Is it true?

[Unregistered]

The greatest compliment Stars can be given is the amount of attention directed at them on this site. Geez, they must be some combination of the Green Bay Packers, Boston Celtics, and Yankees all rolled into one. The obsession with this club is off the charts.

And I don't know how many of their players from U10 and U12 are still with them. Are the percentages dramatically different than other clubs? And as a poster suggested, does this have to do with the most attractive clubs attracting the most players rather than middling clubs that have more stable rosters over time?

I think the issue has been quite plainly put, that other clubs have been known to do the same. The bigger issue as applies to the Stars is not a comparison to other cluvs, but to teams within the Stars themself. As previously put past Stars teams appeared to have been quite successful with a core group who had been with them from the start. Perhaps this is a misconception. And perhaps this is a misconception too, but didn't the team that would have been basically Class of 2012 make it to the Nationals finals at U14 cut a significant portion of the team (6, 7, or 8 players) and then never reaching that level again despite adding better talent? Have there been any Stars teams since that team to have accomplished more in terms of team success? Maybe the Stars are no longer using team success as a standard any more? Maybe they are more interested in individual player success as their standard? Could that be the answer?

[Unregistered]

Oh, so YOU are NOT a Stars parent? Is that correct? Just a normal, everyday Stars hater?

I see, you'd prefer to continue with the quips rather than address the issues.

No problem. I'll just skip over your posts until someone actually wants to hold a real discussion on the topic. So quip away all you'd like.

[Unregistered]

Thanks btdt. You had me at "the funny thing is." Now we're going to play the loyalty angle for a few hundred posts here and a few more threads. Should be enough to take us right into Fall.

Mistaken again OCDMan, but keep trying. Yours are just more post I will skip until someone is willing to engage in real discussion.

[Unregistered]

I think that the "lack of team success" that you're asserting may be partly due to the fact that the destination club system is at work in other regions as well.

The other thing at play here is the fact that there are so many more u-little club teams than ever before, so the chances that a core group of 7 or 8 really talented players convening in one spot at age 9 is really unlikely. They're all over the place, and may take longer to find their way to the top teams. I know that, in our particular town, when my daughter was U-9 and first considering club soccer, there were only 2 choices that made any sense. Today, (just a few years later) a similar player in the same town would have 4 or 5 legitimate options for getting involved in club soccer. So, I would expect the roster turnover at the top teams of the top clubs to continue going forward. BTW: I don't consider this a problem - just reality.

Moaning about the lack of club loyalty or team stability is like pining for "the good old days" - not terribly productive. Or, it's really just a new strategy - an excuse to start another attack on a club like Stars. Take your pick.

Thanks for participating in the "real" discussion.

I don't think you are correct however. It seems to me that parents are more willing today to travel far distances at earlier ages to have their children participate on teams regarded as the "best" than ever before. Just ask MB at the Hamlets how that has affected his teams.

[Unregistered]

So is THIS the Stars-specific post that you claim was not Stars-specific?

And, btw, interesting how there is no mention here of being an Stars parent...only a disparaging remark about "obnoxious Stars supporters."

Not mine.

What's hilarious is that OCDman is arguing, trying to, with at least 3 different people on a point that has no relevance whatsoever. Among the 3, at least 1 isn't a Stars parent, at least 1 is. At least one (a Stars parent) sees the proportion of developed players from the younger ages within the club that remain with the club (or something along those lines) as an issue, while at least one other (not a Stars parent) doesn't.

And for you OCDman, it appears by your responses that examining this situation in and of itself would seem to be some sort of blasphemy, at least coming from the Stars parent (based on your obsession in determining whether any of us are...or perhaps to dismiss outright the comments from anyone who isn't).

[Unregistered]

Doesn't the fact that there is a term "destination club" and everyone involved with club soccer for more than a year or so has a common understanding of what that term means is an indication that the OP isn't providing any sort of revelation? It certainly isn't unique to Stars.

