# Poll: Changing the Tournament Scene



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

I'm currently exploring changes that need/should be made to the Tournament scene with an eye on working directly with clubs, leagues and State Association (not only in SoCal, but nationally) to make positive changes.  I've identified some things that should be done better, but really want to hear from you all as to what changes you might like to see when it comes to the summer tournament season (June - early September).

Feel free to pick as many options as you want and/or add your own if I missed something you feel is important.

Thanks in advance for helping me out with your opinions.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 17, 2018)

MWN said:


> I'm currently exploring changes that need/should be made to the Tournament scene with an eye on working directly with clubs, leagues and State Association (not only in SoCal, but nationally) to make positive changes.  I've identified some things that should be done better, but really want to hear from you all as to what changes you might like to see when it comes to the summer tournament season (June - early September).
> 
> Feel free to pick as many options as you want and/or add your own if I missed something you feel is important.
> 
> Thanks in advance for helping me out with your opinions.


Rather than "flexible guest play" I'd instead say more restrictive guest play, particularly at the flight 2 and 3 levels.  There was recently a long blow up thread in the soccer announcement boards of coaches/managers complaining that this summer lots of the mega clubs seem to be bringing down players from higher flights to carry their teams from lower flights.  The consensus from that discussion seemed to be 1) yes this is happening (saw it once myself this summer), and 2) it's a jerky thing to do.


----------



## TangoCity (Jul 17, 2018)

I will go with one that isn't listed.

* High Quality Fields


----------



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

TangoCity said:


> I will go with one that isn't listed.
> 
> * High Quality Fields


My experience has been that almost all of the "complexes" with 10 or more fields have high quality fields (although winter tournaments (State Cup) can do a number on the fields).  Does your experience differ?  Are there any complexes that you believe have substandard fields during summer?


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

I'd say that less tournaments is a good idea.  Sure, they are fun.  But  can anyone tell me why it is a good idea for kids to play 3-6 games over a 36-60 hour time window?

How many tournaments scramble to fill teams a week prior?  And when they do this, they usually fill with a team that isn't in the correct flight.  I'd like to see tournaments start listing teams as soon as they register.  If the bracket is full of teams that we play 6x a year already, why sign up?  Or if it's a team from up the street -  We can schedule a friendly for free.

Monday morning championship games suck.  Regardless of it's a holiday weekend or a workday.

I'd rather play on a single field with free parking than drag out to Norco, Lancaster, Temecula in the heat of summer.  Having everything at one place is kinda cool.  But keep me closer to the coast.

I'd actually like to see a tournament format that lasts over the course of a week or 2.  Like a mini-season with a game every other day during the week.  And then seeding for the semi-final and showcase on Saturday.  With the final and other showcase games on Sunday.


----------



## Zdrone (Jul 17, 2018)

Games filmed with player/parent access to films
No brainer.  I just can't imagine a parent saying "God I hate watching my kid play."  More like *shoves phone playing youtube in coworkers face "LOOK AT MY KID PLAY"

One full length game per day (not two shortened games)
This one is tough.  An extra day of driving back and forth to *insert insanely far location (Norco/Oceanside/Galway Downs)* or even having your kid have to miss school or some other event Friday/Monday.
Flip side is extra rest between games is probably better for the body but also (assumption on my part) you will get better competition from both sides with the extra rest.

Scheduling posted weeks in advance
Good luck on this one.  We all want it but I'm sure those of you that are/were coaches/managers still get the "STILL TIME TO SIGN UP" or "REDUCED PRICE FOR THIS WEEKEND" emails. 
I'm surprised when we get a schedule more than a week out.

Access to recruiting tools (coach emails, college fits, etc)
I'm unclear on this unless you are talking about showcases or ID type camps.

Showcases rather than tournaments
Depends.  Mid to end of summer a lot of teams are just getting back together after their dark periods.  A couple tune up tournaments to get the kids to gel isn't a bad thing.  Same thing with the return after the high school season (assuming they are playing/old enough).

Games at single location, rather than spread around multiple locations
Starting to get in to the more difficult ones.  Having a single location (Norco/Oceanside/Galway Downs) is great (ignoring the heat), but realistically how many places are big enough to hold a full tournament (ages/brackets).

Flexible scheduling (game times and fields can be moved if coaches agree).
Tough again.  The tournament directors have hired referees for a certain number of games/locations.  We've had games against our in town "rival" 80 miles away.  It would be wonderful to grab a local field/ref's and not make the drive but the logistics for the tournament directors would be difficult.

