# CSL Strong???



## dreamz (May 15, 2021)

It's never good when you have to come out and address rumors although I haven't heard any rumors like the ones they are addressing so what's up?

 
*
COAST SOCCER LEAGUE - STRONG AND THRIVING!*

It has been brought to CSL's attention that there are some rumors being spread about the viability of Coast Soccer League.  CSL is as strong as ever, and will continue to grow and help all our elite Clubs and teams grow and succeed.  There are 185 Clubs participating in CSL, and we have new Clubs joining us for the 2021-22 season.  The reason CSL is one of the most competitive youth leagues in the country is because of the strong support of the Clubs participating in the League, and the highly skilled talented players the Clubs and their coaches develop.  Everything we do is to help promote your Clubs and your players.  Teams that play in Coast continue to compete at the highest levels, and succeed.  Clubs continue to develop skilled players, who go on to play for their High School, College, MLS, NWSL, and National teams.  


COAST SOCCER LEAGUE is here to help players wanting to go to the next level, and Clubs wanting a gaming circuit that supports their vision, and works in partnership with them.


CSL STRONG!


----------



## Woodwork (May 17, 2021)

dreamz said:


> It's never good when you have to come out and address rumors although I haven't heard any rumors like the ones they are addressing so what's up?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CSL has 148 clubs.  https://www.coastsoccer.com/page/show/1327040-clubs

SCDSL has 114 clubs.  http://scdslsoccer.com/club-directory  Most of those appear to be the same 5 clubs.

It isn't so much that CSL is losing clubs, exactly.  The Mega clubs in SCDSL are continually expanding their footprint. Individually, many of the clubs in CSL are losing battles to the encroachment of larger clubs.  It feels like Walmart destroying a small town economy.  

This has been going on for a while, though.  I'm not really sure what SCDSL offers, as a league, that CSL doesn't.  More teams can mean slightly less travel if you are in the beach areas (where the mega clubs really thrive).  Other than that, CSL has enough critical mass for great competition within its brackets.  It looks to me like CSL has its market segment cut out, more or less, and does allow for great competition and development, certainly no worse than SCDSL does after 7th grade. 

Here's a hot take: SCDSL isn't even the best place for competitive play and development according to the clubs that formed it.   Not trusting the level of competition and development within SCDSL, by the time they reach 7th grade, they have instead moved their A and B teams to ECNL and DA or GA....


----------



## notintheface (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> I'm not really sure what SCDSL offers, as a league, that CSL doesn't.


The lack of pro/rel for kids.

Why Coast can't wake up and make this change is just beyond me. Let coaches figure out where their teams should be playing, don't force winning at the youngers ages.


----------



## Woodwork (May 17, 2021)

notintheface said:


> The lack of pro/rel for kids.
> 
> Why Coast can't wake up and make this change is just beyond me. Let coaches figure out where their teams should be playing, don't force winning at the youngers ages.


I am not sure how much better SCDSL youngers teams are about not focusing on winning.  It really depends on the coach.  Only the rarest of coaches is going to give up a victory to play their subs or to create a learning moment. 

Also, F3 team that "focused on development" and lost all games last year, still gonna be F3 this year. I think it really is more about mega clubs protecting their investment.  They need to promise flights to sell to parents.  Kind of like how MLS doesn't have prom/rel to protect investors.

Promotion/Relegation looks great at the older ages, though.  SCDSL's flight 1 after 7th grade is completely unpredictable in terms of competition level.


----------



## Kante (May 17, 2021)

notintheface said:


> The lack of pro/rel for kids.
> 
> Why Coast can't wake up and make this change is just beyond me. Let coaches figure out where their teams should be playing, don't force winning at the youngers ages.


could not disagree more. although the pro/rel csl offers has a fair amt of politics, if a team wins their group, they move up.

single best way to support a wide variety of smaller clubs that serve a wide variety of players while also holding larger clubs accountable. 

US soccer overall would be way stronger if the top leagues operated in same way, and worked w/ leagues like CSL to provide team-based access to high quality teams from smaller clubs (eg, Olympiakos from CSL 05)


----------



## Grace T. (May 17, 2021)

Kante said:


> could not disagree more. although the pro/rel csl offers has a fair amt of politics, if a team wins their group, they move up.
> 
> single best way to support a wide variety of smaller clubs that serve a wide variety of players while also holding larger clubs accountable.
> 
> US soccer overall would be way stronger if the top leagues operated in same way, and worked w/ leagues like CSL to provide team-based access to high quality teams from smaller clubs (eg, Olympiakos from CSL 05)


It has some unintended side effects though:

-At the early ages, coaches are focused on winning because the club needs multiple teams on multiple levels in order to recruit parents.
-Focusing on winning means picking the tallest and fastest kids, usually close to the age line, early bloomers.  It's no surprise the kids around age 10-12 on flight 1 gold teams are unusually tall for their age.
-It also means short cutting development.  Don't do dangerous stuff like teaching kids who don't know how to pass well yet to pass it backwards.  Play it long, have the keeper punt, get the big legged kids to goalkick or boot the ball from the defensive 1/3
-Talent isn't distributed evenly.  It means on the teams that advance the weaker kids will be dropped in order to recruit upgrades (which will now come to the team because of the upgrade).  It means other teams lose their stronger players because they are recruited to higher level teams.  There's no "dance with the one that brung you" rule, which means moving up is vitally important at the early ages (by any means necessary) if the coach is going to maintain some stability.
-The flights as a result become gatekeepers to recruitment for later play (whether pro, college, or higher teams) since it's very hard for a player to jump from a bronze/flight 3 to an ENCL team in 1 swoop.

To the extent we want to protect late bloomers, or put less of an emphasis on soccer on winning, pro/rel is not a good system, particularly in the early years.

Switching to self-selection also has some bad side effects namely at the expense of the smaller regional clubs that manage to put squads of friends together since they'll be going now against bigger clubs with bigger resources (so shopping becomes less about level and more about what fields and staff does the club furnish). You'll also at the earlier ages get teams blown out 12-0 since self-selection isn't perfect, the pressure from parents will be to play higher, and people engage in wishful thinking, leading to a dilution of competition.


----------



## Woodwork (May 17, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> It has some unintended side effects though:
> 
> -At the early ages, coaches are focused on winning because the club needs multiple teams on multiple levels in order to recruit parents.
> -Focusing on winning means picking the tallest and fastest kids, usually close to the age line, early bloomers.  It's no surprise the kids around age 10-12 on flight 1 gold teams are unusually tall for their age.
> ...


Focus on winning to have teams playing in higher Flight: Check.
Not passing the ball backwards, instead playing it long: Check.
Weaker kids being dropped/pushed to lower team: Check.
Discriminating against lower flight players at higher flights: Check.

My DD has experienced every problem you describe here in the context of SCDSL clubs.  Found room to grow at a CSL club that punches above its weight.

And the fields are better too.


----------



## espola (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Not passing the ball backwards, instead playing it long: Check.


Sometimes long is the best play.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Focus on winning to have teams playing in higher Flight: Check.
> Not passing the ball backwards, instead playing it long: Check.
> Weaker kids being dropped/pushed to lower team: Check.
> Discriminating against lower flight players at higher flights: Check.
> ...


The travel in csl is horrible but the quality of boys teams is very good and probably better than most flight 1 teams.   On the girls side I would say scdsl has a better pool of talented girls.


----------



## notintheface (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Also, F3 team that "focused on development" and lost all games last year, still gonna be F3 this year.


You're taking the extreme example. F3 team that focused on development and came in midtable is probably good enough for F2. Under Coast rules that's never going to happen and a team that is only good enough for let's say 4th place in bronze is doomed to stay in bronze for probably at least 3 years while the teams above them move up. That is a giant shit sandwich and half the reason why there's churn in Coast.


----------



## notintheface (May 17, 2021)

Kante said:


> if a team wins their group


9 year olds do not need to be worrying about this at all, period. Learn to connect a pass from a defender to a midfielder without the worry of shipping a goal because of a wayward pass. Reward the kid for trying the idea, don't punish the entire goddamned team for the typical 9-year-old mis-hit pass.


----------



## notintheface (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Found room to grow at a CSL club that punches above its weight.


Again-- ask yourself what your statement would be if this team played a good game but was unable to crack the top two places. At the youngers level pro/rel makes absolutely zero sense. You could have your primary goalscorer break his/her arm and your season is sunk and you can't move up. Make that make sense for me.


----------



## Emma (May 17, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> It has some unintended side effects though:
> 
> -At the early ages, coaches are focused on winning because the club needs multiple teams on multiple levels in order to recruit parents.
> -Focusing on winning means picking the tallest and fastest kids, usually close to the age line, early bloomers.  It's no surprise the kids around age 10-12 on flight 1 gold teams are unusually tall for their age.
> ...


This is being sold by the larger clubs.  Rarely does this happen. I've seen plenty of smaller teams with skillful players beat the more athletic teams.  Generally - the teams that do well have a balance of skill players and athletic players.  Without pro/rel, all the power is with the coach and clubs.  The hard working players and families don't have a voice and are forced to go to big clubs if they want to play against better competition.  Playing local and supporting local clubs is as important as supporting small businesses but we as a society are giving in to these big corp or clubs because they make up "super leagues" that they place themselves in without pro or rel.

