West LA merger?

That's basically good news for most of the paying customers at these clubs, in my opinion. I'm sure that a merger would have created a couple of very strong teams in a couple of age groups on the girls' side at least. That would be a boost for a small handful (4-5) really top level players, and for a couple of coaches. Beyond that, I don't really know how mergers like this would benefit any other players or their families. I've been through the same thing with a big club on the other side of LA, and believe me, the feeling of just being a "number" to the club is increased when these things happen. The co-dependence between status-hungry helicopter parents and the overly ambitious mega-clubs they inevitably spawn, to me, is the scourge of youth soccer. The more club directors that resist the urge to become the monster, the better (at least for the consumer).


That is my personal opinion as well. I really do think what happened is for the best, especially for SMU. They have over 40 years of history, helping to build the brand over the years, it just seemed like such a waste to throw that all away for just a few teams. The reality is, some will always leave, the one's that stick it out will also benefit from an environment where they can keep learning and growing not only as player's but, young adults.

Look, I totally respect what you guys are saying here. I think there's a lot to be said for a more community-oriented feeling than you get at a superclub (I imagine, haven't actually been at one). I valued that a lot at SMU. But...
- If you're on a B team at any of these local clubs, you probably currently have that feeling of being just a number. The bottom players are morale-sapping roster fodder, and the top players are all angling for a move to an A team, the coach is mailing it in, and the club administration's priority is keeping the coach and top players happy. Once in a while it works out fine, but that's the exception, and when it does it's probably because you have a fantastic TA.
- That positive, community feeling that SMU has doesn't just happen by accident, it's the product of a lot of hard work from the administrators and board. There are a lot of amazing, intelligent, generous people at that club (and presumably at the other two as well). A merged club should build on that work, as I believe they would, because it's what the local market wants out of the club soccer experience. I don't think you have to give that up.
- bottom line, I think the westside soccer environment is changing. There are more people that want more than two 1.5 hour practices a week. People want technical training, they want possession soccer, they want intelligent play. The old days of fitness and athleticism being good enough for American soccer are ending. Knowledge of soccer is improving, and they want to see their local club keeping up with that.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic about what can be achieved, but what I currently see is a recipe for mediocrity. At the end of the day, it's far too easy to age through these westside clubs, have some good times and life experiences, but not really learn very much about soccer. The good news is at least SMU is reforming, there's a lot of good things happening at the younger level under the new management, and they'll be rolling it out at older level as kids age through. They're moving to more of an academy system of instruction. So, in the absence of a merger, I hope that at least succeeds and pushes the other clubs a bit.
 
Good post, John.
Look, I totally respect what you guys are saying here.
And I respect your very thoughtful post outlining the positives of a merger. There's a lot to consider, and it isn't black and white. And I agree with much of what you're saying, such as:
- Long term strategic thinking:
- College recruiting.

Fend off the even bigger clubs.
- Field space.
**although you would think it would be great at a mega club, they end up with so many teams that even though they secure big spaces, those big spaces are jammed with too many squads at practice time.


However, I have seen one of these mega clubs in operation up close and personal, (you admitted you haven't) and let me tell you that unequivocally you are being pie-in-the-sky when it comes to some of the other points. The quality of coaching does NOT improve with bigger clubs. The "professional" management at bigger clubs are the same amateur yokels who ran small clubs of yesterday (I actually LOL'd at "professional management"). Fundraising...yes, let me tell you, they raise the hell out of some funds, and none of it comes back to the families in the form of scholarships or financial aid. ZERO. Curriculum is actually much LESS consistent at big clubs. With 100's of teams, the DoC's are stretched far too thin to ensure that everyone is playing a specific style. The only clubs consistent with style from top to bottom are small ones in my experience. And lastly, big clubs are an absolute factory for mediocrity. Your observation about the talent gap between the best player on a small club team and the worst player is right. And yes, if you go to Galaxy's top team, or Surf, or Arsenal, or Slammers, the gap isn't quite as huge, but behind that team are 5-10 full teams of mediocrity. The resentment that B-team families feel at small clubs is amplified 100x at a big club, where they are continually sold a pathway to the top team (aka "development") and yet studiously neglected at tryout time. The ills that you observe in small clubs are not cured by expansion. They are only magnified to horrific, grotesque degrees.

Your post outlined very thoroughly the motivations and benefits behind these clubs in considering the merger, and I agree that they sound very promising. I just happen to think that in reality, most of those benefits turn out to be a mirage.
 
