GDA Year in Review

[Unregistered]

From the business side, every club wants 18 players on the roster. The coaches expect 14 players to get the most time and the other 4 are fillers. Just the way it works and the parents of the 4 fillers think their kid is a stud just for making a DA team.

This is unfortunately somewhat true. I'm in the minority with some others on the sideline, but I've advocated for a roster of 18-20, with 12-14 MAX consistent and the others rotate in. Those players should be able to play NPL or whatever to make up some game time, but would be consistently practicing with the team.

I think ( ??? ) that is something USSF advocates, but not sure. However, what I am not in favor of is too large of a roster, but also putting a kid on a roster who realistically won't play a lot. You may not want to cut them outright due to potential, but they all need to play somewhere.

[Unregistered]

This is unfortunately somewhat true. I'm in the minority with some others on the sideline, but I've advocated for a roster of 18-20, with 12-14 MAX consistent and the others rotate in. Those players should be able to play NPL or whatever to make up some game time, but would be consistently practicing with the team.

I think ( ??? ) that is something USSF advocates, but not sure. However, what I am not in favor of is too large of a roster, but also putting a kid on a roster who realistically won't play a lot. You may not want to cut them outright due to potential, but they all need to play somewhere.

If you are doing pay to play - then kids should play. If you only want those last 4 players to be fillers - then you will always limit your turnout for players and parents. This is why club models for pay to play need to make sure they actually play the kids (whose parents) are shelling out $5k (fees, uniforms, showcases, travel) to play. NO parent - EVER - will be ok to part with $5K and say "know your role Johnny / Mary and be a good little team player so the other kids get exposure and you don't, ok"?

Just the mere suggestion that this is an appropriate way to approach this if it truly is for DEVELOPMENT is absurd.

[Unregistered]

If you are doing pay to play - then kids should play. If you only want those last 4 players to be fillers - then you will always limit your turnout for players and parents. This is why club models for pay to play need to make sure they actually play the kids (whose parents) are shelling out $5k (fees, uniforms, showcases, travel) to play. NO parent - EVER - will be ok to part with $5K and say "know your role Johnny / Mary and be a good little team player so the other kids get exposure and you don't, ok"?

Just the mere suggestion that this is an appropriate way to approach this if it truly is for DEVELOPMENT is absurd.

Obviously those kids wouldn’t pay full freight. I assumed that would be understood and didn’t need to be stated.

They get their games with another team, some with DA, and full practice participation.

[Unregistered]

Clubs break even with rosters of around 14-16. Anything more than 18 is bad enough but over 20 is just a cash grab. Plenty of DA rosters are that big, even larger. If your kid isn't a regular starter or first off the bench he/she is just money in the bank to the club. And why do PT/development players other than to string along more families?. Maybe a few can develop into player #1-14 but rarely. Plus when you bring them in for games you're taking PT from the fulltime DA players. Needless to say that doesn't go over well.

[Unregistered]

Clubs break even with rosters of around 14-16. Anything more than 18 is bad enough but over 20 is just a cash grab. Plenty of DA rosters are that big, even larger. If your kid isn't a regular starter or first off the bench he/she is just money in the bank to the club. And why do PT/development players other than to string along more families?. Maybe a few can develop into player #1-14 but rarely. Plus when you bring them in for games you're taking PT from the fulltime DA players. Needless to say that doesn't go over well.

Correct these would be PT/Development players.

And yes some don’t agree with me and that’s ok. If you kept your “main” roster small then the PT players fill around that and no playing time would be sacrificed.

My kid was essentially that for a long time; a B-teamer who practiced with the A-team and got occasional game. So it can happen. But-and this is a big “but”- she was younger and had time to develop. Not sure if could happen when older.

However if you were a player beyond the 12-14, playing with another team, practicing with their top team, and getting an occasional game would surely be better than being on the team and not playing. DA wants the rosters larger so this is a way to accommodate both.

