DAP started to get serious?

[Unregistered]

There is a separate thread about the 10 month commitment. Take your D3 soccer discussion there. This is about evaluating the DAP clubs on something other then wins and losses. It's about time.

Hmmmm....."about evaluating the DAP clubs on something other than wins and losses.". You mean like outcome measures? Like college placement outcomes? We would like to hear about that in MA, and you can start with the 2011 DAP "grads".

[Unregistered]

Then start a thread "USSF evaluates DAP clubs" and make an initial post asking that discussion be limited to that.

Geez, when threads get going beyond a page, I usually start at most recent post. Also, learn how to create a title that is specific.

Do you always get so tied up in knots about something this unimportant in the big picture? Cause if this is relevant only to the people who might make pro soccer, why even bother with a thread? its of interest to 2 or 3 people in MA.

Maybe you ought to start with the title and OP before commenting then.

[Unregistered]

Sorry buddy. What are the goals of DAP in MA??? Clearly not pro or NT and college results abysmal, so please advise. People about to commit to 10 months would like to know.

Goals of DAP are national goals (there are no MA-specific DAP goals) - DAP reason for existence is to develop players for the US MNT. USSF is started to realize that the DAP system is being abused and is tightening up the reins.

[Unregistered]

interesting to actually compare

So the Revs received a higher rating than the Bolts and Seacoast. To say that this concludes anything significant regarding how well the players are being trained is a far shot from reality.
There were a number of variables compared. These seemed to include two relating to soccer playing and about 5 relating to the environment, and the last one is a fairly subjective and nebulous measure.

Player Development = 20%
Style of Play = 20%
Training Environment = 20%
Administration = 10%
Facilities = 10%
Fundraising = 10%
Respect = 10%
Zone 1 & 2 Plan = No Grade for 2010-11

In fact the Bolts received a higher rating on player development by 1/2 a point while the Revs were a 1/2 point higher on style of play. OK, however, I'll give it to the Revs, their rank is higher as they are better funded (free) and have a huge training facility. The Patriots are making big money for the club (The Revs certainly are not).
The Bolts, however, rely just on their reputation to attract players. They charge players to partake and have to pay a few schools for their fields.
Despite this, regarding player development, the Bolts rank higher.......
Ironically, the money tree is elsewhere. The Revs ranking is entirely related to the Kraft family ability to provide i.e. they have more money and resources than the Bolts. However, the Revs did not fair better (overall).
In fact, if the 'best' players go to the Revs, then their development is even worse as they are not performing or developing better...........

[Unregistered]

So the Revs received a higher rating than the Bolts and Seacoast. To say that this concludes anything significant regarding how well the players are being trained is a far shot from reality.
There were a number of variables compared. These seemed to include two relating to soccer playing and about 5 relating to the environment, and the last one is a fairly subjective and nebulous measure.

Player Development = 20%
Style of Play = 20%
Training Environment = 20%
Administration = 10%
Facilities = 10%
Fundraising = 10%
Respect = 10%
Zone 1 & 2 Plan = No Grade for 2010-11

In fact the Bolts received a higher rating on player development by 1/2 a point while the Revs were a 1/2 point higher on style of play. OK, however, I'll give it to the Revs, their rank is higher as they are better funded (free) and have a huge training facility. The Patriots are making big money for the club (The Revs certainly are not).
The Bolts, however, rely just on their reputation to attract players. They charge players to partake and have to pay a few schools for their fields.
Despite this, regarding player development, the Bolts rank higher.......
Ironically, the money tree is elsewhere. The Revs ranking is entirely related to the Kraft family ability to provide i.e. they have more money and resources than the Bolts. However, the Revs did not fair better (overall).
In fact, if the 'best' players go to the Revs, then their development is even worse as they are not performing or developing better...........

Nice try.

Revs got 3 stars for playing style (which is a huge reflection of the coaches) while Bolts got 2.5 stars.
Revs got 4 stars for facilities, Bolts got 3
Revs got 3.5 stars for training environment, Bolts got 3

[Unregistered]

Nice try.

