US Soccer Splits Boys DA U18/U19 clubs into two tiers

[jpeter]

It would be great if US Soccer would allow non-tier 1 players to play high school...unfortunately its leadership is too arrogant to do so.

That's the rub with DA, the real value of the program has to be with the training since players spend much more time training 4x a week vs actual playing then just about anything else.

For the olders there are 6-7 cup games, 16-18 regular season games, 3 or 6 showcase plus playoffs so around 30-33 odd games over 10 months. Most da teams don't play many if any tournments especially with the combined age groups so overall the training ratio to games play is very high compared to anything else considering the high roster counts and sub rules finding enough playing time can be a challenge.

 

[LAOC]

Think you're right, just checked their site. Wow thought they were fully funded by LA Galaxy but seems like they just use the name like an OC Surf.

Hopefully they will bring teams up based on success. If/when TFA ever gets to that age, doesn't make sense for them to be T2 assuming they keep pace.

Also assuming this trickles down to the younger age DA teams it will begin to make even less sense.

 

[LAOC]

Another ridiculous move by US Soccer. Everything they touch turns into absolute crap.

This is death blow to a club like Strikers. They compete with Pats as one of the only two academies in OC and by placing Pats as tier 1 and Strikers as tier 2 they have managed to royally F*%k Strikers. My son is a U12 and wanted to tryout next year for Strikers pre academy team because all their club teams are better then Pats but there is no point in getting him into the Strikers system now.

Academy used to Start at U-13 but that changed within the last 12 months as well. With all the recent changes I feel like the current crop of '08s & '09s are mixed signals from everywhere.

 

[foreveryoung]

That's the rub with DA, the real value of the program has to be with the training since players spend much more time training 4x a week vs actual playing then just about anything else.

For the olders there are 6-7 cup games, 16-18 regular season games, 3 or 6 showcase plus playoffs so around 30-33 odd games over 10 months. Most da teams don't play many if any tournments especially with the combined age groups so overall the training ratio to games play is very high compared to anything else considering the high roster counts and sub rules finding enough playing time can be a challenge.

Right, so then you say is it worth it? Why not play in a league with relaxed sub rules, the flexibility to play outside of DA, less travel for league games, etc. etc. Training can still be 4 days a week.

 

[LAOC]

Right, so then you say is it worth it? Why not play in a league with relaxed sub rules, the flexibility to play outside of DA, less travel for league games, etc. etc. Training can still be 4 days a week.

I was saying it isn't worth going to the Strikers, I might as well take him to Pats. I don't see any point in going to a tier 2 academy in this new system, at least not from the start. Maybe it makes sense if your kid isn't getting playing time but for me the logical step is to "start" with a tier 1 academy.

Every situation is different with kids and family but for him/us we realize the DA is where the top talent goes. We just moved to OC from LA and he is only 11 but it seems this will start to make its way down to the younger ages as well.

 

[jpeter]

Right, so then you say is it worth it? Why not play in a league with relaxed sub rules, the flexibility to play outside of DA, less travel for league games, etc. etc.

Depends on the player, club, coaching staff.

If you value academics more than youth soccer I would say DA is questionable for many players. Spending 2 hrs a night 4x a week + travel time is a big commitment and trying to juggle that plus achieving
high academic is tough and not for everyone. The highly motivated and organized player can make it worth it but there some sacrifices to be made.

U18/19 is basically the last year of HS (u18) for most players and u19 is college time so it's a mixed bag especially in the spring with all the senior activities.

 

[foreveryoung]

I was saying it isn't worth going to the Strikers, I might as well take him to Pats. I don't see any point in going to a tier 2 academy in this new system, at least not from the start. Maybe it makes sense if your kid isn't getting playing time but for me the logical step is to "start" with a tier 1 academy.

Every situation is different with kids and family but for him/us we realize the DA is where the top talent goes. We just moved to OC from LA and he is only 11 but it seems this will start to make its way down to the younger ages as well.

Yes, exactly my point. There is no real value in a tier 2 DA league. If I was the DOC of a tier 2 club I wouldn't be too happy right now.

 

[jpeter]

Yes, exactly my point. There is no real value in a tier 2 DA league. If I was the DOC of a tier 2 club I wouldn't be too happy right now.

Besides LA Galaxy, FC Golden St, Pateadores, SD Surf, and LAFC all other Socal clubs are tier 2 now basically and will remain so unless there are changes next year.

Already tricked down to U15, U16/17 in the DA cup (first 5-7 games). Even in tier 2 there are lower & higher divisions internally. Strikers for example is in 2nd tier but 2nd or 3rd division within that just like LA Galaxy SD is and they play lesser competition as a result at least for u15+ this season

 

[Kante]

Here’s a link to a very solid article from SoccerAmerica if anyone is interested.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/83165/boys-development-academy-shakeup-us-soccer-move.html

In the article, it says that the following criteria was used by USSDA to create the new groupings:

1. Performance history. US Soccer was quoted as saying “we’re not looking at a single year (instead) using data across age groups and across years”
2. Player production (presumably for YNT)
3. Markets
4. Ability of a club to provide “meaningful games”. Last year, US Soccer was quoted as defining “meaningful games” as games with a three or smaller goal differential i.e. 3-0, 4-1 etc.

