Crufa

[Unregistered]

Anyone has any knowledge of or comments about this new CRUFA (columbia river united) club?

[Unregistered]

By the looks of it, it's an accumulation of 5 PYSA clubs forming a competitive club, much the same as NEU.

http://www.crufa.com/

[Unregistered]

Crufa

What I know, nothing. I just looked at their winter state cup and winter directors cup results.

Wins 1
loses 6
ties 2

goals for 9
gaol against 37

Whatever they are they need to do it better.

[Unregistered]

My DD's team played a CRUFA team earlier this spring. In talking with one of their parents, it sounds like the association was formed to give the girls in that area another option to Eastside. As a new competitive club, it is not surprising that their teams may struggle a little in state cup. But, it great that more kids will the opportunity to play competitive soccer.

[Unregistered]

Not a good option

From what I have seen there is one or two good players on each Crufa team. As their record shows they just can't be competative with a few good players.

The eastside is not the westside, we can have 3-4-5 good clubs. The Eastside has enough for one club. It shoud be ESUFC or CRUFA, ESUFC has the fields coaches etc.

Let it be CRUFA, you are just watering down the player pool.

[Unregistered]

From what I have seen there is one or two good players on each Crufa team. As their record shows they just can't be competative with a few good players.

The eastside is not the westside, we can have 3-4-5 good clubs. The Eastside has enough for one club. It shoud be ESUFC or CRUFA, ESUFC has the fields coaches etc.

Let it be CRUFA, you are just watering down the player pool.

What?! Since when is some competition bad? CRUFA is less than half the price of what ESUFC is. If some good players migrate, then the club will also be a good option to other overpriced options. Costs are getting out-of-hand.

[Unregistered]

What?! Since when is some competition bad? CRUFA is less than half the price of what ESUFC is. If some good players migrate, then the club will also be a good option to other overpriced options. Costs are getting out-of-hand.

More kids in a program, the less the cost is..... just being honest.

More clubs..... more dilution...... It's better to have 5 teams in an age group in one club then 5 clubs with 1 team each.

Having so many clubs does not encourage competition, but rather encourages the opposite. More teams competing allows for more opportunity for a "team for everybody." This is find and dandy when placed in a culture of giving everybody a chance and letting everybody should play. The reality is....... Thats not true. Not everybody is meant for "competitive" soccer. All should have a opportunity to play, but keep it recreational!

If you want to argue my perspective - please do research about the development and evolution of sports....beyond just the experiences that you have had in your life or that you have seen.

This is just another group of coaches/parents out to solve the problems....without addressing the real issues, but rather ignorantly believing that their creation and ideology is the response to the greatest need. "There's nothing new under the sun." - maybe we can think about why this incredible creation hasn't happened already or isn't working or why so many other groups aren't doing the same thing........

[Unregistered]

More kids in a program, the less the cost is..... just being honest.

More clubs..... more dilution...... It's better to have 5 teams in an age group in one club then 5 clubs with 1 team each.

Having so many clubs does not encourage competition, but rather encourages the opposite. More teams competing allows for more opportunity for a "team for everybody." This is find and dandy when placed in a culture of giving everybody a chance and letting everybody should play. The reality is....... Thats not true. Not everybody is meant for "competitive" soccer. All should have a opportunity to play, but keep it recreational!

If you want to argue my perspective - please do research about the development and evolution of sports....beyond just the experiences that you have had in your life or that you have seen.

This is just another group of coaches/parents out to solve the problems....without addressing the real issues, but rather ignorantly believing that their creation and ideology is the response to the greatest need. "There's nothing new under the sun." - maybe we can think about why this incredible creation hasn't happened already or isn't working or why so many other groups aren't doing the same thing........

Haven't laughed so hard on these boards in a long time! Keep up the good work...unless you were serious.

[Unregistered]

maybe we can think about why this incredible creation hasn't happened already or isn't working or why so many other groups aren't doing the same thing........

