# Clubs with only two age groups



## mlx (Feb 4, 2020)

What's the deal with these clubs? Is the idea that more age groups will be added as the players get older? or are they stuck with only two permanently?

For example, Ventura, LA Surf, Santa Barbara, have only U13 and U14. What happens for 2020/2021? Will they have a U15 so the u14 players this year keep developing? or are they screwed and will have to find another club?


----------



## focomoso (Feb 4, 2020)

The expectation of those clubs is to add older groups, but it's not guaranteed by US soccer. They have to show improvement and good adoption of the DA curriculum to be granted the older ages. In past years, they often don't know if they get the next age group until the very end of the season (June / July).


----------



## RedDevilDad (Feb 4, 2020)

I'd say the opposite...  The pressure is to trim the academy (from the MLS clubs) to guarantee more "meaningful games."  I'd be surprised if they continue to widen the top of the pyramid.  I expect there to always be a smaller number of U18/19 teams than U13s.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 5, 2020)

Ussda expanded for a number of years by adding clubs outside the originals & mls clubs.

Most of the new clubs at first had one age group, maybe two. The following year based on review a third age group could be added.

Unless your where a MLS team your club was pretty much capped at 3-4 age groups, occasionally there was a club that got one more but not the oldest age group.  That's pretty much where we are today, ussda doesn't seem interested in expanding anymore so kind of doubt you will see much of that, instead USL and other offering will see a expansion instead.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 5, 2020)

mlx said:


> What's the deal with these clubs? Is the idea that more age groups will be added as the players get older? or are they stuck with only two permanently?
> 
> For example, Ventura, LA Surf, Santa Barbara, have only U13 and U14. What happens for 2020/2021? Will they have a U15 so the u14 players this year keep developing? or are they screwed and will have to find another club?


Those clubs should have a plan to play in other leagues, SB had 3 age groups at one point but dropped to two when u12 went away.  They seem to do just fine at the olders ages in other comps, ussda is just one of many offerings nowadays.  Time to move on for some...

Ussda didn't even take applications this year for 20-21 so don't expect much change


----------



## Kante (Feb 5, 2020)

Below is how the SoCal clubs break down by age group.

Some notes:

As recently as 2018-19, Washington/Oregon had 12 DA teams - including several teams who were competitive w/ SoCal teams - that maxed out at u14 but all of those clubs left DA in 2019-20 with most going over to ECNL.
The theory behind the lower number of clubs at the older age groups vs the lower age groups is that the "pyramid" will winnow out the lesser players and the better players will continue on based on merit.
In practice, the efficacy of this "pyramid" varies widely.​
A significant number of clubs continue with 90% of existing rosters due, in large part, to incumbency bias.
Late bloomers and late dobs are swimming upstream since promotion to u15 thru u19 is, reasonably, based on early in the cycle (u13/u14) performance.
Due to spotty geo coverage by the DA outside of major metros, for some families, it's difficult to impossible for kids to find a club within reasonable travel distance.
Net net, If a player is good (i.e. top 15% to 20% of DA - potentially college level) but not pro potential and they don't get into a u13 thru u19 DA club early in the cycle i.e. u13/u14, it will be very difficult later.​​The impact of this is that - because colleges focus on DA due to limited time and $ for recruiting - there's a ton of potential players deserving of college attention who are at risk of falling off the track.​

The basis for many of the clubs that go u13 to u19 is that they were 1) one of the original clubs who joined DA early on or 2) are MLS.
Looking at DA performance over time across age groups and across geo's, there's a number of clubs in SoCal and across the country where their u13 thru u19 status is not based on recent performance i.e. in the last five years​____________​
Here's list of SoCal clubs by age group:

Only Chula Vista FC is still only u13.