Smaller skilled players that get knocked off the ball while they are young and can't hang with the bigger/faster players SHOULD play in lower flights to continue to develop their skills.  Nothing wrong with playing at a lower level to allow yourself space and time to develop until you're not knocked off the ball anymore. 

Teams don't come in last in their league because of one or two or three mistakes.  They come in last generally because they are playing in divisions too high for them and a year in the lower level will help them develop better or build more confidence.  I'm sure you can find one example that counters this but the majority is correct.  

If we teach our kids to keep score and try to win tournaments, why are we shielding them from pro/rel?


----------



## notintheface (May 17, 2021)

Emma said:


> Teams don't come in last in their league because of one or two or three mistakes.


You're talking about last place. Ignore that-- talk about the third place team that plays great soccer but the top two teams have Rayden Smith and Raiden Martinez, who score every time they touch the ball. You're going to screw over this third place team for a year at least when -- especially at the youngers -- they should move up and be playing harder competition to get better faster.


----------



## Emma (May 17, 2021)

notintheface said:


> You're talking about last place. Ignore that-- talk about the third place team that plays great soccer but the top two teams have Rayden Smith and Raiden Martinez, who score every time they touch the ball. You're going to screw over this third place team for a year at least when -- especially at the youngers -- they should move up and be playing harder competition to get better faster.


Gives them another year to develop better defense.  How are you screwing them?  They obviously haven't figured out how to stop one player defensively yet so why do they have to move up?  What's the necessity in it?


----------



## socalkdg (May 17, 2021)

I can only judge the 05 division, but very little difference between 05 Discovery and 05 Premier on the girls side.   

One of the teams that was in our division 1.5 years ago finished last in gold, no wins.   They were going to drop to Silver Elite.   They jumped to SCDSL Flight 1. They are 3-3 this year.   

Playing national cup right now.   Two teams from 05 Discovery lead their division and should win out.   Two teams from 05 Premier lead their division and should win out.   Tudela leads the 5th division, should win out.   All well matched.


----------



## socalkdg (May 17, 2021)

notintheface said:


> You're talking about last place. Ignore that-- talk about the third place team that plays great soccer but the top two teams have Rayden Smith and Raiden Martinez, who score every time they touch the ball. You're going to screw over this third place team for a year at least when -- especially at the youngers -- they should move up and be playing harder competition to get better faster.


3rd place teams can and do move up frequently.   Our club an example a few years back.


----------



## Grace T. (May 17, 2021)

Emma said:


> This is being sold by the larger clubs.  Rarely does this happen. I've seen plenty of smaller teams with skillful players beat the more athletic teams.  Generally - the teams that do well have a balance of skill players and athletic players.  Without pro/rel, all the power is with the coach and clubs.  The hard working players and families don't have a voice and are forced to go to big clubs if they want to play against better competition.  Playing local and supporting local clubs is as important as supporting small businesses but we as a society are giving in to these big corp or clubs because they make up "super leagues" that they place themselves in without pro or rel.
> 
> Smaller skilled players that get knocked off the ball while they are young and can't hang with the bigger/faster players SHOULD play in lower flights to continue to develop their skills.  Nothing wrong with playing at a lower level to allow yourself space and time to develop until you're not knocked off the ball anymore.
> 
> ...


At the younger ages it takes only 1 or 2 players to make a real impact on the teams record.  If those 1 or 2 players get recruited for a bigger club the team will languish and have to rebuild. If the team doesn’t have that 1 or 2 players they can’t advance.

part of the advice which came out from the us soccer development was that kids should not be taught to keep score and win tournaments because it affects the learning process. It causes coaches to take the short cut to get the win rather than develop their players. When recruitment is a more important skill in a coach than actually teaching the game then there’s a problem.

the issue really is the flights were never intended as a tier system. Their function is just so teams don’t get blown out 12-0.  But they’ve become gate keepers for higher flights, college and pro. To move up you have to play for a higher level team. To develop you need the higher level competition. And it’s almost impossible for a very skilled flight 3 kid to make an immediate jump to mls next.


----------



## Grace T. (May 17, 2021)

Emma said:


> Gives them another year to develop better defense.  How are you screwing them?  They obviously haven't figured out how to stop one player defensively yet so why do they have to move up?  What's the necessity in it?


The issue here is that placement should be by skill level of the individual athlete not the team. The team isn’t a going concern...it’s an ephemeral thing with just the name of the club...the coach or players may shift in or out. The defense might not be ready but the striker or goalkeeper might. The remedy then is that striker or goalkeeper will leave which leads to the tryout circus season and club hopping we all bemoan. Meanwhile that team now needs to start over and find a new striker or goalkeeper


----------



## Lodan36 (May 17, 2021)

There's politics in csl like any other league...I know of a team that lost every game in a season and moved up the next....my understanding is that top 2-3 teams move up and bottom teams move down...middles team stay..and it wasn't that there was no room for them in other brackets..teams that had much better season stayed in their bracket without moving up..


----------



## Woodwork (May 17, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> The issue here is that placement should be by skill level of the individual athlete not the team. The team isn’t a going concern...it’s an ephemeral thing with just the name of the club...the coach or players may shift in or out. The defense might not be ready but the striker or goalkeeper might. The remedy then is that striker or goalkeeper will leave which leads to the tryout circus season and club hopping we all bemoan. Meanwhile that team now needs to start over and find a new striker or goalkeeper


CSL's pro/rel is not so strict.  Experienced clubs and coaches know that you can appeal to CSL if you have other evidence that the team would be appropriate competition at the next level. I have also seen teams skip levels and opt out of promotion.

Tryout circus and club hopping are just as much SCDSL as it is CSL.

Plenty of teams in CSL finish in the middle one year, earn a move up the next.  Builds character.  Its not like 8/10 teams just fold every year in CSL.  The inability to choose which level you play in, rather than spend a year earning it, is a mega-club control issue.  It isn't a fairness issue.


----------



## Grace T. (May 17, 2021)

Lodan36 said:


> There's politics in csl like any other league...I know of a team that lost every game in a season and moved up the next....my understanding is that top 2-3 teams move up and bottom teams move down...middles team stay..and it wasn't that there was no room for them in other brackets..teams that had much better season stayed in their bracket without moving up..


yeah this is yet another issue.  The biggest argument for pro/rel is that soccer is a meritocracy but it really isn’t a pure one.  Sometimes it depends on the coaches connections or the power of the club and they might advance a team early or stop a team from being relegated (I know a team that lost every game, some badly, in the intermediate tiers yet still not relegated)

It’s the same on the individual basis. We all know people who have bought their way onto teams. Clubs sometimes bring kids onto the a team to recruit new families rather than bring lower kids who might be ready up.  Clubs sometimes keep weaker kids in higher teams because they are integrated into the system or have been there a long time and either have friends or want to minimize disruption.


----------



## Grace T. (May 17, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> CSL's pro/rel is not so strict.  Experienced clubs and coaches know that you can appeal to CSL if you have other evidence that the team would be appropriate competition at the next level. I have also seen teams skip levels and opt out of promotion.
> 
> Tryout circus and club hopping are just as much SCDSL as it is CSL.
> 
> Plenty of teams in CSL finish in the middle one year, earn a move up the next.  Builds character.  Its not like 8/10 teams just fold every year in CSL.  The inability to choose which level you play in, rather than spend a year earning it, is a mega-club control issue.  It isn't a fairness issue.


Yeah there are also clubs who use their connections to avoid relegation or to advance when in comparison to the others there are better teams. Pro/rel works only is soccer is a true meritocracy and we all know it isn’t.


----------



## Woodwork (May 17, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah there are also clubs who use their connections to avoid relegation or to advance when in comparison to the others there are better teams. Pro/rel works only is soccer is a true meritocracy and we all know it isn’t.


Hard to tell what you are advocating for.  First place teams get promoted in CSL.  Sometimes other teams get promoted but I haven't seen one that was way out of place yet.  In SCDSL, the clubs figure it out on their own, sometimes they get it right, sometimes nope.  Either way, I don't see the  CSL's system as being worse than SCDSL's.  The season is about three months of the year, not the whole team's identity.  Competing in a pro/rel league with real stakes is fun.  You should see the way kids celebrate when they finish first in CSL.  Even better, see when they finish not last.


----------



## El Clasico (May 17, 2021)

notintheface said:


> You're talking about last place. Ignore that-- talk about the third place team that plays great soccer but the top two teams have Rayden Smith and Raiden Martinez, who score every time they touch the ball. You're going to screw over this third place team for a year at least when -- especially at the youngers -- they should move up and be playing harder competition to get better faster.


You most certainly can move up in CSL if you finish in 3rd place. You can petition to move up, you can finish well in state cup, you can play tough tournaments and do well and demonstrate that you deserve to move up. There are a variety of ways that a team finishing in 3rd can move up.

However, what I have seen on many occasions is that teams that finish 2nd or 3rd that can, or should, move up don't because the coach intentionally requests the same flight when submitting the team application. They do this so they can romp the competition the following year and then they tell the parents that they tried but CSL wouldn't let them move up.  If you didn't move up, it is because your coach didn't want to move up. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Hard to tell what you are advocating for.  First place teams get promoted in CSL.  Sometimes other teams get promoted but I haven't seen one that was way out of place yet.  In SCDSL, the clubs figure it out on their own, sometimes they get it right, sometimes nope.  Either way, I don't see the  CSL's system as being worse than SCDSL's.  The season is about three months of the year, not the whole team's identity.  Competing in a pro/rel league with real stakes is fun.  You should see the way kids celebrate when they finish first in CSL.  Even better, see when they finish not last.


