Premier status question

[Unregistered]

Can an age group that had one team in premier have 2 play premier next year because of a large transfer of kids into that club? The Westside U11 boys have 2 Copa teams and a Samba team playing spring league, but only had one Copa team in the Fall. They may actually just have a Copa team play in the first division with the Samba team.

[Unregistered]

Can an age group that had one team in premier have 2 play premier next year because of a large transfer of kids into that club? The Westside U11 boys have 2 Copa teams and a Samba team playing spring league, but only had one Copa team in the Fall. They may actually just have a Copa team play in the first division with the Samba team.

Anything is possible as WST is one of the OPC 8.

[Unregistered]

Anything is possible as WST is one of the OPC 8.

LOL! I was just going to say the same thing!!

[Unregistered]

Anything is possible as WST is one of the OPC 8.

Legitimately, absent any qualifying, clubs should be held to one team playing premier. That prevents division bloat, and it provides opportunity for more diversity of clubs. Also this past season WS in particular was known for floating Samba players to Copa and vice versa. This is technically allowed, but it stretches the boundaries of sportsmanship. Give the kids something to play for.

With one premier team only, there is a desire to be on this team. Kids on lower teams will work hard to move up, and kids already on the A team will work hard to stay there.

[Unregistered]

Then what do you do with the U16G OSSA teams. They have two that play premier and both are at the top of the age group, then they have a D1 team that has proven to compete right along side either of the top teams during scrimmages.

If you were to move one of the "premier" teams to D1 it would just blow away all others, and like wise, if you were to move their D1 to D2 it would do the same and neither of these teams would continue to develop.

[Unregistered]

Legitimately, absent any qualifying, clubs should be held to one team playing premier. That prevents division bloat, and it provides opportunity for more diversity of clubs. Also this past season WS in particular was known for floating Samba players to Copa and vice versa. This is technically allowed, but it stretches the boundaries of sportsmanship. Give the kids something to play for.

With one premier team only, there is a desire to be on this team. Kids on lower teams will work hard to move up, and kids already on the A team will work hard to stay there.

"Legitimately," is bull**** justification for allowing only one team to play at the premier level. If your reasoning doesn't work as many clubs here and around the country have historical success in first and second teams playing at the premier level as well as winning state championships.

"That prevents division bloat, and it provides opportunity for more diversity of clubs."

"Diversity of clubs" is a moot point as diversity always has ebbs and flows over the years. Clubs come and go, and long-term lasting clubs are no different.

Your observance of WST "floating players between Copa and Samba" is no different than many other clubs when the number of players allows it. My daughter, now 25, "floated" between teams, as did other players, other clubs. OYSA started this trend when some clubs were short on players due to players involved in other sports and activities.

OYSA also reduced their brutal qualifying system spread out over several weekends, where the better U11 teams would qualify and had to play U12 premier and Classic 1 and Classic 2. My daughter and two sons' U11 teams played up as U12 Premier. So did some U11 Vancouver teams. After some clubs complained that they were unable to play such tough competition, OYSA caved in and created a U11 group with 8 v 8. The stronger clubs wanted the U11s to have the opportunity to play 11 v 11 and premier. This was part of the reason for the break from OYSA and the formation of the OPC.

Some clubs do well with multiple teams playing in the same level. It is extremely common for there to be fewer U11 teams play in a competitive classic Fall program. More rec teams want to play rec soccer in the Fall and then prepare for May tryouts by playing Spring League. Spring League is an option for U11 rec players ready to make the transition to classic soccer.

[Unregistered]

Then what do you do with the U16G OSSA teams. They have two that play premier and both are at the top of the age group, then they have a D1 team that has proven to compete right along side either of the top teams during scrimmages.

If you were to move one of the "premier" teams to D1 it would just blow away all others, and like wise, if you were to move their D1 to D2 it would do the same and neither of these teams would continue to develop.

A premier league should be the best 8 teams in the age and gender. Handshakes, coach opinions,and comparisons in scrimmages aren't enough in my opinion to justify a team being premier.

If you enforce one team per club than it will lead to an un-clumping of talent. If you have the 30 best players at one club, but only one team is allowed to play premier, the players from the bottom of the group will seek other clubs. This will raise the level of play of the other clubs, and raise the overall level of competition. The best league is a league of rough equals, where either team in a game has a strong chance to win, and every player plays their heart out.