Did you just move to the Portland area last week ? Take a look at NEU & OSSA (to name just a couple others).

Each of these are two are founded on different types of "parent" programs, but they were created for the greater good of both their clubs and players they effect and both have had a positive impact for all that are involved.

I hear what your saying and your grammatical syntax is wonderfully written, but your message needs some serious thought next time you sit down to spew it in an open forum.

[Unregistered]

More kids in a program, the less the cost is..... just being honest.

More clubs..... more dilution...... It's better to have 5 teams in an age group in one club then 5 clubs with 1 team each.

Having so many clubs does not encourage competition, but rather encourages the opposite. More teams competing allows for more opportunity for a "team for everybody." This is find and dandy when placed in a culture of giving everybody a chance and letting everybody should play. The reality is....... Thats not true. Not everybody is meant for "competitive" soccer. All should have a opportunity to play, but keep it recreational!

If you want to argue my perspective - please do research about the development and evolution of sports....beyond just the experiences that you have had in your life or that you have seen.

This is just another group of coaches/parents out to solve the problems....without addressing the real issues, but rather ignorantly believing that their creation and ideology is the response to the greatest need. "There's nothing new under the sun." - maybe we can think about why this incredible creation hasn't happened already or isn't working or why so many other groups aren't doing the same thing........

This is one side to the classic argument between the large clubs in Portland, and between the rest of the state.

As so elegantly explained above the Portland view is that Everyone should play for a few clubs. Perhaps building clubs that have 5 different teams at an age group (90 kids). This would undoubtedly create a very strong A-side.

The Contrarian view is that a better model is to have teams spread across many clubs, and have the teams at a certain level play each other. This involves travel, but if individual development is the primary focus, kids will grow more in a model where they play other same level teams from different clubs.

It can be argued that if you had a few huge clubs, they would attract better coaching, but remember we are talking youth soccer. If you have five teams and all are coached with the same style of play, but different levels of skill, there is the chance of some stagnation

The more compelling argument revolves around playing teams with different coaching styles. If you have several level teams (approximately) each of which plays a different style, you will produce more rounded and creative players. Soccer is not a problem solved with one solution. There are different models from all over the world. Some models will be better for kids then others. The worst thing to do is create a few tall silos, that never get outside influence.

[Unregistered]

This is one side to the classic argument between the large clubs in Portland, and between the rest of the state.

As so elegantly explained above the Portland view is that Everyone should play for a few clubs. Perhaps building clubs that have 5 different teams at an age group (90 kids). This would undoubtedly create a very strong A-side.

The Contrarian view is that a better model is to have teams spread across many clubs, and have the teams at a certain level play each other. This involves travel, but if individual development is the primary focus, kids will grow more in a model where they play other same level teams from different clubs.

It can be argued that if you had a few huge clubs, they would attract better coaching, but remember we are talking youth soccer. If you have five teams and all are coached with the same style of play, but different levels of skill, there is the chance of some stagnation

The more compelling argument revolves around playing teams with different coaching styles. If you have several level teams (approximately) each of which plays a different style, you will produce more rounded and creative players. Soccer is not a problem solved with one solution. There are different models from all over the world. Some models will be better for kids then others. The worst thing to do is create a few tall silos, that never get outside influence.

I Hear what you're saying, but this screams out recreational soccer. You need to be part of an athletic development team outside of the U.S. and more specifically outside of soccer in the U.S.

Don't you think it's strange that the 2nd more played sport in the U.S. is soccer, but it's not even on the top 5 most popular sports? YOU DON'T GET THE GAME. You make complete sense and are very logical. This kind of model is FUN, but will not produce the top talent for the state or the country. It will prevent kids from being the athletes they need to be to receive scholarships in colleges and/or a professional job as an athlete.

