Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USMNT has Zero Passion

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Guest View Post

    The issue of socio-economic is a whole different story that I absolutely agree with you that has not improved. A definite untapped resource filled with immigrants who have been kicking a football since they started to walk. Their development comes from playing pick up games in the city parks and fields. In many ways they are way more advanced then most club players yet they are not getting the same opportunities.
    USYS and US Soccer has, for years, tried different outreach programs. But I think it's not attacking the main issue. This why part of what I proposed tries to lower the entry cost and make the highest level amateur/youth teams free. This demographic is critical to our long term success internationally. I happened to be on the West Coast a couple years ago and you'd be amazed how many kids play in local La Liga adult leagues and aren't even on the map. The entry barrier is just too high. We can outreach all we want, but we need to help bring them into the fold.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Guest View Post


      Cost of entry is not a male problem its a soccer problem. Someone has to pay for the experience because the expected value of the outcome is individual benefit - Social, Varying levels of development, College? If you look at it from back to front, a college soccer scholarship is a school attempt at reimbursing the parents for development costs. How many college scholarships get given every year as a percentage of parents paying for Club? As you say, the percentages of US players playing soccer in College on scholarship (W&M) is dropping. Ie schools are less willing to pay reimburse for US developed players.

      The current system is driven by College. Cost of entry to programs designed to produce college athletes is an economic issue. What is the percentage of minorities in College? Have you ever wondered why the make up of the Mens team is so different to the women? Same reason. economics.

      Developing professional players is best done as early as possible by those who will benefit from it. Pro Clubs. Your MLS take is more reflective of Clubs accepting that by that age, most players are miles behind. An acknowledgement that in a global talent business, the US College system mass produces players of a certain level. Are there exceptions, sure, but how many of those are top league ready?

      it seems your real agenda is to improve access because you think that will improve quality. Thats is true to a point, but not in a global sport where access is not a big issue elsewhere.
      I think, on the men's side, the desire of the participants has changed. It used to be college, but now most boys see the professional game, and college is secondary. Development is development regardless of outcome, the higher the level for the pro game, the higher for the college game. My agenda isn't solely to provide more access, it would be a byproduct of lower cost of entry and efficient resource use. We spend too much 'not' developing players. We could use the same level of resource and do a better job.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Guest View Post

        I think, on the men's side, the desire of the participants has changed. It used to be college, but now most boys see the professional game, and college is secondary. Development is development regardless of outcome, the higher the level for the pro game, the higher for the college game. My agenda isn't solely to provide more access, it would be a byproduct of lower cost of entry and efficient resource use. We spend too much 'not' developing players. We could use the same level of resource and do a better job.
        lol maybe at the pro clubs, but the vast majority of kids in the system know they are not pro potential. College remains their goal.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Guest View Post

          lol maybe at the pro clubs, but the vast majority of kids in the system know they are not pro potential. College remains their goal.
          I think if you ask any kid below U15 and they'd answer differently. It's as they age that they begin to better understand their level. I think we should develop them all better and with the most professional training we can provide at nearly every age/level then it'll sort. But if you ask any 12 year old, I'm betting they'd rather play for Arsenal (I just threw up a bit as a Tottenham fan) than a player for Syracuse.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Guest View Post

            I think if you ask any kid below U15 and they'd answer differently. It's as they age that they begin to better understand their level. I think we should develop them all better and with the most professional training we can provide at nearly every age/level then it'll sort. But if you ask any 12 year old, I'm betting they'd rather play for Arsenal (I just threw up a bit as a Tottenham fan) than a player for Syracuse.
            You are confusing a kids fantasy with reality. By U-12, they should have a good idea if they are tracking professional. Can it change? Sure, but the only way to really know is IF a professional club is willing to invest in your development. That is a privilege, not a right. The majority are paying knowing they are not pro material. No amount of "development" is going to change that fact. But the size of this country and the desire to play games vs other clubs means you still need those players in the system to make up the numbers and defray costs.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Guest View Post

