Oakwood

[Unregistered]

I disagree. People don't care now, because they are paying for their kids to play. In a different system, if the Red Bulls wanted your son to play for them and you had to pay nothing for registration fees, nothing for clothing and kits, and nothing for travel and you knew he was in the right place because he was that good, then many parents might (and do) concede some things because they are bearing the burden to train him financially and nothing is on you ...... secondarily with a dramatically reduced upper-echelon of players (in terms of # of clubs, teams, and players), if they were to release him, then he would undoubtedly be able to fall back on alternate clubs and college scholarships.

If the red bulls want your son (not your daughter - only your son) they run a funded academy. Dont think the parents have any say or involvement in their players experience at the RB's DA.

[Unregistered]

I disagree. People don't care now, because they are paying for their kids to play. In a different system, if the Red Bulls wanted your son to play for them and you had to pay nothing for registration fees, nothing for clothing and kits, and nothing for travel and you knew he was in the right place because he was that good, then many parents might (and do) concede some things because they are bearing the burden to train him financially and nothing is on you ...... secondarily with a dramatically reduced upper-echelon of players (in terms of # of clubs, teams, and players), if they were to release him, then he would undoubtedly be able to fall back on alternate clubs and college scholarships.

What does a parent's perception of a good deal have to do with the player's emotional attachment to the activity?

You've completely missed the point and are clearly part of the issue. This has nothing to do with parents!

[Unregistered]

OW is in business to make money for the directors. Period and they run it that way. Now go fly a kite

And that is equally true of:

CFC
FSA
Beachside
Ginga
Sporting
Southeast
Southwest
South Central Premier
Academica
Yankee United
Ole


These are private clubs. At the top, some one is making money. The only altruistic clubs that exist are the town based programs. Let's be real here.

[Unregistered]

On the boys side have all the MLS academies be residency programs. That broadens the geographic reach and would allow more intensive training more frequently. Use clubs and ramp up scouting to help find the talent. Ideally make it easier tor clubs to make money off players (a bigger political issue but without it clubs have little incentive to seriously invest). For the women, multiple residencies probably isn't realistic but maybe a few are. For sure the system is too big given the demand and talent and focus on education for most girls. Cut off at least 1/3 of the deadwood. Then the players who really want it have to truly compete for those spots, not just have the cash in hand. NY Metro could lose three clubs and be just fine.

Residency requires you to ensure they are getting an education....that thing called school.

What is your plan to ensure those 13 to 18 year olds are getting the required education outlined by each state's Department of Education?

There's a common complaint with the European Academies that kids who do not make it into the pro ranks are left with a woeful education and unprepared to do something else in their life.

[Unregistered]

What does a parent's perception of a good deal have to do with the player's emotional attachment to the activity?

You've completely missed the point and are clearly part of the issue. This has nothing to do with parents!

If you dont see the correlation between ability and attachment then I cant help you. Reality is that most, boy or girl, do not have the ability so PARENTS protect themselves by saying they were not interested in sacrificing other things. Its more palatable than saying Jane tried hard, made sacrifices and still failed.

the reason I find the girls angle more interesting is because whit such a tiny pro endgame, the psychology of parents and kids is even more interesting. You really can spin a remarkable web in girls soccer because the lack of $$ make it very hard to call anyone out. Its so so subjective.

There is no Pulisic or Adams equivalent in the girls game here.

[Unregistered]

They are still pyramids, they are just upside down ....... plenty of room for mediocre and less than mediocre kids at every top level .... this is 'murica! A trophy on every shelf and a medal on every headboard.

No, it's about profit. That's what makes it American, first and foremost. The system is designed to give club owners profits.

[Unregistered]

No, it's about profit. That's what makes it American, first and foremost. The system is designed to give club owners profits.

Not true in all cases.

[Unregistered]

Right back atcha', what dont you get?

We arent talking about how the other sports are monopolized, or more specifically a cartel. We are talking about soccer here in the US. So again, what dont you get? Kind of a slanted question. You are the problem here as you simply do not get it, the best you can come up with is some tangential issue related to womens soccer.

Girls, quality and volume, well lets go down that path for just a minute, and why are they relevant again?..... US women are about to experience a very fast increase in the level and quality of their competition, its already happening, which will be a problem. The US has been ahead on development of womens soccer. Now Spain and other countries are in on it, so that will become a very difficult playing field, you are DELUSIONAL to think if Barca decides to build a program we will be "relevant".

You ever hear of Title 9, thats why we are relevant, thats it. We have it in the US, not so much elsewhere, some countries women were just allowed to drive, just sayin. So the big bad government has basically forced upon D1 schools a pipeline of development of women - which is very awesome. (oh, I bet you really have no clue how it all works. Hmmmm, big D1 school, lots of football and lacrosse and track and cross country - for men, well, need to even out any scholarship cash with scholarships for women so they are equal to men, thats why soccer got cranked up - women 14 scholarships vs 9.9 for men, you know that, I think not).

