Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DA changes coming
Collapse
X
-
Unregistered
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI think it's called "weeding out" and is done at the very top of the pyramid. Basically, if your kid is not able to hang with kids a year older by U16, it's time to drop down a level. If you actually look at the make-up of all combined-age DA teams in our area, both boys & girls, you'll find the players from the younger age group outnumber those from the older age group (I only found one exception to this). Many teams even have a few kids playing up from the next lower age grouping, either U15s in the U17/16 or 17s in the U19/18. It's unfortunate that a group of kids will get cut entering the combined age group, but the kids making it through the cut will deserve to be at the top of the pyramid, not taking into account favoritism, nepotism, poor judgement, lack of scouting, etc. :)
It isn't the rosey picture you paint.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostYou might want to check the playing time of the younger players. It's listed by team/player on http://www.ussoccerda.com/all-clubs
It isn't the rosey picture you paint.
Here we go again. another post that paints the picture by analyzing ONLY what happens in the games.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostBut if the GDA is designed to produce better NT prospects, then why not bring the model down to the regions? It would still be pay to play, so it would be funded mostly by parents, but more standardized.
No. What the poster suggested re standardization is simply USSF oversight
ie have some form of sanction for teams not meeting standards. This is where the problems start
If you are not meeting the USSF standards, but those paying the bills are not complaining and in some cases encouraging it ( HS waivers etc) then what is the issue? What the USSF want and what the Clubs can provide in a cost efficient manner including an acceptable margin for hem are 2 VERY different things.
Any sanction has very little bite on Clubs who have ECNL as well.
This is a big reason why the ECNL clubs are pulling out. forget the BS about sub rules, HS etc. licensing coaches costs money. Game film costs money. Smaller rosters cost money. Extra practices cost money. Extra field time costs money ( at Clubs who dont own fields and even ones who do in terms of opportunity cost)
the USSF dont really have much power to enforce and Clubs are afraid that any new "rule" they bring in may cost more $$.
All that aside, if becoming a better player was the only agenda and it was free to do, but offered a great reward, , then more kids would devote more time to it. so in theory the GDA agenda is sound, but the implementation is very very hard to do. Its not enough to assume kids will want to become better at any personal cost and when you go 10 months and ask them to stop HS, you are messing with all sorts of things that they dont see a payoff for.
If you talk to the YNT regulars, many of them are soccer obsessed. quite a few have left families to play in locations tha serve them better for soccer. they are the exception, no the norm. USSF assume that far more want this than they actually do.
The one area that will be interesting is the youngest pre HS ages. Once kids get used to no HS, then im not sure they would ever want back in.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostFor a guy who was all about hanging with the older kids you sure don't want to talk about the facts.
Personally I think the best way to do it let all the GDA teams practice together as much as possible, keep kids rostered on teams that they can realistically get good minutes and move kids up when there are holes to fill or once in a while for experience.
I dont know if that is what thy are doing. it could well be
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostParents could not afford the YNT environment. team trainers, player readiness monitoring - blood tests, hydration managements etc. Nutritional stuff. Heavy tactical focus. Lots and lots of cutting edge technology.
No. What the poster suggested re standardization is simply USSF oversight
ie have some form of sanction for teams not meeting standards. This is where the problems start
If you are not meeting the USSF standards, but those paying the bills are not complaining and in some cases encouraging it ( HS waivers etc) then what is the issue? What the USSF want and what the Clubs can provide in a cost efficient manner including an acceptable margin for hem are 2 VERY different things.
Any sanction has very little bite on Clubs who have ECNL as well.
This is a big reason why the ECNL clubs are pulling out. forget the BS about sub rules, HS etc. licensing coaches costs money. Game film costs money. Smaller rosters cost money. Extra practices cost money. Extra field time costs money ( at Clubs who dont own fields and even ones who do in terms of opportunity cost)
the USSF dont really have much power to enforce and Clubs are afraid that any new "rule" they bring in may cost more $$.
All that aside, if becoming a better player was the only agenda and it was free to do, but offered a great reward, , then more kids would devote more time to it. so in theory the GDA agenda is sound, but the implementation is very very hard to do. Its not enough to assume kids will want to become better at any personal cost and when you go 10 months and ask them to stop HS, you are messing with all sorts of things that they dont see a payoff for.
If you talk to the YNT regulars, many of them are soccer obsessed. quite a few have left families to play in locations tha serve them better for soccer. they are the exception, no the norm. USSF assume that far more want this than they actually do.
The one area that will be interesting is the youngest pre HS ages. Once kids get used to no HS, then im not sure they would ever want back in.
In the franchise model, USSF could work out the details for renting field space, paying trainers, insurance, etc. and overall cost structure on a national level with outposts in each geography. It is set up by USSF essentially, but the structure is such that franchisees (i.e. admin and coaches) are paid and thus incentivized be part of the program.
Sure, it might be a little more overhead, but it's certainly doable with a little creativity. And as long as parents are still paying, there is still $$ to fund the operations.
Right now, it's a bunch of inconsistent clubs with many of them poorly executing the vision.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI'm only hoping for a change in the subbing rules, as those are currently hurting the development for those only playing 10 minutes a game. Relaxing the restrictions on high school would hurt the development of those unable to participate in DA for 2-3 months, so that's going in the wrong direction, but I can see why they might need to do it in order to retain those top players who have their sights set on the college path (which is almost all the top girls, and many top boys, right now).
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Did someone actually type "smaller rosters" with a straight face? LOL
Did someone actually type "licensing coaches" with a straight face? LOL
What a load of **** these GDA defenders are still shoveling.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostDid someone actually type "smaller rosters" with a straight face? LOL
Did someone actually type "licensing coaches" with a straight face? LOL
What a load of **** these GDA defenders are still shoveling.
The big problem with your posts is you clearly evaluate them from your limited perspective. many Clubs have done both,. Thats the entire point which you keep re-inforcing.
The GDA and its rules are subject to Clubs actually implementing them. there is huge variance in that. If you dont implement that which makes it different, you end uo with the same as the ECNL. Is that not clear? Or are you just trying to argue to make a slow day go faster ?
There is no GDA defense going on. just plain facts. Those who want to take a side. like you are so desperate to argue that you create arguments where none actually exist.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThe big problem with your posts is you clearly evaluate them from your limited perspective. many Clubs have done both,. Thats the entire point which you keep re-inforcing.
The GDA and its rules are subject to Clubs actually implementing them. there is huge variance in that. If you dont implement that which makes it different, you end uo with the same as the ECNL. Is that not clear? Or are you just trying to argue to make a slow day go faster ?
There is no GDA defense going on. just plain facts. Those who want to take a side. like you are so desperate to argue that you create arguments where none actually exist.
- Quote
Comment
Comment