[Unregistered]

OYSA also reduced their brutal qualifying system spread out over several weekends, where the better U11 teams would qualify and had to play U12 premier and Classic 1 and Classic 2. My daughter and two sons' U11 teams played up as U12 Premier. So did some U11 Vancouver teams. After some clubs complained that they were unable to play such tough competition, OYSA caved in and created a U11 group with 8 v 8. The stronger clubs wanted the U11s to have the opportunity to play 11 v 11 and premier. This was part of the reason for the break from OYSA and the formation of the OPC.

Wow, your memory of this is different from my memory. There were two weekends of qualifying, first weekend to separate the top teams from the bottom, and then second weekend to qualify teams into Gold or silver brackets. This then flip flopped where the first weekend was for teams that are trying to be premier, the second weekend was for everyone else.

USYS came down with the instruction that any U11 team should be 8V8 on a small sided field. This was targeted to implement and then delayed nearly two years for many reasons (clubs complaining, not having fields etc available,...) As a reaction to this their rolled out a hybrid structure where some teams played 11v11 and others played 8v8. This was an issue that irritated an already inflamed sore with OPC, I don't believe it was much more.

[Unregistered]

Wow, your memory of this is different from my memory. There were two weekends of qualifying, first weekend to separate the top teams from the bottom, and then second weekend to qualify teams into Gold or silver brackets. This then flip flopped where the first weekend was for teams that are trying to be premier, the second weekend was for everyone else.

USYS came down with the instruction that any U11 team should be 8V8 on a small sided field. This was targeted to implement and then delayed nearly two years for many reasons (clubs complaining, not having fields etc available,...) As a reaction to this their rolled out a hybrid structure where some teams played 11v11 and others played 8v8. This was an issue that irritated an already inflamed sore with OPC, I don't believe it was much more.

Should have stayed 8v8 or 9v9 at U11 and maybe even extend it to U12. There are a lot of good reasons for doing so, and very few good reason for not. Check out the following proposal for details.

http://www.norcalpremier.com/docs/Fi...g%20Format.pdf

[Unregistered]

Should have stayed 8v8 or 9v9 at U11 and maybe even extend it to U12. There are a lot of good reasons for doing so, and very few good reason for not. Check out the following proposal for details.

http://www.norcalpremier.com/docs/Fi...g%20Format.pdf

From a pure development standpoint you are absolutely correct. The research you linked to is great. It raises the question why OPC so resisted the idea of small sides. I believe there were several reasons

1) They were playing 11 v 11, so why should players have to go backwards.
2) When teams travel to tournaments they need to be prepared to play 11 v 11.
3) Clearly an 11 a side team means more money for the club with more participants.

None of these reasons though trumps the fact that we all as clubs say we are about player development. As cited it is clear which is more developmentally appropriate.

[Unregistered]

From a pure development standpoint you are absolutely correct. The research you linked to is great. It raises the question why OPC so resisted the idea of small sides. I believe there were several reasons

1) They were playing 11 v 11, so why should players have to go backwards.
2) When teams travel to tournaments they need to be prepared to play 11 v 11.
3) Clearly an 11 a side team means more money for the club with more participants.

None of these reasons though trumps the fact that we all as clubs say we are about player development. As cited it is clear which is more developmentally appropriate.

3) I hear this an argument for why the "greedy DOC's" did not do 8v8 or 9v9 but if they charged the same amount per player how is this much of an argument? Just keep forming teams until all the players have a group to play on. I doubt this was a reason at all.

[Unregistered]

From a pure development standpoint you are absolutely correct. The research you linked to is great. It raises the question why OPC so resisted the idea of small sides. I believe there were several reasons

1) They were playing 11 v 11, so why should players have to go backwards.
2) When teams travel to tournaments they need to be prepared to play 11 v 11.
3) Clearly an 11 a side team means more money for the club with more participants.

None of these reasons though trumps the fact that we all as clubs say we are about player development. As cited it is clear which is more developmentally appropriate.