              You are confusing a kids fantasy with reality. By U-12, they should have a good idea if they are tracking professional. Can it change? Sure, but the only way to really know is IF a professional club is willing to invest in your development. That is a privilege, not a right. The majority are paying knowing they are not pro material. No amount of "development" is going to change that fact. But the size of this country and the desire to play games vs other clubs means you still need those players in the system to make up the numbers and defray costs.
              Agreed and I don't how the poster thinks there's funding for all these kids to get more professional coaching. Fees are too high as it is, travel absurd. There's only so many free to play MLS clubs and they aren't a charity. They expect to make money off the 1-2 that go pro each year. If MLS could train only 1/3 of the kids they have, they'd be happy. But like you said all leagues need volume. MLS clubs would love to only play each other, but geography makes that impossible

              Comment


                Hope you guys dont mind someone jumping in here.....Im just an outsider whos been thoroughly entertained and :intrigued by the plethora of ideas being offered on here. I think it's been educational and I wanted to try to summarize a plan based on my ideas and the ideas that some of you have shared on here. Here it goes:

                1. Eliminate the multitude of leagues that exist and try to create a more linear funnel system from the U5 and up until you get to the mls academy leagues. This would help eliminate the watered down effect that we are dealing with in today's leagues.

                2. Reduce the number of clubs regionally to help concentrate the better coaches and better players into clubs based on level of ability. Instead of the watered down level across clubs that we have today. Today good players are spread out to thin across the multitude of clubs. If the top talent is concentrated into certain clubs early you may have the steel sharpening steel effect as well as seeing the Better players inspiring each other. Today you have 1 or 2 good kids at a club and they think they are the best and probably don't work as hard because of it. Put the best in with the best by reducing the amount of clubs.

                3. Make the clubs more affordable so that we don't lose the 1% athletes to other more affordable sports.

                4. From U5 to U12 there should not be records kept for wins and losses. Most of the practices should be geared toward ball mastery with both feet and skill training. Game situations like rondo and small sided games like 3v3 should be a part of practices with little coaching up to U8 and then progressive instruction from U9 to U12. Fun should be the main focus through these age groups. The Better players would be promoted to the better clubs so that steel sharpens steel but the goal would still be fun, ball mastery and small sided games.

                5. It should be set up so that these clubs have practices that are held 3 times per week but kids can show up an additional 2 to 3 times per week for small sided pick up style games mixed between 2 age groups for as long as they want to play. How much fun would they have?

                6. The 9v9 games should not end at U12. But instead continue to U14 so that kids have more touches on the ball and are involved in more plays. Smaller fields would also develop the speed of thought rather then size and speed to dominate on the 11v11 size fields.

                7. Player selection into the MLS academies should be by committee as should the player selections into the National pool.

                8. There is so much more but this is a start

                These are just some of the ideas that I already had in mind and also some good ideas that I've picked up from reading these posts on a daily basis

                I don't know what is right and wrong or what is potentially feasible for this country but it's a plan.

                Comment


                  As has been stated, youth sports is a capitalist mentality. Clubs and leagues are making $. Taking that away nd forcing everyone under one umbrella isn't the American way.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Guest View Post
                    Hope you guys dont mind someone jumping in here.....Im just an outsider whos been thoroughly entertained and :intrigued by the plethora of ideas being offered on here. I think it's been educational and I wanted to try to summarize a plan based on my ideas and the ideas that some of you have shared on here. Here it goes:

                    1. Eliminate the multitude of leagues that exist and try to create a more linear funnel system from the U5 and up until you get to the mls academy leagues. This would help eliminate the watered down effect that we are dealing with in today's leagues.

                    2. Reduce the number of clubs regionally to help concentrate the better coaches and better players into clubs based on level of ability. Instead of the watered down level across clubs that we have today. Today good players are spread out to thin across the multitude of clubs. If the top talent is concentrated into certain clubs early you may have the steel sharpening steel effect as well as seeing the Better players inspiring each other. Today you have 1 or 2 good kids at a club and they think they are the best and probably don't work as hard because of it. Put the best in with the best by reducing the amount of clubs.