Fundraising opportunities for teams that do well (return of fees, etc.)
Would be nice but I'm not sure how much incentive it gives to the kids rather than the coaches/parents.  As Grace T touched on, it would worry me that the coaches might be more willing to bring and play down kids from higher performing teams.

Flexible guest player procedures
Same as above but maybe I am unclear on what this would solve for.
I haven't seen issues on my kids team with being able to bring on guest players.  We've done it in the past when trying out a kid or when vacation/injuries have depleted the bench.


----------



## Eagle33 (Jul 17, 2018)

Over the years I've seen good and bad tournaments. I personally like "showcase" format tournaments over everything else and I'm glad there are more and more of them every year.
Slightly shortened (5 min each half) 3 games over the weekend. No pressure, no Final. Perfect.


----------



## Frank (Jul 17, 2018)

Eagle33 said:


> Over the years I've seen good and bad tournaments. I personally like "showcase" format tournaments over everything else and I'm glad there are more and more of them every year.
> Slightly shortened (5 min each half) 3 games over the weekend. No pressure, no Final. Perfect.


Showcases are fine, however they seem to be more costly than competitive tournaments.  I don't know if they cover some of the college coaches travel, etc. as for example the silverlakes showcase is approx. 1300 for 3 games.  That just doesn't make sense.


----------



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

Frank said:


> Showcases are fine, however they seem to be more costly than competitive tournaments.  I don't know if they cover some of the college coaches travel, etc. as for example the silverlakes showcase is approx. 1300 for 3 games.  That just doesn't make sense.


The better college showcases will do a few things for the college coaches:

Pay for travel and hotel for a few D1 "name brand" colleges and publish that information (who is attending early).  When you have certain key programs that are known to do well, other D1 coaches, D2-D3, NAIA, and the JC's take notice and figure out ways to send at least an assistant.
Schmooze the coaches with a private tent, free food, drinks, etc. in order to get the coaches to stay on property, be happy/comfortable, etc.  The happier the coaches are the better for the recruits.
Publish a scouting book with all the athletes at the tournament/showcase that lists Class, Grade, Sat, etc. (when available).  These recruiting books are one thing that separates the lesser v. the better showcases.
Provide some sort of college seminar in an appropriate meeting space for parents/athletes to learn about the recruiting process direct from the coaches.
The above all costs money.  Note, the better regional draw showcases will also be "stay to play," which is a major mechanism in providing the hotel rooms for the showcases.  Often hotels will give a free room for every 10 to 15, which often goes directly to the coaches.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 17, 2018)

MWN said:


> The better college showcases will do a few things for the college coaches:
> 
> Pay for travel and hotel for a few D1 "name brand" colleges and publish that information (who is attending early).  When you have certain key programs that are known to do well, other D1 coaches, D2-D3, NAIA, and the JC's take notice and figure out ways to send at least an assistant.
> Schmooze the coaches with a private tent, free food, drinks, etc. in order to get the coaches to stay on property, be happy/comfortable, etc.  The happier the coaches are the better for the recruits.
> ...


So this poll directed only towards posters with OLDERS?  YOUNGERS aren’t concerned as much about College attendance.


----------



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

Zdrone said:


> Games filmed with player/parent access to films
> No brainer.  I just can't imagine a parent saying "God I hate watching my kid play."  More like *shoves phone playing youtube in coworkers face "LOOK AT MY KID PLAY"
> 
> Access to recruiting tools (coach emails, college fits, etc)
> I'm unclear on this unless you are talking about showcases or ID type camps.


Both of the above points, in my mind directly impact the college recruiting age players (i.e. not U8).  Its often a challenge for many parents trying to put together recruiting videos to get players on film/video.  Unless the team pays for the high-rise camera/operator, most potential recruits struggle to get good quality footage.

With regard to the second point, there are a number of sites that charge for basic recruiting assistance (NSCA, College Fit Finder, College U, etc.), in some cases they charge over $1,000 for their services, the main one is my opinion is consolidating college coach contact information.  That is what I'm referring too.


----------



## MWN (Jul 17, 2018)

Kicker4Life said:


> So this poll directed only towards posters with OLDERS?  YOUNGERS aren’t concerned as much about College attendance.


You would be correct that olders are generally more impacted by tournaments/showcases.  I'll just note that those youngers become olders fairly quickly.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 17, 2018)

MWN said:


> You would be correct that olders are generally more impacted by tournaments/showcases.  I'll just note that those youngers become olders fairly quickly.


