Announcement

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

US Soccer announced a handful of initiatives yesterday.

http://www.socceramerica.com/article...?edition=13048

Notably the MLS is requiring that even the small Market MLS Cities:Orlando City, Portland, Kansas City and Salt Lake City have US Development Academy teams starting at Under 12, beginning next year.

Salt Lake (RSL) was ahead of the curve amongst the small market clubs and has it's US Development Academy based in Casa Grande Arizona not Salt Lake. Due to the shallow pool of player talent in Salt Lake.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/articl...rket-mls-teams

What do you think will happen to Oregon's all ready fractured state of youth Socccer due this requirement?

There's the potential for both good and bad with this. I don't think oregon is ready for it, but standardizing some parts of YS could help.
No comment on the organization in Oregon that's involved.

**Slow Xavi** · 12-09-2014, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

US Soccer announced a handful of initiatives yesterday.

http://www.socceramerica.com/article...?edition=13048

Notably the MLS is requiring that even the small Market MLS Cities:Orlando City, Portland, Kansas City and Salt Lake City have US Development Academy teams starting at Under 12, beginning next year.

Salt Lake (RSL) was ahead of the curve amongst the small market clubs and has it's US Development Academy based in Casa Grande Arizona not Salt Lake. Due to the shallow pool of player talent in Salt Lake.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/articl...rket-mls-teams

What do you think will happen to Oregon's all ready fractured state of youth Socccer due this requirement?

Finer points/questions:

US Development Academy is going to u12, but didn't see in the article a mandate for MLS teams to do so - was it in that article or another? Certainly been hearing for some time that the Timbers would go down to u12 eventually as soon as next year.

Don't know if this plays out the same way on the girls' side; no mention in the article about ECNL or alternative girls' structure.

Separately, heard whispers of MLS wanted to break-off and have their on youth development leagues - not sure if that has any traction or not.

In terms of impact on youth soccer, if those academies are free from u12 and up it is a good thing for Oregon soccer. However, don't know about the depth of the impact though if it is only for 18 male players per year (or every other year).

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 12:32 PM

Until academies run lots of kids through focusing on identifying and then developing kids who could turn out to be talented players instead of treating the academies as glorified all star teams dominated by players with pushy parents and coaches it's not going far. Timbers are going to have to accept that they will have to spend money and won't be able to fund the required programs by "taxing" the rest of youth soccer to pay for it. Plus, it's not working. Look at the number of homegrown players on the Timbers roster. It's basically zero. Evans is a technical exception, not an actual home grown player.

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

US Soccer announced a handful of initiatives yesterday.

http://www.socceramerica.com/article...?edition=13048

Notably the MLS is requiring that even the small Market MLS Cities:Orlando City, Portland, Kansas City and Salt Lake City have US Development Academy teams starting at Under 12, beginning next year.

Salt Lake (RSL) was ahead of the curve amongst the small market clubs and has it's US Development Academy based in Casa Grande Arizona not Salt Lake. Due to the shallow pool of player talent in Salt Lake.

http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/articl...rket-mls-teams

What do you think will happen to Oregon's all ready fractured state of youth Socccer due this requirement?

As long as GW is involved it will be divisive. His history in Oregon youth soccer is not one of inclusion and harmonious development with other clubs or even coaches inside his own club.

Just think what this means for the Alliance? They will now be losing their best players all the way down to U12 and for what? Who wins? The players? How?

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 01:58 PM

MP does not want to be bothered with funding U12 boys age group. U14 team was put off as long as they could, same will occur with U12.

The article posted earlier with new US Soccer initiatives is geared more towards boys side. JK doesn't care how females are developed in this country, not his job. Will US Soccer come forward with a similar model for female players?

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

MP does not want to be bothered with funding U12 boys age group. U14 team was put off as long as they could, same will occur with U12.

The article posted earlier with new US Soccer initiatives is geared more towards boys side. JK doesn't care how females are developed in this country, not his job. Will US Soccer come forward with a similar model for female players?

Already have. It's called ECNL

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 02:20 PM

Elite club league is just a league team enroll in. I think the model it more like the Academy where the clubs are developing a curriculum and supporting development.

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Elite club league is just a league team enroll in. I think the model it more like the Academy where the clubs are developing a curriculum and supporting development.

ECNL is more than a league. It's really the girls academy system. Read the website for all the details.

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Elite club league is just a league team enroll in. I think the model it more like the Academy where the clubs are developing a curriculum and supporting development.

The Thorns Academy is the best fit in the area for this model.

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

The Thorns Academy is the best fit in the area for this model.

That might be. But no league is a real problem. This most recent development with the Timbers being required to subsidize boys soccer from U12 on up will probably snuff the Thorns Academy out. Looks like a one and done. I'm not trying to be a jerk. It just seems like a project with good intentions, that will never get off the ground.

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 03:22 PM

Please Explain

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

The Thorns Academy is the best fit in the area for this model.

Please explain why the Thorns Academy model is a best fit? Is that because it's more affordable? Because it certainly is not because that is where you are going to play the best competition at the ages. Of course if they added Surf to the schedule the price would have to go up $800 which would still be more affordable than ECNL.

Now if they add better showcases like Surf to the schedule maaaaaybe you could say you are getting "bang" for your buck but as currently scheduled you are going to get at best 2 quality league games, 2 quality games at Vegas and 2-3 quality games at regionals for a grand total of 6-7 quality games. Add Surf and you would add 3 more quality games for a grand total of 10 for the entire season ehhh haaww!

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

That might be. But no league is a real problem. This most recent development with the Timbers being required to subsidize boys soccer from U12 on up will probably snuff the Thorns Academy out. Looks like a one and done. I'm not trying to be a jerk. It just seems like a project with good intentions, that will never get off the ground.

Or it will force Timbers to raise registration prices...

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Please explain why the Thorns Academy model is a best fit? Is that because it's more affordable? Because it certainly is not because that is where you are going to play the best competition at the ages. Of course if they added Surf to the schedule the price would have to go up $800 which would still be more affordable than ECNL.

Now if they add better showcases like Surf to the schedule maaaaaybe you could say you are getting "bang" for your buck but as currently scheduled you are going to get at best 2 quality league games, 2 quality games at Vegas and 2-3 quality games at regionals for a grand total of 6-7 quality games. Add Surf and you would add 3 more quality games for a grand total of 10 for the entire season ehhh haaww!

Wouldn't they have to be accepted to Surf in the first place?

**Unregistered** · 12-09-2014, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Wouldn't they have to be accepted to Surf in the first place?

Yes. But they won't apply. Not if costs are going to be 'capped'.

Local teams enter FWRL now and do well now. Why pay more to put together an 'all-star' team and enter that same league? Doing so seems counter intuitive.