Which organization best serves the elite athletes... OPL or OYSA?

[Unregistered]

Just a thought here.

We have been discussing the tryout/politics/implied failures of the current ODP system. In older age groups, the "groups" are much smaller so the evaluation process is much easier, and most are returning ODP players.

The problem is the first couple of years where every players parent wants there child to make the team. There are combined age groups (1st year), HUGE turnouts, vast disparity in player abilities, size and skills.

Someone here also mentioned scouts, taking notes of players during the fall season as a means of choice.

What about this idea. Mind you it takes all the clubs/teams/coaches participation and if you think about this long enough it kinda helps to heal some wounds we have between the two sanctioning bodies without any financial commitment.

What if for the first 2 eligible years, each teams (OYSA and OPL) coach traded rosters at every game during the fall season in the Portland area. The opposing coach choose up to 3 players from the other team as being worthy for "greater play".

The coaches would then fax, email or snail mail these forms to the OYSA/ODP office or to some coordinator/compiler of data.

The top 20 players with the highest recommendations would receive an automatic bid for their respective regional pool. If they do not accept the offer to play ODP by a certain dead line, then the next player down the list is chosen.

Then there would be tryouts for the rest, where the 2nd group of 20 players are decided (this appears only necessary for the Portland tryouts, as the regions have smaller participation). This would be open to everyone regardless of votes.

I see this as a way that OPL can help support this higher level of play, support the players that are on their team(s), and be held accountable to the players parents for getting the player recognized for this program. It costs the clubs nothing financially and actually gains the club some respect amongst its peers (those with the most votes must be doing a better job at training/development). The players with auto selection are recognized by all the other coaches as being the top players in our area.

Im sure there are some kinks that would need to be worked out, but hopefully you get the jest of what Im thinking.

[Unregistered]

thought

Why don't we just have the ODP coaches evaluate players a year below the level they coach? This would be a viable option because;

1. Eliminates bias. No coaches evaluating their own players.
2. Coaches can not only evaluate a players strengths but can look long term to the following year.
3. Coaches will be qualified to evaluate players at that level given they coach at a higher level
4. Eliminates "Shoe In" players who have been with ODP for many years. Coaches might not be familiar with a player thus can evaluate with a fresh eye.

Just a thought.

[Unregistered]

That might work as well. I think anything besides the year they coach is a HUGE improvement.

[Unregistered]

That might work as well. I think anything besides the year they coach is a HUGE improvement.

Or their own kids!

[Unregistered]

Why don't we just have the ODP coaches evaluate players a year below the level they coach? This would be a viable option because;

1. Eliminates bias. No coaches evaluating their own players.
2. Coaches can not only evaluate a players strengths but can look long term to the following year.
3. Coaches will be qualified to evaluate players at that level given they coach at a higher level
4. Eliminates "Shoe In" players who have been with ODP for many years. Coaches might not be familiar with a player thus can evaluate with a fresh eye.

Just a thought.

I agree.

There should be 2 automatic disqualifiers

1. You are a coach of the agegroup
2. You are a parent of a kid in the agegroup

[Unregistered]

I agree.

There should be 2 automatic disqualifiers

1. You are a coach of the agegroup
2. You are a parent of a kid in the agegroup

Is anyone certain that the coach or parent actually participated in the evaluation of his child? Maybe the coach/parent recused himself. It seems like such a no-brainer that these should be automatic disqualifiers, at a minimum, but perhaps someone knows what really happened behind the scenes. I can guaranty you that the other issues about the selection process always will exist for all the reasons others have identified (e.g., how the player showed that day) unless there is a longer term evaluation process, but good luck with getting fairness out of that. It does get substantially better with the older groups as the players and their histories come into play.

I wouuld also go further than the automatic disqualifiers above and ban existing coaches from walking the sidelines or even contacting the evaluators until the decisions are made. If you have an aggressive coach (e.g., "your really need to look at player a or b or c"), it is amazing what affect that can have on the decision making process.