Yes...I have 2, one at each end of the age spectrum.  However I’ve noticed that at the teams in the Younger Ages tend to do more Tournaments annually than those at the Older Ages.  So if your intent is to poll what changes posters would like to see to Tournaments make sure you are considering both in the analysis.


----------



## mirage (Jul 17, 2018)

So many of the tournaments are nothing more than local teams gathering to play multiple games on a weekend.  There's hardly anything special about 90+% of venues.

If you look at the national level showcases (e.g., DA, NC regionals/finals and alike), its played over the week and weekend.  Aside from Dallas, Disney and Surf Cup for DA bracket only, we really don't have any multi-day/week long tournaments.

Few years ago, our older son did the Gothia Cup in Gothenburg, Sweeden.  It was great.  It started on Monday pool play and built up to playoffs that started on Thursday with the final on Sunday.  The playoffs had both upper and lower brackets so that the teams didn't go home after 3 games (Mon~Wed), and have at least one playoff game.  Additionally, they have an opening ceremony (huge) and a closing.  Our team was one of 188 teams in the age group (U16 at the time) and made it to the round of 8, where we lost to the tournament winner who was a professional academy.

Same kid, also played in Cooperstown Classic at the Dreams Park in Cooperstown NY for 12U baseball tournament that was a weeklong.  Similar format as the Gothia Cup with opening and closing ceremony (and HR derby, throwing and base running contests too).  At this tournament, the kids wee housed with coaches as chaperones and meals included.  The week starts with 100 teams.

Now, I'm not suggesting every tournament do this kind of thing but it would be great if we had a regional huge tournaments.  For an example, if we had Southern California International Cup, say in late June, early July, at the Great Park (now has 25 soccer fields and a stadium), we could easily do a large scale event.  Having been to the Grand Park in Indiana, OCGP has much better weather and fields (though I did like the full sized indoor fields with AC and a bar at the Grand Park).  Locally, the venue offers much more diversity for visiting families across the country and the world.  Tournament format similar format to the Gothia Cup.  Pool play Mon~Wed, playoffs Thurs~Sun with the upper and lower brackets.  Opening ceremony Tues evening and closing on Sunday afternoon.  

If we had a tournament like this, then maybe all those fill every weekend with tournament mentality will lessen.  We just played Albion Cup this weekend for our younger son and it was ho-hum (not because we didn't win it but the whole thing is bland).  We could have easily called the coaches we played and scrimmaged them locally without having to goto SD, since we played teams of OC and IE.

Less but more is what we need.  Less number of tournaments but bigger, more grandiose tournaments where winning means something and get to play teams from different parts of the country/world.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jul 17, 2018)

While it would be "nice" to have a lot of these things there is the realistic/economic side to running tournaments and why these things are not common.


 Games filmed with player/parent access to films - $$$
 One full length game per day (not two shortened games) - Need 3 days to play round-robin resulting in longer fields rental $$$
 Scheduling posted weeks in advance - Teams procrastinate in signing up...
 Games at single location, rather than spread around multiple locations - Would limit tournaments to just a few venues
 Flexible scheduling (game times and fields can be moved if coaches agree) - Not easy to do with finite times/field availability
 Fundraising opportunities for teams that do well (return of fees, etc.) - $$$


----------



## mirage (Jul 17, 2018)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> While it would be "nice" to have a lot of these things there is the realistic/economic side to running tournaments and why these things are not common.
> 
> 
> Games filmed with player/parent access to films - $$$
> ...


With such a fable user ID, whey be so Debby downer and pragmatic.....

Its expensive to film/record because its a cottage business and they are taking advantage of parents.  It doesn't have to be expensive and if committed to do the whole tournament, the cost/game will drop dramatically.  

Longer field rental versus non-use during the day on a weekday can be negotiated so marginally not significant.

If the tournament is prestigious, there is no procrastination - just look at Surf Cup, Dallas, Disney and alike.  Even LV Showcase sells out.

Economies of scale for the larger venues.  Really should get rid of some of these small tournaments.  There are better scrimmages than those games.

Scheduling is complicated with so many coaches w/3 teams these days - agree.

In some of the youth baseball tournaments, there are prize money for the winners.   The winner can be guaranteed acceptance for the next tournament (e.g., Manchester Surf Cup winner accepted into Surf Cup).  There are other ways than just money.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 17, 2018)

Recording of games doesn’t have to be crazy expensive.  For about $1,200 you could get your own high-boom set up. Find a few parents on your team to split it with. Take turns recording the games. Make sure to focus on the players who chipped in for the camera.
Most service charge about $150 for a full game. Less than $10 per player to have someone do it for you.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 17, 2018)

Looking at it from a purely developmental perspective (and putting the players first, as we should), the two most important features are:

1. One full length game per day - self explanatory why this is important; we all know the kids are not best served playing multiple games in one day.
2. Showcases rather than tournaments - if this is not obvious, the main benefit is that it (hopefully) reduces some of the intense emphasis that coaches and parents place on winning (although it doesn't remove it completely). The showcase format is much better than the standard tournament format where you can potentially play 4/5 games and everyone is obsessed with making the final.

