Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am huge open system proponent, and until we have that we will always be fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back, but ... pro/rel at the youth level without pro/rel at the professional club level is a recipe for disaster, developmentally speaking.

Unless the success of youth player development is tied in to the success (competitively and economically) of the professional first team of the club, the incentives for long term development just do not exist.

I agree that the system needs to open at the professional level, which would attract serious investments in the game, that is the key to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. But starting implementing these principles at youth level is not a bad thing. The USSF had $130-140 million in surplus funds last year so they could have put some of that money into youth soccer and create an open national system at the youth level similar to the rest of the world.

Sigh. Yes, the USSF is evil. Please go back and find one of tens of other threads that have argued it back and forth and address it there. This thread has very little to do with that argument.

This thread specifically discusses issues with DA and other programs. If you think that USSF is irrelevant to this discussion, please by all means continue to support the status quo, while forking out thousands of dollars for your dear daughter's privilege to play youth soccer.

I agree with the poster above you. While USSF and the national "system" we have in place are arguably related, directly or indirectly, to every thing that happens at the local level, it still pulls the thread off topic to rant about about USSF or "Why US Soccer sucks." These sorts of comments appear on every thread here of any length and usually have little to do with the specifics of the topic under discussion. I think we need to have a single thread where posters can go to talk about the global problems with US soccer. Maybe we need two threads--one for complaining about the current system and another for proposing solutions.

Unlike many other threads that are club specific, this thread relates to broad topic and the recent posts appear to focus on various problems with girls DA. USSF runs the DA in partnership with various member clubs so any solution is likely to involve the USSF. And since you seem to have all the answers, what's the solution to the current situation? Please enlighten us.

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the efforts of the PP who is trying to pull together actual numbers of girls playing in college from around here, though I think more investigation would be needed to get a real picture. Most, but by no means all, D1 commitments get reported to TDS or other places. Relatively few D3 commitments get reported, so you'd have to check club or college websites or player social media for those.

I also think the bottom half of the roster argument misses the point that a lot of players are aiming for an admission bump to good colleges that may not be D1 or, if D1, may not offer athletic money. I can tell you from experience that non-starters on boys' DA teams often are able to get recruited to schools that might otherwise have been difficult admissions-wise, and I imagine this is true for the girls' program as well. Also, many families are perfectly fine paying the higher fees. Some calculate the tangible return on investment of their soccer dollars, while many don't think twice if their kid seems happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am huge open system proponent, and until we have that we will always be fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back, but ... pro/rel at the youth level without pro/rel at the professional club level is a recipe for disaster, developmentally speaking.

Unless the success of youth player development is tied in to the success (competitively and economically) of the professional first team of the club, the incentives for long term development just do not exist.

I agree that the system needs to open at the professional level, which would attract serious investments in the game, that is the key to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. But starting implementing these principles at youth level is not a bad thing. The USSF had $130-140 million in surplus funds last year so they could have put some of that money into youth soccer and create an open national system at the youth level similar to the rest of the world.

Sigh. Yes, the USSF is evil. Please go back and find one of tens of other threads that have argued it back and forth and address it there. This thread has very little to do with that argument.

This thread specifically discusses issues with DA and other programs. If you think that USSF is irrelevant to this discussion, please by all means continue to support the status quo, while forking out thousands of dollars for your dear daughter's privilege to play youth soccer.

I agree with the poster above you. While USSF and the national "system" we have in place are arguably related, directly or indirectly, to every thing that happens at the local level, it still pulls the thread off topic to rant about about USSF or "Why US Soccer sucks." These sorts of comments appear on every thread here of any length and usually have little to do with the specifics of the topic under discussion. I think we need to have a single thread where posters can go to talk about the global problems with US soccer. Maybe we need two threads--one for complaining about the current system and another for proposing solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am huge open system proponent, and until we have that we will always be fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back, but ... pro/rel at the youth level without pro/rel at the professional club level is a recipe for disaster, developmentally speaking.

Unless the success of youth player development is tied in to the success (competitively and economically) of the professional first team of the club, the incentives for long term development just do not exist.

I agree that the system needs to open at the professional level, which would attract serious investments in the game, that is the key to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. But starting implementing these principles at youth level is not a bad thing. The USSF had $130-140 million in surplus funds last year so they could have put some of that money into youth soccer and create an open national system at the youth level similar to the rest of the world.

Sigh. Yes, the USSF is evil. Please go back and find one of tens of other threads that have argued it back and forth and address it there. This thread has very little to do with that argument.