[Unregistered]

Not sure if this falls into a positive or a negative, but I think it's a positive. Because I need to plan, I've kept spreadsheets so know when each game/practice is. Deleting old files this morning, I found looked over what was the last year in NPL (with middle school and futsal and extra camps) vs. the first year in GDA. The results were somewhat surprising:

In a June-June season, time playing dropped from almost 260 events to under 200.

Obviously, nobody made her play that much previously; but the controls put in place to restrict other activities has enabled her (forced her) to limit the play and will likely make her a more healthy player.

[Unregistered]

Not sure if this falls into a positive or a negative, but I think it's a positive. Because I need to plan, I've kept spreadsheets so know when each game/practice is. Deleting old files this morning, I found looked over what was the last year in NPL (with middle school and futsal and extra camps) vs. the first year in GDA. The results were somewhat surprising:

In a June-June season, time playing dropped from almost 260 events to under 200.

Obviously, nobody made her play that much previously; but the controls put in place to restrict other activities has enabled her (forced her) to limit the play and will likely make her a more healthy player.

So you paid more / or close to the same as NPL, had the same coaching, were mediocre in competitiveness, and played less soccer... looks like a good move on SUSC to get your money and provide less soccer / instruction under the guise of DA!

[Unregistered]

So you paid more / or close to the same as NPL, had the same coaching, were mediocre in competitiveness, and played less soccer... looks like a good move on SUSC to get your money and provide less soccer / instruction under the guise of DA!

Paid a little less, got a better coach, was competitive in every game, and played more SEACOAST soccer, with an improved training methodology.

So, yes, as mentioned, for us, been a positive year.

How was your impression of your first year in DA?

[Unregistered]

So you paid more / or close to the same as NPL, had the same coaching, were mediocre in competitiveness, and played less soccer... looks like a good move on SUSC to get your money and provide less soccer / instruction under the guise of DA!

I think the positive vs negative aspect of this depends greatly on your perspective.

For some not playing middle school would be a negative, if they enjoyed it for social reasons. After all, they're kids. Nothing wrong with that (I know your daughter doesn't care; mine doesn't either and gave it up too). As for futsal, our experience with SUSC has been that they're way out of their league. Any futsal training received has been subpar when compared to other programs. You must feel otherwise, to view it as a positive. So again, perspective. The question there is really is there value in futsal. Who knows.

I agree that more SUSC soccer vs middle school is a positive from a purely soccer standpoint. Hopefully everyone realizes that soccer doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Your positive might well be someone else's negative.

At the end of the day, your daughter made a choice she's happy with. That's the biggest positive there is. Hopefully others, whether they took the GDA path or not, feel the same.

[Unregistered]

I think the positive vs negative aspect of this depends greatly on your perspective.

For some not playing middle school would be a negative, if they enjoyed it for social reasons. After all, they're kids. Nothing wrong with that (I know your daughter doesn't care; mine doesn't either and gave it up too). As for futsal, our experience with SUSC has been that they're way out of their league. Any futsal training received has been subpar when compared to other programs. You must feel otherwise, to view it as a positive. So again, perspective. The question there is really is there value in futsal. Who knows.

I agree that more SUSC soccer vs middle school is a positive from a purely soccer standpoint. Hopefully everyone realizes that soccer doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Your positive might well be someone else's negative.

At the end of the day, your daughter made a choice she's happy with. That's the biggest positive there is. Hopefully others, whether they took the GDA path or not, feel the same.

Just a quick side note. I don't consider SUSC's futsal when I mentioned it. Yes, we played some, and it's better than some other club's "futsal"...but it's not true futsal.

We were with another specific-futsal program for a few years. I think it's a wonderful tool for skill-development and highly recommend it for anyone starting out. I do believe it has a shelf-life, however.

When I made mention originally about 3 big steps, one was related to futsal. Really helped her and that is something several people mentioned to me.