Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
Don't know if it will be the same this year but Braintree played a ton of players last season. It seemed to be a consistent criticism that they played too guys and should have shortened the rotation. It would work in their favor in this circumstance. -
-
Um, just to let you know teams have been able to opt out of games for a few years now...Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
OMG! Wait until those non-leaguers play Braintree. What a slaughter.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Yes, everyone should play. Also, teams favored to go deep in the postseason should try to play less in the regular season, unless they're in a weak league and need some competition, like a silver lake. But playing in the BSC, teams get enough challenging games within their league schedule.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
With the club experience of their coach, you'd think Needham would be emphasizing training more, rather than surrendering training sessions in order to add games.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Very Aware of that but if teams were to opt out...Norwood, Dedham it would likely be against needham, Weymouth, or Frmaingham but that is not the caseOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Agreed the reason for Weymouth scheduling 20 games up until this year was to take points from the likes of a Silver Lake, BC High, Marshfield and/or whoever else they scheduled. They had the talent to do that year in and year out to improve their standing by beating D1 South team up until the past 3 years where the squad depth was smaller and far less talented.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
if Weymouth has indeed ratcheted back from 20 games to 18, give the coach a little credit for adapting to the current situation (a competitive team, but significantly less so than the dominant squads they had through 2012). Pro soccer plays once per week, occasionally with a mid-week game, but also occasionally with a break for international competiution. US college soccer plays once per week, with a mid-week game maybe 1/3-1/2 of the time. Youth club soccer plays once per week and emphasizes a ratio of 2-3 training sessions per match, but sort of contradicts itself with tournaments of multiple games over a weekend. In that context, the high school pattern of playing at least 2 games every week, with some teams have a 3rd game 1/2 of the time, is definitely an outlier that would benefit from reform.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
I feel like the training vs games argument is a little misplaced in this context. Isn't the idea of more training over more games about development of young players and turning them into Professional prospects? It makes sense that US Soccer and the club system is concerned about this. However, in this case, having 2 more games instead of 2 more training sessions for 16-18yr olds, 99% of whom will never even dream of playing professionally, doesn't make much of a difference. The high school schedule is going to be jam packed with or without those extra sessions.Comment
-
The BSC agreed to an "opt out" system on a trial basis starting in 2013 (?). Purpose was to let the less competitive, generally the smallest, who were in lower divisions when it came to tourney assignment, flexibility to find more competitive games. Another pro might be that it gave the bigs, who don't gain much from blowouts anyway, an opportunity or push to also schedule more competitively. What happened was exactly as anticipated: Dedham and Norwood opted out of playing Needham/Framingham/Weymouth in boys soccer. The trial was publicly reported at the time.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
What was not publicly reported was that after the trial period of 2 years (?), members could not come to agreement to extend it. So for 2015 (and now 2016), it was replaced by something like allowing a school to either choose a) the traditional schedule for soccer of 2x vs teams within your division and 1x vs teams in the other division, or b) the schedule used in some other sports of 1x vs everyone. The weaker teams, Dedham and Norwood, appear to be the only ones who chose b). Note in choosing b), that school can still voluntarily schedule a second game with a BSC school if both teams want, which Dedham and Norwood have done. This also why you see all the bigs with the usual 16-game league schedule (they are unaffected by Dedham and Norwood choosing b), because they face those schools once either way), whereas most of the smalls (Milton, Natick, Walpole and Wellesley) were reduced to 14 league games by Dedham and Norwood choosing b).
If someone has better information, please enlighten us.
Not sure what will happen starting next year, when Dedham's move to the tri-valley league will take effect. Best would be to add a school with enrollment at least Milton's size and within the geographic range of the current league members. Examples might be Boston Latin, Brighton, Latin Academy, Lincoln-Sudbury, Newton South, North Quincy, O'Bryant, Quincy, Sharon and Westwood.Comment
-
See your point, but even US soccer clubs acknowledge that only a tiny percentage of its players will play beyond the youth level. Their rationale for the training:game ratio is more from a health perspective, that it's an appropriate degree of recovery relative to competitive stress.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Even if you discount the observation of what US soccer academy recommends, there's still the observation about what other levels in the sport (pro, US university, US youth outside of the high-level development groups) have concluded is appropriate.
Granted no one can argue that a change of 2 dates from games to training matters all that much. But a more substantive reform, like no more than 2 matches within a week, and/or at least 72 hours recovery between matches, and/or an average frequency of not more than 1.5 games/week over the course of a season, could be meaningful.Comment
-
I didn't want to go into that much detail in my response to the "16 comment"...but yeah, that says it well enough. I'm not sure but I think all the D2s could now be impacted/influenced/motivated/slightly more aware of the Sullivan rule. (Not going to check everyone's nonleague schedule, so sorry if I'm wrong)Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
I don't know that they are looking to fill a "small school spot" per se....but it could be interesting since I have heard that Norwood is exlporing leaving as well. They are not as easy a case as Dedham, but I can see that there may be some motivation there. Also heard Newton South mentioned as a possible new addition. Time will tell.Comment
-
Newton south would make sense for an addition to the league. If norwood would be to leave as well i'm curious to who would come in? Or without Newton South would the League reshuffle divisions. Maybe try to look at the division a little bit more by logistics?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Carey:
Weymouth
Braintree
Needham
Milton
Walpole
Herget:
Natick
Wellesley
Framingham
Brookline
Newton NorthComment
-
If Norwood left too, the league could just abandon divisions. It's actually been a 10-team for most of its life.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The ironic thing would be if Westwood joined, since they're in TVL. But that won't happen.
Also doubt a Boston high school would join, since they have a city league.
Most logical would be one of the dual county schools that would not be too small within the BSC, like L-S or Newton South.Comment
Comment