Re: what if.......

by Goooal!!! 9/12/2012, 4:02 pm

omega striker wrote:
Goooal!!! wrote:
my2cents wrote:It is a horrible idea. It main selling point is what? Making alot of money for the host league? New teams at U15/16 are not going to be D1 caliber unless it is a restructuring or make over of a current D1 team anyway. Open qualifying for D3 is already coming. Requalifying for all divisions would put even more emphasis on win now at all costs. The best teams usually do not start out the best but are continuing to develop over the course of the year. It is a journey and it is where you end up that matters not where you started. This idea would turn that upside down. Very bad idea.

In U17, FCDP is essentially a 'new' team and they will win D1
and just lost one of the best strikers in the region!!!!!

unfortunate. to injury or otherwise?

by omega striker 9/12/2012, 4:13 pm

Goooal!!! wrote:
omega striker wrote:
Goooal!!! wrote:
my2cents wrote:It is a horrible idea. It main selling point is what? Making alot of money for the host league? New teams at U15/16 are not going to be D1 caliber unless it is a restructuring or make over of a current D1 team anyway. Open qualifying for D3 is already coming. Requalifying for all divisions would put even more emphasis on win now at all costs. The best teams usually do not start out the best but are continuing to develop over the course of the year. It is a journey and it is where you end up that matters not where you started. This idea would turn that upside down. Very bad idea.

In U17, FCDP is essentially a 'new' team and they will win D1
and just lost one of the best strikers in the region!!!!!

unfortunate. to injury or otherwise?

torn ACL

by Laimport 9/12/2012, 4:27 pm

Guess it isn't as big a problem. or it won't be for long.

In the next 2-4 years the DA member clubs will completely separate themselves from the poor peons of regular club soccer. The DA will eventually include u9's and u10's.

by my2cents 9/12/2012, 9:19 pm

[quote="Goooal!!!"]

my2cents wrote:It is a horrible idea. It main selling point is what? Making alot of money for the host league? New teams at U15/16 are not going to be D1 caliber unless it is a restructuring or make over of a current D1 team anyway. Open qualifying for D3 is already coming. Requalifying for all divisions would put even more emphasis on win now at all costs. The best teams usually do not start out the best but are continuing to develop over the course of the year. It is a journey and it is where you end up that matters not where you started. This idea would turn that upside down. Very bad idea.

In U17, FCDP is essentially a 'new' team and they will win D1[/quote]

Thank you for making my point. And I would not go out and bet the farm on that prediction. The 12-0 goal differential looks very impressive until you realize 10 of them were beating up on ody.

by my2cents 9/12/2012, 9:32 pm

heyyouguys wrote:my2cents, I think if the structure is set up correctly, it won't be win at all costs. Firstly, the point of requalifying every year is to put teams in their proper level of play, regardless of if the team lost a lot of talent or gained a lot talent. I don't think anyone can argue that if a new team forms , and is capable of playing in D2, it is silly for them to play one year in PPL/APL, qualify for D3, win D3, qualify for D2, etc. They should be playing at the level of their talent, especially if we consider youth soccer "developmental". Second, a qualifying tournament occurs after signing day, meaning that the team you bring in is basically the team you will play with throughout the year. Because of the high number of player movement in between seasons, I think it would allow the best possible grouping of similar talent.

Likewise, I think that two divisions of 20 teams solves the problem of it being really cuttthroat, and will also help the problem of "qualifying tournament luck." If you're team is marginally in the top 20 (19 or 20th), then it really shouldn't matter if you are playing 1-20 or 21-40 (although I would argue that it is better to be playing 21-40 if you're right on the edge). It can't be any more cutthroat than it is now... think about it. D1 teams worrying abuot getting relgated, D2/D3 worrying about promotion, relegation, PPL/APL teams trying to qualify. You remove all of that in the season and strictly focus on just playing the games. Then, you worry about it come qualifying time. It makes the summer kind of suck, but it makes the season a lot more enjoyable. I imagine kids who are riding the pine would really appreciate it.