ESP, FRA, GBR, GER, not so much until lately.... Now they are doing something vaguely similar to the US. So again, when Barca or Real, or PSG or what ever builds up their programs and pipeline, you think the Portland Thorns or whatever have a chance when it comes to development or training for National Teams (because thats the product you are really talking about, National Teams)? I can only laugh in your general direction.

what is there to get? almost all US sports are structured the same way and your argument only addresses boys. what about girls. a far more interesting discussion given the relative quality /volume produced here and the current vs future impacts of the system we have.

The USA are light years away from being relevant on the mens side. you could introduce pro/rel etc and overhaul the entire system tomorrow, its not going to change that

[Unregistered]

Right back atcha', what dont you get?

We arent talking about how the other sports are monopolized, or more specifically a cartel. We are talking about soccer here in the US. So again, what dont you get? Kind of a slanted question. You are the problem here as you simply do not get it, the best you can come up with is some tangential issue related to womens soccer.

Girls, quality and volume, well lets go down that path for just a minute, and why are they relevant again?..... US women are about to experience a very fast increase in the level and quality of their competition, its already happening, which will be a problem. The US has been ahead on development of womens soccer. Now Spain and other countries are in on it, so that will become a very difficult playing field, you are DELUSIONAL to think if Barca decides to build a program we will be "relevant".

You ever hear of Title 9, thats why we are relevant, thats it. We have it in the US, not so much elsewhere, some countries women were just allowed to drive, just sayin. So the big bad government has basically forced upon D1 schools a pipeline of development of women - which is very awesome. (oh, I bet you really have no clue how it all works. Hmmmm, big D1 school, lots of football and lacrosse and track and cross country - for men, well, need to even out any scholarship cash with scholarships for women so they are equal to men, thats why soccer got cranked up - women 14 scholarships vs 9.9 for men, you know that, I think not).

ESP, FRA, GBR, GER, not so much until lately.... Now they are doing something vaguely similar to the US. So again, when Barca or Real, or PSG or what ever builds up their programs and pipeline, you think the Portland Thorns or whatever have a chance when it comes to development or training for National Teams (because thats the product you are really talking about, National Teams)? I can only laugh in your general direction.

no idea what discussion you are having.

1. where did i say the US would be relevant ?
2. i said more interesting to debate the impacts of a system that has no incentive to produce quality but churns out volume
3. you have listed some (obvious) things that relate to why we had a volume advantage ( well done) but seem to i think I or anyone else) needed to be told that.
4. with no real $$ at the end the psychology of why parents put so much $$ into a sport with no endgame is interesting to discuss.

you seem to be playing checkers when i wanted to talk about chess

[Unregistered]

And that is equally true of:

CFC
FSA
Beachside
Ginga
Sporting
Southeast
Southwest
South Central Premier
Academica
Yankee United
Ole


These are private clubs. At the top, some one is making money. The only altruistic clubs that exist are the town based programs. Let's be real here.

Nope not in our town charge a fortune and don't train a bit. Someone is profiting for level of delivery

[Unregistered]

Nope not in our town charge a fortune and don't train a bit. Someone is profiting for level of delivery

Our town program stinks. Bunch of loud mouthed gym teachers yelling to their kids to BOOOOT it. It has driven a once proud tradition into the ground. Good job tool bags. Stop pretending you know how to coach and turn it over to the handful of people/Dads/Moms that know how to coach. They ran an 'A' with D1 college experience out of town with his two kids. told the guy they don't need his help. Unbelievable.

[Unregistered]

Sad state of affairs for Northeast GDA at younger ages. NYCFC has 8 - 2006s out of 15 on their roster. FC Fury has 12 - 2006s out of 16 on their roster. Both cant field teams of age appropriate players.

[Unregistered]

Sad state of affairs for Northeast GDA at younger ages. NYCFC has 8 - 2006s out of 15 on their roster. FC Fury has 12 - 2006s out of 16 on their roster. Both cant field teams of age appropriate players.

What age group are you referring to exactly?

[Unregistered]

Sad state of affairs for Northeast GDA at younger ages. NYCFC has 8 - 2006s out of 15 on their roster. FC Fury has 12 - 2006s out of 16 on their roster. Both cant field teams of age appropriate players.

This is the way it should be! There should be multiple players playing up in every age. The top 7-8 players from a younger team are almost always better than the bottom 7-8 from the age above them. Putting the better players together is what this is about. To have age appropriate teams across the board can indicate a variety of things:

1. The club has a blanket policy because they don't want to upset the apple cart. Weak leadership so as not to upset the business model.
2. Having age appropriate teams allows there to be teams in every age group. Again, business model satisfying model.
3. Having age appropriate teams across the board shows no regard for player development. Some players should/have to play up in order to satisfy their developmental needs.

[Unregistered]

This is the way it should be! There should be multiple players playing up in every age. The top 7-8 players from a younger team are almost always better than the bottom 7-8 from the age above them. Putting the better players together is what this is about. To have age appropriate teams across the board can indicate a variety of things:

1. The club has a blanket policy because they don't want to upset the apple cart. Weak leadership so as not to upset the business model.
2. Having age appropriate teams allows there to be teams in every age group. Again, business model satisfying model.
3. Having age appropriate teams across the board shows no regard for player development. Some players should/have to play up in order to satisfy their developmental needs.

You missed one:
4. Top 2005 players are forging GDA for the real top league (ECNL).