The article also says that US Soccer will re-evaluate the tiers and structure and may move teams in 2020-21 but US Soccer has not provided specific criteria (other than the general notes above) for how teams will be evaluated.

So, looked at the u18/u19 clubs and their performance history since the 2015-16 season and looking at team results from the u15 thru the u19 age groups. Two key items stand out from looking at the data:

1. Generally, looking at all the performance history that’s available from u15 up, the groups seem to be highly performance-based, particularly looking at performance in aggregate across age groups and seasons.
2. However, exceptions seem to have been made in three fo the four groups. Based on aggregate performance, the following clubs deserve to be in Tier 1:

East: Cedars – Bergen and Met Oval
Frontier/Southeast: Kendall and Weston
West: Barca, Crossfire Premier and Strikers​

And the following clubs likely deserve to be in Tier 2 (Will be interesting to see how meaningful the games are next year with these clubs. Suspect that a number of folks will be paying close attention to results):

East: Baltimore Armour and New England Revolution
Frontier/Southeast: Saint Louis FC and Solar Soccer Club
West: De Anza Force, Portland Timbers and San Diego Surf​

Here’s the data table looking at USSDA new groupings. Per USSDA, teams are sorted in each group by alpha.



And here's a data table for reference grouped and sorted by best to worst club aggregate performance instead of the USSDA grouping. Teams in each group are sorted by best to worst aggregate club performance:

 

[jpeter]

Here’s a link to a very solid article from SoccerAmerica if anyone is interested.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/83165/boys-development-academy-shakeup-us-soccer-move.html

In the article, it says that the following criteria was used by USSDA to create the new groupings:

1. Performance history. US Soccer was quoted as saying “we’re not looking at a single year (instead) using data across age groups and across years”
2. Player production (presumably for YNT)
3. Markets
4. Ability of a club to provide “meaningful games”. Last year, US Soccer was quoted as defining “meaningful games” as games with a three or smaller goal differential i.e. 3-0, 4-1 etc.

The article also says that US Soccer will re-evaluate the tiers and structure and may move teams in 2020-21 but US Soccer has not provided specific criteria (other than the general notes above) for how teams will be evaluated.

So, looked at the u18/u19 clubs and their performance history since the 2015-16 season and looking at team results from the u15 thru the u19 age groups. Two key items stand out from looking at the data:

1. Generally, looking at all the performance history that’s available from u15 up, the groups seem to be highly performance-based, particularly looking at performance in aggregate across age groups and seasons.
2. However, exceptions seem to have been made in three fo the four groups. Based on aggregate performance, the following clubs deserve to be in Tier 1:

East: Cedars – Bergen and Met Oval
Frontier/Southeast: Kendall and Weston
West: Barca, Crossfire Premier and Strikers​

And the following clubs likely deserve to be in Tier 2 (Will be interesting to see how meaningful the games are next year with these clubs. Suspect that a number of folks will be paying close attention to results):

East: Baltimore Armour and New England Revolution
Frontier/Southeast: Saint Louis FC and Solar Soccer Club
West: De Anza Force, Portland Timbers and San Diego Surf​

Here’s the data table looking at USSDA new groupings. Per USSDA, teams are sorted in each group by alpha.

View attachment 5150

And here's a data table for reference grouped and sorted by best to worst club aggregate performance instead of the USSDA grouping. Teams in each group are sorted by best to worst aggregate club performance:

View attachment 5151

Good stuff

What they don't mention in the article is the criteria doesn't / didn't matter if your a MLS club or if your club doesn't support Girls DA also. In the case of Crossfire and Strikers that hurt them IMO as the "markets" criteria does, covering the same area as other clubs do. Need some teams to fill in to make the games more geographically desirable for example.

 

[Kante]

Good stuff

What they don't mention in the article is the criteria doesn't / didn't matter if your a MLS club or if your club doesn't support Girls DA also. In the case of Crossfire and Strikers that hurt them IMO as the "markets" criteria does, covering the same area as other clubs do. Need some teams to fill in to make the games more geographically desirable for example.

got it. Was fully funded/not fully funded a criteria as well or not so much?

 

[jpeter]

got it. Was fully funded/not fully funded a criteria as well or not so much?

More in terms of investment overall, too few really fully fund everything and the term is used loosely somewhat. However
when a club says they investment $4 million in DA programing that does get noticed as do championships ala Solar both Boys & Girls this past season.

The YNT call up factor is a curious one, as few clubs are included and some of the ones who do/did half the time played for other clubs before moving to a MLS one for example so who gets the credit for that? Player Production is a funny term, top ten in stats or something, not sure?

 

[LAOC]

got it. Was fully funded/not fully funded a criteria as well or not so much?