                    3. Make the clubs more affordable so that we don't lose the 1% athletes to other more affordable sports.

                    4. From U5 to U12 there should not be records kept for wins and losses. Most of the practices should be geared toward ball mastery with both feet and skill training. Game situations like rondo and small sided games like 3v3 should be a part of practices with little coaching up to U8 and then progressive instruction from U9 to U12. Fun should be the main focus through these age groups. The Better players would be promoted to the better clubs so that steel sharpens steel but the goal would still be fun, ball mastery and small sided games.

                    5. It should be set up so that these clubs have practices that are held 3 times per week but kids can show up an additional 2 to 3 times per week for small sided pick up style games mixed between 2 age groups for as long as they want to play. How much fun would they have?

                    6. The 9v9 games should not end at U12. But instead continue to U14 so that kids have more touches on the ball and are involved in more plays. Smaller fields would also develop the speed of thought rather then size and speed to dominate on the 11v11 size fields.

                    7. Player selection into the MLS academies should be by committee as should the player selections into the National pool.

                    8. There is so much more but this is a start

                    These are just some of the ideas that I already had in mind and also some good ideas that I've picked up from reading these posts on a daily basis

                    I don't know what is right and wrong or what is potentially feasible for this country but it's a plan.
                    Clearly you really do not know what is feasible in this country but I applaud your thoughts. Unlike England this country will never fund Federal or State funded soccer programs. Those Centres of Excellency are only for English citizens. Your #3 is a non-starter and is one of the biggest excuses on this platform. In this country people deserve to be paid their worth for services provided just like yourself. Your #4 is also completely unrealistic to players and especially parents who love to stand on the sidelines and react to their kid on the field. Your #5 is great and would love to see that. Training 3 times a week for 1.5 hrs per session is not training. I like your idea for #7 but again parents would not go for this. When I see U11 teams playing on a full pitch 11 v. 11 I just shake my head watching this farce to make uneducated parents happy. That’s the biggest problem, parents who never played soccer, watched soccer, have no concept about the game are the parents dictating to clubs. These parents think they have it figured out and know what they are talking about. Your ideas go way over their heads. I hear these parents talk about scoring goals and do not like matches that end in a draw or 1-0 or even 2-1. I tried to explain it’s no different when a football final score is 14-7. It’s really 2-1 but in football you get 6 points for a touchdown and then kick an extra point. This went over their heads.

                    Comment


                      Reduce competition for players, have decisions made by committee and increase bureaucracy. No chance. You guys want to devote the majority of the resources to help the minority of players via edict of US Soccer. Instead of letting professional clubs devote their resources to players they deem worthy of it.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Guest View Post

                        Clearly you really do not know what is feasible in this country but I applaud your thoughts. Unlike England this country will never fund Federal or State funded soccer programs. Those Centres of Excellency are only for English citizens. Your #3 is a non-starter and is one of the biggest excuses on this platform. In this country people deserve to be paid their worth for services provided just like yourself. Your #4 is also completely unrealistic to players and especially parents who love to stand on the sidelines and react to their kid on the field. Your #5 is great and would love to see that. Training 3 times a week for 1.5 hrs per session is not training. I like your idea for #7 but again parents would not go for this. When I see U11 teams playing on a full pitch 11 v. 11 I just shake my head watching this farce to make uneducated parents happy. That’s the biggest problem, parents who never played soccer, watched soccer, have no concept about the game are the parents dictating to clubs. These parents think they have it figured out and know what they are talking about. Your ideas go way over their heads. I hear these parents talk about scoring goals and do not like matches that end in a draw or 1-0 or even 2-1. I tried to explain it’s no different when a football final score is 14-7. It’s really 2-1 but in football you get 6 points for a touchdown and then kick an extra point. This went over their heads.
                        I agree with all of this but you are missing one thing. Parents pay for that privilege. Clubs are not being dictated to. They have evolved to create the experience that appeals to the demographics that are willing to pay the most for it. Soccer is an upper middle class sport in the USA. The problem for the Men in the USA