Those are all good points, MT. I can definitely see all the pitfalls you describe. Depressing, innit? Are there any clubs out there that can provide a model for how to do things right?

I guess I'm counting on the people who run the three clubs to do their due diligence in setting the thing up so that it doesn't become a fetid domain of a single club president or DOC. I see the westside market requiring a certain level of professionalism and integrity in a club. Parents here have the skills and desire to advocate for their kids, and/or participate in running the club (as you know, SMU jettisoned their long time TD, and FCLA did the same to Walker). A local superclub would have to figure out a way to service that clientele, as well as harness it. There are a lot of serious people who are involved at SMU, attorneys and what-not, (and I assume at FCLA and Breakers too) who should be able to set up a system of checks and balances. Obviously, having a slush fund of scholarship money for the DOC to use as he sees fit is a recipe for disaster, so a system would need to be properly built in from the start. Fundraising would have to go to a specific goal, like a turf field.

From both the SMU and FCLA coaches I've talked to, there's a real sense that the two clubs are bloated. I think there's a desire among the coaches to pare things down and provide better training. No one on the west side wants to deal with field space for a club of four plus teams per gender age group. I do think a merged club would have fewer teams than the sum of the current clubs' stable, though maybe the temptation to grow would be irresistible.

When I wrote that about "professional management" I did kind of wonder who they could find to hire. I was actually thinking more that it'd be good to pay for part time administrative help like a treasurer and field coordinator to ensure a certain level of competency and standards. A single highly-paid manager is a very dangerous thing, everything becomes dependent on that one person, who builds a cult of personality.

I don't know what happened to the merger. Maybe there were too many compromises required, and the new club would end up just like every other superclub. In which case, you're right that we're better off that it blew up.
 
John,
I think I get what you're saying, and what you are visualizing isn't a mega club like Slammers like I thought, but more like a talent dense but mid-size club like SoCal Blues (not sure what the boys side equivalent is). That's an interesting thought. I don't know Blues' structure and understand the Bakers run it as their own kingdom so maybe they aren't the exact model you're looking for, but I like the idea of a club specifically designed to serve a particular geographic customer base. Sounds like you should negotiate the merger and run it! ;)
 
JAB it sounds as though you come from the boys side. My experience has been on the girls side and let me tell you the old days of the monopoly on the girls side really sucked for the kids. Now you have three different decent options as a parent to find the right fit for your daughter. I know families at all three clubs who are very happy in their situations.

With respect to college recruiting most of the families I see are sending their daughters to small academically selective collges primarily on the east coast. They have to have high grades and high SAT/ACT scores. ECNL and DA involve more travel and more training time but to what end??? Three hours per week and an addition session every once in a while is enough. Weekend travel out of state will only make it more difficult to sustain high grades and to have enough time to get high scores. More training and travel increases the "true costs" of soccer without increasing the payoff/benefits for kids who are using soccer to gain admission into a selective college.

SMU G98's are the Proof statements of my point about the demographics of the customer base: The kids received offers from Harvard, Hopkins, Swarthmore, Hartwick, Bates, Emory, Whittier, Bowdoin, Pomona-Pitzer, U of Chicago, Tufts, Hamilton, Williams, Cal Lutheran, Chapman, Lewis and Clark and many other colleges. This list compares favorably to any mega club except for kids who want to play D1 at a large university. The Harvard and Hopkins kids were not recruited for soccer and are out of soccer but nobody feels sorry for them lol.

John I think you are very wise and make great points but I think maybe the boys side is not working as well as the girls side is today.

Lastly, choice is critically important. Choice makes the clubs better since they have to compete and play nice. The old days of coach being a dictator because he has the only club in the area are thankfully over! Today if a girl is stuck on a B team at SMU she can go to Breakers. If a girl is stuck on a B team at Breakers she can go to SMU. That was not always the case. With one Megaa club the families would be in the darker ages and at the mercy of having to stick with a coach/team that was not a good fit or who was not being fair to the player. That would suck eggs bigtime.

The mega merger would benefit the few brilliant and ambitious coaches and Type A families who desire national recognition for soccer!!!! The rest of the community interests would be subourne to this overarching megalomaniacal goal of soccer supremacy, fame and fortune....

I would rather sprint through the flames of hell in gasoline soaked underwear than go backwards to the old monopoly days...
 