[Unregistered]

Is anyone certain that the coach or parent actually participated in the evaluation of his child? Maybe the coach/parent recused himself. It seems like such a no-brainer that these should be automatic disqualifiers, at a minimum, but perhaps someone knows what really happened behind the scenes.

I do not know for sure but he was at the same field evaluating players as she was. You can't tell me that it doesn't influence other evaluators to have her dad right there next to you as you evaluate her. The fact that she made the list over other more deserving players says enough to me. Not to mention that other girls from his team made it as well over much more qualified girls.

[Unregistered]

Is anyone certain that the coach or parent actually participated in the evaluation of his child? Maybe the coach/parent recused himself. It seems like such a no-brainer that these should be automatic disqualifiers, at a minimum, but perhaps someone knows what really happened behind the scenes. I can guaranty you that the other issues about the selection process always will exist for all the reasons others have identified (e.g., how the player showed that day) unless there is a longer term evaluation process, but good luck with getting fairness out of that. It does get substantially better with the older groups as the players and their histories come into play.

I wouuld also go further than the automatic disqualifiers above and ban existing coaches from walking the sidelines or even contacting the evaluators until the decisions are made. If you have an aggressive coach (e.g., "your really need to look at player a or b or c"), it is amazing what affect that can have on the decision making process.

Good post, and I agree.

I feel bad for the kid, so I don't want to say too much, but there had to be some influence. It wouldnt even matter though as an evaluator of other kids and a coach it is not that hard to manipulate things in your kids favor. This is an unfortunate situation and in fairness to OYSA they may not have even put the pieces together.

[Unregistered]

Good post, and I agree.

I feel bad for the kid, so I don't want to say too much, but there had to be some influence. It wouldnt even matter though as an evaluator of other kids and a coach it is not that hard to manipulate things in your kids favor. This is an unfortunate situation and in fairness to OYSA they may not have even put the pieces together.

Its one player, thats all. Quit whining. What about all the rest of the players ? Was there a conspiracy going on ?

[Unregistered]

Its one player, thats all. Quit whining. What about all the rest of the players ? Was there a conspiracy going on ?

Who knows but this is definitely a unique situation. I've been around for awhile and have never seen the scales tilted quite this badly. Seems a lot of WSM kids made the team. I believe out of all that tried out only 2 were cut and they were told they were right on the bubble.

As for the rest I'd say that the coaches were looking for size. I guess they think size might be able to counter California's speed and talent.

[Unregistered]

Its one player, thats all. Quit whining. What about all the rest of the players ? Was there a conspiracy going on ?

YES, absolutely and if you read the other thread you would know that..Go back over there and read it. I think this thread was started to get away from all of that.

And who is whining? Do you know the definition of that word?

[Unregistered]

What.... you think big and slow is going to help the team? Mia Hamm was only 5' 4"

[Unregistered]

Who knows but this is definitely a unique situation. I've been around for awhile and have never seen the scales tilted quite this badly. Seems a lot of WSM kids made the team. I believe out of all that tried out only 2 were cut and they were told they were right on the bubble.

As for the rest I'd say that the coaches were looking for size. I guess they think size might be able to counter California's speed and talent.

so wsm has 13 in ODP? more? plus the two from Rage? (wow rage must feel jilted)

[Unregistered]

so wsm has 13 in ODP? more? plus the two from Rage? (wow rage must feel jilted)

Plus the one from the Timbers that went to the Usonians this season. Smart girl.

[Unregistered]

Its one player, thats all. Quit whining. What about all the rest of the players ? Was there a conspiracy going on ?

It's not just one player in question. There as several players who are questionable in skills and speed. There are players who didn't even get accepted to a regular premier club and then there is the matter of bench players and average players. Now when we say ODP player, one should think, Oh yeah, she's good. I've seen her play. She deserves it. If the selection was proper, we wouldn't be having this discussion.