Not really advocating either position. Both have side effects and neither is perfect given the other things going on in club soccer. I’ve given a lot of thought over how to fix the tier systems over the years and I’ve never come up with a good alternative.

but yes where they finish is entirely part of the team’s identity. After asking b or g and year the next piece of information parents shopping for teams ask is “what level?”


----------



## notintheface (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> The inability to choose which level you play in, rather than spend a year earning it, is a mega-club control issue.


A quick glance at the club directory for SCDSL to look at all of the local privateer clubs is all it takes to definitively prove your statement to be 100% false.


----------



## notintheface (May 18, 2021)

El Clasico said:


> You most certainly can move up in CSL if you finish in 3rd place. You can petition to move up, you can finish well in state cup, you can play tough tournaments and do well and demonstrate that you deserve to move up. There are a variety of ways that a team finishing in 3rd can move up.


Come on, let's get real here. Coast does not do that in 99.9% of the cases. Yes I have seen it but it is absolutely not the norm.

Here's a fundamental example -- imo, any team that doesn't lose all of their games in Bronze/Flight 3 should be playing in Silver/Flight 2 the next year. They've had a year of training and playing together, they understand the game, and that lowest tier should be reserved for kids new to the game or absolutely brand new teams or AYSO kids taking the next step. It is perfectly fine for the lowest tier to be a revolving door because you know all of the teams start out on roughly the same footing, especially as an introduction to the game. Will teams struggle in Flight 2/Silver as a result of this? Sure, but they are playing stronger competition and improving their own game faster than they would playing against lower tier teams.

Under the Coast model this can't happen and the overall development of these kids, especially at the youngers ages, gets harmed because of it. Nearly every single compatriot I have talked to laments the idea of having to push their youngers to win games instead of improving their skills, even the coaches who you see out on the field with that "win at any cost" mentality. The coaches don't want pro/rel. It is not a good idea for kids. Professionals? Sure. 9-year-olds? No way.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

notintheface said:


> Come on, let's get real here. Coast does not do that in 99.9% of the cases. Yes I have seen it but it is absolutely not the norm.
> 
> Here's a fundamental example -- imo, any team that doesn't lose all of their games in Bronze/Flight 3 should be playing in Silver/Flight 2 the next year. They've had a year of training and playing together, they understand the game, and that lowest tier should be reserved for kids new to the game or absolutely brand new teams or AYSO kids taking the next step. It is perfectly fine for the lowest tier to be a revolving door because you know all of the teams start out on roughly the same footing, especially as an introduction to the game. Will teams struggle in Flight 2/Silver as a result of this? Sure, but they are playing stronger competition and improving their own game faster than they would playing against lower tier teams.
> 
> Under the Coast model this can't happen and the overall development of these kids, especially at the youngers ages, gets harmed because of it. Nearly every single compatriot I have talked to laments the idea of having to push their youngers to win games instead of improving their skills, even the coaches who you see out on the field with that "win at any cost" mentality. The coaches don't want pro/rel. It is not a good idea for kids. Professionals? Sure. 9-year-olds? No way.


Here's a good example of this.  One of my son's early teams, a GK, was an AYSO United Team.  They played 3 tournaments in the summer, losing all 4 games of the 1st (1 badly 12-0 against another AYSO United team that went on to play gold and just had kids that could bang it into goal from the half or on the kickoff), coming in 4/6 on the 2nd and 2/8 in the final.  CSL required them as a new team to play bronze even though the coach wanted them to play silver.  They said no, citing in particularly that one badly lost game. In the fall season, they go on to sweep all their games, sometimes badly (even with a passing rule) 15-0.  My son, the GK, is basically sitting there during games, not getting very much practice.  They advance the bronze levels in League Cup very easily but then hit the silver and silver elite teams....team suddenly is unable to score and gets panicked....my kid, who is extensively trained, sees stuff like 1v1s he's never seen before and doesn't know how to handle it.  Coach goes into a melt down screaming at my kid and screaming at the attackers who are falling apart...blames them for stuff they've never seen before.  They should have been learning this in league, but instead they were out there destroying other teams by double digits.  

Here's a hypothetical: assume a closed universe U12 boys with only 3 tiers, 1/2/3, where coaches get to self-select.  Where will the majority of teams be placed?  They'll be placed in 2 because most people, rightly or wrongly, will assume they are an average team, not wanting to have the stigma of being the worst (kids leave) or of being destroyed by the best.  The distribution in U12 for boys CSL is the opposite...the vast majority of teams are bronze, stacked like a pyramid.  But in this self-selecting universe you will have games with 12-0 results because some teams will place inappropriately, sometimes deliberately so to establish a winning reputation.


----------



## notintheface (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> Gives them another year to develop better defense. How are you screwing them? They obviously haven't figured out how to stop one player defensively yet so why do they have to move up? What's the necessity in it?


This is how you lose kids in a hurry. You are unfairly holding them back for circumstances that are mostly out of their control.

If you are trying to teach 10 year olds build-up play, they are going to leak goals like crazy. It happens as a natural course. That team should not be continuously playing league games against lower-tier teams, period. They should be playing against teams that will punish the sloppy pass to the middle so that they learn to tighten things up.

The fundamental argument here is that parents believe that the coach does not know the true ability of a team and that an arbitrary rule somehow shakes out that true ability. That rule does absolutely nothing in a world where there are limited games and a normal amount of player movement. "This team should not play at this higher level" is the sound of gatekeeping and I don't believe it in 90% of cases.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2021)

notintheface said:


> This is how you lose kids in a hurry. You are unfairly holding them back for circumstances that are mostly out of their control.
> 
> If you are trying to teach 10 year olds build-up play, they are going to leak goals like crazy. It happens as a natural course. That team should not be continuously playing league games against lower-tier teams, period. They should be playing against teams that will punish the sloppy pass to the middle so that they learn to tighten things up.
> 
> The fundamental argument here is that parents believe that the coach does not know the true ability of a team and that an arbitrary rule somehow shakes out that true ability. That rule does absolutely nothing in a world where there are limited games and a normal amount of player movement. "This team should not play at this higher level" is the sound of gatekeeping and I don't believe it in 90% of cases.


The reasons we lose kids is because we (adults & parents) make them think that they must move up a flight every year in order to be good enough to continue as soccer players.  That's false advertisement and why every year we create new flight 1 levels.  Europa isn't enough, we need to add Champions, then Champions isn't enough, we need add to discovery, then discovery isn't enough, we need to add CRL, DPL or ECRL or GA.  That's how we ended up with this mess.  SDDA added blue and gold to their flight one as they got older because parents needed it.  Now we are starting to do discovery at younger age groups because teams already played in Flight 1 last year.

While your children are in school, they just advance to the next grade level if they are good students.  We don't move them to higher tier schools every year.  It's not realistic.  Only the few that truly are superior to the average student should move up.  As with soccer, we should not be moving a team up unless they are *superior not just slightly better* to the rest of the flights. CSL did have a petition if you added a few great players (move up quicker) or lost a few great players (stay back in the flight).  They weren't unrealistic to the movements of players.  Obviously, like in everything in life, there is definitely a level of politics, it was minimal.  

If you are teaching them build up and they are still leaking goals like crazy, why do you force them into a stronger league with faster players that will make them leak more goals?  Why not learn the fundamentals of how to build up better?


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> The reasons we lose kids is because we (adults & parents) make them think that they must move up a flight every year in order to be good enough to continue as soccer players.  That's false advertisement and why every year we create new flight 1 levels.  Europa isn't enough, we need to add Champions, then Champions isn't enough, we need add to discovery, then discovery isn't enough, we need to add CRL, DPL or ECRL or GA.  That's how we ended up with this mess.  SDDA added blue and gold to their flight one as they got older because parents needed it.  Now we are starting to do discovery at younger age groups because teams already played in Flight 1 last year.
> 
> While your children are in school, they just advance to the next grade level if they are good students.  We don't move them to higher tier schools every year.  It's not realistic.  Only the few that truly are superior to the average student should move up.  As with soccer, we should not be moving a team up unless they are *superior not just slightly better* to the rest of the flights. CSL did have a petition if you added a few great players (move up quicker) or lost a few great players (stay back in the flight).  They weren't unrealistic to the movements of players.  Obviously, like in everything in life, there is definitely a level of politics, it was minimal.
> 
> If you are teaching them build up and they are still leaking goals like crazy, why do you force them into a stronger league with faster players that will make them leak more goals?  Why not learn the fundamentals of how to build up better?