The mega merger would benefit the few brilliant and ambitious coaches and Type A families who desire national recognition for soccer!!!! The rest of the community interests would be subourne to this overarching megalomaniacal goal of soccer supremacy, fame and fortune....
well, that's me put in my place I guess.

but, yeah, boys side. Furthermore, he's still only a u12, so I haven't gone through the whole progression, though I have tried to inform myself. Don't really know that much about Breakers.

Good points, SO, particularly about the monopoly.

Some rebuttal:
- I take your point that choice is good, and probably prevents the clubs from sliding into outright suckitude. However, it's not like it spurs them to excellence, either. The three clubs are all pretty much at the same level, and anyone really wanting a more intensive experience needs to commute.
- My understanding is that back in those old days, Breakers were far more successful, so at least there was the possibility of playing on a top team locally. Presumably, this was because they had the talent consolidated. Either way though, the soccer landscape has shifted massively since then, especially for girls.
- Finally, the DA is possibly a solution to the monopoly problem. The USSF does require a certain level of service that I think keeps DA clubs decent, particularly the recent clubs that had to apply. (Some of the legacy DA clubs that got invited in are admittedly coasting a bit.) Essentially the USSF provides another pressure point on the club.

About DA:
- I think you could pretty easily find 12 westside girls in every age group that want to play at that level, and 8 more that would be willing to drive in from out of area. (afternoon west on the 10 and south through the sepulveda pass are actually reverse commutes). Remember, as it is, plenty of girls commute out of the westside to play high-level soccer, and, I argue, more will be willing to do so in the future. (For example, at TFA alone there are 3 westside boys at 06, 3 at 07, and already 2 08s.)
- Just because the club has a DA team doesn't force you to play on it. The second team will be very strong too, and, if things are done properly, the other teams will have a strong coattail effect from the DA program.
- having said that, I do see your point and I've talked to a lot of westside parents who share your opinion. I totally recognize that academics are big on the westside, and a lot of kids at these clubs go to private schools and want to play high school soccer.

College:
- let's be honest, those girls didn't get into those schools because the club did a much better job teaching soccer than its competitors. They got in because that's what happens in westside zip codes. I'll wager that both those girls' non-soccer playing friends and the girls on the less successful B team all got into similar schools.
- I'll confess that I don't know the history of the G98 team. But let's take the vaunted SMU G01 team: Looking at YSR, they're at 23 in socal (179 nationally), while Breakers is at 56 (394 nationally). This tells me SMU has won that age group, and they're not even competing for the same players anymore (though I do know an local G01 baller, and she won't go near either one of those teams.) As I said, every few years things break right and all the local talent ends up at one club. Most of the time the talent ends up diluted. If you're not in one of those lucky age groups, but play soccer at a high level, right now you're commuting if you want to get seen by recruiters. With a consolidated club, almost every age group would have an A team playing at a level like G98.
 
JAB as usual you make some excellent points however here is my retort for the moment ...

College Recruiting:
The truly successful coaches train their players up to a level that is appealing to the best D3 soccer programs. I know personally several girls who had the academic chops to get admitted to schools like williams and who went to the camps but were not chosen by the college coach. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore etc coaches did not make offers to many girls in west side soccer teams. I give certain SMU coaches credit for developing their players over time to where their players got multiple offers from these top D3 college coaches. There are also SMU coaches who did not develop their players and where their players did not get chosen from other less well coached SMU teams. The coach make all the difference in the world over time. Please --it is not a given to get recruited into the top D3 colleges soccer programs. The development of soccer skills and soccer IQ matters...even if the academic credential are there the soccer has to be there also.

SMU G01 had at least one player being recruited by Harvard and several others being recruited by top D3 schools. What would DA add to their opportunities other than more travel and training time away from school ???

Monopoly is anathema to Excellence :

The biggest beneficiary of a west side soccer monopoly will be the handful of mediocre coaches at all three clubs. The elite coaches at all three would benefit also but not to the degree that the mediocre ones would. In the last 3 seasons How many coaches have been culled at SMU, Breakers and LAFC ??? A monopoly will only entrench the mediocre coaches; a consolidated pool of players will help crappy coaches look better in terms of wins and losses.

How to Make the Clubs Teach Better Soccer across more teams:

Hire train and develop better coaches! If the clubs want better soccer then they should train and develop better coaches. A merger consolidating the player pool can help on the surface but not at a deeper level of it's all the same coaches all consolidated together.

This is my other $0.02.
 
I have to disagree with you guys about maintaining the status quo. I get what you're saying, and I used to fully believe in the nice, neighborhoody, continuity vibe, but I believe the arguments for a westside merger far outweigh the arguments against.

