surf&donuts
BRONZE
So is Tier 2 considered a less competitive club? If so, why Pats over Strikers?
This is a good approach. Galaxy academy does something similar with their older groups with an on-site high school. Train in the morning, then off to school. Local kids go home in the afternoon/evening, out-of-area kids to their host families.Fair enough. In lieu of a full time residency, what about what a number of the other clubs do? For example, FCD trains at 7:30am, club brings them to school (public school), and then picks them up and brings them back to the stadium for film, treatment, etc. the kids get to have a normal childhood with school and still get a full slate of football.
Local kids can live at home, and out of town kids live with host families. I like that mode better than living at the facility full time. I just think it develops more rounded kids.
Pats are a much bigger organization (about 200 teams) vs. Strikers (around 20 teams). Also Pats play in the competitive, stronger LA Division teams / MLS teams vs. Strikers playing against much weaker San Diego clubs such as Arsenal, Nomads, OC Surf, etc....So is Tier 2 considered a less competitive club? If so, why Pats over Strikers?
Also Pats are a fully funded AcademySo is Tier 2 considered a less competitive club? If so, why Pats over Strikers?
My guess is that USSDA figures it doesn't really matter because the coaches and players will all migrate over to whichever clubs are named the T1 DAs. The only reason for any non-MLS DAs in T1 is to provide some geographic linkage to reduce travel costs. They expect the best players will end up moving to the MLS DAs anyway.Also Pats are a fully funded Academy
I am guessing the split is fully-funded vs not. FCGS is fully-funded. Pats is fully-funded. Surf is heading that way (at least I know that at U15 it is something like 70% of the players are funded). I have heard for several years from coaches at both Strikers and Albion that the DA really wants clubs to be fully-funded from U15 and up. Maybe this is a step towards encouraging that. In San Diego it is definitely going to help Surf and hurt Albion (and LAGSD at the younger ages).Also Pats are a fully funded Academy
I am guessing the split is fully-funded vs not. FCGS is fully-funded. Pats is fully-funded. Surf is heading that way (at least I know that at U15 it is something like 70% of the players are funded). I have heard for several years from coaches at both Strikers and Albion that the DA really wants clubs to be fully-funded from U15 and up. Maybe this is a step towards encouraging that. In San Diego it is definitely going to help Surf and hurt Albion (and LAGSD at the younger ages).
I can't imagine what this is going to do to Crossfire. The costs of all of travel is going to be insane.
Politics at play with the convoluted attempt to create tiers to appease the MLS clubs which have discuss leaving if things didn't change...
While say Pats over Strikers in tier 1 is a very curious choice since they seems to cover the same area, practice & play at some of the same locations: CM & Irvine. Both clubs subside the club fees but to say full funding like Galaxy would be a strech. Travel costs for non da scholarshiped players can add up.
Where does Galaxy SD stand in this? They are MLS but do they carry the same weight? Does the LA Galaxy treat them close to equally?
If they ever get granted U17/U18 status on boys, would they be put in tier 1 since it isn't a performance based criteria?
Where does Galaxy SD stand in this? They are MLS but do they carry the same weight? Does the LA Galaxy treat them close to equally?
If they ever get granted U17/U18 status on boys, would they be put in tier 1 since it isn't a performance based criteria?
Is Galaxy SD fully funded like LA Galaxy? Didn't think they were
LAGSD is in the last division of tier 2 in the DA cup and I doubt they will have ever see tier 1 as a affiliate or get u18/19. Same with the surf affiliates.
Instead of regulating teams no matter their performance, DA has decided to keep these full members clubs in year after year but this time in a lower tier. The big question is are there ways to move up/down based on performance from year to year or are these "casted" in stone going forward?
Is Galaxy SD fully funded like LA Galaxy? Didn't think they were
That's exactly what DA is intended to do. Find the best players by the end of U19, not the best teams or the best clubs. That's why the number of DA teams decline as the age groups rise. Players on DA teams in clubs that don't have the next age group are expected to either drop out or move to other DA clubs and displace less able players on that team. It's all part of the winnowing out process. Clubs are theoretically supposed to be just vehicles for passing the kids along. After all, there's no process for getting a club promoted into DA based on team success either.I’m guessing the way to “move up” is going to be on a player by player basis. And they’ll have to move teams.
Not yet anyway.And no training compensation for “promoting” a kid to a higher level.