The following clubs are u13 and u14 only

LA Surf u13 and u14
Legends u13 and u14
Murrieta Surf u13 and u14
OC Surf u13 and u14
San Diego SC u13 and u14
Santa Barbara SC u13 and u14
Ventura County Fusion u13 and u14
The following clubs are u13 thru u15

LAUFA u13, u14 and u15
TFA u13, u14 and u15
here's u13 thru u17:

LAGSD u13 thru u17
LAFC u13 thru u17
here's go up thru u19:

Albion
Arsenal
FC Golden State
LA Galaxy
Nomads
Real SoCal
Real Salt Lake (RSL AZ + RSL Utah)
Pateadores
San Diego Surf
Strikers
Barca Residential (u15 thru u19 only)


----------



## jpeter (Feb 5, 2020)

Kante said:


> Below is how the SoCal clubs break down by age group.
> 
> Some notes:
> 
> ...


Good breakdown, LAFC will be going u18/19 for 20-21' 

Other than that and LAGSD changing names not sure there will be any changes for 20-21.    Should hear about them within a month if there are?


----------



## outside! (Feb 5, 2020)

The fact that Nomads still manages to maintain a full compliment of DA teams blows my mind.


----------



## watfly (Feb 5, 2020)

outside! said:


> The fact that Nomads still manages to maintain a full compliment of DA teams blows my mind.


Ouch, that hurts.   Their older teams tend to perform well.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 5, 2020)

outside! said:


> The fact that Nomads still manages to maintain a full compliment of DA teams blows my mind.


Kante could possibly give a breakdown of u18/19 performance  or all the age groups covered by a club last 3 yrs or something and there might some surprises.   There a few clubs in that conversation that seem to come up every time. 

DA has been sort of like the mob, once your in, well you're in one way or the other. 

To me TFA has been the biggest omission until recently, I'm sure politics, geography and coaching staff had something to do with it because the performances & styles of play seem to be on point.


----------



## outside! (Feb 5, 2020)

watfly said:


> Ouch, that hurts.   Their older teams tend to perform well.


Nothing at all against the players and families, but have you met the management?


----------



## espola (Feb 5, 2020)

outside! said:


> Nothing at all against the players and families, but have you met the management?


I was at a San Diego club leaders meeting 15 or so years ago where old man Armstrong accused most of us of not being "real soccer people".  That was during the time of Presidio's website disaster*.  

In a different meeting during the same crisis, leaders of almost half the clubs playing in Presidio offered to become members of CSL.  Old man Sparks turned us down.

*Presidio's website at the time had little more on it than the circuit schedules, results, and standing, in text-only mode, black and white, Courier New font.  The website was run by the long-term League Secretary, and he got paid for doing it (time and expenses).  The Presidio BOD tried to encourage him to modernize the presentation of the pages and many people offered to help him; his response was to resign and delete all the information right before the Fall games were to start.  There was a scramble to put up a full website, and for a few weeks, teams didn't know where or who they ould be playing on Saturday until the preceding Wednesday afternoon.


----------



## outside! (Feb 6, 2020)

espola said:


> I was at a San Diego club leaders meeting 15 or so years ago where old man Armstrong accused most of us of not being "real soccer people".  That was during the time of Presidio's website disaster*.
> 
> In a different meeting during the same crisis, leaders of almost half the clubs playing in Presidio offered to become members of CSL.  Old man Sparks turned us down.
> 
> *Presidio's website at the time had little more on it than the circuit schedules, results, and standing, in text-only mode, black and white, Courier New font.  The website was run by the long-term League Secretary, and he got paid for doing it (time and expenses).  The Presidio BOD tried to encourage him to modernize the presentation of the pages and many people offered to help him; his response was to resign and delete all the information right before the Fall games were to start.  There was a scramble to put up a full website, and for a few weeks, teams didn't know where or who they ould be playing on Saturday until the preceding Wednesday afternoon.


The website fiasco happened just before we started our club soccer journey. I remember hearing stories about it.


----------



## espola (Feb 6, 2020)

outside! said:


> The website fiasco happened just before we started our club soccer journey. I remember hearing stories about it.


In the Spring and Summer of 2005 after the fiasco Nomads organized a 10-week league separate from Presidio, sanctioned through US Club Soccer, not Cal South and USSYSA.  We put a few teams in it.  I remember the dates because my son broke his arm in our last game of the season.


