DAP Results

[dd2]

But if you look at the game reports, in those 25% starts, these kids are coming out after 20 minutes. And it depends on the competition - the same kid with get a half a game against a low end NE division team. Or - if you look at the Bolts playoff games, benchwarmers got to play in the third game, after the first two losses - a great gesture to give them a going away present when nothing was on the line. Thing is, this is the way it is everywhere. A kid committed to the game will take what he gets and not complain. At U16, its really not about development anyway - that's pretty much done.

It puzzles me that the "by the U16 age development is pretty much over" statement is made over and over. In most areas of human endeavor, including sports, we believe that much development happens in the teens into the 20s. Bodies continue to mature and skills grow. It's true in baseball, football, basketball, hockey, tennis, golf, swimming, and track and field. It's obviously true also in soccer, or European youth academies wouldn't keep training players into their 20s or bringing their most gifted teenagers along gradually.

So why then does this statement persist? To me, it's an excuse used to cover up the fact that American soccer coaches generally neglect the development of their teen players in favor of (yes, even in the DAP) winning. Obviously, if you want to win a maximum number of games, you play who you think are your best players and give shorter shrift to others. Nothing wrong with that if that's your objective. But you can't justify the DAP as a "development for all" program when it's run as a "try to win" program in reality. Coaches do what wins games and don't concentrate on the welfare of their players. Perhaps those who play a lot develop. But even there, I'm skeptical. Sure they develop - into those who can win teenager's games. The performance of our national team players suggests they don't develop into truly world class players.

When the DAP started, I believe the minimum start rule was 33%. By decreasing the requirement to 25%, US Soccer made it easier for coaches to do business as usual, in the pre-DAP way. Favor your best and play the scrubs in meaningless games and for relatively few minutes.

I think young players and those who support them are right to ask if they're being served in their long term goals as players. If they're not, they should look for a different venue which hopefully treats them better. What they should not do is accept the "don't worry about it, development is over by U16 anyway" excuse any longer.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. Anthony Davis was the no. 1 pick in NBA draft. New Orleans expects him to develop into a franchise player over the next 3-4 years. Experts say that Lebron James is STILL developing. Rondo at 26 obviously is still developing and is markedly better at 26 than he was at 23.

[Unregistered]

They take on kids thinking the potential is there. When the coaches decide it isn't, its the bench. Some kids quit.. several did quit DAP teams this year. The interesting question is, should a kid at U16 and above be contend to get rostered occasionally and get a few minutes at the end of a game? The mentality of the player, when he's on a team, is to keep trying - to start showing something and earn more time, which is what they're told to do. What I don't get is the point of spending hundreds of dollars and a weekend of travel for 20 minutes on the field. I mean, frankly, the coaches ought to do these kids a favor and cut them (course, they'll replace them with another group of benchwarmers.).. A kid who spends a year of soccer playing 20 minutes here and there is not really getting the experience of enjoying being part of a team. These kids could be doing that on other teams.

The whole sell of DAP was to develop talent, the idea of
benchwarmers. should be verboten.The coach decides on
who his starters are? If the DAP was true to there principles
no kid would play almost every game. If the recent posts are
true then the DAP,at least in our area is a fraud at best.

[Unregistered]

Well its obviously true - anyone looking at the USSDA pages and game reports can see that. But you're going to see the same thing in these age groups on non-DAP teams. You're going to see the same thing in these age groups all over the planet. The question is, is it worth it to sit on the bench of a DA team? Some kids make it off the bench. Most don't. The hard part is all the time commitment and cost for a few minutes play time. And turning down high school soccer to boot. Is it worth it?

[Unregistered]

The whole sell of DAP was to develop talent, the idea of
benchwarmers. should be verboten.The coach decides on
who his starters are? If the DAP was true to there principles
no kid would play almost every game. If the recent posts are
true then the DAP,at least in our area is a fraud at best.

You're right! My mother told me I would get play as much as anyone else, and I would get a trophy at the end of the year. DAP is poopie, my mother said....

[Unregistered]

Well its obviously true - anyone looking at the USSDA pages and game reports can see that. But you're going to see the same thing in these age groups on non-DAP teams. You're going to see the same thing in these age groups all over the planet. The question is, is it worth it to sit on the bench of a DA team? Some kids make it off the bench. Most don't. The hard part is all the time commitment and cost for a few minutes play time. And turning down high school soccer to boot. Is it worth it?

The answer to this is no. One part of it is that training and developing includes taking the practices to the game. If you are not in the game then you miss out on a significant part of training. A second part of it is that if you are not in the game then you will, without doubt, not be seen by anyone who might remotely be interested in your talents later on i.e. college or national scouts. A part of this is that you, by sitting on the bench, should also be able to realize how your current coach sees your importance and how they might feel about your ability to play in his/her team.
In other words, if you are 'riding the bench' it is time to move on to another team where you can play.
The DAP does should not have so many kids rostered. They don't need more than 18. If injuries occur then let then have DP players who are also getting playtime on their non DAP teams. This is where the Bolts have the advantage over the Revs. The Bolts are a real soccer club, while the Revs are merely doing it because they were forced to do so. Out of curiosity, how many other MLS clubs have only the two (Revs will soon have a PreAcademy team) DAP teams?