This thread specifically discusses issues with DA and other programs. If you think that USSF is irrelevant to this discussion, please by all means continue to support the status quo, while forking out thousands of dollars for your dear daughter's privilege to play youth soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am huge open system proponent, and until we have that we will always be fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back, but ... pro/rel at the youth level without pro/rel at the professional club level is a recipe for disaster, developmentally speaking.

Unless the success of youth player development is tied in to the success (competitively and economically) of the professional first team of the club, the incentives for long term development just do not exist.

I agree that the system needs to open at the professional level, which would attract serious investments in the game, that is the key to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. But starting implementing these principles at youth level is not a bad thing. The USSF had $130-140 million in surplus funds last year so they could have put some of that money into youth soccer and create an open national system at the youth level similar to the rest of the world.

Sigh. Yes, the USSF is evil. Please go back and find one of tens of other threads that have argued it back and forth and address it there. This thread has very little to do with that argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

I've seen it make a difference for kids. I saw for example girls who didn't make rosters one year of high school train hard in the spring and make it the next, or move from bottom third to regular starter. I have noticed similar things on the boys' side.

I'm not sure who started the rumor that only young kids can develop, but it must have been by a very poor coach seeking to justify poor results.

Now, that said, it is entirely dependent on said player to have the discipline to go through with it. For example, one boy I know hit an extra practice 4 days a week (including after his regular practice and the off days) because he wanted to make a DA team. Which he did and is now not a 100% starter, but not a 25% player either.

I don't disagree with what you've said. I'm in more disagreement with the poster who feels that pulling out is the best option. Being in an environment where you are challenged against better players is an absolute requirement to get better.

It depends on the situation. No player should leave just because they are unhappy, and I never ever let my kids live until they completed the obligation of the season they committed to. However, if you hit a brick wall with a coach and don't see your player being able to develop further, it's not wrong to try something else.

And to clarify why. They should know college can't/shouldn't be managed with hopping away from pressure or having to fight for a starter position. These are all conversations to have as a player grows.

OP here: In ECNL if you aren’t a starter - better than likely chance you won’t see the field against a PDA. It’s like you think elite soccer should develop your mediocre player. It really doesn’t work that way - and we end up with club jumpers looking to get away from mediocrity- or mediocrity being sold a bill of goods that the bottom half of (ever growing) roster is key to developing - and not playing in matches, or playing so little (in one game per week DA matchup vs 5 other teams in the division (where two of them are Washington Spirit teams).

I realize I’m picking on Spirit - but they’re in flux. Like VDA, they can’t make the number$ work - and consequently, everyone pays as a result.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

I've seen it make a difference for kids. I saw for example girls who didn't make rosters one year of high school train hard in the spring and make it the next, or move from bottom third to regular starter. I have noticed similar things on the boys' side.

I'm not sure who started the rumor that only young kids can develop, but it must have been by a very poor coach seeking to justify poor results.

Now, that said, it is entirely dependent on said player to have the discipline to go through with it. For example, one boy I know hit an extra practice 4 days a week (including after his regular practice and the off days) because he wanted to make a DA team. Which he did and is now not a 100% starter, but not a 25% player either.

I don't disagree with what you've said. I'm in more disagreement with the poster who feels that pulling out is the best option. Being in an environment where you are challenged against better players is an absolute requirement to get better.

It depends on the situation. No player should leave just because they are unhappy, and I never ever let my kids live until they completed the obligation of the season they committed to. However, if you hit a brick wall with a coach and don't see your player being able to develop further, it's not wrong to try something else.

And to clarify why. They should know college can't/shouldn't be managed with hopping away from pressure or having to fight for a starter position. These are all conversations to have as a player grows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

I've seen it make a difference for kids. I saw for example girls who didn't make rosters one year of high school train hard in the spring and make it the next, or move from bottom third to regular starter. I have noticed similar things on the boys' side.

I'm not sure who started the rumor that only young kids can develop, but it must have been by a very poor coach seeking to justify poor results.

Now, that said, it is entirely dependent on said player to have the discipline to go through with it. For example, one boy I know hit an extra practice 4 days a week (including after his regular practice and the off days) because he wanted to make a DA team. Which he did and is now not a 100% starter, but not a 25% player either.

I don't disagree with what you've said. I'm in more disagreement with the poster who feels that pulling out is the best option. Being in an environment where you are challenged against better players is an absolute requirement to get better.

It depends on the situation. No player should leave just because they are unhappy, and I never ever let my kids live until they completed the obligation of the season they committed to. However, if you hit a brick wall with a coach and don't see your player being able to develop further, it's not wrong to try something else.