(Full disclosure, I'm a former SMU parent, now at TFA, and I pay a lot of attention to west side soccer.)

Here's what I see a consolidated westside club would do:
- Consolidate talent. Most westside A teams are lucky to have half of a decent team, and merging would bring all the talent together. Development is more likely to happen the narrower the gap in talent between the top and bottom players. Makes it much easier for the coach to teach. Everyone is happier.
- Recruiting. Right now there are decent players languishing at Chelsea, FC England, Autobahn Athletic FC, etc. This would make one clear destination for those players to end up. Also, some of those local ballers that left in middle school to try their luck in DA eventually decide against DA, and having a top team in the neighborhood would be an obvious destination. I know lots of high school age kids who finish out their years commuting to successful distant teams.
- Maintaining talent. There are TONS of kids who commute out of the west side. SMU B06 alone have 8 players now at Galaxy, TFA, or LAFC. On the girls side, it tends to be even more, as the demographics of girls soccer skews toward affluent suburban areas. It's going to get even worse, in the 7 years that I've been paying attention I've seen younger and younger kids getting very serious about soccer.
- Roster slimming: There's probably 10% of the players on the three clubs that are roster fodder that could be serviced by (what would now be) the lower level clubs. Take a typical boys age group: There's four teams between the two clubs. A consolidated club could cut the roster bloat and have three decent teams. These kids are generally getting ripped off as it is, and would have a better experience at a different club.
- Coaching. Both SMU and FCLA has a lot of questionable coaches running around that were hired by previous DOCs. They're pretty much all overpaid, as the management of the two clubs believed their own hype about how amazing their coaches are, and competed with each other to retain "top talent". A merger will be a great opportunity to trim the excess coaches, and give opportunities to the handful of coaches who actually know what they're doing (and there are some good ones in the lot).
- Curriculum. By having a bigger club, you can actually have a meaningful curriculum and developmental progression. Coaches will be slotted into their strengths. Some of these guys like teaching younger kids ball skills, some of them like getting high school kids recruited. Run the thing as a real academy, with coaches interchanging at practice, learning from each other. Age groups practicing as a unit, olders vs youngers, etc.
- Fend off the even bigger clubs. You can rail about the growth of clubs all you want, but it's the reality of the situation now. The worry is that by resisting becoming a super club, you make yourself vulnerable to take over by mega club. I'm thinking of RSC, Galaxy, LAFC, Legends or someone could come knocking with sweet-talk about a "path to DA", and all it takes is convincing some clueless well-meaning volunteer club president and the next thing you know, you're a total feeder club. I know Surf was sniffing around SMU a few years ago, so this isn't as far-fetched as you might think. By scaling up, you have a better chance to maintain local control.
- Economy of scale. Goalkeeping coach, equipment, skill clinic, futsal nights, college recruiting resources. All of that become cheaper on a per player basis and therefore achievable.
- College recruiting. By becoming bigger, you can get known to college coaches. As it is now, each of those clubs produces a top team maybe once every four years. It's a massive struggle for the team administrator to get noticed by college coaches. A big club would have consistently strong teams and players.
- Apply for DA status. I think the boy's side is saturated, but a girl's DA on the westside makes a lot of sense. Or ECNL. The boys side could ride the coattails, enjoying the benefit of having better coaches and higher standards.
- Professional management. Can pay for administrators, a treasurer, and a field wrangler.
- Funding players. Right now, at least on the boys side, both SMU and FCLA have a big problem funding scholarship players. Many average boys A teams make a faustian bargin: fund a few outside players at unsustainable levels, ride the success for a year or two, and then either crash, use the success to recruit better local players, or find some well-heeled family to fund those kids. It happens at many age groups. It falls on individual parents and TAs to tape the thing together. You bring in some duffers to fill out the roster and hit the coaches salary, we all know the tricks. I've been one of those TAs, so I know what I'm talking about. It sucks to have to tell a family there's no money for your kid this year. It creates horrible team dynamics, as the wealthy parents feel smug, the middle parents resent the loss of playing time, and the funded families feel everyone's resentment. I don't even want to get into the racial elements to this, but we all know it's there. People always figure a westside team should have plenty of money, and it's true you see a lot of kids hopping out of luxury cars. But there are plenty of kids who need scholarship help on the westside. The trouble is that NONE of those clubs have any coherent plan for how to address it. It just falls to team manager and coach to make it work, and it sucks. By consolidating, you could build a plan for this into the charter. Make it part of the club's DNA. Get away from team specific budgets (nice, clean, simple idea, but its time is up) and run the thing as an academy.
- Field space. Obviously, this is a big issue. It'd be more complicated for sure. BUT: a bigger club would have more muscle and could make life hard for the little guys. Also, it could make more efficient use of space. It would also have way more lobbying power. Gain control of the university high field. And what ever happened to that proposed field next to Samohi?
- Shirt sponsorship. Surely with all the media power hitters on the westside, a big club could sell that jersey space?
- Fundraising. A really successful, high-powered, locally-controlled club that does things right would get people excited to open their wallets. Right now, people are afraid to, because they never know if they'll be jumping ship to the other neighborhood club in a year or two. Similarly...
- Cultural capital. Scratch the surface of any westside team, and you'll find parents who are powerful people in LA. Make a club worth believing in, and you can get their help in opening doors and making things happen...
- Long term strategic thinking: At SMU, we talked about raising a few million bucks to turf a field if we ever had a partnership with a park or school. That'd be easier with a big club. The idea would be: the school or park would have the field weekdays from 8am to 5pm, the club would use it from 5-9:30, and could have three 1.5 hour practice sessions. The club would pay for the turf and maintenance. LAUSD is insane to work with, but a big club might be able to make things happen, or could work with other school districts like Culver City. With fields, you can get into the real money makers, which is tournament hosting.