It's interesting that this board is (I expect) mostly used by parents and coaches and yet the two features above are not rated as the most important. Perhaps this is an indication that we still don't actually know what it is we should be changing to primarily benefit the the players, not ourselves (location and flexible schedules etc benefits parents/coaches but doesn't make a big difference to the players).


----------



## pewpew (Jul 17, 2018)

If all these changes mean less tournament pins for the backpack and less cheap medals collecting dust on the nightstand then I'm out!!!!!


----------



## pewpew (Jul 17, 2018)

But what I'd really like to see is tournaments in the summer held with game times starting at 5pm thru last game starting around 9pm for olders
at facilities with lights. Avoid all the HEAT issues. And if these are more meaningful games/showcases/etc then maybe there'll be less teams playing which in turn would make a schedule like this possible.  One can still have hope.....


----------



## Zdrone (Jul 17, 2018)

mirage said:


> Economies of scale for the larger venues.  Really should get rid of some of these small tournaments.  There are better scrimmages than those games.


While I agree with the sentiment; cheaper and easier to schedule a scrimmage sometimes, can you really see the clubs giving up their revenue streams?
Too much money on the table for them to willingly walk away.



mirage said:


> In some of the youth baseball tournaments, there are prize money for the winners.   The winner can be guaranteed acceptance for the next tournament (e.g., Manchester Surf Cup winner accepted into Surf Cup).  There are other ways than just money.


I really like this.  Long term incentive to succeed.


----------



## mirage (Jul 18, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> Looking at it from a purely developmental perspective (and putting the players first, as we should), the two most important features are:
> 
> 1. One full length game per day - self explanatory why this is important; we all know the kids are not best served playing multiple games in one day.
> 2. Showcases rather than tournaments - if this is not obvious, the main benefit is that it (hopefully) reduces some of the intense emphasis that coaches and parents place on winning (although it doesn't remove it completely). The showcase format is much better than the standard tournament format where you can potentially play 4/5 games and everyone is obsessed with making the final.
> ...


Okay, enough with development as the main theme.

What is the purpose of soccer development?  Ultimately to be a better player to do what?

Win games.

Tournament is not the place for major development.  It is a place for measuring progress of development.  There has to be a consequence to doing well or poorly.

The biggest nonsense we read is winning doesn't matter, its development.  At youngers - we all agree.  As players gets older, learning to win is a key part of development.  

There are more superstar practice players that suck in games than those who actually perform when it counts. But the practice superstars excel at development..... Except one key aspect in a game (life for that matter) - performing under pressure and making outcomes count.  This actually maybe one of the most important development we don't discuss because its really about the person and not something that can be taught on the field.

Its okay to celebrate winning and feel disappointment for losing.  Its all part of the game and the reason why we play.

We used to have a emoji animation that's beating a dead horse.... Can really use it here.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 18, 2018)

mirage said:


> Okay, enough with development as the main theme.
> 
> What is the purpose of soccer development?  Ultimately to be a better player to do what?
> 
> ...


If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development. 

Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.

The state of youth soccer and the standard of players the US is producing at the top level would suggest to me (and most others who have a modicum of understanding of the game and athlete development) that we don’t have the approach right here, yet. The large number of ignorant, crazy people involved in youth soccer who think winning is the priority are a big part of that. So we have to change, that’s obvious. 

At older ages, I agree with you that winning becomes more important but we’re only talking High School onwards IMO (even then it’s not purely about winning, there is still a lot of developing to do!) Anything before that should be purely development. Nobody gives a shit about who won the ocean surf cowboy cup as a 12 year old but we have swathes of teams, coaches and parents so fixated on winning that they encourage kids to smash the ball from end to end then celebrate being the ‘best’. It’s not a minor issue here; it’s a massive problem at all levels of youth soccer, regardless of the flight or standard. So forgive me for mentioning the word development again.

You say tournaments are not the place for development? In youth soccer, every game is the place for development; that’s why you and I likely do not see youth soccer in the same way and that’s ok. I’m genuinely interested to know though if you are a coach, parent, club official? What is your involvement with soccer?


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 18, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development.
> 
> Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.
> 
> ...