Look what happens now with U11 D1 being 20 teams. The lower teams end up so beat up that by year's end many disband. At the older ages it would be even worse as the talent filters to 5 to 7 top teams. The bottom 5 to 7 in a 20 team D1 would get crushed. I think the open D3 qualifier might work but definitely not two twenty team leagues. Academy has taken many top quality players , opening CL to 40 teams would just further spread out talent.

by go99 9/12/2012, 9:38 pm

I guess you guys are thinking the integrity of the league or whatever. I am thinking about kids opportunity to play. No matter what you do you will not hurt the big clubs. It is not as easy for the small neighborhood teams to pick up players especially if they have no guaranteed bye and I think they allow some kids who would not otherwise have the opportunity to play. I look at barcelona 99 that lost a handful of players or what was the very good indie team in the 2000's that basically fell apart after losing players. The reason I like the 20 team D1 is it offers more kids the chance to play to level competition.

by go99 9/12/2012, 9:43 pm

my2cents wrote:
heyyouguys wrote:my2cents, I think if the structure is set up correctly, it won't be win at all costs. Firstly, the point of requalifying every year is to put teams in their proper level of play, regardless of if the team lost a lot of talent or gained a lot talent. I don't think anyone can argue that if a new team forms , and is capable of playing in D2, it is silly for them to play one year in PPL/APL, qualify for D3, win D3, qualify for D2, etc. They should be playing at the level of their talent, especially if we consider youth soccer "developmental". Second, a qualifying tournament occurs after signing day, meaning that the team you bring in is basically the team you will play with throughout the year. Because of the high number of player movement in between seasons, I think it would allow the best possible grouping of similar talent.

Likewise, I think that two divisions of 20 teams solves the problem of it being really cuttthroat, and will also help the problem of "qualifying tournament luck." If you're team is marginally in the top 20 (19 or 20th), then it really shouldn't matter if you are playing 1-20 or 21-40 (although I would argue that it is better to be playing 21-40 if you're right on the edge). It can't be any more cutthroat than it is now... think about it. D1 teams worrying abuot getting relgated, D2/D3 worrying about promotion, relegation, PPL/APL teams trying to qualify. You remove all of that in the season and strictly focus on just playing the games. Then, you worry about it come qualifying time. It makes the summer kind of suck, but it makes the season a lot more enjoyable. I imagine kids who are riding the pine would really appreciate it.

Look what happens now with U11 D1 being 20 teams. The lower teams end up so beat up that by year's end many disband. At the older ages it would be even worse as the talent filters to 5 to 7 top teams. The bottom 5 to 7 in a 20 team D1 would get crushed. I think the open D3 qualifier might work but definitely not two twenty team leagues. Academy has taken many top quality players , opening CL to 40 teams would just further spread out talent.

I think the talent concentrates on those top teams because parents want to stay in D1. With 20 places there wouldn't be the need to concentrate as many kids in one team in an attempt to make super teams. And other than the top few and the bottom few everyone else was fairly competative and hard fought in D1 the first year of the 99's. Come to think of it, thats not much different than the EPL or Laliga

by bigtex75081 9/13/2012, 7:34 am

When the idea of 2 divisions of 20 was presented, I must admit that I thought of a different layout. Instead of 1-20 in D1 and then 21-40 in D2, I thought we were going to talk more like a North Division and a South Division. Or a East Division and a West Division. The teams would apply to be in the geographic division they wanted and the best teams would be placed first. At the end of that season the top 10 from each division would retain their byes.

I'm sure this will cause some type of firestorm but why wouldn't this work? If anything, try this format for a couple years first. If it works, then stick with it. If it doesn't work, just flip back to the old format.

They could even have a round robin tournament for the top 4 finishers in each division to determine the ultimate champions.

by my2cents 9/13/2012, 8:36 am

go99 wrote:
my2cents wrote:
heyyouguys wrote:my2cents, I think if the structure is set up correctly, it won't be win at all costs. Firstly, the point of requalifying every year is to put teams in their proper level of play, regardless of if the team lost a lot of talent or gained a lot talent. I don't think anyone can argue that if a new team forms , and is capable of playing in D2, it is silly for them to play one year in PPL/APL, qualify for D3, win D3, qualify for D2, etc. They should be playing at the level of their talent, especially if we consider youth soccer "developmental". Second, a qualifying tournament occurs after signing day, meaning that the team you bring in is basically the team you will play with throughout the year. Because of the high number of player movement in between seasons, I think it would allow the best possible grouping of similar talent.

Likewise, I think that two divisions of 20 teams solves the problem of it being really cuttthroat, and will also help the problem of "qualifying tournament luck." If you're team is marginally in the top 20 (19 or 20th), then it really shouldn't matter if you are playing 1-20 or 21-40 (although I would argue that it is better to be playing 21-40 if you're right on the edge). It can't be any more cutthroat than it is now... think about it. D1 teams worrying abuot getting relgated, D2/D3 worrying about promotion, relegation, PPL/APL teams trying to qualify. You remove all of that in the season and strictly focus on just playing the games. Then, you worry about it come qualifying time. It makes the summer kind of suck, but it makes the season a lot more enjoyable. I imagine kids who are riding the pine would really appreciate it.