All good points and all were taken into consideration with the proposed merger, what everyone fails to realize is, trying to get everyone on the same page takes time, there has to be a level of trust and stuff does come up at the last minute that may have some questioning motives or not fully understanding the "why" certain things have to happen to protect everyone involved. I still think it could still happen, just not this year, I do believe almost everyone is on the same page although, now it's going to be a new group that will have to be educated in March and that takes time too.
 
JAB as usual you make some excellent points however here is my retort for the moment ...

College Recruiting:
The truly successful coaches train their players up to a level that is appealing to the best D3 soccer programs. I know personally several girls who had the academic chops to get admitted to schools like williams and who went to the camps but were not chosen by the college coach. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore etc coaches did not make offers to many girls in west side soccer teams. I give certain SMU coaches credit for developing their players over time to where their players got multiple offers from these top D3 college coaches. There are also SMU coaches who did not develop their players and where their players did not get chosen from other less well coached SMU teams. The coach make all the difference in the world over time. Please --it is not a given to get recruited into the top D3 colleges soccer programs. The development of soccer skills and soccer IQ matters...even if the academic credential are there the soccer has to be there also.

SMU G01 had at least one player being recruited by Harvard and several others being recruited by top D3 schools. What would DA add to their opportunities other than more travel and training time away from school ???

Monopoly is anathema to Excellence :

The biggest beneficiary of a west side soccer monopoly will be the handful of mediocre coaches at all three clubs. The elite coaches at all three would benefit also but not to the degree that the mediocre ones would. In the last 3 seasons How many coaches have been culled at SMU, Breakers and LAFC ??? A monopoly will only entrench the mediocre coaches; a consolidated pool of players will help crappy coaches look better in terms of wins and losses.

How to Make the Clubs Teach Better Soccer across more teams:

Hire train and develop better coaches! If the clubs want better soccer then they should train and develop better coaches. A merger consolidating the player pool can help on the surface but not at a deeper level of it's all the same coaches all consolidated together.

This is my other $0.02.

Another very good point, if you're lucky enough to have your DD with the best coaches over their club years U12-U19, they will benefit, even if they have no interest in playing college soccer, they learn the game the correct way, enjoy it more and benefit from offers when the time comes if they are interested.
 
please explain

One of the many many westside kids who started off at one of those three clubs, and then left to find better training, more skilled and ambitious teammates, and a more intense environment. Look, it's easy to diss these kids and families as overly ambitious trophy/scholarship hunters, but there are a lot of us who are serious about soccer and aren't being served by the local clubs. I just think that soccer on the westside has outgrown the glorified rec soccer that's available now. I've talked to a lot of westside coaches who agree, btw.
 
All good points and all were taken into consideration with the proposed merger, what everyone fails to realize is, trying to get everyone on the same page takes time, there has to be a level of trust and stuff does come up at the last minute that may have some questioning motives or not fully understanding the "why" certain things have to happen to protect everyone involved. I still think it could still happen, just not this year, I do believe almost everyone is on the same page although, now it's going to be a new group that will have to be educated in March and that takes time too.

