Boys 05

[Unregistered]

1) If it's a collab, the location could rotate. If not, then put a team at some reasonable spacing from Beaverton and call it a day.

2) The program isn't for b-teamers. 12 is late to be thinning the herd, and 30+ kids in OR is already stretching the definition of "thinning" when it comes to kids with elite potential. I think part of what drives the thinking of so many little DA parents/defenders is the idea that their kid is a diamond in the rough. This notion is actually perpetuated by the preference for big kids taking important roles on current DA rosters: parents figure, "once my kid gets that big." Guess what: those kids who are big now will someday be bad and average sized, and your average player will be big and of average ability. If coaches are doing their job, they're taking the best soccer players regardless of age, size, etc. No one suddenly becomes an elite player at 15 after not having elite potential at 12. Keep in mind that identifying that potential is the realm of experts, not parents.

3) They're getting glorified competitive/rec NOW. And if you return their coaches to OYSA, along with the vast majority of the rosters, what you're getting is pretty great competitive soccer. Furthermore, if the OYSA matches are being properly scouted (they should be, if there's competition for players happening at the DA level) then the kid who does get missed should be plucked quickly.

4) You "thin the herd" because players can improve faster when they're in a high level training environment with other kids who are high level. That's not controversial, and to label it "ego tripping" to imagine that these teams all have 3-4 players per capable of playing at a more sophisticated level than the rest of the roster is pretty narrow thinking. And remember: there's no reason that the training environment happening today at little DA clubs couldn't be 99% maintained as OYSA clubs. In fact, a few kids would probably grow faster from assuming larger roles on these sides.

It even starts to sound like progress.

A lot of your reasoning sounds just and logical. What concerns me is your obvious bias against "little DA" as you referred to it. And by default, your support of TA. Again, to be clear...they are the same. DA. Can we all agree on this? I fully support that Oregon soccer is conflated and that there is no clear, agreed upon method for identifying and developing those players who have the potential to be elite. TA is clearly not a vid choice, as their credibility is shot (to the previous poster who tried to justify TA and their relationship with Billups all I can say is child please.) and their reputation with youth soccer is forever tarnished. I wish Nike would step up and create something.

But again, DA is DA. Whether you wear a Timbers ODP jersey, or a BSC jersey. The same. I don't want to hear about saying Washington DA teams, because you are getting killed against every good team. You would do the same here against Washington FC and Crossfire...You would win and lose. This problem continues until there is only one team. Of course nobody trusts that the process will not be corrupted as that is usually the case with youth sports.

[Unregistered]

1) If it's a collab, the location could rotate. If not, then put a team at some reasonable spacing from Beaverton and call it a day.

Fair enough.

2) The program isn't for b-teamers. 12 is late to be thinning the herd, and 30+ kids in OR is already stretching the definition of "thinning" when it comes to kids with elite potential.

Am I addressing a parent or a coach?

I hear that a lot--that if your kiddo isn't pegged as "elite" by the time he leaves elementary school, it's too late. But a lot of the sports science says otherwise, and there are plenty of counter-examples. (See, for instance, http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35054310).

Even if coaches control for PHYSICAL maturity and age relative to January 1 (or August 1 under the old system)--and some clubs around here do a good job of that (other DA clubs are full of kids who are big and fast but not very technically sound), a lot do a poor job of controlling for other developmental variables. A lot of kids who are in elementary school have a hard time putting up with some of the more old-school coaches and their demands, and may be cut (or quit) because of that--but then grow up later. As mentioned above, many kids have family circumstances that may limit their participation.

Unless elite coaching resources are so starved that there is a need to identify the top talent at age 11, why are we thinning the herd at this age, when many of the professionals suggest we don't do that?

I think part of what drives the thinking of so many little DA parents/defenders is the idea that their kid is a diamond in the rough. This notion is actually perpetuated by the preference for big kids taking important roles on current DA rosters: parents figure, "once my kid gets that big." Guess what: those kids who are big now will someday be bad and average sized, and your average player will be big and of average ability. If coaches are doing their job, they're taking the best soccer players regardless of age, size, etc. No one suddenly becomes an elite player at 15 after not having elite potential at 12. Keep in mind that identifying that potential is the realm of experts, not parents.