Look what happens now with U11 D1 being 20 teams. The lower teams end up so beat up that by year's end many disband. At the older ages it would be even worse as the talent filters to 5 to 7 top teams. The bottom 5 to 7 in a 20 team D1 would get crushed. I think the open D3 qualifier might work but definitely not two twenty team leagues. Academy has taken many top quality players , opening CL to 40 teams would just further spread out talent.

I think the talent concentrates on those top teams because parents want to stay in D1. With 20 places there wouldn't be the need to concentrate as many kids in one team in an attempt to make super teams. And other than the top few and the bottom few everyone else was fairly competative and hard fought in D1 the first year of the 99's. Come to think of it, thats not much different than the EPL or Laliga

I think that there is alot of that at U15 and younger. At U16 and older I think it is more of a desire to be well seeded in showcase tournaments as most of the players on the top D1 teams are interested in college soccer.

by Laimport 9/14/2012, 11:08 am

And u16 is where all that becomes important.

below that, it's still all about technique anyway. With developing IQ a close second priority.

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 12:03 pm

go99 wrote:
my2cents wrote:
heyyouguys wrote:my2cents, I think if the structure is set up correctly, it won't be win at all costs. Firstly, the point of requalifying every year is to put teams in their proper level of play, regardless of if the team lost a lot of talent or gained a lot talent. I don't think anyone can argue that if a new team forms , and is capable of playing in D2, it is silly for them to play one year in PPL/APL, qualify for D3, win D3, qualify for D2, etc. They should be playing at the level of their talent, especially if we consider youth soccer "developmental". Second, a qualifying tournament occurs after signing day, meaning that the team you bring in is basically the team you will play with throughout the year. Because of the high number of player movement in between seasons, I think it would allow the best possible grouping of similar talent.

Likewise, I think that two divisions of 20 teams solves the problem of it being really cuttthroat, and will also help the problem of "qualifying tournament luck." If you're team is marginally in the top 20 (19 or 20th), then it really shouldn't matter if you are playing 1-20 or 21-40 (although I would argue that it is better to be playing 21-40 if you're right on the edge). It can't be any more cutthroat than it is now... think about it. D1 teams worrying abuot getting relgated, D2/D3 worrying about promotion, relegation, PPL/APL teams trying to qualify. You remove all of that in the season and strictly focus on just playing the games. Then, you worry about it come qualifying time. It makes the summer kind of suck, but it makes the season a lot more enjoyable. I imagine kids who are riding the pine would really appreciate it.

Look what happens now with U11 D1 being 20 teams. The lower teams end up so beat up that by year's end many disband. At the older ages it would be even worse as the talent filters to 5 to 7 top teams. The bottom 5 to 7 in a 20 team D1 would get crushed. I think the open D3 qualifier might work but definitely not two twenty team leagues. Academy has taken many top quality players , opening CL to 40 teams would just further spread out talent.

I think the talent concentrates on those top teams because parents want to stay in D1. With 20 places there wouldn't be the need to concentrate as many kids in one team in an attempt to make super teams. And other than the top few and the bottom few everyone else was fairly competative and hard fought in D1 the first year of the 99's. Come to think of it, thats not much different than the EPL or Laliga

I would disagree. I would argue that the talent concentrates because players want to play with like skilled players. It doesn't take long for frustration to set in if a player believes his hard work is for not when his teammates are not at a similar level. Its easy to put it on the over zealous parents but "talented" players want to play with other "talented" players.

I have to agree with 2cent. Just don't believe 20 teams in one division would be competitive. 20 only works if your theory that the top players would not concentrate is correct and I just don't believe that would be the case. For whichever reason (bb or parent).

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 12:10 pm

Laimport wrote:And u16 is where all that becomes important.

below that, it's still all about technique anyway. With developing IQ a close second priority.

So here is a question. How many of the bb's playing in North Texas are playing to develop the skills to play at the next level (college, pro...)?

by go99 9/14/2012, 12:14 pm

20 wouldn't be any less competative than it is now. The few top would beat everyone and the few bottom lose. Everyone else in the middle is competative most of the year. I think more kids getting the opportunity to play outways the few super team worrying if the games are tough or not

by go99 9/14/2012, 12:16 pm

noleftfoot wrote:
Laimport wrote:And u16 is where all that becomes important.

below that, it's still all about technique anyway. With developing IQ a close second priority.

