Pretty healthy discussion on the Washington Premier forum regarding Crossfire's new policy here.
Idea of the policy is that if you want to play ECNL or USSDA Academy, you have to be in one of Crossfire's feeder programs at younger ages.
Is it a matter of time for this come from the Timbers? While there appeared to be a number of issues at stake in the league split here, real or perceived subsidized feeder system for Timbers was one of the issues. If Timbers do in fact move down to u12 on the boys side, imagine it will be hard to break into an Academy team at u16 (whether a stated policy or not).
Part of the criticism of these trends is that because ECNL and USSDA are exclusive (clubs can't earn their way in through promotion/relegation), there is an aspect of this that is pure politics, not merit-based . . . counter-argument is that clubs admitted to ECNL and USSDA had to earn it over a number of years or MLS franchise.
I actually see a soccer benefit to these policies, if done right: implementing a style of play from a young age, with long-term development in mind. Due wonder though about how it mixes with pay-to-play model: clubs try to use their "exclusive" USDDA or ECNL designation for older ages to monetize parents hopes/dreams for their kids, then it becomes less of a player development model and more of a $$ grab (not that there is anything wrong with trying to make $ off of soccer, but if someone is using an "exclusive" designation provided by a governing body such as US Soccer, it starts to stink).
Will these efforts be successful? Is there space for smaller clubs to exists?
Interesting that the younger ages you see these remarkable outliers - some teams/clubs not part of these feeder systems, that appear to be doing a good job of developing their players. I would list Pacific Revolution in that category. Where do teams like that fit in if these efforts continue? Where do the FC Portlands (caveat - obviously part of the ECNL world, but not part of a larger "network" club like Crossfire or Timbers), BSCs, NEUs, PCUs, Pacifics and Salmon Creek fit in?
Ironically, despite plenty of predictions that those clubs would get marginalized, some of them appear quite healthy and not necessarily getting smaller.
Idea of the policy is that if you want to play ECNL or USSDA Academy, you have to be in one of Crossfire's feeder programs at younger ages.
Is it a matter of time for this come from the Timbers? While there appeared to be a number of issues at stake in the league split here, real or perceived subsidized feeder system for Timbers was one of the issues. If Timbers do in fact move down to u12 on the boys side, imagine it will be hard to break into an Academy team at u16 (whether a stated policy or not).
Part of the criticism of these trends is that because ECNL and USSDA are exclusive (clubs can't earn their way in through promotion/relegation), there is an aspect of this that is pure politics, not merit-based . . . counter-argument is that clubs admitted to ECNL and USSDA had to earn it over a number of years or MLS franchise.
I actually see a soccer benefit to these policies, if done right: implementing a style of play from a young age, with long-term development in mind. Due wonder though about how it mixes with pay-to-play model: clubs try to use their "exclusive" USDDA or ECNL designation for older ages to monetize parents hopes/dreams for their kids, then it becomes less of a player development model and more of a $$ grab (not that there is anything wrong with trying to make $ off of soccer, but if someone is using an "exclusive" designation provided by a governing body such as US Soccer, it starts to stink).
Will these efforts be successful? Is there space for smaller clubs to exists?
Interesting that the younger ages you see these remarkable outliers - some teams/clubs not part of these feeder systems, that appear to be doing a good job of developing their players. I would list Pacific Revolution in that category. Where do teams like that fit in if these efforts continue? Where do the FC Portlands (caveat - obviously part of the ECNL world, but not part of a larger "network" club like Crossfire or Timbers), BSCs, NEUs, PCUs, Pacifics and Salmon Creek fit in?
Ironically, despite plenty of predictions that those clubs would get marginalized, some of them appear quite healthy and not necessarily getting smaller.
Comment