I'm sure there are lots of parents who are so deluded, just as there are plenty of parents who think their miniature Messi or pint-sized Pirlo will continue to dominate after puberty. Puberty is the great leveller; and while I've seen too many kids who are big and fast as youngsters and then falter when their peers catch up to them physically; I also have seen many kids who were very good at ten become non-factors at 13 or 14 (after having gone through puberty) because they are simply too small and/or slow, no matter how elite their footwork is. Guys like Cruyff and Messi who can dominate despite not being athletically impressive, are actually rather rare--most top-level soccer players are first-rate athletes as well as first-rate talents.

3) They're getting glorified competitive/rec NOW. And if you return their coaches to OYSA, along with the vast majority of the rosters, what you're getting is pretty great competitive soccer. Furthermore, if the OYSA matches are being properly scouted (they should be, if there's competition for players happening at the DA level) then the kid who does get missed should be plucked quickly.

Is the TA providing "elite" training? What sort of training is elite? Does it refer to the quality of the coaching staff? The use of advanced tools (biometrics, filmed sessions and video analysis/review, detailed recordkeeping, a weight room in the clubhouse) rather than just a coach and a clipboard? Does it refer to the quality of one's teammates? Or the quality of one's competition?

4) You "thin the herd" because players can improve faster when they're in a high level training environment with other kids who are high level. That's not controversial, and to label it "ego tripping" to imagine that these teams all have 3-4 players per capable of playing at a more sophisticated level than the rest of the roster is pretty narrow thinking. And remember: there's no reason that the training environment happening today at little DA clubs couldn't be 99% maintained as OYSA clubs. In fact, a few kids would probably grow faster from assuming larger roles on these sides.

The problem with such herd-thinning--what if you guess wrong? Again, the assumption driving this discussion is that we can rule out 99.9% of competitive soccer players TODAY, in the U13 age group (or before), and focus on the other 0.1%. If you want to be brutally honest about it, there's probably no more than one or two 05 kids in the area that will ever play for money or country, and probably less then a dozen for whom it's even a remote possibility (and no, my DS is nowhere near that short list). Even if these few prospects were on a roster together, they'd be training with a lot of kids who are essentially filler.

And yet the top European clubs--even if they may recognize a Messi or an Iniesta at the tender age or 11 or so--still continue to keep fully-staffed academy teams, and a very wide funnel, well into the U23 age group; the truly hard cuts don't come to them as only a handful make the senior team or are sold somewhere else.

The Timbers, have the opposite problem--they maintain one team above U14, and at U18, cut most of them and import a lot of players from outside the region. There's a reason that FC dominated the U17 boys tournament last spring--they had a team full of the Timbers' castoffs; not quite good enough to make the pros, but more than able to handle the local club competition.

[Unregistered]

Let's set the record straight on a few things here. Timbers actually supported DA and asked DOC's to do it in an effort to create a league they could compete in. Unfortunately, the rest of the DA teams are not strong enough and TA had to go to WA. One may be strong enough to compete (WA Timbers), but that is not enough.

Billups did not buy the academy. Academy programs are not for sale and are funded by the MLS franchise. Billups does not pay for anything at TA. He has some political pull and good relationships, but he is not funding it as you assume. He brought in the coach long before TA was even on his radar. The coach is not licensed because of timing, not because he is unqualified. His required licensing is only offered a couple times a year.

TA has more than 25% of the best players, but certainly not all of them deserve to be there. If people would have followed the model it would have worked and all the best players would be there. The intent by TA was good, but apparently 6-7 of the top players said no. That forces them to go with the left overs. It's too bad for the state because we are behind. We could make a difference if all the best players were playing together. Maybe one team could finally compete on a broader scale.

I do have a son in DA and not on TA. He is on one of the top teams.

Someone pointed out that TA doesn't have the chemistry to beat other DA teams. I agree they lack chemistry, but here are a few individual players that can make up for that against all of these DA teams. WA Timbers may be the only one to give them a challenge, but they still get beat.