And it's not just that.  What great life lessons are we teaching players if they are bringing down gold level players to whip other teams at bronze level tournament play?  We're not challenging the gold level players, we aren't teaching the bronze players getting whipped anything other than tournaments are awful, and we're not developing the bronze level kids on the winning team who either sit on the bench or watch the gold players pass it between them.  The only ones that benefit are the parents looking for the win, the coaches looking to keep their jobs, and the DOCs looking to recruit more players.  Like I said, there was a long list of complaints on the soccer announcement boards particularly about the tournament play this summer.  I witnessed it myself, from a midsize club that was looking to recruit more players for their C squad by playing up their "winning" record (gotta have the picture of the kids with their medals when looking for that impact player on an ad).  Adding prize money into this mix would make what's going on, particularly with the youngers, even more awful.  Outside of the highest levels and showcases (where guest play won't really make much of a difference), there should be strict limits on the amount of guest players and from what level they transfer.


----------



## mirage (Jul 18, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development.
> 
> Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.
> 
> ...


You are making two assumptions.
1 - my comments are for youngers and that the whole thread is about youngers
2 - somehow by articulating and spouting out how US players don't measure up has all to do with development

Those who frequent this forum know that I have boys, not girls, one playing in college and another in HS, since I refer to them time to time.  I have lived through U-little to now, at rec to DA levels, and now college.

I have on countless threads, both old and new forum, have said NO ONE CARES how many tournaments a kid won at 12 or goals scored/saved.  It is meaningless.  Its only meaningful when they are ready to be recruited into college/pro level.  I have worked with coaches who are also professional scouts that have shared similar thoughts.

Just tired of reading thread after thread rhetorically discussing how our development is wrong and that we don't produce world class players - don't you agree?  All of us are not stupid or ignorant - we have recall and anyone beating on the same soapbox DOES NOTHING.

This is a tournament concepts and approaches  thread, and not development thread.  Not every thread needs to be about development.  Give it a rest....

As for the US problems in soccer (again, not the subject of this thread), its neither development or available players leftover from other major sports.  Its simply our approach and player selection.  There are plenty of talented players in US that can compete globally.  We just don't pick them because of local politics, stereotypes, and mentality - both on players and coaches sides.  Its really total lack of innovation.


----------



## Paul Spacey (Jul 18, 2018)

mirage said:


> You are making two assumptions.
> 1 - my comments are for youngers and that the whole thread is about youngers
> 2 - somehow by articulating and spouting out how US players don't measure up has all to do with development
> 
> ...


Fair enough, you’re right on all counts; I’ll step aside and go look for that beating the dead horse emoji animation. *sigh*


----------



## AFC (Jul 18, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> Fair enough, you’re right on all counts; I’ll step aside and go look for that beating the dead horse emoji animation. *sigh*


----------



## Zdrone (Jul 18, 2018)

AFC said:


> View attachment 2960


----------



## outside! (Jul 18, 2018)

Poor Eeyore.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 18, 2018)

For the olders I like the prize money idea, if you're playing to win anyway would be nice to get your entry fee back instead of the dust collecting medals.

I heard that DSL is doing this for the discovery division champions & they also get acceptance to surf cup or something like that.

The competition for some tournament can be pretty uneven, the brackets spread out the competition so basically the first place team or seeds sometimes dont even get a good match out of bracket play.   By the fourth, fifth, sixth match when better competition is found  the quality can be lacking with the tired teams and legs.  Seems kind of backwards to me, would rather see the top seeds play each other right away.  Not sure what the solution is but would rather play three games vs better comp vs 3 games vs avg comp.  Sometimes tournament seem like a waste of time partly due to the way the competition is spread out far and wide,  too many or not enough flights I suppose.

To many games in  too short of a time span is the number one problem in tournaments in my opinion for olders In the usa.   Like somebody else mentioned the week-long tournaments they have in Europe are a much better experience for the players who can play better with sufficient rest.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 18, 2018)

In all seriousness-  there is obviously s demand for year round soccer.  We have the fall season. The winter tournament season. The state cup season.  The spring season. The summer tournament  season. 
Why doesn’t SCDSL just do something year round?  Take a few weeks off beteeen seasons. Have a playoff at the end of each season. 
Let coaches pick an additional 8 weekends that they won’t be able to play.


----------



## outside! (Jul 19, 2018)

I am sure most managers would like to see check in at the field on the morning of the first game instead of the night before at some hotel.