                        1. Soccer is a global game for men that has well established structure.
                        2. Elsewhere it is accessible to almost everyone and talent drives the bus.
                        3. The pro leagues here are growing, but the sport is bifurcating fast. The top leagues, really teams are creating a superclass that is attracting the mega money.
                        4. College sports
                        5. Structure of MLS.
                        6. Professional Club soccer is very lucrative, powerful and pays more than NT caps do.

                        The insular template the USA apply to most sports is Parent/ HS/College funded > draft. is unique. Makes sense in US dominate sports. Does not in soccer. The top of the soccer pyramid does not need US players. US cannot exist in a vacuum in a sport like soccer. Development cant either

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Guest View Post

                          Agreed and I don't how the poster thinks there's funding for all these kids to get more professional coaching. Fees are too high as it is, travel absurd. There's only so many free to play MLS clubs and they aren't a charity. They expect to make money off the 1-2 that go pro each year. If MLS could train only 1/3 of the kids they have, they'd be happy. But like you said all leagues need volume. MLS clubs would love to only play each other, but geography makes that impossible
                          Here's the funding (generally) if we move to one club per US House District (435 youth/amateur clubs and 3.5M players per USYS, not sure how many in US Club or AYSO, but I know there is overlap so ran with the largest of the organizations).

                          This is roughly 8,000 players per district (general assumption that all US house districts have equal populations, of course this won't be accurate for every district, but for the sake of math, let's use it).

                          If a club has 8,000 players I'm going to take out U12-U19 Academy Level Players as we want that to be free - 14 teams (7 per gender) at 18 players so 252 players are taken out of the payment. We are now at, roughly 7,750 paying players. I'm going to gander to say 6,000 of those player will be recreational and below U12. That leaves us with 1,750 mid level players on 125 teams (boys and girls) in the U12-U19 range playing at a higher than rec level - Sure some may play recreationally, but lets just say they are the 125 teams (62 boys/62 girls, in the 14 age/gender bracket) - that would actually allow for a local league of about 9 teams per age/gender above U12.

                          So let's get to price.

                          Let's say the price below U12 is $250 * 6,000 players = $1.5M
                          Let's say the price U12-U19 is $1,500 * 1,750 players = $2.6M

                          Total Player Fee revenue is $4.1M.

                          You need to set aside 1/3 for salaries (old school business rule, I know it's really more like 40% now a days) so $1.4M for salaries.

                          If you hire a TD/DOC at $150k
                          You then hire a club manager at $100k
                          You hire head coaches for the Academy - you'll need 5 to cover the 14 teams - $75k each so $375k
                          You hire a Rec DOC at $75k - job is to recruit/educate coaches for the rec program - most will be parents
                          You hire a GK coach at $75k
                          You pay your U12-U19 coaches $5k per team so $625k
                          Total Salaries = $1.4M

                          An organization with 8,000 players within a specific area should have leverage for uniforms as well as training/game space and obtaining sponsorships. But you have $2.7M left over to cover expenses.

                          I think the math can work. I'm not saying it has to be set this way, I'm just saying I think it could work.



                          Comment


                            You reduce improvement to one variable, participation costs. There are other issues that make it likely that participation is not the reason for the current quality. You never address them.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Guest View Post

                              Here's the funding (generally) if we move to one club per US House District (435 youth/amateur clubs and 3.5M players per USYS, not sure how many in US Club or AYSO, but I know there is overlap so ran with the largest of the organizations).

                              This is roughly 8,000 players per district (general assumption that all US house districts have equal populations, of course this won't be accurate for every district, but for the sake of math, let's use it).