Because this isn't the way it works in actual practice, at least on the boys side.  U9 U10 teams are basically about outrunning the other opponents and you have to have a striker that's a pretty good shot.  On the boys side that means coaches built up teams with the fastest biggest kids they can find and if they can only find a few they put them up top.  Usually these kids are pretty close to the age line (which the kids have zero control about).  I or 2 kids can make a world of difference and the GKs take at least 2-3 years of training before they can stop anything except a moderately hit shot hit straight at them.  Team advances a level....drop the dead weight and recruit more kids looking for a higher placed team...rinse repeat each year until you are flight 1.  That's the winning formula to advance.  If you are teaching kids on the defensive line to play possession and play it backwards in U9 and U10 it means you are going to leak goals the first couple years which means you are behind the hierarchy (and recruiting) of teams moving u.  Those teams that do not move up will lose their best players and be forced to repeat and rebuilt.  It does sort itself but the side effect is the constantly shifting teams and the cutting/moving people always complain about on these boards.

As to the school analogy, if that were true, the vast majority of teams are "average" and therefore should be playing silver flight 2....leaving higher 1 and elite competition to the few.  That's not the way the boys pyramid is organized though.  It's organized like a pyramid with the vast majority playing flight 3 which is below average or just starting.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Because this isn't the way it works in actual practice, at least on the boys side.  U9 U10 teams are basically about outrunning the other opponents and you have to have a striker that's a pretty good shot.  On the boys side that means coaches built up teams with the fastest biggest kids they can find and if they can only find a few they put them up top.  Usually these kids are pretty close to the age line (which the kids have zero control about).  I or 2 kids can make a world of difference and the GKs take at least 2-3 years of training before they can stop anything except a moderately hit shot hit straight at them.  Team advances a level....drop the dead weight and recruit more kids looking for a higher placed team...rinse repeat each year until you are flight 1.  That's the winning formula to advance.  If you are teaching kids on the defensive line to play possession and play it backwards in U9 and U10 it means you are going to leak goals the first couple years which means you are behind the hierarchy (and recruiting) of teams moving u.  Those teams that do not move up will lose their best players and be forced to repeat and rebuilt.  It does sort itself but the side effect is the constantly shifting teams and the cutting/moving people always complain about on these boards.
> 
> As to the school analogy, if that were true, the vast majority of teams are "average" and therefore should be playing silver flight 2....leaving higher 1 and elite competition to the few.  That's not the way the boys pyramid is organized though.  It's organized like a pyramid with the vast majority playing flight 3 which is below average or just starting.


It's soccer so you need fast or quick runners to win, even if you are playing possession soccer.  If you can't get to the ball before your opponent, you can't possess the ball no matter how good you are at positioning.  Slower teams should play lower flights.  They won't be able to keep up with fast teams and it's OK.  They may or may not get faster as the years change their bodies.

I've seen plenty of teams with 1 great and fast striker but a good coach will teach them how to defend against those players.  Don't let it get to the striker.  Force the passes away from that striker, cut off the angle.  That's learning to play defense at a young age.  If the kids are unable to do that yet, can't read that team's middle, or put enough pressure on defenders to not allow those big kicks forwards, they will lose and those are the things they should continue to work on. 

The build out line was created to prevent those easy goals at a young age.  If your team can't play from the back reasonably with the build out line in place, well...that's something the coach should work on with the team and not force them into a higher level.

How is forcing them into a higher level going to help? 

As for levels - we have so many levels in soccer right now in SOCAL - no one even knows what level is what. (created by big clubs for big payers who want to believe their kids have advanced to a higher league even though it's just renamed)  We have rec level teams in club.  Average is level 3 - like a C  nothing wrong with it.  Flight 1 should be the best of the best.  Flight 2 is fantastic but missing a few components like speed or vision.  Flight 3 - Average.  Flight 4 - Beginning Club Flight 5 -Rec.  Most teams should be playing Flight 3 and they are but they don't even know it because Big clubs and leagues work together to rename the flights for the parents egos.  

There's nothing wrong with player movement.  Players change and sometimes they need a different place to train.  Sometimes teams outgrow players and sometimes players outgrow teams.  Sometimes teams keep weak players because it's a local team that wants to give that player a year or 2 to get physically there but still allow the kid to play on the same team as his/her friends.  Sometimes great players stay at weak teams because they want to continue playing with their friends and will find other ways to improve their skills without having to train with the best players often.  Choices are made by parents and kids - not by big clubs selling fake flights.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> It's soccer so you need fast or quick runners to win, even if you are playing possession soccer.  If you can't get to the ball before your opponent, you can't possess the ball no matter how good you are at positioning.  Slower teams should play lower flights.  They won't be able to keep up with fast teams and it's OK.  They may or may not get faster as the years change their bodies.
> 
> I've seen plenty of teams with 1 great and fast striker but a good coach will teach them how to defend against those players.  Don't let it get to the striker.  Force the passes away from that striker, cut off the angle.  That's learning to play defense at a young age.  If the kids are unable to do that yet, can't read that team's middle, or put enough pressure on defenders to not allow those big kicks forwards, they will lose and those are the things they should continue to work on.
> 
> ...


Agree the flights have gotten confusing.  Love your 5 flight level team structure but there are 2 issues there: would require a unified governing body that could shuttle kids to appropriately placed teams not the fractured leagues we have now and AYSO being its own thing (adults caring more about their turf than an organized system for the kids), and in the end kid's soccer is about college looks, admissions and scholarship which is why the pressure from parents to play higher (not about the ego) because no one is going to look at the striker for the flight 3 teams in your schemes and they aren't going to play the showcase tournaments.

Disagree that the coach can teach the team to defend against that striker.  The height disparity given the age line, particularly on the boys, is too much to sometimes overcome.  Don't really see any way around that beyond breaking up the age groups into 6 months brackets but then some smaller clubs/teams won't have enough players to play in the absence of some super organization regulating all this stuff.

I had a bet once with a buddy what the build out line would mean.  He said that after the build out lines teams would never go back to punting and long balling the ball.  He's admitted he lost that bet.  As soon as the build out line is removed the boys go back to punting.  Now you could keep the build out line in place until U16 but there's a large group of people that were unhappy with the build out line even at the youngest ages.  Interestingly, the higher level the boys advance the less of that you see, but there's still a lot of punting and long balling even at the higher levels.  Soccer is ultimately a game about mistakes and one short cut around that is not making mistakes too close to your side of the goal.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Agree the flights have gotten confusing.  Love your 5 flight level team structure but there are 2 issues there: would require a unified governing body that could shuttle kids to appropriately placed teams not the fractured leagues we have now and AYSO being its own thing (adults caring more about their turf than an organized system for the kids), and in the end kid's soccer is about college looks, admissions and scholarship which is why the pressure from parents to play higher (not about the ego) because no one is going to look at the striker for the flight 3 teams in your schemes and they aren't going to play the showcase tournaments.
> 
> Disagree that the coach can teach the team to defend against that striker.  The height disparity given the age line, particularly on the boys, is too much to sometimes overcome.  Don't really see any way around that beyond breaking up the age groups into 6 months brackets but then some smaller clubs/teams won't have enough players to play in the absence of some super organization regulating all this stuff.
> 
> I had a bet once with a buddy what the build out line would mean.  He said that after the build out lines teams would never go back to punting and long balling the ball.  He's admitted he lost that bet.  As soon as the build out line is removed the boys go back to punting.  Now you could keep the build out line in place until U16 but there's a large group of people that were unhappy with the build out line even at the youngest ages.  Interestingly, the higher level the boys advance the less of that you see, but there's still a lot of punting and long balling even at the higher levels.  Soccer is ultimately a game about mistakes and one short cut around that is not making mistakes too close to your side of the goal.


p.s. in your 5 tier pyramid structure, if we are really talking truly superior players, flight 1 in the SoCal area would be limited to about 5-10 teams of each gender with the intention to play future pro.  There's no need to promotion/relegation...they are a handful of MLS teams and affiliates that recruit players.  Flight 1 would be reserved for players with the potential to play professionally.  All other college bound players in flight 2 or 3.   In some states like Utah they may only have 2 teams and Idaho probably only has 1 which means a lot of traveling, given the size of the country.

But then you'll just get parents that complain about being shut out of flight 1 MLS and set up their own tier 1 league, hence the need for a superorganization that can regulate all this stuff.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> p.s. in your 5 tier pyramid structure, if we are really talking truly superior players, flight 1 in the SoCal area would be limited to about 5-10 teams of each gender with the intention to play future pro.
> 
> But then you'll just get parents that complain about being shut out of flight 1 MLS and set up their own tier 1 league, hence the need for a superorganization that can regulate all this stuff.


Consolidation is definitely needed.  Parents and clubs have created a complex system of false tiers to make money and for parents to feel like their player is in a special league.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Consolidation is definitely needed.  Parents and clubs have created a complex system of false tiers to make money and for parents to feel like their player is in a special league.


It's not about feeling special.  I'm sure there's some of that but that's not the primary driver of it.  It's college admissions and recruitments that distort all of this.  If we were to look at Europe, Academy level play is reserved for certain very high level players with pro ambitions....they have to basically surrender the college track and there's a bunch of train wreck stories and documentaries out there about what happens when kids wash out....everyone else plays rec.  In the US, because most kids playing higher level are looking for college not pros (because unless you can play in Europe the pay in the MLS simply isn't worth it), it creates a need to create higher level teams so kids can get a look at college recruitment.  If we really meant flight 1 was only for superior players, almost all of our kids wouldn't play flight 1 and teams in SoCal would be limited to about 5-10 very high level teams (probably more for the boys than the girls since there are more pro options for the boys).