Stop it- the TA system as a whole and especially the 05 team is full of ethical and monetary kick backs so kids can make the roster. Also Washington Timbers 05 DA is not the only team that would compete. I agree there needs to be change, but I have absolutely no faith in TA based on their track record. And quit fooling yourself, Billups absolutely has a financial investment in this team, you just can't figure out where it comes in because as others have pointed out peregrine is a private for profit company and does not have to disclose revenue numbers and sources....

[Unregistered]

Fair enough.



Am I addressing a parent or a coach?

I hear that a lot--that if your kiddo isn't pegged as "elite" by the time he leaves elementary school, it's too late. But a lot of the sports science says otherwise, and there are plenty of counter-examples. (See, for instance, http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35054310).

Even if coaches control for PHYSICAL maturity and age relative to January 1 (or August 1 under the old system)--and some clubs around here do a good job of that (other DA clubs are full of kids who are big and fast but not very technically sound), a lot do a poor job of controlling for other developmental variables. A lot of kids who are in elementary school have a hard time putting up with some of the more old-school coaches and their demands, and may be cut (or quit) because of that--but then grow up later. As mentioned above, many kids have family circumstances that may limit their participation.

Unless elite coaching resources are so starved that there is a need to identify the top talent at age 11, why are we thinning the herd at this age, when many of the professionals suggest we don't do that?



I'm sure there are lots of parents who are so deluded, just as there are plenty of parents who think their miniature Messi or pint-sized Pirlo will continue to dominate after puberty. Puberty is the great leveller; and while I've seen too many kids who are big and fast as youngsters and then falter when their peers catch up to them physically; I also have seen many kids who were very good at ten become non-factors at 13 or 14 (after having gone through puberty) because they are simply too small and/or slow, no matter how elite their footwork is. Guys like Cruyff and Messi who can dominate despite not being athletically impressive, are actually rather rare--most top-level soccer players are first-rate athletes as well as first-rate talents.



Is the TA providing "elite" training? What sort of training is elite? Does it refer to the quality of the coaching staff? The use of advanced tools (biometrics, filmed sessions and video analysis/review, detailed recordkeeping, a weight room in the clubhouse) rather than just a coach and a clipboard? Does it refer to the quality of one's teammates? Or the quality of one's competition?



The problem with such herd-thinning--what if you guess wrong? Again, the assumption driving this discussion is that we can rule out 99.9% of competitive soccer players TODAY, in the U13 age group (or before), and focus on the other 0.1%. If you want to be brutally honest about it, there's probably no more than one or two 05 kids in the area that will ever play for money or country, and probably less then a dozen for whom it's even a remote possibility (and no, my DS is nowhere near that short list). Even if these few prospects were on a roster together, they'd be training with a lot of kids who are essentially filler.

And yet the top European clubs--even if they may recognize a Messi or an Iniesta at the tender age or 11 or so--still continue to keep fully-staffed academy teams, and a very wide funnel, well into the U23 age group; the truly hard cuts don't come to them as only a handful make the senior team or are sold somewhere else.

The Timbers, have the opposite problem--they maintain one team above U14, and at U18, cut most of them and import a lot of players from outside the region. There's a reason that FC dominated the U17 boys tournament last spring--they had a team full of the Timbers' castoffs; not quite good enough to make the pros, but more than able to handle the local club competition.

By the way Messi is a world class athlete who is off the charts when it comes to quickness and change of direction metrics. Because he is so superior in these movements in quick bursts he makes up for his lack of size.

[Unregistered]

Let's set the record straight on a few things here. Timbers actually supported DA and asked DOC's to do it in an effort to create a league they could compete in. Unfortunately, the rest of the DA teams are not strong enough and TA had to go to WA. One may be strong enough to compete (WA Timbers), but that is not enough.

What did they think would happen when the TA is subsidized, and the little DAs are not? Of course TA will (in theory) get the pick of the players, and ought to be able to dominate.

In practice, it may not have turned out that way. The TA is dominated by kids from west side clubs (Westside, FC, and ADF) in large part because that's where they train; in contrast there are fewer kids from either the east side or across the Columbia.