----------



## espola (Jul 19, 2018)

How about something like CSL's League Cup, but open to everyone and with games played on Sundays all year long, with flexible scheduling to allow teams to play in their local leagues or other tournaments, except for the final few rounds (top 8 maybe?) scheduled at neutral locations by the organizers.


----------



## MWN (Jul 19, 2018)

timbuck said:


> In all seriousness-  there is obviously s demand for year round soccer.  We have the fall season. The winter tournament season. The state cup season.  The spring season. The summer tournament  season.
> Why doesn’t SCDSL just do something year round?  Take a few weeks off beteeen seasons. Have a playoff at the end of each season.
> Let coaches pick an additional 8 weekends that they won’t be able to play.


Fundamentally, the problem with having a "Summer" league is that clubs use it to fund-raise and operating a summer league would tick-off the clubs.  Moreover, one of the nice things about the tournaments is that it allows clubs to reorganize and build their teams.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 19, 2018)

MWN said:


> Fundamentally, the problem with having a "Summer" league is that clubs use it to fund-raise and operating a summer league would tick-off the clubs.  Moreover, one of the nice things about the tournaments is that it allows clubs to reorganize and build their teams.


Not every club has a tournament.  How do those clubs that don’t host a tournament survive without the fundraising income?


----------



## Dargle (Jul 19, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> Looking at it from a purely developmental perspective (and putting the players first, as we should), the two most important features are:
> 
> 1. One full length game per day - self explanatory why this is important; we all know the kids are not best served playing multiple games in one day.
> 2. Showcases rather than tournaments - if this is not obvious, the main benefit is that it (hopefully) reduces some of the intense emphasis that coaches and parents place on winning (although it doesn't remove it completely). The showcase format is much better than the standard tournament format where you can potentially play 4/5 games and everyone is obsessed with making the final.
> ...


Why "showcases" and not friendlies?  That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.  Friendlies offer reduced costs and you have more freedom to determine your opponents, location, and number of games per day. Moreover, the vast majority of kids don't need or want to be showcased for scouts anyway, so there's no big loss there.  

Seems like there are three possible explanations - (1) Revenue - clubs hosting tournaments/showcases count on those revenues to fund operations and clubs attending them use their teams' successes to drive registrations, which helps their revenue, both of which may help access to the extent they help keep overall costs down or permit scholarships, (2) Value/fun of competition - there's probably both a team bonding and player focus value of tournaments where the pressure to win helps some kids "get it" and gives them fun memories, (3) tournaments/showcases are efficient in the sense that it takes time and effort for a coach or TA to schedule friendlies and sometimes a team is too remote to really get many friendly opportunities anyway.

I'm not sure either of the first two explanations are really sufficient to outweigh the costs (but maybe others view it as a close call) and the third explanation has become less relevant as scrimmage boards have developed and teams have started renting fields for weekends and opening them up as "matchmakers" to permit non-stop friendlies between other teams.  I do know that many more friendlies are being scheduled than when I first started as a club parent a decade ago and many teams are reducing the number of tournaments they attend per year at the same time that the number of tournaments being run has increased.  Lots of tournaments are begging for teams to fill out brackets now.  Although many Orange County clubs still overload on tournaments, particularly in the summer, other clubs have cut back.  What has occurred more is the destination tournament, either for a specific reason (e.g., an east case showcase for a high level team of kids looking to showcase themselves to colleges in that area) or for a vacation-style experience.

I also know that parents in other parts of the western states view SoCal parents as having it really good tournament-wise.  One Utah dad told me he spent in the five digits last year on soccer because they travel out-of-state for most of their tournaments.  Parents from Hawaii, Colorado, Washington, and even Northern California are jealous of us because they feel like we have so many great tournaments we can go to without ever paying for airfare or even hotels.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 19, 2018)

I just thought of a new business idea.  Like a “Tinder” for friendlies. 
Build a team profile.  How far are you willing to travel. What weekends are you available?  Do you have/need a field?  Cost to play?  Refs?  What flight?  Is your coach a jerk or not?


----------



## SPChamp1 (Jul 20, 2018)

I like the fundraising possibility. Perhaps instead of the tournament or host club getting the full kickback at “Stay to Play” tournaments maybe each team could get a cut of that. Even a small portion of that could come back and help subsidize the cost of the coach’s room fees which almost every team pays for to begin with.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Jul 20, 2018)

timbuck said:


> I just thought of a new business idea.  Like a “Tinder” for friendlies.
> Build a team profile.  How far are you willing to travel. What weekends are you available?  Do you have/need a field?  Cost to play?  Refs?  What flight?  Is your coach a jerk or not?


