Please stop using OYSA as saturday homework

[Unregistered]

The DA period (even if it's just the Timbers/Thorns sole program) is too much of ask for our locals to compete and thrive. If it wasn't, the platform would at least have some measurable success. Square peg..round hole. It doesn't fit here. Sorry.

Completely untrue, we have the requisite talent (especially 05 group)- problem is the manner in which the Timbers have allowed it to be run for several years now. Playing favorites and allowing checks to determine roster spots (not talent) completely undermines the most core philosophic principals of the academy- to be a place to develop the TOP talent in the area. Apparently they don't care about results, just money. It's happened for long enough now that people are starting to decline "invites. I guess thought that everyone would just play ball regardless of how corrupt and money based the system is

[Unregistered]

Completely untrue, we have the requisite talent (especially 05 group)- problem is the manner in which the Timbers have allowed it to be run for several years now. Playing favorites and allowing checks to determine roster spots (not talent) completely undermines the most core philosophic principals of the academy- to be a place to develop the TOP talent in the area. Apparently they don't care about results, just money. It's happened for long enough now that people are starting to decline "invites. I guess thought that everyone would just play ball regardless of how corrupt and money based the system is

What money are you talking about? If its the BB story again, I'm not buying it at the TA level. I think you have an axe to grind and are blaming others.

[Unregistered]

Add in a pathway for players to seamlessly pass back and forth, and you have a recipe for development.

One problem with the separate DA/league structure is it actually puts a barrier, unless a club puts all its teams in DA, which at this point is not wise or practical (there being only one level of DA competition, Portland Timbers notwithstanding). If a club cuts a player from a DA team, it's my understanding that they CANNOT rejoin the DA program (at least not with that club) until the next season. And in the other direction, so-called "development players" may only play six matches with a DA team, at which point they must be added to the roster in order to play further.

All but one of the local (excluding Timbers Academy) DA clubs have B teams in OYSA. Westside, FC, and Washington have their B teams in premier (albeit at the bottom of the table); CFC, BSC, and Eastside's B teams are all non-premier. (Crossfire doesn't have a B team branded "crossfire", but LOSC and WUSC both have teams in OYSA non-premier). Some clubs will often move players back and forth (either as guest players, or are quick to promote and demote). The separate DA/OYSA structure prevents that; if a kid is demoted, he's gone from the DA program for the rest of the year.

[Unregistered]

What money are you talking about? If its the BB story again, I'm not buying it at the TA level. I think you have an axe to grind and are blaming others.

Of course you do because it fits your narrative. If you are not paying for private training and or have parents making generous donations you are not guaranteed a spot and are a victim of those politics regardless of talent. Once you become accountable, even if it means your kid might lose his spot to a more talented player, there's vno need to continue this dialogue with you. You are obviously self absorbed and insist on avoiding the truth....

[Unregistered]

There are two separate questions being confused here:

1) What is the optimal shape of the pyramid: One or two super-elite teams that are capable of dominating any local competition on-age, and need to travel (or play up) to find a competitive match, but which will represent the region well in national competitions, OR a larger number of top-end clubs that are at a similar level of skill and can form a local league with relative parity, but which will typically get beaten when they travel outside the state?

2) Which program is better for player development, regardless of skill level: the DA program (with a more regulated and rigorous structure and curriculum, stricter qualification requirements for coaches, limitations on number of games, and restrictions on organized outside play), or the free-for-all that is OYSA?

Your answer seems to assert that a) we need a pointier pyramid, and b) only those elite teams should be part of the USSDA program.

I care less about the shape of the pyramid, but think more kids (including at lower levels) could benefit from DA structure. I wouldn't replace OYSA completely--there are some kids that just want to go out and win games in a competitive format, and aren't interested in a long-term development track, and should have a place to do that--but think a more formal development program should exist that isn't rec and isn't win-at-all-costs competitive soccer, and that this program shouldn't necessarily be limited to elite players.

We probably need a pointier pyramid, BUT that point shouldn't be at U13. It should be at U20. There should probably be 10-15 "top" clubs at U14 and below, gradually narrowing to 8 for the HS ages, and then 1 or 2 for college ages.

[Unregistered]

Completely untrue, we have the requisite talent (especially 05 group)- problem is the manner in which the Timbers have allowed it to be run for several years now. Playing favorites and allowing checks to determine roster spots (not talent) completely undermines the most core philosophic principals of the academy- to be a place to develop the TOP talent in the area. Apparently they don't care about results, just money. It's happened for long enough now that people are starting to decline "invites. I guess thought that everyone would just play ball regardless of how corrupt and money based the system is

Parents always want to believe that their kid's particular age group has lots of talented players. Truth is, every age group only ever has 2 or 3 at most. The rest are good, serviceable players but are nothing special.

[Unregistered]

Parents always want to believe that their kid's particular age group has lots of talented players. Truth is, every age group only ever has 2 or 3 at most. The rest are good, serviceable players but are nothing special.

Problem for the timbers is they are missing out on some of those players because of their history and thus cannot compete on the bigger stage...

[Unregistered]

Ya, I mean after, all the OR players that make up the U12-U15 teams are no longer good enough for the U-18 team and are cut. That is if he hasn't moved to WA and become a Sounders product which is what will happen when he is old enough if the timbers don't move now. He's probably the best player in OR at his age right now.

He moved to Seattle last year,he is part of the Sounders Discovery Program.

[Unregistered]

We probably need a pointier pyramid, BUT that point shouldn't be at U13. It should be at U20. There should probably be 10-15 "top" clubs at U14 and below, gradually narrowing to 8 for the HS ages, and then 1 or 2 for college ages.

That is a guaranteed recipe for mediocrity. You're vastly overestimating the number of players and coaches who resemble anything approaching "top" level.