----------



## soccersc (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> It's not about feeling special.  I'm sure there's some of that but that's not the primary driver of it.  It's college admissions and recruitments that distort all of this.  If we were to look at Europe, Academy level play is reserved for certain very high level players with pro ambitions....they have to basically surrender the college track and there's a bunch of train wreck stories and documentaries out there about what happens when kids wash out....everyone else plays rec.  In the US, because most kids playing higher level are looking for college not pros (because unless you can play in Europe the pay in the MLS simply isn't worth it), it creates a need to create higher level teams so kids can get a look at college recruitment.  If we really meant flight 1 was only for superior players, almost all of our kids wouldn't play flight 1 and teams in SoCal would be limited to about 5-10 very high level teams (probably more for the boys than the girls since there are more pro options for the boys).


I'm not sure about that. Sure college admissions adds to it, but clubs aren't creating leagues and all sorts of acronyms because of college.  Sure that might end up being a byproduct of what they have created, but @SoccerFan4Life does kind of have it right when he says parents are looking for the special name in a special league.  

Don't forget why these clubs are really invested in it, its not for development anymore, ALMOST all are in it for the money, and what brings the money- parents. If it was for development there would be consolidation and kids would be placed in the correct level to develop, not just be placed on a team because you have to fill the roster. And what are MOST parents looking for, a team that has an acronym tied to it, not because that is a team that can help them develop but because they want to be on the best. Then of course, colleges will come watch those teams, but parents are making those decisions way before college recruitment becomes involved.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2021)

My son and daughter's teams have played against fast strikers.  Ifthat's the only player they need to beat, most of their coaches have always made the adjustments required to contain that 1 player.  Sometimes its a tie, sometimes its a win and sometimes they lose in close games because they let a few big kicks by the defenders get by.  Generally - they lose by a lot because there is more than one area that they can not beat the opposing team, mid or defense too.  So it's not because of the fast striker alone that makes team look bad against another team, it's because they allowed the defenders or midfielders to make that pass close to the striker many times.  I hear parents say this all the time - we lost by 6-0 because they had that fast striker.  It's not true. The team lost for more than that reason - did your offense press the defenders to make short or bad passes?  Did your midfielders get in position to win the balls? Did your goalie cut off the angle as much as possible?
Teams do punt but they don't do it all the time now.  Before the build out line, rarely did you see a team play from the back.  Now, teams punt when the front press is tough for the defenders - which is why one would punt, the match up is better in the middle or up front.  Or they punt a lot because they have goalies that make bad decisions when passing, choosing the side with the incoming/fast forward rather than the wide open side with no forwards pressing.  You play the style the game/match up dictates. 

That's why I'm arguing for CSL.  CSL is not perfect.  All these years, CSL has tried to put teams in the right bracket and keep things simple and more transparent.  SCDSL and ECNL have not done that.  They've closed up competition and created "Super" leagues regardless of skills and created an infinite amount of leagues and flights with too much complications.  

If ECNL/MLS NEXT allowed outside strong teams to play into their leagues like CRL, it would be a much better league and an open league but they only allow their handpick clubs to be part of it in order to try an force more players to leave their local teams and good coaches to join an ECNL team.

If parents are pressuring their u9/u10/u11/u12/u13/u14/u15 into a league or team because of the opportunity to get into college, they are focused on the wrong things at those age groups and probably forgot how important grades and learning skills are.  The time spent on looking for better leagues and teams should be used on how to help their children develop better studying/work habits.  Maybe we need those baseball signs up that say "this is youth soccer, your child will not get a scholarship today"


----------



## soccersc (May 18, 2021)

Parents are sold by what level they are on and clubs are trying to SELL their product.  The sad but true news is that clubs are more about the money now days then the player.  I am sure there are exceptions but I mean in general.  Look at these numbers from Liverpool in Irvine.

In 2014 their Technical Director made almost 150,000 and the club brought in 1.8 million
in 2020 they brought in 5.3 million.  Think about that, multi million dollar

Its about marketing, and what parents are going to buy, so unfair to the players and soccer in America.









						F C Blades - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
					

Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001.



					projects.propublica.org


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I'm not sure about that. Sure college admissions adds to it, but clubs aren't creating leagues and all sorts of acronyms because of college.  Sure that might end up being a byproduct of what they have created, but @SoccerFan4Life does kind of have it right when he says parents are looking for the special name in a special league.
> 
> Don't forget why these clubs are really invested in it, its not for development anymore, ALMOST all are in it for the money, and what brings the money- parents. If it was for development there would be consolidation and kids would be placed in the correct level to develop, not just be placed on a team because you have to fill the roster. And what are MOST parents looking for, a team that has an acronym tied to it, not because that is a team that can help them develop but because they want to be on the best. Then of course, colleges will come watch those teams, but parents are making those decisions way before college recruitment becomes involved.


O.k. I'll buy that for the earlier younger players but that's not what's driving the set up of the structure.  If college didn't play a role in it, what we'd get is still the emphasis on trophies but not the access to showcases, coaches that can give looks, higher level tournaments, and the club's connections.  The colleges dictated what's set up....what happens with the youngers (oooh my kid plays flight 1) is just a by product of the system because that's what needs to happen at the younger levels to have the system in place for college recruitment at the olders.  The parents are just attracted to the bobble then.  The clubs are in it because there's a market for it....if college soccer went away youth soccer would go the way of AYSO....even more kids drop out at age 12 not only because they realize they aren't good at it, but because other activities needed to get into college now begin to cram things out and the kids begin to develop a social life of their own.



Emma said:


> Did your goalie cut off the angle as much as possible?


The running game is most prevalent at U9 and U10.  Kids at that age are just learning how to complete a pass, let alone how to cut off one.  Goalkeepers are learning the basics of angle play there.  Mathematically in school they've just begun to be taught what an angel is and structurally their spacial reasoning isn't there to know how to properly cut off the angle.  They don't really begin to get a handle on angels and positioning until U12 so expecting a U9 and U10 GK to "cut off the angle as much as possible" is an impossibility...at that age it's generally just get as big as possible and do you best to try and catch it (you probably won't)


Emma said:


> If ECNL/MLS NEXT allowed outside strong teams to play into their leagues like CRL, it would be a much better league and an open league but they only allow their handpick clubs to be part of it in order to try an force more players to leave their local teams and good coaches to join an ECNL team.



Those teams are supposed to be reserved for future professionals and some cannon fodder for the future professionals.  It's exactly a by product of the very system you are advocating for.  Those are the superior teams made up of the superior players.  So don't you then want the best players to leave?  Why should your player who is college bound compete against kids that want to make it to the pros and who have a different dedication to the game?  Under your system you laid out with the 5 tiers, ECNL shouldn't even exist....only flight 1 for the MLS teams and certain select teams.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

soccersc said:


> Parents are sold by what level they are on and clubs are trying to SELL their product.  The sad but true news is that clubs are more about the money now days then the player.  I am sure there are exceptions but I mean in general.  Look at these numbers from Liverpool in Irvine.
> 
> In 2014 their Technical Director made almost 150,000 and the club brought in 1.8 million
> in 2020 they brought in 5.3 million.  Think about that, multi million dollar
> ...


Yeah but the clubs exist because a market exists for them.  Why does that market exist?  Why doesn't everyone then who is not on the pro track just do AYSO and you just tier up AYSO?


----------



## Eagle33 (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah but the clubs exist because a market exists for them.  Why does that market exist?  Why doesn't everyone then who is not on the pro track just do AYSO and you just tier up AYSO?


It is coming. Look who is running National AYSO and who coaches are at their United program


----------



## soccersc (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah but the clubs exist because a market exists for them.  Why does that market exist?  Why doesn't everyone then who is not on the pro track just do AYSO and you just tier up AYSO?


Because parents have a HUGE ego problem and they want their kids to be on the BEST HIGHEST level so they can tell their friends that Johnny plays on the best team in the area.  The money comes from the younger ages, look at the amount of olders each club has, the numbers dwindle as the players get older. The money maker is on the youth side, that is why there is such a push for the youngers, not as much money in the older age groups.  Most of the average players have dropped out by then, but the marketing to be with the best coaches on the best team has faded away, parents become educated and start to figure out the scheme or their kid is just over it by then.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

soccersc said:


> Because parents have a HUGE ego problem and they want their kids to be on the BEST HIGHEST level so they can tell their friends that Johnny plays on the best team in the area.  The money comes from the younger ages, look at the amount of olders each club has, the numbers dwindle as the players get older. The money maker is on the youth side, that is why there is such a push for the youngers, not as much money in the older age groups.  Most of the average players have dropped out by then, but the marketing to be with the best coaches on the best team has faded away by then, parents become educated and start to figure out the scheme.


I concur with this.  Don't have any issue with it.  My only note it's a side effect of the college recruitment system.  We get that impact on the youngers because of what's in place for the olders.  The structure exists to support the higher placed teams in the clubs that can get the looks for college recruiters.  Without the college pressure, most of youth soccer fades away since as you note, as with AYSO, most kids stop playing age 12 and parents lose interest in the bobbles...it becomes little league.  It's also why we get the B and C teams....somebody has to pay for the first teams, which is what the system exists to feed.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> It is coming. Look who is running National AYSO and who coaches are at their United program


Agree but the biggest question for United will be answering the college question.  Their teams tend to fizzle at the silver elite and gold levels....the really good players that want to play college move on to higher level teams that can give them looks at everyone else looks at it like a high placed rec experience.  