Revs got 3 stars for playing style (which is a huge reflection of the coaches) while Bolts got 2.5 stars.
Revs got 4 stars for facilities, Bolts got 3
Revs got 3.5 stars for training environment, Bolts got 3

My 'try' wasn't just a 'nice' one it was a great one. I said that about the playing style. You seem to have left out that the Bolts got an equal 1/2 point higher on development. Can you explain that one to me? Explain how that is not a reflection on the coaches. The rest of the evaluation can be boiled down to how much money and resources one has vs. the other. I will admit that the Revs have greater resources. However, despite that the two measures of coaching (Style and Development) are, in sum, no different between the two clubs. One could take this and reflect positively of the Bolts to develop players without the same resources..

[Unregistered]

Let's face it. If you do want to play DAP and the travel time to practice is not prohibitive, then you would want to play Revs first and foremost because it is FREE. Yes, the rankings are nice, but the only point worth considering is the PRICE. Not a DAP person, but if I had a choice the Revs would be first.

[Unregistered]

My 'try' wasn't just a 'nice' one it was a great one. I said that about the playing style. You seem to have left out that the Bolts got an equal 1/2 point higher on development. Can you explain that one to me? Explain how that is not a reflection on the coaches. The rest of the evaluation can be boiled down to how much money and resources one has vs. the other. I will admit that the Revs have greater resources. However, despite that the two measures of coaching (Style and Development) are, in sum, no different between the two clubs. One could take this and reflect positively of the Bolts to develop players without the same resources..

Player dev is a unfair comparison as Revs were not a youth club/development facility until just a few years ago. Playing Style Training Environment, and facilities are the key criteria that should be looked in in a apple to apple comparison of the clubs.

[Unregistered]

USSF definition of Player Development:
Based on history of YNT players produced, professional players produced, quality of the player pool, number of player developed internally by the club and player improvement


Revs youth development has not been around as long as Bolts. They started youth player development(DAP) 3? years ago? Bolts have been around since the eighties.

[Unregistered]

USSF definition of Player Development:
Based on history of YNT players produced, professional players produced, quality of the player pool, number of player developed internally by the club and player improvement


Revs youth development has not been around as long as Bolts. They started youth player development(DAP) 3? years ago? Bolts have been around since the eighties.

So how many years do you think it will take the Revs to get up to speed in this department? Since all of the coaches involved with DAP have prior coaching experience, don't you think if they were hired to develop players in DAP, it would be nice if their ?player development" chops didn't, in effect, need years to develop?

[Unregistered]

So how many years do you think it will take the Revs to get up to speed in this department? Since all of the coaches involved with DAP have prior coaching experience, don't you think if they were hired to develop players in DAP, it would be nice if their ?player development" chops didn't, in effect, need years to develop?

Geez. It's not about "getting up to speed" The player development rating is inherently skewed toward clubs with a longer history of player development.

[Unregistered]

Geez. It's not about "getting up to speed" The player development rating is inherently skewed toward clubs with a longer history of player development.

I see. So are ratings points lost when U15/16 players fail to make the cut at U17/18? Because if a U15/16 DAP player is displaced by a player from outside DAP for U17/18, it doesn't seem to speak highly of the superior training environment in DAP.

[Unregistered]

I see. So are ratings points lost when U15/16 players fail to make the cut at U17/18? Because if a U15/16 DAP player is displaced by a player from outside DAP for U17/18, it doesn't seem to speak highly of the superior training environment in DAP.

Yes, but that is one criteria out of several in the player development rating- so it's hard to determine how a DAP club did specifically in that one specific criteria.

[Unregistered]

I think the Revs already are overtaking the Bolts in player development history - how many NT pool or NT players are currently on the Bolts - pretty close to 0. The Revs are teeming with them. And the Revs have to get some credit for DF - he is definitely now a much better player than he was on the Bolts, and no doubt better than the Bolts would have made him. Yeah, if you want to go back to the Bolts heyday (before the Revs), they've got a development record. But nothing much recently.

[Unregistered]

2.5 for the Bolts style of play! That must have been for their U/18 team right??