A portion of the destination club players come from smaller, more obscure clubs. Does this idea offend people? Does it not make sense to them? What's the issue? From my standpoint it reveals a dimension of market efficiency. In any of the so-called scams being perpetrated by clubs, this ain't one of them.

Just look at it this way, when you see a truly elite player (let's say All-State HS, D1 scholarship) who stays with one of those smaller/lesser known clubs, you're looking at the exception rather than the rule. It has nothing to do with the bigs or the small can or can't develop their own.

It is simply a practical reality that the destination clubs, for whatever reason, have the ability to attract players to their top teams that are more evenly talented than the smaller clubs. That's a huge advantage in players development from one level to the next on the way to elite.

You are only going to go so far on limited resources, commitment, investment (let's call it on your own). Players playing with better players around them have a better opportunity to progress and develop than those who don't.

If you're the best player on your U11 team (give or take) and your club draws a fraction of the number of players at their tryouts than the so-called destination clubs, in pure soccer terms (putting aside, cost, travel, other considerations), it would be foolish not to consider the move that so many obviously do.

Hmmm.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for participating in the "real" discussion.

I don't think you are correct however. It seems to me that parents are more willing today to travel far distances at earlier ages to have their children participate on teams regarded as the "best" than ever before. Just ask MB at the Hamlets how that has affected his teams.

Perhaps I should be more clear to my point above and you can tell me where I am off. So today's wunderkins' parents are more willing to travel to the Stars. They make the Uyoung teams, but are eventually displaced by other kids whose parents are willing to drive even further distances. Now compare that to teams from 5 or so years ago. The core group on the Stars teams seem to have come from the Rt 2/495 area and remained with their team until graduation. These teams were considered among the country's best at a time when there was only one game in town - USYSA. Why are players from this same locale no longer making up the core of Stars teams? The ECNL is suppose to be, in theory, a superior league yet I don't see a significant difference today beyond the fact that Stars teams are made up of players willing to travel farther to participate on Stars team, essentially getting the same results as Stars teams with more local players who played longer with the club. Could that be the issue? Team consistency with perhaps lesser talent as opposed to more talent, but less consistency?

[Unregistered]

I think that the "lack of team success" that you're asserting may be partly due to the fact that the destination club system is at work in other regions as well.

The other thing at play here is the fact that there are so many more u-little club teams than ever before, so the chances that a core group of 7 or 8 really talented players convening in one spot at age 9 is really unlikely. They're all over the place, and may take longer to find their way to the top teams. I know that, in our particular town, when my daughter was U-9 and first considering club soccer, there were only 2 choices that made any sense. Today, (just a few years later) a similar player in the same town would have 4 or 5 legitimate options for getting involved in club soccer. So, I would expect the roster turnover at the top teams of the top clubs to continue going forward. BTW: I don't consider this a problem - just reality.

Moaning about the lack of club loyalty or team stability is like pining for "the good old days" - not terribly productive. Or, it's really just a new strategy - an excuse to start another attack on a club like Stars. Take your pick.

Destination clubs have existed all across the country and in fact these clubs were much larger than anything here in Massachusetts. Those clubs have been in existence for over a decade or more and their top teams were able to draw quite literally from 3000 to 5000 players within their clubs. Many of them still exist and are well known names, but a lot of people familiar with these same clubs feel that quality has taken a backseat to quantity.

[Unregistered]

Perhaps I should be more clear to my point above and you can tell me where I am off. So today's wunderkins' parents are more willing to travel to the Stars. They make the Uyoung teams, but are eventually displaced by other kids whose parents are willing to drive even further distances. Now compare that to teams from 5 or so years ago. The core group on the Stars teams seem to have come from the Rt 2/495 area and remained with their team until graduation. These teams were considered among the country's best at a time when there was only one game in town - USYSA. Why are players from this same locale no longer making up the core of Stars teams? The ECNL is suppose to be, in theory, a superior league yet I don't see a significant difference today beyond the fact that Stars teams are made up of players willing to travel farther to participate on Stars team, essentially getting the same results as Stars teams with more local players who played longer with the club. Could that be the issue? Team consistency with perhaps lesser talent as opposed to more talent, but less consistency?