Speaking of little league...it's an interesting dynamic....lot's of parents get the "your kid only plays for AYSO" but then their records of some of these teams push back on the approach....so clearly these parents aren't just chasing the fancy bobble....they want the wins.  In AYSO United it does contribute to a very little league type environment where the players, parents and coaches really want to win.  I spoke to a friend that works there about it...how there was a disconnect between there message of wanting to develop players.  He asked me for some proof.  I showed him the website of our local AYSO United bragging about how they were the winningest team in the area and bragging about all the trophies they had won prior year.  I don't know if he spoke to them but the ad was gone the following week.

Still, the national level is doing great things with this program and I'm hoping they do work out the kinks in their system.


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> but yes where they finish is entirely part of the team’s identity. After asking b or g and year the next piece of information parents shopping for teams ask is “what level?”


You have a weird way of arguing against something that wasn't said.  I said "not the whole team's identity."  Not that it wasn't part of it.

Now, I know you aren't arguing that we should just put everyone in Flight 1 just so they feel better about themselves.  So, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## soccersc (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I concur with this.  Don't have any issue with it.  My only note it's a side effect of the college recruitment system.  We get that impact on the youngers because of what's in place for the olders.  The structure exists to support the higher placed teams in the clubs that can get the looks for college recruiters.  Without the college pressure, most of youth soccer fades away since as you note, as with AYSO, most kids stop playing age 12 and parents lose interest in the bobbles...it becomes little league.  It's also why we get the B and C teams....somebody has to pay for the first teams, which is what the system exists to feed.


I agree that there is a little that is connected. I am just saying don't ignore the fact that there are a LOT of parents who are more concerned with what level their kid is on without any thought about college.  The sad part about the whole thing is, parents pick the level before they pick the coach, and they don't think about if it is the right level for their kid to develop. 

Back to the Irvine Liverpool example.  A club making over 5 MILLION a year. Look at their website, front and center, BEST LEAGUES, BEST PLAYERS, BEST COACHES, according to them, they have the best of everything.  Then, if you were a parent and interested in college soccer for your kid, and you were looking at this club, you'd probably say they are in the best league so of course my kid will get exposure.  But that is were it all goes downhill, You'd think that parent would then question... "Well how many of the players that come out of this club actually go on to play in college?", especially if that is what they are there for...well, nowhere on the website would you find a list of players that have moved on professionally or in college, kinda makes you wonder what parents are actually choosing?????

And that is from arguably the most profitable, largest club, in Orange County


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> You have a weird way of arguing against something that wasn't said.  I said "not the whole team's identity."  Not that it wasn't part of it.
> 
> Now, I know you aren't arguing that we should just put everyone in Flight 1 just so they feel better about themselves.  So, I'll just leave it at that.


I think, though, we can both agree that it is a very big part of the identity, probably the 3rd biggest piece after B or G and the age group?


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

notintheface said:


> This is how you lose kids in a hurry. You are unfairly holding them back for circumstances that are mostly out of their control.
> 
> If you are trying to teach 10 year olds build-up play, they are going to leak goals like crazy. It happens as a natural course. That team should not be continuously playing league games against lower-tier teams, period. They should be playing against teams that will punish the sloppy pass to the middle so that they learn to tighten things up.
> 
> The fundamental argument here is that parents believe that the coach does not know the true ability of a team and that an arbitrary rule somehow shakes out that true ability. That rule does absolutely nothing in a world where there are limited games and a normal amount of player movement. "This team should not play at this higher level" is the sound of gatekeeping and I don't believe it in 90% of cases.


Sorry, but I'm not interested in wasting my time driving out of town and watching my DD's competitive team blowout another team 10-0 so that team can "develop."  I am paying for her to be challenged, too.  Tighten up in a lower level until the team is ready to compete, or use scrimmages or tournaments to test against higher level teams.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Sorry, but I'm not interested in wasting my time driving out of town and watching my DD's competitive team blowout another team 10-0 so that team can "develop."  I am paying for her to be challenged, too.  Tighten up in a lower level until the team is ready to compete, or use scrimmages or tournaments to test against higher level teams.


a. If there were more teams in the middle tier, at least in SoCal you wouldn't be driving out of town.
b. 10-0 doesn't really develop anyone. 5-0, 6-0 though can be a valuable learning experience.
c. There are teams at the higher level that view your team the same way
d. The ultimate conclusion of your reasoning then is there should be more flights, not less.  In Spain, for example, youth soccer has 10 flights.  I think England is the same....maybe 7?  Flight 1 should be reserved in SoCal for the 5-10 boys teams, and 3-7 girls teams with potential pro ambitions.  fewer clubs, 1 organization to regulate it all and reign in any rebels that try to break the system.  You move up and down not by pro/rel but by being recruited onto the higher placed bands.


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I think, though, we can both agree that it is a very big part of the identity, probably the 3rd biggest piece after B or G and the age group?


I think it is a big part of some parent's identity.  I have never seen kids bug each other about it.  Kids, especially at younger ages, aren't over thinking this.  A lot of kids and parents are proud of when their kids win a few games here and there, or when they earn their way from Bronze to Silver, or just compete in Silver.  

Lots of teams stay together in Silver for years.  They just want to have some good games and good moments, maybe play in high school.  All this talk about college and pro ball etc is mostly an echo chamber here.


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> a. If there were more teams in the middle tier, at least in SoCal you wouldn't be driving out of town.
> b. 10-0 doesn't really develop anyone. 5-0, 6-0 though can be a valuable learning experience.
> c. There are teams at the higher level that view your team the same way
> d. The ultimate conclusion of your reasoning then is there should be more flights, not less.  In Spain, for example, youth soccer has 10 flights.  I think England is the same....maybe 7?  Flight 1 should be reserved in SoCal for the 5-10 boys teams, and 3-7 girls teams with potential pro ambitions.  fewer clubs, 1 organization to regulate it all and reign in any rebels that try to break the system.


a.  Driving anywhere in LA area is 30 minutes.  Games take 2 hours with warmup.
b.  10-0 is what you'll get from a team that couldn't even consistently win in F2 when they play F1 or higher.  Stay in F2, learn to win with proper soccer.  Move to F1 and at least be a challenge for the other team.
c.  So what.
d.  Sure.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2021)

MLS NEXT and ECNL has way too many teams to be pro bound players only.  They appear to be more of a league that wants to see the top 10% and see where that 10% lands when physical and mental maturity hits - college or pro. There's nothing wrong with having a top tier only program if it really allows top tier teams to join.  

Average U9/u10 players don't know how to cut off angles but the elite ones do  they may not grow up to be elite as others start learning how to handle angles but at that age, they're the top of the class.  That's why they play flight 1 at that age.  You're right, most kids are not doing it at that age, that's why they should be playing flight 3 like most kids should.  Nothing wrong with that until they do start to accelerate.  Parents can't seem to understand this.  They want their kids labeled as special and elite at u9/u10 or else they quit the sport or find a new team.  U9/U10 average kids may be the future elite kids, depending on how their bodies and mind develop.  Most 8/9 year olds are not going to show signs of whether they will be a doctor or business entrepreneur yet.  A few will and then change their minds later because science or managing people is too difficult.   Let the kids play at the appropriate level and don't get sold as "Champions league" when it's actually flight 3 renamed for parents.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> I think it is a big part of some parent's identity.  I have never seen kids bug each other about it.  Kids, especially at younger ages, aren't over thinking this.  A lot of kids and parents are proud of when their kids win a few games here and there, or when they earn their way from Bronze to Silver, or just compete in Silver.
> 
> Lots of teams stay together in Silver for years.  They just want to have some good games and good moments, maybe play in high school.  All this talk about college and pro ball etc is mostly an echo chamber here.


On my son's middle school team I can guarantee you the kids are comparing when and where they are placed.  I agree some silver teams are happy to just sit there (not true of the bronze BTW)...another part of the puzzle is that some people really do approach soccer as little league, and some people are approaching it with pro and college ambitions (particularly once you get to the older ages).  It pulls things in different directions and has this distortive effect where the system isn't perfect for either ambition.  Of course the clubs go along with it because they aren't stupid and it means more $.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> MLS NEXT and ECNL has way too many teams to be pro bound players only.  They appear to be more of a league that wants to see the top 10% and see where that 10% lands when physical and mental maturity hits - college or pro. There's nothing wrong with having a top tier only program if it really allows top tier teams to join.
> 
> Average U9/u10 players don't know how to cut off angles but the elite ones do  they may not grow up to be elite as others start learning how to handle angles but at that age, they're the top of the class.  That's why they play flight 1 at that age.  You're right, most kids are not doing it at that age, that's why they should be playing flight 3 like most kids should.  Nothing wrong with that until they do start to accelerate.  Parents can't seem to understand this.  They want their kids labeled as special and elite at u9/u10 or else they quit the sport or find a new team.  U9/U10 average kids may be the future elite kids, depending on how their bodies and mind develop.  Most 8/9 year olds are not going to show signs of whether they will be a doctor or business entrepreneur yet.  A few will and then change their minds later because science or managing people is too difficult.   Let the kids play at the appropriate level and don't get sold as "Champions league" when it's actually flight 3 renamed for parents.