I like that idea. I can’t program or write code for crap, but I’ll Beta test the hell out of it for you.


----------



## focomoso (Jul 26, 2018)

> One full length game per day (not two shortened games)




While this always sounds like a good idea, it ends up being a major inconvenience. DA tournaments are done this way (with a day off on Friday because of the "no more than two days in a row" rule) which means that in a typical 4 game tournament, you have two games during the week. It's very hard for some players to make it to these games because of school / parents working etc. and the kids are often exhausted and many don't show up.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 26, 2018)

focomoso said:


> While this always sounds like a good idea, it ends up being a major inconvenience. DA tournaments are done this way (with a day off on Friday because of the "no more than two days in a row" rule) which means that in a typical 4 game tournament, you have two games during the week. It's very hard for some players to make it to these games because of school / parents working etc. and the kids are often exhausted and many don't show up.


We have not  been to any 4 game DA events.  All the official showcases are 3 games in 4 days.  It’s about the kids not the parents.  In fact parents  don’t even need to go since our club travels and stays together as a team.   If you are worried about parent inconvenience and want your 4 game in two day events (which I think is not good for the kids) play at a lower level.  My kid had no issue with excelling in school while missing a few days.


----------



## mirage (Jul 27, 2018)

In travel baseball, there is a such a thing called "scout" style game format.

The teams play multiple shortened (3 innings - the roster bats at least once) games.  It allows scouts to see different players and situations very quickly without having to sit through the whole game (6~9 innings depending on the age of the team).

If one were to apply the similar concept to soccer, you can have three to four 20~30 minute games with different opponents without a half time.  No score is kept and the 100% focus is on displaying players in the front of scouts.  These games are back-to-back since they are short (before many of you with youngers get upset over the rest time and number of games in a day, scouts are not looking at them.  Its for older players and these are very short games).

If you are playing these kind of games, you can have any given players play 2 games out of four, say, and only really play 40 minutes at the most.

I believe Albion had something similar to this yesterday morning at the Robb field in SD for college coaches.

So if its a showcase, why not put scouts' interest first.  They really don't care to sit through a whole half, let alone the whole game.  Most can tell within the first 10 minutes or less about if the player is worth pursuing further.  This is true in all sports.  Your can almost tell how good the player is by simply watching warmup, jogging and attitude.


----------



## focomoso (Jul 27, 2018)

Simisoccerfan said:


> We have not  been to any 4 game DA events.  All the official showcases are 3 games in 4 days.  It’s about the kids not the parents.  In fact parents  don’t even need to go since our club travels and stays together as a team.   If you are worried about parent inconvenience and want your 4 game in two day events (which I think is not good for the kids) play at a lower level.  My kid had no issue with excelling in school while missing a few days.


That's great that your team doesn't go to these tournaments, but just because you haven't been doesn't mean they don't exist. All the tournaments that accept DA clubs (Manchester City, Surf, Galaxy Cup...) work this way.

But you've missed the point. I'm not complaining about the DA system. I'm just letting people know that there is a tradeoff.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 27, 2018)

focomoso said:


> That's great that your team doesn't go to these tournaments, but just because you haven't been doesn't mean they don't exist. All the tournaments that accept DA clubs (Manchester City, Surf, Galaxy Cup...) work this way.
> 
> But you've missed the point. I'm not complaining about the DA system. I'm just letting people know that there is a tradeoff.


I understand.  We went to many of these tournaments pre DA.  My point is that I think there should be more of the one game a day only tournaments  especially after the age of 14.  And as parents you should be prepared sacrifice a bit for that format.


----------



## mirage (Jul 28, 2018)

Simisoccerfan said:


> I understand.  We went to many of these tournaments pre DA.  My point is that I think there should be more of the one game a day only tournaments  especially after the age of 14.  And as parents you should be prepared sacrifice a bit for that format.


My kid played DA and what I can say is that 1 game a day needs to be rethought.

Frankly, any given DA age group after U14 has roster size somewhere north of 22 players, which means aside from the regular starters, most don't play much.  

Keep the one game per day rule for the players but have two games and force the clubs to play the bench players more and give them starting role (more than 25%).


----------



## futboldad1 (Jul 28, 2018)

FWIW, and not sure if even on topic, my two DDs LOVED tournaments when they played with their old club. Great camaraderie, sense of occasion and lots of competitive touches on the ball. Two games a day was just perfect for them, though as the kids get to 17 years ish one a day starts to make more sense. And 3 games in a single day is definitely too much, third game is more of a battle of body and will than soccer.