Travel the world, tell me what you see. There's a reason why baseball in the U.S. is even being surpassed by small, relatively, underdeveloped countries in the world. You're cultural understanding of development is very small sided and is a "give everybody a chance" model. Hindering the elite...... If your best players are all spread out.... this will dilute the talent, not allowing them to train together or push each other - "as iron sharpen iron." This brings down the level of the top teams and evens the playing field for other teams to compete - overall lowering the standard at which teams could and should be playing at. Never truly having the opportunity to have a standard high enough to be push to come something that could've been.

Small club = "fun for all", "chance for everybody", "different flavors for different tastes"

Look at the development programs at Ajax.... proven development programs.... then tell me how this fits with your ideology. After doing your research - look at what is going on with the development, if you can call it that, with the multiple club creations in Oregon. Let's talk some more when you get a chance to honestly become educated on the other side of the argument. CRUFA, NEU, OSA were selfish in creating their clubs. Westside and THUSC should merge. LO, SS, WUSC, Sherwood, Tualatin, all should merge. I'm only talking about competitive soccer. They all should have their own individual community based recreation programs.

[Unregistered]

I am just jumping in here with my questions (a different unregistered trying to understand both sides.) So I am wondering, how many competitive clubs do you think the Portland area should have? Just 3?
What about the rest of Oregon? What about the kids that want something between rec and premiere?

The American way is supply and demand, choice is good in my opinion, hopefully it will work out for Oregon and we can work together and compromise, but it will take more before that happens.

[Unregistered]

I Hear what you're saying, but this screams out recreational soccer. You need to be part of an athletic development team outside of the U.S. and more specifically outside of soccer in the U.S.

Don't you think it's strange that the 2nd more played sport in the U.S. is soccer, but it's not even on the top 5 most popular sports? YOU DON'T GET THE GAME. You make complete sense and are very logical. This kind of model is FUN, but will not produce the top talent for the state or the country. It will prevent kids from being the athletes they need to be to receive scholarships in colleges and/or a professional job as an athlete.

Travel the world, tell me what you see. There's a reason why baseball in the U.S. is even being surpassed by small, relatively, underdeveloped countries in the world. You're cultural understanding of development is very small sided and is a "give everybody a chance" model. Hindering the elite...... If your best players are all spread out.... this will dilute the talent, not allowing them to train together or push each other - "as iron sharpen iron." This brings down the level of the top teams and evens the playing field for other teams to compete - overall lowering the standard at which teams could and should be playing at. Never truly having the opportunity to have a standard high enough to be push to come something that could've been.

Small club = "fun for all", "chance for everybody", "different flavors for different tastes"

Look at the development programs at Ajax.... proven development programs.... then tell me how this fits with your ideology. After doing your research - look at what is going on with the development, if you can call it that, with the multiple club creations in Oregon. Let's talk some more when you get a chance to honestly become educated on the other side of the argument. CRUFA, NEU, OSA were selfish in creating their clubs. Westside and THUSC should merge. LO, SS, WUSC, Sherwood, Tualatin, all should merge. I'm only talking about competitive soccer. They all should have their own individual community based recreation programs.

but thats why we have programs like ID2, ODP, DA, etc.. to identify those that are at the top of their game, assemble them locally to train and play others of their similar skill for further identification and training and inclusion onto our national team rosters.

[Unregistered]

but thats why we have programs like ID2, ODP, DA, etc.. to identify those that are at the top of their game, assemble them locally to train and play others of their similar skill for further identification and training and inclusion onto our national team rosters.

The problem with that is ID2 and ODP are ID programs and not developmental. The DA answers the development question for high school-aged boys only.The the clubs are supposed to do the rest.

[Unregistered]

but as witnessed already this year in ODP, they have doubled the training sessions and length of each and deleted an out of state tourney to increase training instead. Now with the Timbers managing the boys side (and hopefully the girls side next year) and their plan to train 50 (once a week) times a year at each of the 5 training centers around the state for inclusion into the Timbers DA pool that should bring the level of the BEST players in the state to an all new high. Far greater then any team competing in the OPL, NWCL, FWRL, ENCL, etc could do at the club level.