Perhaps the Stars are good at evaluating players who can win games for their teams now, but not so good at seeing future potential?

Perhaps the Stars are simply impatient and with the large numbers wanting to be on their teams unwiiling to take the time to bring players along when it's much easier to just replace them with a player someone else has taken the time to bring along?

[Unregistered]

Not mine.

What's hilarious is that OCDman is arguing, trying to, with at least 3 different people on a point that has no relevance whatsoever. Among the 3, at least 1 isn't a Stars parent, at least 1 is. At least one (a Stars parent) sees the proportion of developed players from the younger ages within the club that remain with the club (or something along those lines) as an issue, while at least one other (not a Stars parent) doesn't.

And for you OCDman, it appears by your responses that examining this situation in and of itself would seem to be some sort of blasphemy, at least coming from the Stars parent (based on your obsession in determining whether any of us are...or perhaps to dismiss outright the comments from anyone who isn't).

Thanks for this btdt. In an average day, do you think more about the Stars or your own family?

[Unregistered]

Perhaps the Stars are good at evaluating players who can win games for their teams now, but not so good at seeing future potential?

Perhaps the Stars are simply impatient and with the large numbers wanting to be on their teams unwiiling to take the time to bring players along when it's much easier to just replace them with a player someone else has taken the time to bring along?

Perhaps there is no contradiction between being good at evaluating players who can help you win and who also have the most upside in terms of future potential.

The idea of development is a buzzword on this site, like a few others, that gets used at the convenience of personal agendas. You can't "develop" a kid into something they aren't. Tons of development isn't going to make a kid without D1 potential into a D1 recruit. And once the ECNL emerged, just like with DAP, there was going to greater geographic breadth in the make-up of the ENCL teams as compared to 5-6 years ago.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for this btdt. In an average day, do you think more about the Stars or your own family?

It's painfully obvious who you think most about each day.

[Unregistered]

Destination clubs have existed all across the country and in fact these clubs were much larger than anything here in Massachusetts. Those clubs have been in existence for over a decade or more and their top teams were able to draw quite literally from 3000 to 5000 players within their clubs. Many of them still exist and are well known names, but a lot of people familiar with these same clubs feel that quality has taken a backseat to quantity.

In most other parts of the country destination teams are based upon more geographic factors than on market factors like they are here. Most of the really big clubs around the country have a civic foundation and draw their players from a clearly defined area. The formation of their destination teams are far more natural. In many respects what our clubs are battling against is the equivalent of BAYS putting together an All Star team in each age group. The other parts of the country don't really have dozens of clubs battling for market share and drawing off talent from each other like our clubs do. In other states you typically only have 1-2 clubs and they really don't geographically over lap all that much.

[Unregistered]

I wrote that post, not the person who you are replying to. And yes, I am a Stars parent making the point that the fact that you can not step back and objectively discuss the issues makes you an obnoxious Stars parent, very much like those who get criticized by other club parents.

Stars has been a great club, but the inability to recognize issues within the club will hold the club back from continuing to advance. Or maybe not. Maybe there are enough willing parents who will take their daughters to the club and pay the fees without question. Experience tells me though that eventually it does catch up with a club.

The issue you are getting at isn't germane to only the Stars. The whole system is broken. The reason the Stars get so much flak is they were the first to really figure out how to consistently put successful teams together under the USYSA system and their marketing message shaped a lot of parental perceptions in this market. They championed the whole destination team concept in this area. The problem they are facing now is in the US Club Soccer world that message no longer works because that system doesn't really reward success like the USYSA system did. When you boil it all down the US Club system is much more about individual players than teams and so many of the core Stars philosophies actually work against them in that environment.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for this btdt. In an average day, do you think more about the Stars or your own family?

No offense sweetheart, but who do you think about more on an average day Btdt of your family? You are no better than he is!