[Unregistered]

You're right! My mother told me I would get play as much as anyone else, and I would get a trophy at the end of the year. DAP is poopie, my mother said....

First you are very wrong. Second, by talking like an idiot you only prove that you are an idiot.

[Unregistered]

A lot of this development talk is just Americans living in their dream world and not knowing anything about soccer everywhere else. Outside the US, by 16/17, the kids who can play are on an elite track, there are few subs. A kid on the bench gets his shot in the 15 minutes he might get once in awhile and performance in practice. It is extremely serious and competitive. no one said that anyone stops developing by U16. However, the ones with the talent are clear by then

[Unregistered]

A lot of this development talk is just Americans living in their dream world and not knowing anything about soccer everywhere else. Outside the US, by 16/17, the kids who can play are on an elite track, there are few subs. A kid on the bench gets his shot in the 15 minutes he might get once in awhile and performance in practice. It is extremely serious and competitive. no one said that anyone stops developing by U16. However, the ones with the talent are clear by then

yes....but the others who are not on the elite team find other teams where they can play and not sit on the bench. A roster of more than 18/20 players is not helping out those after player 18/20....those kids are there to contribute to the finances of the team/club. For these kids, their is a missed opportunity to play....and, yes, develop elsewhere.

[Unregistered]

Why has the starters v benchwarmer issue
only been raised now?

[Unregistered]

Why has the starters v benchwarmer issue
only been raised now?

I think it was brought up previously, but then dropped...and now being brought up again. It is a real issue regardless of DAP or non-DAP....or any other sport. A similar issue, although in a different format, has been discussed about first team second team third team.

Why pay good money if you are sitting on the bench?
Why pay good money if you are playing in the lower divisions?

For both scenarios, your coach (es) have delivered the message with regard to their team/club.

If you choose to remain in those situations then you have little to complain about in the future with regard to your child not going anywhere.

I will give huge credit to the Stars organization....or at least their girls side. Between the ECNL, Region 1, MAPLE, and NEP they can claim that their multiple teams all play in the first or top division of something.

The Stars Girls program is what I would consider a success.

[Unregistered]

This is not an opportunity to tout a club,this is
the clear failure for all to see of the DAP to live
up to it's mission statement.It's just a better
version of the same old stuff.

[Unregistered]

A lot of this development talk is just Americans living in their dream world and not knowing anything about soccer everywhere else. Outside the US, by 16/17, the kids who can play are on an elite track, there are few subs. A kid on the bench gets his shot in the 15 minutes he might get once in awhile and performance in practice. It is extremely serious and competitive. no one said that anyone stops developing by U16. However, the ones with the talent are clear by then

Except that isn't exactly true. One only has to look at the lists of top U17s in the world that don't amount to anything. The problem with people like you is that there are some exceptional players who actually fulfill their perceived potential, but these exceptional players are just that. Exceptions to the rule and yet you consider them the rule. The fact of the matter is that even the so called "experts" on youth soccer say that you only can BEGIN to judge a player's actual potential at 16. There is still a long road ahead. But here in the US, the judgements are being made way too soon and it is because team success is the key to advancement.

[Unregistered]

At the top academies and clubs where most pros come from all they do from U13 on is cut. They can go from 8 teams at U12 to 2 at U17. Some of these U17s go pro if it's a good club. They don't add many players. They cut cut cut. the 'late bloomer' thing is just a myth.

[dd2]

At the top academies and clubs where most pros come from all they do from U13 on is cut. They can go from 8 teams at U12 to 2 at U17. Some of these U17s go pro if it's a good club. They don't add many players. They cut cut cut. the 'late bloomer' thing is just a myth.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I'll never believe that the late bloomer is a myth. I've known way too many people who made it in their lives after being passed over for college admissions, grad school admissions, or first jobs. And in sports, people who are lightly regarded at 18 become top draft picks 4 years later. For example, Damian Lillard, the recent #8 pick in the NBA draft was apparently only a 2-star recruit coming out of high school on Rivals.com. And of course, pro football is full of undrafted free agents who made it big. I believe Wes Welker was an undrafted free agent who only got a D1 scholarship because someone else backed out at the last minute. I'd call these people late bloomers. Sure, they were good athletes when younger, but their ultimate achievement would never have been predicted as teenagers.

I think the message "It's pretty much all decided by 16" is a terrible one to give (or believe about) kids. They're being told it's time to give up right when their potential is starting. Is talent apparent at 16? Sure. Do people have to take sincere stock of themselves as youths? Sure. Should they believe it's all pretty much decided by 16? I sure hope not, in soccer or anything else.