Boys 05

[Unregistered]

It would make sense for them to have one region-wide A team (possibly getting later practice slots to avoid the worst of PDX traffic), whether DA or OYSA, and multiple B and possibly C teams at various locations.

That would be nice

[Unregistered]

It would make sense for them to have one region-wide A team (possibly getting later practice slots to avoid the worst of PDX traffic), whether DA or OYSA, and multiple B and possibly C teams at various locations.

Will this really happen?

[Unregistered]

Will this really happen?

Sounds like NEU was the winner in this. I also have to think FC, THUSC and Westside will also benefit from kids coming over.

[Unregistered]

Sounds like NEU was the winner in this. I also have to think FC, THUSC and Westside will also benefit from kids coming over.

Is it better to go from more clubs to bigger, combined clubs?

[Unregistered]

Is it better to go from more clubs to bigger, combined clubs?

Contraction would be best for all. I have seen many players (ALL teams) on the pitch during DA games that really do not belong on that stage. if we are truly trying to develop players we first have to have the integrity to be honest with parents and not let money cloud judgement. Every year there should be movement on rosters at the highest levels- creating urgency to continue to work by the incumbents and motivation for those relegated to "b" teams to continue to work hard to improve. Genetics will also play a huge factor at this age as well in the next year or so. I would be ok with only 2 true DA options that all the clubs look to promote their kids to.

[Unregistered]

Contraction would be best for all. I have seen many players (ALL teams) on the pitch during DA games that really do not belong on that stage. if we are truly trying to develop players we first have to have the integrity to be honest with parents and not let money cloud judgement. Every year there should be movement on rosters at the highest levels- creating urgency to continue to work by the incumbents and motivation for those relegated to "b" teams to continue to work hard to improve. Genetics will also play a huge factor at this age as well in the next year or so. I would be ok with only 2 true DA options that all the clubs look to promote their kids to.

Seconded.

[Unregistered]

Contraction would be best for all. I have seen many players (ALL teams) on the pitch during DA games that really do not belong on that stage. if we are truly trying to develop players we first have to have the integrity to be honest with parents and not let money cloud judgement. Every year there should be movement on rosters at the highest levels- creating urgency to continue to work by the incumbents and motivation for those relegated to "b" teams to continue to work hard to improve. Genetics will also play a huge factor at this age as well in the next year or so. I would be ok with only 2 true DA options that all the clubs look to promote their kids to.

But if Oregon only takes deserving players, how are they going to field a team with 6 players?

[Unregistered]

Contraction would be best for all. I have seen many players (ALL teams) on the pitch during DA games that really do not belong on that stage. if we are truly trying to develop players we first have to have the integrity to be honest with parents and not let money cloud judgement. Every year there should be movement on rosters at the highest levels- creating urgency to continue to work by the incumbents and motivation for those relegated to "b" teams to continue to work hard to improve. Genetics will also play a huge factor at this age as well in the next year or so. I would be ok with only 2 true DA options that all the clubs look to promote their kids to.

This would be excellent!
Who will make this happen?

[Unregistered]

But if Oregon only takes deserving players, how are they going to field a team with 6 players?

There's truth in this, but I think we can agree that you could form 2 teams of kids at the young ages who could at least train together at a level high enough to meet the needs of those 6.

[Unregistered]

You've obviously never met a BSC parent. Convenience is key.

BSC was started by parents who wanted to keep things more localized instead of driving all over for training; plus wanting their kids to participate in other sports. That was about fifteen years ago. Likely that mindset holds true for some while the majority are interested in whatever is necessary to have kids compete.

[Unregistered]

Contraction would be best for all. I have seen many players (ALL teams) on the pitch during DA games that really do not belong on that stage. if we are truly trying to develop players we first have to have the integrity to be honest with parents and not let money cloud judgement. Every year there should be movement on rosters at the highest levels- creating urgency to continue to work by the incumbents and motivation for those relegated to "b" teams to continue to work hard to improve. Genetics will also play a huge factor at this age as well in the next year or so. I would be ok with only 2 true DA options that all the clubs look to promote their kids to.

I know some folks here hate the P word, but tough. :)

The higher up the pyramid you go--the larger, in general, the catchment area should be.

The neighborhood middle school my DS attends has a 7th grade class of about 300 students. I'll use this as a rough estimate and pretend it's "typical". This is all just for argument's sake, obviously.

Out of a student population of 300, I would expect 10%, or about 30, to play organized soccer at any level. 90% of those will play rec--so a typical middle school can probably support about 2 rec teams per age group (11v11). At younger ages with smaller teams and higher participation, many more; at older ages with less participation, perhaps only one or less.

I'd expect about 1%, or about 3 kids, to play non-elite classic soccer. The number will be higher in an area in which soccer is highly popular. Thus, classic clubs should be formed on larger than neighborhood scale.

I'd expect about 0.1%, or 0.3 kids, to play "premier" soccer--highly competitive teams that may travel to games, compete for State Cup or equivalent competitions, etc. There are probably too many of these in Oregon.

And I'd expect about 0.01%, or 0.03 kids, to be "elite"--the sort of player that a professional academy would take notice of and be eager to subsidize their training.