And to clarify why. They should know college can't/shouldn't be managed with hopping away from pressure or having to fight for a starter position. These are all conversations to have as a player grows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

I've seen it make a difference for kids. I saw for example girls who didn't make rosters one year of high school train hard in the spring and make it the next, or move from bottom third to regular starter. I have noticed similar things on the boys' side.

I'm not sure who started the rumor that only young kids can develop, but it must have been by a very poor coach seeking to justify poor results.

Now, that said, it is entirely dependent on said player to have the discipline to go through with it. For example, one boy I know hit an extra practice 4 days a week (including after his regular practice and the off days) because he wanted to make a DA team. Which he did and is now not a 100% starter, but not a 25% player either.

I don't disagree with what you've said. I'm in more disagreement with the poster who feels that pulling out is the best option. Being in an environment where you are challenged against better players is an absolute requirement to get better.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

I've seen it make a difference for kids. I saw for example girls who didn't make rosters one year of high school train hard in the spring and make it the next, or move from bottom third to regular starter. I have noticed similar things on the boys' side.

I'm not sure who started the rumor that only young kids can develop, but it must have been by a very poor coach seeking to justify poor results.

Now, that said, it is entirely dependent on said player to have the discipline to go through with it. For example, one boy I know hit an extra practice 4 days a week (including after his regular practice and the off days) because he wanted to make a DA team. Which he did and is now not a 100% starter, but not a 25% player either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is if your daughter is on the bottom end of an ECNL Roster she may get on the field at a top showcase with hundreds of coaches watching and have an opportunity to show what she has. Bottom of the barrel D1 schools and D3 schools are the only ones watching non ECNL/DA teams now. There are a few exceptions but not many.

College coaches are recruiting around 6 - 8 kids per year NATIONWIDE. If you’re daughter is on the bottom half of an ECNL team - you’ll find very few takers. Don’t take my word for it - at your next ID day’s question and answer session - ask the coach! He / she will not say “I really make a point of watching the kids who aren’t that good”. No, they look at the kids everyone is watching - and then they move on after a few minutes to watch the other top kids. Even top D3 schools aren’t looking for mediocre players - they are looking for players that want to go to the best schools in the country that might need help getting through admissions. They too only want to win - or they’re out of a job.

Yes the cut down rate is about 10% - ie only 10%(give or take) of the whole age group nation wide will play in college. Is your kid in the top 10% of players in your league(not your club)?

Bad reasoning. It assumes all leagues nationwide are of the same quality.

Original poster her: I too like a reasoned argument - so I did a little research on the Class of 2018 in Virginia with the assistance of TopDrawerSoccer.

My conclusion is that if your daughter is not in the top half of her elite soccer team, you should pull her out of her DA / ECNL club and reinvest the money saved ($8000 per year) in having her instead play in a local club and have her enrolled in private training. This is to improve her soccer skills, game play, fitness, etc and have her tryout the following year to make sure she is on the top half of the roster. Please note that I have used some web sites like GotSoccer, TopDrawerSoccer and others to provide a reasoned argument.

Facts:
- There are about 80 soccer clubs in Virginia

- For the most recent graduating class of 2018 - 83 girls are playing soccer in college - and out that number - 58 girls in Virginia committed to play for a D1 program. So estimating that there are 16 per roster - that means there was an estimated 1280 girls who graduated high school in 2018 playing on any club team in Virginia. That means only 4.5% are committed to play in a D1 program.

- Of the 58 girls, only 40 of them played for either an ECNL or DA club last year in Virginia AND committed to a D1 program. The remaining played for non-DA / ECNL clubs (like Beach FC, SOCA, Herndon, etc).

- If there were 5 DA / ECNL clubs in Virginia last year - that means 8 players per team were picked up on average by D1 programs.

- On average, the rosters of the D1 schools have 28 players on them - and there are only 14 full scholarships allowed per NCAA rules. So assuming everything is equal (and it isn't) the 48 players would be on 50% scholarship.

Therefore, if you live in Virginia and you wish for your kid to play D1 - be on the top half of your teams roster! If you kid is not playing - then save the $8000 and put it into a mutual fund every year and use the proceeds to pay for private training to get her into the top 8 of your team. That's my reasoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am huge open system proponent, and until we have that we will always be fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back, but ... pro/rel at the youth level without pro/rel at the professional club level is a recipe for disaster, developmentally speaking.

Unless the success of youth player development is tied in to the success (competitively and economically) of the professional first team of the club, the incentives for long term development just do not exist.

I agree that the system needs to open at the professional level, which would attract serious investments in the game, that is the key to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the world. But starting implementing these principles at youth level is not a bad thing. The USSF had $130-140 million in surplus funds last year so they could have put some of that money into youth soccer and create an open national system at the youth level similar to the rest of the world.