So here is a question. How many of the bb's playing in North Texas are playing to develop the skills to play at the next level (college, pro...)?

I would say most are playing because they have fun, most parents are playing to win, a few are trying to develope

by Laimport 9/14/2012, 12:23 pm

This is where you have to separate theory from reality.

In theory, yes, you want the top players being trained together. But that's not very important at u11.

"When" is debatable.

The reality is that what happens is you are forming superteams (or attempting to) and not teaching the skill and decionmaking that should be the emphasis.

When the emphasis is on avoiding relegation and/or winning promotion you end up with an overall watered down product. Because the week in/week out pressure of CL (or any other tiered league)you are taking shortcuts with the players.

You end up with role players. Players that end up being technically and tactically deficient.

Whatever they do in Spain or anywhere else isn't relative to how it's don here.

Because "over there" they by and large DO get the best players and train them how to play football. Because competition is viewed in a different context.

Then there's the whole financial side. When the "top" clubs charge several grand a year, you are not always getting the truly best players.

Youth teams and especially players need a mixture of "training games" and challenge games to put it all together. So, 10-0 consistent scorelines aren't helping anyone.

Which is why a combination of friendlies and tournament play (again in the proper context)is a better venue (developmentally) for the individual players.

Instead, we directly correlate team success with individual player development.

They aren't "young professionals" so you can't use the same approach.

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 1:35 pm

Laimport wrote:This is where you have to separate theory from reality.

In theory, yes, you want the top players being trained together. But that's not very important at u11.

"When" is debatable.

The reality is that what happens is you are forming superteams (or attempting to) and not teaching the skill and decionmaking that should be the emphasis.

When the emphasis is on avoiding relegation and/or winning promotion you end up with an overall watered down product. Because the week in/week out pressure of CL (or any other tiered league)you are taking shortcuts with the players.

You end up with role players. Players that end up being technically and tactically deficient.

Whatever they do in Spain or anywhere else isn't relative to how it's don here.

Because "over there" they by and large DO get the best players and train them how to play football. Because competition is viewed in a different context.

Then there's the whole financial side. When the "top" clubs charge several grand a year, you are not always getting the truly best players.

Youth teams and especially players need a mixture of "training games" and challenge games to put it all together. So, 10-0 consistent scorelines aren't helping anyone.

Which is why a combination of friendlies and tournament play (again in the proper context)is a better venue (developmentally) for the individual players.

Instead, we directly correlate team success with individual player development.

They aren't "young professionals" so you can't use the same approach.

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, But I don't see how a 20 team league fixes any of these concerns. In a 20 team league, assuming the teams stayed exactly as they are today, (which you must, because it is theory until proven) I see more blowout games. The top 6-7 beat up on the bottom 6-7 and the 6 in the middle play competitive games.

What you describe above might yield more technically proficient players, but I don't believe the majority of kids playing soccer are that interested in putting in the time to play at the next level. By that I mean, development for developments sake. The reality is the majority want to have fun, be with their buddies and win. It's the american way!

by go99 9/14/2012, 1:50 pm

but wait, we were just saying that the players themselves are actually leaving their buddies so they can be on the top teams and win. So which is it? Are they wanting to stay with their friends or move to the few top teams so they can win?

I accept that most parents aren't interested in development but then there was the point of pre academy that everyone complains about. It was done so they don't have to touch your league and you get it just as you wanted it. Now those that were interested in development were supposed to move over to pre academy. Of course this doesn't work because ego couldn't possibly take it that we are not in the "top" league. So the same people who don't want to develope move over to a developmental league.

So here is my solution. Make pre academy like ODP kid stays with his team but supplements practices with occasional games. AL drops to 13 I would consider 11/12. Same rules as the older AL applies, year long season and not multi sport. Much fewer games at younger ages and no chponship. Clubs should have a conversation with each family individually about the purpose and expectations of the league. CL stays as it is. Pre academy lets interested kids dip their toe into the development without the full commitment. If a kid decides later and he has the talent then he can always join the AL later.

Everyone gets what they want. Those that want to play with friends and win CL, Those who want to focus on development AL, Not sure? How about a little pre academy.

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 2:26 pm

go99 wrote:
noleftfoot wrote:
Laimport wrote:And u16 is where all that becomes important.

below that, it's still all about technique anyway. With developing IQ a close second priority.