MLS is the pro bound system, at least on the boys end (there's no reason for a boys ECNL to exist if the tiers really are about competition).  It's the MLS teams and cannon fodder so they can scrimmage without having to fly every time.  The problem then becomes every one wants to join this system because they don't want to be left out of the competition/college looks/prestige.  I agree there are too many teams.  If you want it tiered flight 1 should mean flight 1 which is just a handful of teams that the truly superior players can go to.  But then (until the MLS has pro/rel) there is no pro/rel for these teams.

There are natural GKS and early bloomers but no GK coach worth their salt is teaching a U9/U10 goalkeeper how to cut off the angles.  .At that age, the GKs aren't even supposed to be playing in goal full time and aren't supposed to be doing much extra training on it and are supposed to be rotating through.  There are no "elite" GKs at U9/U10....that just doesn't exist.  You have some big players that can block big goals and you have some athletic players that can do a decent job but none of them know what they are doing.  At that age, the GK coaches of any repute are teaching them how to dive safely (not effectively), the basics of positioning, the basics of distribution (to be used later), catching and stance.  If they are teaching tactics and angle play to an 8 year old they are doing it wrong.


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> On my son's middle school team I can guarantee you the kids are comparing when and where they are placed.  I agree some silver teams are happy to just sit there (not true of the bronze BTW)...another part of the puzzle is that some people really do approach soccer as little league, and some people are approaching it with pro and college ambitions (particularly once you get to the older ages).  It pulls things in different directions and has this distortive effect where the system isn't perfect for either ambition.  Of course the clubs go along with it because they aren't stupid and it means more $.


Junior high schoolers will be a bit more aware.  Identity-wise, I submit that the ones in higher flights care about this a lot more than the ones in bronze, and the ones in bronze aren't crying themselves to sleep that your son happens to play at a higher level.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Junior high schoolers will be a bit more aware.  Identity-wise, I submit that the ones in higher flights care about this a lot more than the ones in bronze, and the ones in bronze aren't crying themselves to sleep that your son happens to play at a higher level.


Fair.  I am sensitive about this though since my son recently left a bronze team with the world's best coach for development and friends he dearly loved for a higher placed team with a lot more pressure on him.  He made the election because he was getting frustrated with his inability to develop more with his teammates and recognized he had hit a dead end if the team was going to play yet another season in bronze.  He's not the first that has done this, which forces the team every time it loses a top player to reset, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Eagle33 (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> MLS is the pro bound system, at least on the boys end (there's no reason for a boys ECNL to exist if the tiers really are about competition).  It's the MLS teams and cannon fodder so they can scrimmage without having to fly every time.  The problem then becomes every one wants to join this system because they don't want to be left out of the competition/college looks/prestige.  I agree there are too many teams.  If you want it tiered flight 1 should mean flight 1 which is just a handful of teams that the truly superior players can go to.  But then (until the MLS has pro/rel) there is no pro/rel for these teams.
> 
> There are natural GKS and early bloomers but no GK coach worth their salt is teaching a U9/U10 goalkeeper how to cut off the angles.  .At that age, the GKs aren't even supposed to be playing in goal full time and aren't supposed to be doing much extra training on it and are supposed to be rotating through.  There are no "elite" GKs at U9/U10....that just doesn't exist.  You have some big players that can block big goals and you have some athletic players that can do a decent job but none of them know what they are doing.  At that age, the GK coaches of any repute are teaching them how to dive safely (not effectively), the basics of positioning, the basics of distribution (to be used later), catching and stance.  If they are teaching tactics and angle play to an 8 year old they are doing it wrong.


ECNL system is set up to put kids into Colleges not to pros


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> ECNL system is set up to put kids into Colleges not to pros


Yup which was my point.  One (prob the main) reason we have this hodgepodge system in the US is because of the distortive effects of college on the youth game.  If the tiers were just about competition, ENCL wouldn't exist.


----------



## Emma (May 18, 2021)

Grace-there are definitely elite goalkeepers.  Ask flight 1 goalkeeper parents at u9/u10


----------



## Woodwork (May 18, 2021)

notintheface said:


> A quick glance at the club directory for SCDSL to look at all of the local privateer clubs is all it takes to definitively prove your statement to be 100% false.


The origin of SCDSL is literally a handful of mega-clubs deciding they wanted more control.  For a number of years their minimum team requirements made the league unavailable to "privateer" clubs.  Let's not pretend the entire league isn't built around letting the mega-clubs sell, sell, sell.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> Grace-there are definitely elite goalkeepers.  Ask flight 1 goalkeeper parents at u9/u10


Yeah, and if you ask every parent of a kid playing at U9/U10, I'd venture at least 50% of them call themselves ready for elite.

There is no such thing as an elite goalkeeper at U9/U10.  There shouldn't even be a permanent goalkeeper on the team at U9/U10.  The United soccer coach guidance and most other goalkeeper coach guidance out there says no FT keepers until U12, and at U9/U10 GK safety and basic skills should be the emphasis for all aspiring GKs.


----------



## focomoso (May 18, 2021)

Emma said:


> Grace-there are definitely elite goalkeepers.  Ask flight 1 goalkeeper parents at u9/u10


And then ask them again at U14 and again at U19... Like as not, the list of elite goalkeepers' parents won't be the same.


----------



## espola (May 18, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah, and if you ask every parent of a kid playing at U9/U10, I'd venture at least 50% of them call themselves ready for elite.
> 
> There is no such thing as an elite goalkeeper at U9/U10.  There shouldn't even be a permanent goalkeeper on the team at U9/U10.  The United soccer coach guidance and most other goalkeeper coach guidance out there says no FT keepers until U12, and at U9/U10 GK safety and basic skills should be the emphasis for all aspiring GKs.


United Soccer Coaches guidance is good for the average coach and/or player.  They ignore really elite players.


----------



## Grace T. (May 18, 2021)

espola said:


> United Soccer Coaches guidance is good for the average coach and/or player.  They ignore really elite players.


I spent a lot of time during the pandemic watching some u10 u11 and u12 games from the European academies.  Saw maybe 5 gkers total that could really be called elite gkers at that age (and this is the highest academy teams like barsca, juventus, Paris, real, Liverpool). The rest I’ve seen are the equivalent to what you’d see on any silver us team. Even saw the barsca u11 gk have a short gk intercepted in the first 5 minutes of a semi final and the ball winds up in goal. Even if the gk has the elite skills and a natural instinct there’s still so much to learn for them and apart from United the best gk coaches out there are emphasizes catching, foot skills, safety for diving, stance and basic positioning. And you want your player rotating into the field to learn foot skills and field tactics that will serve them later as gkers or if they give it up (or aren’t talk enough) so they can play the field as a backup option 

there are no elite gkers at u9 and u10. Even at the European academies at that level you can count the exceptional gkers on one hand.  Ive seen some naturals out there on that age but even they need to be molded and essentially know nothing at that age. It takes about 2-3 years of really good training to even get the basics and there’s always something new (eg master the low dive?....well now here’s a ball with a bounce. got that?...well now here’s the extension dive. Got that?....well now here’s that with a bounce)


----------



## Eagle33 (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I spent a lot of time during the pandemic watching some u10 u11 and u12 games from the European academies.  Saw maybe 5 gkers total that could really be called elite gkers at that age (and this is the highest academy teams like barsca, juventus, Paris, real, Liverpool). The rest I’ve seen are the equivalent to what you’d see on any silver us team. Even saw the barsca u11 gk have a short gk intercepted in the first 5 minutes of a semi final and the ball winds up in goal. Even if the gk has the elite skills and a natural instinct there’s still so much to learn for them and apart from United the best gk coaches out there are emphasizes catching, foot skills, safety for diving, stance and basic positioning. And you want your player rotating into the field to learn foot skills and field tactics that will serve them later as gkers or if they give it up (or aren’t talk enough) so they can play the field as a backup option
> 
> there are no elite gkers at u9 and u10. Even at the European academies at that level you can count the exceptional gkers on one hand.  Ive seen some naturals out there on that age but even they need to be molded and essentially know nothing at that age. It takes about 2-3 years of really good training to even get the basics and there’s always something new (eg master the low dive?....well now here’s a ball with a bounce. got that?...well now here’s the extension dive. Got that?....well now here’s that with a bounce)


There are elite gks at U9 and U10. You just don't see them because they are scoring goals playing on the field.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I spent a lot of time during the pandemic watching some u10 u11 and u12 games from the European academies.  Saw maybe 5 gkers total that could really be called elite gkers at that age (and this is the highest academy teams like barsca, juventus, Paris, real, Liverpool). The rest I’ve seen are the equivalent to what you’d see on any silver us team. Even saw the barsca u11 gk have a short gk intercepted in the first 5 minutes of a semi final and the ball winds up in goal. Even if the gk has the elite skills and a natural instinct there’s still so much to learn for them and apart from United the best gk coaches out there are emphasizes catching, foot skills, safety for diving, stance and basic positioning. And you want your player rotating into the field to learn foot skills and field tactics that will serve them later as gkers or if they give it up (or aren’t talk enough) so they can play the field as a backup option
> 
> there are no elite gkers at u9 and u10. Even at the European academies at that level you can count the exceptional gkers on one hand.  Ive seen some naturals out there on that age but even they need to be molded and essentially know nothing at that age. It takes about 2-3 years of really good training to even get the basics and there’s always something new (eg master the low dive?....well now here’s a ball with a bounce. got that?...well now here’s the extension dive. Got that?....well now here’s that with a bounce)


So there aren't any?  Not even the ones you found?  Do you special definitions for "none" and "elite"?