                              If a club has 8,000 players I'm going to take out U12-U19 Academy Level Players as we want that to be free - 14 teams (7 per gender) at 18 players so 252 players are taken out of the payment. We are now at, roughly 7,750 paying players. I'm going to gander to say 6,000 of those player will be recreational and below U12. That leaves us with 1,750 mid level players on 125 teams (boys and girls) in the U12-U19 range playing at a higher than rec level - Sure some may play recreationally, but lets just say they are the 125 teams (62 boys/62 girls, in the 14 age/gender bracket) - that would actually allow for a local league of about 9 teams per age/gender above U12.

                              So let's get to price.

                              Let's say the price below U12 is $250 * 6,000 players = $1.5M
                              Let's say the price U12-U19 is $1,500 * 1,750 players = $2.6M

                              Total Player Fee revenue is $4.1M.

                              You need to set aside 1/3 for salaries (old school business rule, I know it's really more like 40% now a days) so $1.4M for salaries.

                              If you hire a TD/DOC at $150k
                              You then hire a club manager at $100k
                              You hire head coaches for the Academy - you'll need 5 to cover the 14 teams - $75k each so $375k
                              You hire a Rec DOC at $75k - job is to recruit/educate coaches for the rec program - most will be parents
                              You hire a GK coach at $75k
                              You pay your U12-U19 coaches $5k per team so $625k
                              Total Salaries = $1.4M

                              An organization with 8,000 players within a specific area should have leverage for uniforms as well as training/game space and obtaining sponsorships. But you have $2.7M left over to cover expenses.

                              I think the math can work. I'm not saying it has to be set this way, I'm just saying I think it could work.


                              Im the poster who posted the 8 point list. The above post is not mine and is presumably the same person who has been arguing this point of cost and break down of clubs per jurisdiction. I appreciate the breakdown of income and expense. It's very speculative but at least it's something to work with.

                              The argument against my post and the post above in the past has always been that the US will never go for it because soccer is a major for profit business in this country.

                              I get that....but why can't US Soccer set up a separate league that is controlled by US Soccer and is a non-profit to work as an alternative to the Susa, Barca, BWG Etc of the soccer landscape.

                              So US Soccer would not be mandating these clubs to do anything at all. They can do what ever they want. But US Soccer would control this new alternative non-profit US Soccer controlled league.

                              I'm pretty sure most people would end up gravitating to this new US Soccer controlled league and then these other clubs would fold or fall in line.

                              The point is that we can't change the current business model but we can start a new alternative in sort of a similar structure of the above poster based on districts.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Guest View Post

                                Im the poster who posted the 8 point list. The above post is not mine and is presumably the same person who has been arguing this point of cost and break down of clubs per jurisdiction. I appreciate the breakdown of income and expense. It's very speculative but at least it's something to work with.

                                The argument against my post and the post above in the past has always been that the US will never go for it because soccer is a major for profit business in this country.

                                I get that....but why can't US Soccer set up a separate league that is controlled by US Soccer and is a non-profit to work as an alternative to the Susa, Barca, BWG Etc of the soccer landscape.

                                So US Soccer would not be mandating these clubs to do anything at all. They can do what ever they want. But US Soccer would control this new alternative non-profit US Soccer controlled league.

                                I'm pretty sure most people would end up gravitating to this new US Soccer controlled league and then these other clubs would fold or fall in line.

                                The point is that we can't change the current business model but we can start a new alternative in sort of a similar structure of the above poster based on districts.
                                The only thing about the 8 point list I didn't like (I put the cost part together) is the group telling the MLS who to take. I say we let them ID and recruit, but ultimately pay training compensation/solidarity payments when they contract/sell players.

                                I think US Soccer can, to a certain degree, mandate. I think they should absolutely unaffiliate all these clubs and leagues to push the agenda. We don't need all these leagues and we certainly don't need USYS, AYSO and US Club as intermediary levels of management. One affiliated club per US District with quality control/recognition by US Soccer and responsible for all youth/amateur soccer within their boundaries except USL1/2 and MLS teams. All Non-Profit organizations with boards and US Soccer has a rep on each.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X