So here is a question. How many of the bb's playing in North Texas are playing to develop the skills to play at the next level (college, pro...)?

I would say most are playing because they have fun, most parents are playing to win, a few are trying to develope

I would agree with that. But I think we put a lot of the desire to win on the parents. Isn't winning fun and given the choice wouldn't most kids prefer to win? I understand that is pushed down from society in general, parents included, but when you were a kid, didn't you want to win? Just thinking out load.

by Laimport 9/14/2012, 2:40 pm

Damn right. Everyone wants to win. But it's winning the wrong way that is the problem.

And the money and time investment only exacerbates the problem.

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 2:50 pm

go99 wrote:but wait, we were just saying that the players themselves are actually leaving their buddies so they can be on the top teams and win. So which is it? Are they wanting to stay with their friends or move to the few top teams so they can win?

I accept that most parents aren't interested in development but then there was the point of pre academy that everyone complains about. It was done so they don't have to touch your league and you get it just as you wanted it. Now those that were interested in development were supposed to move over to pre academy. Of course this doesn't work because ego couldn't possibly take it that we are not in the "top" league. So the same people who don't want to develope move over to a developmental league.

So here is my solution. Make pre academy like ODP kid stays with his team but supplements practices with occasional games. AL drops to 13 I would consider 11/12. Same rules as the older AL applies, year long season and not multi sport. Much fewer games at younger ages and no chponship. Clubs should have a conversation with each family individually about the purpose and expectations of the league. CL stays as it is. Pre academy lets interested kids dip their toe into the development without the full commitment. If a kid decides later and he has the talent then he can always join the AL later.

Everyone gets what they want. Those that want to play with friends and win CL, Those who want to focus on development AL, Not sure? How about a little pre academy.

Need time to digest all of this one. But when I say play with their "buddies" I am talking about the friends they make on a team, any team. Players move all the time and they make friends on whatever team they are on and that becomes part of their experience with soccer. Having fun with their team mates. They can have both.

by noleftfoot 9/14/2012, 3:20 pm

Laimport wrote:Damn right. Everyone wants to win. But it's winning the wrong way that is the problem.

And the money and time investment only exacerbates the problem.

No argument, but I suspect the losing teams are doing the same wrong things in an attempt to win. I believe we agree, the system is broken. But the problem isn't trying to win, that will never change, that is what competition is. The problem is how do you change the mindset of a nation. This is not just a soccer thing. The things you outlined early are all things that we have know about for years, now how do you get the rest to follow? On a small scale you can create leagues for development, but the majority play for fun. How do you convince the masses, that pay the bills, to change their way of thinking? Do they have an interest in playing regardless of the outcome? Development to what end? Just to be better? How will they measure their success? Figure that out and you will have something.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag on the money issue. The powers that be making a living on youth soccer are not going to kill the goose.

by Laimport 9/14/2012, 3:38 pm

Well, as I've said before, the very first step is for the kids themselves to spend more time with the ball on their own.

That alone will solve a lot of the problem with the clubs.

The next big hurdle is to educate the 'consumer'. (Parents)

Maybe the clubs need to enlist more experienced soccer parents to convey the message..."yeah all we cared about were the results...but we finally understood what the club is trying to do and the ultimate outcome"...

Again, winning in and of itself is not counterproductive to development. It's the shortcuts taken that circumvent development....

Like other sports, it comes down to teaching the fundamentals first.

Unlike other sports, you tell the parents that you are providing an environment where the players make the decisions.

I agree wholeheartedly on the money thing.

Until parents educate themselves on what they're buying...the market will continue to be high.

Show me a u11 team that can string 10 passes together, have exceptional control..and I'll show you kids that are way ahead of the curve.

Somewhere around U12 I stopped focusing on whether my son's team won or not. Instead I started focusing on his technical ability and his decisionmaking.

Then I started taking him to the park on weekends and let him play with the adults. Then, I started focusing on making his movements faster and more efficient.

Then we started watching games and I noticed he saw things tactically that I didn't.

All along he was playing on mediocre teams. Granted, he was playing up a year and even 2. (By choice and necessity.)

So you see, it isn't about trophies or league play. It's what they can do on the field that matters.

by Soccerinsanity 9/14/2012, 6:26 pm

Where is he now, LA?

by Laimport 9/14/2012, 8:21 pm

Playing for an ETX 97 team.

by Sponsored content