My DD's U11 team has played both 11v11 in Oregon and 9v9 in Washington this year. The speed of play is much higher on the smaller field. No 3,4,5 touches. 1-touch, 2-touch max and move the ball to the next player. The players close down so much faster that if you dilly-dally you will not have the ball very long. Also, many more scoring attempts are created. And it also seems that all of the players are more engaged in the play. In a 3-2-3 formation, any player on the field is a max of 2 short passes away from the ball. We've actually seen the number of completed passes per game increase significantly (>40%) playing 9v9.
It's not for everyone, though. Players that need more time to think and make decisions will get that on the full field at 11v11. It's a bit counterintuitive, but it seems that 8v8/9v9 would be best for the top teams at U11/U12 and 11v11 would be best for the lower division teams.

[Unregistered]

Wow, your memory of this is different from my memory. There were two weekends of qualifying, first weekend to separate the top teams from the bottom, and then second weekend to qualify teams into Gold or silver brackets. This then flip flopped where the first weekend was for teams that are trying to be premier, the second weekend was for everyone else.

USYS came down with the instruction that any U11 team should be 8V8 on a small sided field. This was targeted to implement and then delayed nearly two years for many reasons (clubs complaining, not having fields etc available,...) As a reaction to this their rolled out a hybrid structure where some teams played 11v11 and others played 8v8. This was an issue that irritated an already inflamed sore with OPC, I don't believe it was much more.

Your memory does not go back far enough...the giveaway is when you reference gold and silver brackets. The color terms came in later years.

Originally there were two weekends to sort out the Classic 2 and 3 teams, with the rest moving on to determine Premier and Classic 1 status. If you came in in the top six of premier at the end of the season (for U11s & 12s playing U12 premier, then you had a bye for the first w/ends and only had to play in the final rounds of qualifiers PQTs). Since you had so many U11 and U12s, as well as numerous other age groups, the first two weekends had many teams in the CQTs.

USYS, later as USYSA, recommended that 8v8 be available. State associations had the choice to run 8v8 or 11v11 programs. OYSA first went with 8v8 but ok'd 11v11 for league and tournaments after pressure from competitive programs and losing clubs who started using US Club Soccer to keep the 11 v 11 option available for their tournaments. Many states within Region Iv do not run leagues, so OYSA's reign of power over the clubs began to slip away as clubs saw alternative options for their competitive programs.

[Unregistered]

USYS, later as USYSA, recommended that 8v8 be available. State associations had the choice to run 8v8 or 11v11 programs. OYSA first went with 8v8 but ok'd 11v11 for league and tournaments after pressure from competitive programs and losing clubs who started using US Club Soccer to keep the 11 v 11 option available for their tournaments.

USYS was a little bit more directive than recommending the availability of 8v8. It was handed down that by a certain date all u11 teams should play 8V8.

The issue of money is cleaner cut, Someone above suggested you would just create teams until all your players are on a team, this is a nice idea, but the marginal management etc, that goes with a team would be a huge obstacle.

Also as a parent if I go into a club and one club tells me "8v8 is the best developmental approach", but another club tells me "We have 11v11 for our truly outstanding players" I will likely be led down the primrose path to 11v11, because of course my child is truly outstanding.

The final money issue is most clubs move from a "pre-competitive/development" structure to a "competitive traveling team" structure at the same time they move from 8v8,9v9 to 11v11.
This had been at U11. It is a difficult message to deliver to a parent that they will receive the same 8V8 teams, same field sizes, but with travel mixed in, and then double or quadruple their price.

[Unregistered]

glad you were able to see the benefits of small sided play

My DD's U11 team has played both 11v11 in Oregon and 9v9 in Washington this year. The speed of play is much higher on the smaller field. No 3,4,5 touches. 1-touch, 2-touch max and move the ball to the next player. The players close down so much faster that if you dilly-dally you will not have the ball very long. Also, many more scoring attempts are created. And it also seems that all of the players are more engaged in the play. In a 3-2-3 formation, any player on the field is a max of 2 short passes away from the ball. We've actually seen the number of completed passes per game increase significantly (>40%) playing 9v9.
It's not for everyone, though. Players that need more time to think and make decisions will get that on the full field at 11v11. It's a bit counterintuitive, but it seems that 8v8/9v9 would be best for the top teams at U11/U12 and 11v11 would be best for the lower division teams.

I'm a coach at one of the OPL teams, (well the teams are pretty much all opl now, aren't they) and I was all for the small sided development path. Glad it works, at least in your eyes, like it was supposed to.

"Don't give up, don't ever give up" Jimmy V