Tualatin/Sherwood and the Timbers training facility

[Unregistered]

I'll let the name caller respond, but I do want to comment on coaching licenses. It's not the fact the licenses exist, it's more that so many of the coaches that have them simply aren't good coaches. It's true they take time and training, but not enough time and training to really be meaningful. Like for example a UEFA coaching license. Unfortunately it seems to be just enough credentialing to keep some of them around with the "but he has an A license" argument when the real argument should be simply, "he's not a good coach."

UEFA badges aren't very difficult to obtain either, at least at the lower levels (this is what most foreign coaches have when they come to coach in America, kind of like our E and D licenses).

They're restructuring the USSF coaching licenses and making it much more difficult to get your National B and A license. They will also make it much more difficult to keep your A license, no more one and done.

[Unregistered]

They will also make it much more difficult to keep your A license, no more one and done.

Wonder what the great 8 leaders will do ?

[Unregistered]

UEFA badges aren't very difficult to obtain either, at least at the lower levels (this is what most foreign coaches have when they come to coach in America, kind of like our E and D licenses).

They're restructuring the USSF coaching licenses and making it much more difficult to get your National B and A license. They will also make it much more difficult to keep your A license, no more one and done.

Wasn't talking about the lower levels. Was talking about top level. You can waive in to an E license and a D isn't much harder to get so I agree: low level licenses or badges don't mean much. The problem here is that guys with A licenses are given far more leeway and second chances than is warranted by their performance.

[Unregistered]

Wonder what the great 8 leaders will do ?

Cony works with FIFA and has to keep up his credentials, TA works with US club and has to mantain his, Rilett with the Timbers, not sure what accountability the other great 8 will have.

[Unregistered]

Wasn't talking about the lower levels. Was talking about top level. You can waive in to an E license and a D isn't much harder to get so I agree: low level licenses or badges don't mean much. The problem here is that guys with A licenses are given far more leeway and second chances than is warranted by their performance.

The same leeway is given to foreign coaches with the lowest level UEFA badges, and even worse the lowest level English badges.

I agree with you, but my comment still stands. It's not the licensing that's poor, it's the people that are hiring and overseeing the coaches with the licenses.

[Unregistered]

UEFA badges aren't very difficult to obtain either, at least at the lower levels (this is what most foreign coaches have when they come to coach in America, kind of like our E and D licenses).

They're restructuring the USSF coaching licenses and making it much more difficult to get your National B and A license. They will also make it much more difficult to keep your A license, no more one and done.

Which doesn't matter to the great Paul Blackmore who, as president of his club has that all important "D" license. And Fernando, the "AUSC Competitive Program Director", also holds that all important "D" license. What a joke of a club.

[Unregistered]

If you have been around soccer in Oregon for any length of time you will remember the many other times this has come around. Someone gives it a try for a year or so then it drifts away due to lack of interest. The last time I saw this type of program it turned into a nice feeder system for the established clubs with families using it as a stepping stone to competitive soccer.

If it gets more kids playing soccer it's a good thing but don't expect it to do anything but feed more kids into competitive soccer.

Can someone explain to a relative newbie (me) How this all came about? I'm referring to rec vs comp soccer. When I grew up in SoCal every team/league kept score and standings. Yes there were select and upper division teams but even the basic send your kid to local soccer league kept score and usually had playoffs and sometimes All-Star games

It wasn't until we moved to WA and then here and started our kids playing soccer that I ever heard about rec soccer. Why was that created and exactly how does it advance getting more kids involved in soccer? We go to our kids rec games and all the kids know the score. All the kids know who the better players on the teams are.

Was it just created to keep parents from getting out of control arguing about blown - missed referee calls? On the surface it would appear to me to be a good idea to move away from no score rec soccer into a basic comp soccer model like pml for all players. I'm sure there has got to be 15 zillion reasons why this would be a bad idea but I'm not seeing them.

[Unregistered]

I agree. Oak Hills and Milltown are going to play in the OYSA PML. Is there anyone of note left in PML? Will the competition be better than rec? A WST, VT, FC PDX, or insert big 8 club name here "B" team will run a "select" Oak Hills/Milltown team off the field, it won't even be close. 12-0 and 20 minutes of "possession". Since both Oak Hills and Milltown have teams in the Bronze brackets on the Mt Hood Challenge this weekend it should be interesting to see the results. You just can't keep up if your foot isn't on the ball year round.

THUSCs B team Gallium made it to te semi finals of OPL, my guess they would kill a Milltown/Oak Hills team

[Unregistered]

Can someone explain to a relative newbie (me) How this all came about? I'm referring to rec vs comp soccer. When I grew up in SoCal every team/league kept score and standings. Yes there were select and upper division teams but even the basic send your kid to local soccer league kept score and usually had playoffs and sometimes All-Star games

It wasn't until we moved to WA and then here and started our kids playing soccer that I ever heard about rec soccer. Why was that created and exactly how does it advance getting more kids involved in soccer? We go to our kids rec games and all the kids know the score. All the kids know who the better players on the teams are.

Was it just created to keep parents from getting out of control arguing about blown - missed referee calls? On the surface it would appear to me to be a good idea to move away from no score rec soccer into a basic comp soccer model like pml for all players. I'm sure there has got to be 15 zillion reasons why this would be a bad idea but I'm not seeing them.

