Oh come on, there's no "pretending" when it's 3/4 of the team an age below and a couple on age. It's about getting the right competition level for the kids, and if having 2 on-age kids makes it a more even match, then great for both teams. They're younger and can develop on both sides. You prefer they play on age like they have in a few locals and decimate the competition 13-0? That's no good for either team.

They don't brand the team as being a mixed team. They always brand it as being a younger age. The rankings also officially give credit to the younger ages when it's actually not (making them #1 in the state). If it's branded as a mixed aged team, they should be ranked with the older age.