Anyone ever come across the linguistic/psychological idea that the brain reveals hidden thoughts through unconscious word or language choices?

Just something about a post about the difficulty forming trust in these negotiations that repeatedly uses the phrase "on the same page" made me think of that. definitely some subliminal messaging there, amirite?

Joking aside, Overlap, I totally agree. If the clubs can't agree to a merger that's going to produce the amazing club that the westside deserves, then it's far better to can it.
 
One of the many many westside kids who started off at one of those three clubs, and then left to find better training, more skilled and ambitious teammates, and a more intense environment. Look, it's easy to diss these kids and families as overly ambitious trophy/scholarship hunters, but there are a lot of us who are serious about soccer and aren't being served by the local clubs. I just think that soccer on the westside has outgrown the glorified rec soccer that's available now. I've talked to a lot of westside coaches who agree, btw.

You're describing a situation I know pretty well, only in this case, the kid came back only to realize the coaching, training, seriousness, opportunities, and team performance were all better locally. Not saying that's everyone experience, but it is 100% true in this case.
 
You're describing a situation I know pretty well, only in this case, the kid came back only to realize the coaching, training, seriousness, opportunities, and team performance were all better locally. Not saying that's everyone experience, but it is 100% true in this case.

A lot leave in middle school years when the homework load isn't too high and they want to test themselves in the higher levels. By high school, they might decide it's not worth it for a variety of reasons. More would come back if there were consistently higher level teams on the west side. Sure, a SMU G01 will get you seen by D3 college coaches, but teams playing at that level on the westside are few and far between. A consolidated club should have teams at that level at every age group.
 
How to Make the Clubs Teach Better Soccer across more teams:

Hire train and develop better coaches! If the clubs want better soccer then they should train and develop better coaches. A merger consolidating the player pool can help on the surface but not at a deeper level of it's all the same coaches all consolidated together.

This is my other $0.02.

Another very good point, if you're lucky enough to have your DD with the best coaches over their club years U12-U19, they will benefit, even if they have no interest in playing college soccer, they learn the game the correct way, enjoy it more and benefit from offers when the time comes if they are interested.

I have mixed feelings about this argument. On the one hand, it's undoubtedly true that the level of coaching could be improved. On the other hand, I believe there are a core of very good coaches on the westside. At SMU alone, I count 7+ coaches who I'd entrust my precious child to. Between the three clubs, I'm pretty sure there are enough good coaches do things properly, and, as I said, I think a merger would require culling the mediocre coaches.

Furthermore, I think you're underselling the importance of players. Any coach will tell you, you need to have good, committed players. Good coaching will only take you so far. I've talked to so many westside coaches who are frustrated by the lack of interest among their A team (and don't blame their best players for leaving). Honestly, how many of your kids' teammates get out there and even practice juggling outside of practice? How many practice their weak foot? Most of the ones that do that are long gone. Sure, bad coaches might look better with better players, but right now, good coaches and good players and being held back by a diluted talent pool.
 
JAB, I think your post in favor of the merger describes a youth soccer utopia that would be great if it could be built with smart capable coaches and hard working, ethical administrators with appropriate checks and balances in an all encompassing meritocracy.

I submit that your original post is so well thought out it could serve as the Constitition for a new club and a new era of board-driven clubs in contrast to DOC driven clubs.

I sense your point of view comes from coaches and not families. Several times you reference how coaches feel which might be in contrast to how most of the customers feel about having fewer choices.

There are some coaches who blame lackluster results on their lousy diluted player pool. But how can one explain that there are also more successful coaches developing players and winning with the same diluted player pool ?? I submit that maybe the problem is with the some of the coaches and/or lack of coach development not just the player pool. My experience has been that educated parents choose the better coach regardless of the club.

I don't think it's fair to call all of the westside clubs' Teams glorified rec teams.

After years of watching the girls side I did not see that ECNL turned basic coaches into amazing coaches. I doubt DA will be any different than ECNL and quite possibly it will be worse. If you look at the pre split CSL standings you would see- on the girls side - that the top coaches then are also the top coaches today. This is why many parent are so skeptical of new labels and remain militantly coach-centered.

I am so passionate about this topic because soccer played a huge role in my daughters' development and I think it would be a shame to go backwards and limit choices for families in the area like it was before.

Manny M, Bogy D,
Fab and PG were all great coaches who impacted my kids in a positive way. I wonder if playing for them would have been possible under the old market structure in west LA.
 
Back
Top