Where we came from, rec soccer was run by the community (actually they outsourced it to an organization to organize it on their behalf) and the parents were the coaches and the kids played on community owned fields (which were, gasp, grass). There were also clubs, in which the parents paid for a licesened coaches to coach the kids and occassionally, those coaches played their teams in rec leagues.

For us, rec leagues meant mostly parent coaches, one, maybe two practices a week, grass fields, and practices in parks, or schools are any other place where you could find 30 by 30 of open space. And most importantly, a much lower level of competition.

The club teams played each other (and the occasional top non-club team) in special leagues where the competition was much higher, along with the coaching and clubs secured fields for practicing (or they practiced in parks or schools if that was more convienent for the teams. And most importantly, a much higher level of competition.

Better rec players migrated to club teams (actually they were recruited by the club coaches). By age 9, if you were on a club team, you did not play rec. Before 9, some kids played both club and rec.

[Unregistered]

THUSCs B team Gallium made it to te semi finals of OPL, my guess they would kill a Milltown/Oak Hills team

The point is that they are better than some classic teams not that they would beat every classic team, especially for the cost.

I think there is a big need in the Beaverton area for this and will keep more players in the sport that would otherwise drop out due to lack of money and the changes that happen to rec after some leave to classic. I see it as helping everyone - a win for both players and clubs.

Am not invlolved with these teams/clubs but am happy to hear that they are trying and learning.

[Unregistered]

You better pray to GOD if you're one of the B/C teams that faces either MT or Oak Hills that they don't score a "fluke" "lucky-shot" "Ref sucked" "insert your excuse why you lost here" win over you.

Because knowing how those parents are going to react to that "just-formed" last week by a bunch of "arrogant a-holes" who charge $175 for their season team kicking their $2K+ a year full-time commitment to soccer teams ass... Will not I repeat will NOT sit well with them. They'll quickly be asking; "What are we getting for 2K that they're not for a Buck Seventy five?"

Have Fun at the tournament!

Oak Hills and Milltown are playing in bronze which is like the 4th division. It doesn't get any lower than that. Most of the big clubs have their B/C teams in either gold or silver. Those that have them lower probably put them there because it's either a new team filled with players that came from rec or they've currently added rec players to an existing team.

Every tryout and every open training session in the winter our club gets the rec kids showing up. There is always a HUGE difference in skill, tactical knowledge and fitness between the club kids and the rec kids.

[Unregistered]

Where we came from, rec soccer was run by the community (actually they outsourced it to an organization to organize it on their behalf) and the parents were the coaches and the kids played on community owned fields (which were, gasp, grass). There were also clubs, in which the parents paid for a licesened coaches to coach the kids and occassionally, those coaches played their teams in rec leagues.

For us, rec leagues meant mostly parent coaches, one, maybe two practices a week, grass fields, and practices in parks, or schools are any other place where you could find 30 by 30 of open space. And most importantly, a much lower level of competition.

The club teams played each other (and the occasional top non-club team) in special leagues where the competition was much higher, along with the coaching and clubs secured fields for practicing (or they practiced in parks or schools if that was more convienent for the teams. And most importantly, a much higher level of competition.


Better rec players migrated to club teams (actually they were recruited by the club coaches). By age 9, if you were on a club team, you did not play rec. Before 9, some kids played both club and rec.

I think here in Oregon, you would actually have "rec" and "classic" or competitive soccer as clubs run both or either one of these programs. Some clubs have parent coaches that are not paid but play competitively so it varies. Some clubs have a developmental program to start more training around 8 or 9 and classic starts at U11 (spring tryouts for about age 10).

[Unregistered]

The point is that they are better than some classic teams not that they would beat every classic team, especially for the cost.

I think there is a big need in the Beaverton area for this and will keep more players in the sport that would otherwise drop out due to lack of money and the changes that happen to rec after some leave to classic. I see it as helping everyone - a win for both players and clubs.

Am not invlolved with these teams/clubs but am happy to hear that they are trying and learning.

Agreed. I would highly doubt that these groups are trying to compete with the top clubs. They are merely filling a need. I highly doubt this would threaten the top clubs and their top teams. I suspect based on the outrage of some, these are the parents of players barely hanging on in club and they need to justify the expenses.

If you are a soccer fan/supporter, wouldnt the objective be to get as many of the kids playing at a level that works for them; whether that is skill, commitment, or costs? I see much talk of consolidation, these smaller clubs need to go away, blah, blah, blah. I am not opposed to consolidation at the top levels, provided it is not forced, but happens naturally by talent seeking talent. Otherwise it will make soccer a further elitist sport in America with nowhere to play for anyone but the most skilled or those who can pay the most.

Let the market decide what it will bear. If a club provides a crappy product, at any level, people will move on.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. I would highly doubt that these groups are trying to compete with the top clubs. They are merely filling a need. I highly doubt this would threaten the top clubs and their top teams. I suspect based on the outrage of some, these are the parents of players barely hanging on in club and they need to justify the expenses.

It's no threat to any of the clubs or teams. It will be more kids taking up fields for the 2-3 months they want to be soccer players for.

[Unregistered]

It's no threat to any of the clubs or teams. It will be more kids taking up fields for the 2-3 months they want to be soccer players for.

ok then don't do it!

Lets make sure that we don't get in the way of a selected few as they try to get good enough to get a scholarship!

Lets make sure we tie up millions of dollars worth of public property for there exclusive use.

Because the thought of letting Special Stevie or Princess Penelope not getting everything handed to them just makes me want to PUKE