And of those 0.01%, only 10% or 0.001% would ever receive a pro contract; only 3% or 0.003% would ever play significant minutes for a first team in a top-ten pro league--MLS counts, barely; only 0.3% or 0.0003% would be stars, only 0.03% would merit the label "world class", and only 0.003% would reach superstardom--the level of a Suarez or a Bale, let alone a Neymar or Messi.

Your plucky little seventh grader, in other words, has about a 3-in-a-billion chance to have people buying his name on a jersey one day. If he's already on a DA team, congratulations! The odds are now three in a million. Given that the world population is about 7.6 billion, and there are about two dozen T-shirts I'd consider buying (assuming I wasn't a supporter of the team in question and buying the jersey for the team logo), the math is close to correct.

But back to youth soccer--at this age, we can only organize around the first four levels of this pyramid--rec, "select", "classic", "elite". Assuming we have 100,000 seventh graders in the greater Portland area (a complete guess), that means we have roughly 10,000 rec-level players, 1,000 classic players at any level, 100 "premier" players, and about 10 elite players. TA has an official roster of 18, plus a fair number of reserves reportedly. There are about 100 players in the six little DAs in town (excluding CFC as Salem isn't part of the metro area). Don't know the overall size of the remaining classic and rec clubs.

But as you go up the levels--the coverage area needs to keep getting bigger. Your average middle school can support a rec club or two. It takes an average high school or two to have enough kids for a decent classic team. The region is only big enough for a handful of "premier" teams, and only a single pro-track academy.

Now, there are several flies in this ointment: 1) Are the correct kids identified? 2) Are the correct coaches in place so that elite kids are receiving the best training? 3) The actual disbursement of soccer talent (certain communities are "soccer" communities, others are not) is not uniform. Even assuming a process that is not corrupt, there will be kids who are at the "wrong" level. Gross errors like rec players on the Timbers Academy won't occur, of course (even he you think doesn't belong on the TA team, "Draco Malfoy" is a competent premier-level player), but there are probably quite a few players on the local DAs who have a legitimate beef about not being picked. And so on down the line.

Given that rec soccer is a distinct product from competitive soccer, and that operation of subsidized academy teams is the province of wealthy pro teams (or other wealthy sports interests, such as Nike, should they get more involved)--the various classic clubs will be necessarily focused on the "competitive" and "premier" levels. And if one assumes a 10:1 ratio, that means for every "premier" team there ought to be about ten "non-premier" teams. Which means that not every club should be operating a premier team.

In practice, we have that: In the 05 age group, there are many clubs (Aloha United, David Douglas, PCU, Thelo, NEU) who AREN'T COMPETING in either DA or OYSA Premier. (OYSA Premier itself is too big, though Premier Green in spring isn't outrageous--none of the White teams probably have any business playing for State Cup, other than as a training exercise). Some of them (NEU) have relationships with DA clubs (FC this year, BSC next year). Crossfire is a joint venture of several Clackamas County clubs to pool players for premier play. Westside has one B team based in Beaverton, one based in the Tualatin/Sherwood area.

But many local classic clubs have no established relations with the various premier clubs, and some of them may resent them for "stealing" players. (Especially if the lower club receives nothing in return). And some of the "premier" teams prefer only to promote from their own B teams (though OYSA regulations may be a big part of this), often touting "the chance" to move up as a reason to play for e.g. Eastside rather than NEU, even if the latter club is closer.

Ideally, in a city this size, "premier" players would have at least two clubs to choose from within a reasonable driving distance.

[Unregistered]

What two clubs??

[Unregistered]

There's truth in this, but I think we can agree that you could form 2 teams of kids at the young ages who could at least train together at a level high enough to meet the needs of those 6.

If you think the "top 6" have been uniquely and accurately identified at age 12, you're high.

There are certainly a handful of twelve-year-olds that are better than any of their peers. But whether this will still be true at 18 is another matter altogether.

This is why narrowing the funnel at this age is folly, no matter how much you might think one kid is better than his peers.

[Unregistered]

If you think the "top 6" have been uniquely and accurately identified at age 12, you're high.

There are certainly a handful of twelve-year-olds that are better than any of their peers. But whether this will still be true at 18 is another matter altogether.

This is why narrowing the funnel at this age is folly, no matter how much you might think one kid is better than his peers.

You don't have to identify the top 6. You just have to hope you caught the top 6 in the top 36. Pair it with good incentives around scouting the level directly below over time, and you'd have to say that the chances of missing someone are minuscule.

Anyone arguing for a wide funnel in Oregon is, as you say, "high". Narrowing the top tiers by definition improves the mean of the middle tier, and we should all be for that.

[Unregistered]

If you think the "top 6" have been uniquely and accurately identified at age 12, you're high.

There are certainly a handful of twelve-year-olds that are better than any of their peers. But whether this will still be true at 18 is another matter altogether.

This is why narrowing the funnel at this age is folly, no matter how much you might think one kid is better than his peers.

Agree with the OP spouting all the logical numbers/percent but it is also folly to think clubs, or even US Soccer would exclude non-worthy teams or players from Academy, folly to think clubs would demote all the non-premier players to classic in a pay to play system. It’s all about the money. Parents don’t want to pay for club soccer unless it’s premier. Clubs want as many paying bodies as they can get. Leagues want as many paying teams as they can get. End up with a watered down mess but end up with much more money going into youth soccer coffers.