----------



## Zvezdas (Feb 6, 2020)

As for TFA, their problem was almost always financial...its one thing to organize and finance locally, and totally different when you have to come up with money for lets say a trip to Vancouver...


----------



## jpeter (Feb 6, 2020)

Zvezdas said:


> As for TFA, their problem was almost always financial...its one thing to organize and finance locally, and totally different when you have to come up with money for lets say a trip to Vancouver...


The youngers play local and you don't play Vancouver since they are not in the SW.

Yes Ussda is expensive and so is travel. Finances may had something to do with it but I don't think it was a primarily factor for them.

In any case TFA is reporting getting or think they will have u16/17 age group for 20-21 from the latest I heard this week.


----------



## Zvezdas (Feb 7, 2020)

I was talking about DA not about local competition...


----------



## jpeter (Feb 7, 2020)

Zvezdas said:


> I was talking about DA not about local competition...


Yes Ussda all regular u13-15 games are in state:  local socal with the expectation of one U15 game with real salt lake in UT and the Santa Barbara games for the u13-14

Pioneer HS in Whittier,  Bosco in Bellflower,  Irvine, Carlsbad, San Diego, Carson,  LA, Norco, etc.


----------



## Zvezdas (Feb 7, 2020)

jpeter said:


> Yes Ussda all regular u13-15 games are in state:  local socal with the expectation of one U15 game with real salt lake in UT and the Santa Barbara games for the u13-14
> 
> Pioneer HS in Whittier,  Bosco in Bellflower,  Irvine, Carlsbad, San Diego, Carson,  LA, Norco, etc.


Actually u15 are not all in state, and thats where cost goes up. For example DA 05/u15 in my kid’s club played in WA, UT, and AZ...


----------



## jpeter (Feb 7, 2020)

Zvezdas said:


> Actually u15 are not all in state, and thats where cost goes up. For example DA 05/u15 in my kid’s club played in WA, UT, and AZ...


Yes that's possible for some but for TFA U15  just one out of state league game like I mentioned





						Total Futbol Academy
					






					tfba.ussoccerda.com
				




Showcases or other events yeah travel is expensive but if you're on a top club team it's about the same when you travel to Dallas, 
Chicago, Colorado,  Vegas, etc for those tournaments or showcases.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Feb 7, 2020)

H


jpeter said:


> The youngers play local and you don't play Vancouver since they are not in the SW.
> 
> Yes Ussda is expensive and so is travel. Finances may had something to do with it but I don't think it was a primarily factor for them.
> 
> In any case TFA is reporting getting or think they will have u16/17 age group for 20-21 from the latest I heard this week.


Have a friend at TFA. Mentioned 6 plus months ago there was talk of a deal with TFA and LAFC regarding players. LAFC would take the players that typically age out of TFA because they did not have older age groups, rather then the team leaving and going to multiple clubs. In return LAFC would offer some other resources and supports, not sure what those were. Wonder if this scenario is still in play.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 7, 2020)

LASTMAN14 said:


> H
> 
> Have a friend at TFA. Mentioned 6 plus months ago there was talk of a deal with TFA and LAFC regarding players. LAFC would take the players that typically age out of TFA because they did not have older age groups, rather then the team leaving and going to multiple clubs. In return LAFC would offer some other resources and supports, not sure what those were. Wonder if this scenario is still in play.


Yes they where very close to a deal last March but things fell apart at almost the last minute.  That scenario is no longer in play, both have moved on into other directions.  

Usclub & ussda had a big impact on this and one of the reasons why it didn't happen.


----------



## Kante (Feb 13, 2020)

Have heard from multiple DM sources that TFA is confident of getting u17 for 2020-21, and that Santa Barbara SC is confident of u15 for the upcoming season as well. Very similar language about why this is likely being used in both cases...

Any additional insight/commentary on this? Either here or via DM...

Any other clubs thinking that they may add an age group? looking at you Ventura,  Legends,, LA Surf, Murrieta Surf, OC Surf (there's a theme here...) and SDSC.

LAUFA, any news on u17?

Presumably LAGSD and LAFC will do another year in u17 and then add u19 in 2021-22...


----------