----------



## Josep (Jul 28, 2018)

This is pretty funny.  This wish list is practically everything DA offers.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 28, 2018)

mirage said:


> My kid played DA and what I can say is that 1 game a day needs to be rethought.
> 
> Frankly, any given DA age group after U14 has roster size somewhere north of 22 players, which means aside from the regular starters, most don't play much.
> 
> Keep the one game per day rule for the players but have two games and force the clubs to play the bench players more and give them starting role (more than 25%).


Would have to be rules changes to make that work.

18 player game day w/ 5 max subs depending on AG .  45 min half's playing at full speed one game a day is plenty. 

You would really need almost two teams worth of players with the fifa rules to play two full length games at speed same day.   Some of the kids are almost full grown by u15+ so I don't see two full games same day being a good idea without rule changes.

Besides the Galaxy haven't seen much of any DA teams having  more than 18 at any given time in 3 yrs.  sure some come & go due to injury, DP, HS or whatever but regulars beyond the 18 max is unsual.


----------



## mirage (Jul 29, 2018)

jpeter said:


> ...You would really need almost two teams worth of players with the fifa rules to play two full length games at speed same day....
> 
> Besides the Galaxy haven't seen much of any DA teams having  more than 18 at any given time in 3 yrs.....


No, I disagree with the statement.

Having had my kid play through U18/19, there are more than enough players to field 2 teams at almost all academies.  Also, USSF encourages clubs to play youngers up so there's that too.

The only thing is that you see a big drop off at U18/19 because kids are committed to colleges and simply less kids still playing in general.  Many U16/17 players play up and most clubs carry the largest number for U16/17 for that purpose.

Since the roster is calculated based on multiyear age group and the limit is set for that and not an age group, it gives clubs flexibility.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 29, 2018)

mirage said:


> No, I disagree with the statement.
> 
> Having had my kid play through U18/19, there are more than enough players to field 2 teams at almost all academies.  Also, USSF encourages clubs to play youngers up so there's that too.
> 
> ...


Ok yeah couple kids playing is the normal but still doesn't change the fact playing there is only 5 subs max per game. With 10 max possible over two games that's 21 players.  Exhibition games like the summer tours with line like changes at half is about the only time you see line or mass subs.

90mins as a starter for at least 6 of those players is the min but ussda nor does nobody else recommends mutiple games same day or even the next day with those fifa rules da uses playing those kind of minutes.

As a result da shorten the showcase & games and gives a rest day after 2 consecutive.  Also teams normally don't have enough mutiple postional players to make that work without 2 teams worth of players which most don't use or have.

Besdies galaxy what clubs are referring to?  Played them all for years and some only had 16 regular players with some movement but all teams normally play the same day so borrowing is not that common either.

Euporean tournaments get it so that's why the play one game a day normally and they even shorten them, 3 days for pool games,  qrts or semis 1 day each and finals the last day.  Running Monday - Friday or to Saturday but no Sunday play.  The quality of play is better overall and even with 18 some starters don't even sub.


----------



## mirage (Jul 30, 2018)

jpeter said:


> .......90mins as a starter for at least 6 of those players is the min but ussda nor does nobody else recommends mutiple games same day or even the next day with those fifa rules da uses playing those kind of minutes......


You seem to have missed a part of my initial post on this particular subject.

I'd said to keep the one game per day rule for the players.

The whole point is to play more players and give them minutes during showcases and tournaments. 

With all the bench players and DPs, large clubs (Pats, Surf, Strikers and so on) have plenty of Flight 1 players and so called Reserve Academy players in their system.  Why not give them opportunity to play?

Sub rules don't have to change - its fine as is.

By having 2 games/day and players being only eligible for a single game, it forces clubs to play others - which is what I'd said originally.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Jul 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> You seem to have missed a part of my initial post on this particular subject.
> 
> I'd said to keep the one game per day rule for the players.
> 
> ...


I believe several of the Albion teams had two teams participate per age group in the San Diego DA showcase.  Another team from North Carolina did the same thing at the Winter DA Showcase.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 30, 2018)

Simisoccerfan said:


> I believe several of the Albion teams had two teams participate per age group in the San Diego DA showcase.  Another team from North Carolina did the same thing at the Winter DA Showcase.


Seen a guest team from SD on the boys side at this year's summer showcase.  Club got u15 this upcoming season 18-19 so they asked to enter there top flight team that played scdsl even through they would be u16 this season.  

Seemed odd to me & they matched up with the bottom teams from the other divisions. winning one of the games I recall.  Getting some experience is good normally but with some many teams playing wonder how many guest teams they could accommodate.


----------