If the Timbers wanted to participate in a local league with parity, they would have structured it differently. I never heard the suggestion that this was the desire--instead what it seems was wanted was what we got: a nominal (subsidized) A team that travels a lot, and a collection of B teams that stick to local competition. Except the gap between the A team and the top half of the B teams isn't very big.

[Unregistered]

All of this talk makes me feel unclean

Seriously, the last couple pages on here makes me feel the need to take a shower and wash away the grime of all of your pathetic attitudes. That is not to say that I haven't read some thoughtful, well reasoned opinions/ideas, but all of the "My DA is better than your DA" nah nah nah. Quit acting like petulant children, and get over yourself. Yes, Oregon is a pay to play State. The entire United States is as a matter of fact. Yes, Oregon does not fare well nationally compared to other States. Yes, Oregon has 2 DA systems. Yes, TA has corruption and incredibly bombastic, blow hard parents. Yes, Oregon DA has too many clubs. Yes, Oregon youth soccer is a mess.

I don't know the reason why things are this way. I assume it has to do with $. It always does. I am not sure how to fix the problem...But I also don't know to fix or fly an airplane....yet, I know when one is working fine. Oregon soccer may not be working fine, but I know it can be fixed.

This weekend, instead of obsessing over how many minutes your Son plays. Or how many minutes some other kid is playing, who you think doesn't deserve to play. Instead of worrying about things beyond your control (which is all of this. You do not step on the field, you have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the game) step back and just enjoy the game. Focus on the joy of seeing your son do something he loves. Focus on the joy that you will see on the faces of the team your son is playing. Imagine what things were like when you were that age. Did you even play soccer? (I am guessing the answer is no for 75% or more of us) Focus on the little things. Find the joy in these boys who are on the threshold of puberty and will never be this age or this way again. Quit sprinting to the finish, and just slow down and enjoy this for what it is.

Let's all bring some positivity, goodwill and gratitude to the games this weekend. Let's enjoy soccer for the first time in a long time.

[Unregistered]

Predictions.

As someone noted earlier, I misread the schedule--there are local DA games this weekend.

DA:

* CFC 2, FC 2. Both teams are harder to predict, having rosters that change quite a bit (due to players playing for the 04 team). Both teams have good results last weekend (CFC in a loss).
* Crossfire 6, Eastside 1. Last time it was 10-0, since than Eastside has improved.
* WashT 5, BSC 2. Washington Timbers continue their undefeated streak.

OYSA:

Minor note before predictions: The WashT/Salmon Creek was FCSC 6, ***C 1; so no corrections to the poll are in order.

* ADF 7, Red2 0. Assuming that whatever happened last weekend to ADF was a fluke.
* ETFC 3, RVT 2. Last time it was a 0-0 tie; but both teams are too offensively talented for that to happen twice.
* 4H 4 HSC 2. More technical 4H team outplays the bigger and stronger Hillsboro team.
* Cuervos 7, Copa 0. Don't worry, Copa--you finally get games against Navy and Red2 in November.
* ADF 3, ETFC 2. See above.
* Bend 2, RVT 1. Rogue Valley has a nasty weekend coming up.
* FCSC 5, Navy 2. FC teams hate playing on grass, and the nastiest, slowest swamp in youth soccer this side of Poowerlines is Felidia Park.

[Unregistered]

Man, it's quiet in here today. All the obnoxious blowhards must be in California.

[Unregistered]

Man, it's quiet in here today. All the obnoxious blowhards must be in California.

What is going on in California?

[Unregistered]

Man, it's quiet in here today. All the obnoxious blowhards must be in California.

California is next weekend mouth breather.

[Unregistered]

Man, it's quiet in here today. All the obnoxious blowhards must be in California.

More likely they are getting ready to head up to Seattle area...nice try though DA trip is next weekend dbag

[Unregistered]

FCP 2, Capital 1.
Well played game by both sides. Very physical, but very fun to watch. Was tied 1-1 for about 50min.

[Unregistered]

Adf 9 ***c 1
etfc 3 rvt 2
hfc 4 4h 1

[Unregistered]

Xfire 7- eastside 0

[Unregistered]

DA: WashT 4, BSC 0

No TA score yet