I read the article and didn't see funding listed as criteria but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered.

On a side note, I saw Strikers announce something about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_United_Strikers_FC a while back and thought it was curious. Looking back I wonder if they new they were going to be demoted and are proactively trying to make a case for tier 1 after the 2020 season when the article says these tiers will be reviewed?

I wonder if Tier 2 teams will just start exploring different options? https://www.soccerwire.com/news/next-step-in-creation-of-usl-academy-league-announced/

 

[Kante]

More in terms of investment overall, too few really fully fund everything and the term is used loosely somewhat. However
when a club says they investment $4 million in DA programing that does get noticed as do championships ala Solar both Boys & Girls this past season.

The YNT call up factor is a curious one, as few clubs are included and some of the ones who do/did half the time played for other clubs before moving to a MLS one for example so who gets the credit for that?

Agreed. eg, VV, playing w/ u15 ynt now, came originally from strikers before moving to LAG.

looks like USSDA mostly decisions based on historical performance so the question is what drove the exceptions.

The MLS teams that should be in Tier 2 is straightforward (i.e. they're MLS, so automatically in Tier 1 to start) but curious about what the common factors re: xf, cedars-bergen, met oval, weston, kendall, barca and the strikers would be that would put them into Tier 2 despite their solid historical performance?

 

[foreveryoung]

Here’s a link to a very solid article from SoccerAmerica if anyone is interested.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/83165/boys-development-academy-shakeup-us-soccer-move.html

In the article, it says that the following criteria was used by USSDA to create the new groupings:

1. Performance history. US Soccer was quoted as saying “we’re not looking at a single year (instead) using data across age groups and across years”
2. Player production (presumably for YNT)
3. Markets
4. Ability of a club to provide “meaningful games”. Last year, US Soccer was quoted as defining “meaningful games” as games with a three or smaller goal differential i.e. 3-0, 4-1 etc.

The article also says that US Soccer will re-evaluate the tiers and structure and may move teams in 2020-21 but US Soccer has not provided specific criteria (other than the general notes above) for how teams will be evaluated.

So, looked at the u18/u19 clubs and their performance history since the 2015-16 season and looking at team results from the u15 thru the u19 age groups. Two key items stand out from looking at the data:

1. Generally, looking at all the performance history that’s available from u15 up, the groups seem to be highly performance-based, particularly looking at performance in aggregate across age groups and seasons.
2. However, exceptions seem to have been made in three fo the four groups. Based on aggregate performance, the following clubs deserve to be in Tier 1:

East: Cedars – Bergen and Met Oval
Frontier/Southeast: Kendall and Weston
West: Barca, Crossfire Premier and Strikers​

And the following clubs likely deserve to be in Tier 2 (Will be interesting to see how meaningful the games are next year with these clubs. Suspect that a number of folks will be paying close attention to results):

East: Baltimore Armour and New England Revolution
Frontier/Southeast: Saint Louis FC and Solar Soccer Club
West: De Anza Force, Portland Timbers and San Diego Surf​

Here’s the data table looking at USSDA new groupings. Per USSDA, teams are sorted in each group by alpha.

View attachment 5150

And here's a data table for reference grouped and sorted by best to worst club aggregate performance instead of the USSDA grouping. Teams in each group are sorted by best to worst aggregate club performance:

View attachment 5151

I read the article and the comments left by readers. There were many and all were highly critical of the changes (particularly of the non-mls club selections for tier 1) and US Soccer not surprisingly. Anyone heard feedback or commentary from coaches or DOC's at any of the tier 2 clubs?

 

[foreveryoung]

Good stuff

What they don't mention in the article is the criteria doesn't / didn't matter if your a MLS club or if your club doesn't support Girls DA also. In the case of Crossfire and Strikers that hurt them IMO as the "markets" criteria does, covering the same area as other clubs do. Need some teams to fill in to make the games more geographically desirable for example.

In the reader comments someone suggested that Crossfire's solidarity claim for DeAndre Yedlin played a part in their tier placement.

 

[Dargle]

Interesting timing on this bit of news. Jared Miklos, the Director of USSDA, is departing

https://twitter.com/MikeWoitalla/status/1158880530378526720

 

[Eagle33]

I read the article and the comments left by readers. There were many and all were highly critical of the changes (particularly of the non-mls club selections for tier 1) and US Soccer not surprisingly. Anyone heard feedback or commentary from coaches or DOC's at any of the tier 2 clubs?

I heard something from Ebert. He said "this...beep....soccer...beep...and....beep....federation...beep....and...beep.

 

[espola]

DA on the boys side has been around long enough now that it is clear that it is not meeting its stated objective. Any same system of management would insist that something be done. Under the previous system (picking a National Team from ODP and college players) we never won a World Cup. Under the DA system, we can't qualify for a World Cup.

 

[timbuck]

Bring back Bradenton!!!!
https://www.soccertoday.com/u-s-soccer-development-academy-closes-bradenton/