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> There are elite gks at U9 and U10. You just don't see them because they are scoring goals playing on the field.


When I first read Grace's denial of the obvious, I remembered the best goalkeeper we ever had on any of my son's teams.  The first time I saw him he was playing up a year for an Escondido team against my older son's U9 team.   We thought he was great in goal, but his weight slowed him down so he could be beaten by quick crossing passes.  Two years later he joined the younger son's U10 team.  He had gotten quicker and his weight had shifted to height.  Not only did he have the size and fearlessness of an elite goalkeeper, he had become quicker over short distances.  His footwork with the ball was as good as our midfielders, so he could dribble the ball upfield when the opportunity allowed, AND he had a booming long kick (punt or goal kick) that was accurate enough to allow our ballhog forward to average 3 goals per game.  He ended up second on the team in assists for the next few years.  

That team eventually fell apart when many of the best players decided they wanted to play baseball in the Spring instead of State Cup, and didn't come back in the Fall as they preferred high school sports.  Our elite young goalkeeper eventually played midfield and backup keeper for Valley Center HS.  The last time I saw him in action was in a tournament in Irvine on a Surf boy's team where he was so dominant in goal that his defenders were often working around the midfield line.


----------



## notintheface (May 19, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Sorry, but I'm not interested in wasting my time driving out of town and watching my DD's competitive team blowout another team 10-0 so that team can "develop."  I am paying for her to be challenged, too.  Tighten up in a lower level until the team is ready to compete, or use scrimmages or tournaments to test against higher level teams.







__





						COAST SOCCER LEAGUE 2020 Standings for GIRLS UNDER 10 Silver Elite North
					





					coastsoccer.us
				




Blowouts are happening in the highest tier of Coast youngers.  Enjoy your drive.


----------



## socalkdg (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah, and if you ask every parent of a kid playing at U9/U10, I'd venture at least 50% of them call themselves ready for elite.
> 
> There is no such thing as an elite goalkeeper at U9/U10.  There shouldn't even be a permanent goalkeeper on the team at U9/U10.  The United soccer coach guidance and most other goalkeeper coach guidance out there says no FT keepers until U12, and at U9/U10 GK safety and basic skills should be the emphasis for all aspiring GKs.


At U10 - U12 my daughter was playing keeper and striker.   At U13 she went keeper full time, but still had team practices where she used her feet at least half the time along with once a week keeper training.   Now U16 it is twice a week keeper training with two team practices, plus a game or two on weekends.  I think too many kids are put at keeper full time too early.


----------



## Eagle33 (May 19, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> At U10 - U12 my daughter was playing keeper and striker.   At U13 she went keeper full time, but still had team practices where she used her feet at least half the time along with once a week keeper training.   Now U16 it is twice a week keeper training with two team practices, plus a game or two on weekends.  I think too many kids are put at keeper full time too early.


Kids that "put at keeper" have parents who needs to step in if this is what's happening.


----------



## notintheface (May 19, 2021)

Emma said:


> The reasons we lose kids is because we (adults & parents) make them think that they must move up a flight every year in order to be good enough to continue as soccer players.


I 100% disagree with this. This may be the case for the overbearing helicopter parents but it is 100% not tolerated with the parents I deal with.

And let's even say that your statement was the absolute truth. What on earth makes that a scenario where Coast is the preferable option for those parents? "Sorry, Rayden's dad, because our attacking mid Emma was out of town visiting her grandparents that she hasn't seen since the pandemic started, we didn't get enough points to move up to Silver Elite." Again -- make that make sense where you aren't saying "oh just petition Coast they'll let you move up!" when we know that isn't the reality.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I spent a lot of time during the pandemic watching some u10 u11 and u12 games from the European academies.  Saw maybe 5 gkers total that could really be called elite gkers at that age (and this is the highest academy teams like barsca, juventus, Paris, real, Liverpool). The rest I’ve seen are the equivalent to what you’d see on any silver us team. Even saw the barsca u11 gk have a short gk intercepted in the first 5 minutes of a semi final and the ball winds up in goal. Even if the gk has the elite skills and a natural instinct there’s still so much to learn for them and apart from United the best gk coaches out there are emphasizes catching, foot skills, safety for diving, stance and basic positioning. And you want your player rotating into the field to learn foot skills and field tactics that will serve them later as gkers or if they give it up (or aren’t talk enough) so they can play the field as a backup option
> 
> there are no elite gkers at u9 and u10. Even at the European academies at that level you can count the exceptional gkers on one hand.  Ive seen some naturals out there on that age but even they need to be molded and essentially know nothing at that age. It takes about 2-3 years of really good training to even get the basics and there’s always something new (eg master the low dive?....well now here’s a ball with a bounce. got that?...well now here’s the extension dive. Got that?....well now here’s that with a bounce)


But couldn't you say that about every position? Who at u9 or u10 has mastered their position? At u9 or u10 there is so much to learn at every position and one kid who is elite at that level could be extinct 5 years later, way too many factors to consider.  

I think you can only look at what is comparable...what is the top level goalkeeper look like at u9 and u10 and are they above their peers? There are going to be some that are better, and some that aren't, but trying to identify a gk as being elite because of a certain skill set is ridiculous.  You have to look at them comparable to world class and see where they rank. An elite player, is an elite player, because they have more skills than someone at that same age...if you are trying to identify an elite player based solely on a skill set you will come up short, especially in the younger ages.


----------



## socalkdg (May 19, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> Kids that "put at keeper" have parents who needs to step in if this is what's happening.


Yep, but so many parents aren't involved enough, don't know enough, or trust head coaches too much.


----------



## notintheface (May 19, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> The origin of SCDSL is literally a handful of mega-clubs deciding they wanted more control.


Control of what, exactly? Who plays who and when? Have you ever been a part of the SCDSL bracketing and scheduling process? It is a clusterfuck to define all clusterfucks.

"I'm going to move this team to flight 1 so I can extract another year of fees from my parents" is such a ludicrous statement when you consider that most parents care about drive time to practices more than anything else.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> So there aren't any?  Not even the ones you found?  Do you special definitions for "none" and "elite"?


At the U10 level, no.  As I said, there are naturals.  But to be truly elite you need both the natural ability + training and unless your dad was a GK, you are unusually precocious and starts training you at age 2, I don't see how that happens.  The human body at that age simply isn't capable of it.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> At the U10 level, no.  As I said, there are naturals.  But to be truly elite you need both the natural ability + training and unless your dad was a GK, you are unusually precocious and starts training you at age 2, I don't see how that happens.  The human body at that age simply isn't capable of it.


You're moving the goalposts.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

notintheface said:


> Control of what, exactly? Who plays who and when? Have you ever been a part of the SCDSL bracketing and scheduling process? It is a clusterfuck to define all clusterfucks.
> 
> "I'm going to move this team to flight 1 so I can extract another year of fees from my parents" is such a ludicrous statement when you consider that most parents care about drive time to practices more than anything else.


I get what you are saying, but if you don't think putting a higher level on a team brings in more players you are wrong.  Advertise a F3 tryout in Irvine and post and ECRL tryout in Irvine and see how many players come to the F3 tryout.  Of course that is the extreme, but there are going to be more players trying out for a higher team then a lower one.  And what brings in the money, the players.  The higher the team, the better chance a club has on being able to keep the team together and actually bring in more players.  In my opinion, that is a big reason why those mega clubs broke off, they knew that was how to get the players, they have more control of were they place the team and that matters. It unfortunately all comes down to the money


----------



## Emma (May 19, 2021)

notintheface said:


> I 100% disagree with this. This may be the case for the overbearing helicopter parents but it is 100% not tolerated with the parents I deal with.
> 
> And let's even say that your statement was the absolute truth. What on earth makes that a scenario where Coast is the preferable option for those parents? "Sorry, Rayden's dad, because our attacking mid Emma was out of town visiting her grandparents that she hasn't seen since the pandemic started, we didn't get enough points to move up to Silver Elite." Again -- make that make sense where you aren't saying "oh just petition Coast they'll let you move up!" when we know that isn't the reality.


Again - you use one game or 1 person as an example and rarely does a team get retained at a bracket over one game or 1 person.  Do you often see teams that are affected by 1 person or 1 game in league (tournaments is different bc it's 2 days)?  It's a whole season and a whole team that is reflected in standings. 

As for parents caring about moving up, I offer you up as a prime example - you're not happy because a team who came in third has to stay in the same bracket or petition to go up.  Why does it bother you at all that the team has to remain at the same level for another year until they improve a few more areas? I offer you my evidence of all the new advanced divisions we keep creating to keep up with demand, to a point where no one even understands the system anymore - Discovery, Europa, Champion, ECRL, CRL, ECNL, GA, DPL, SDDA Flight 1 Gold, SDDA Flight 1 Blue, SDDA Flight 2 Blue, SDDA Flight 2 Gold.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> But couldn't you say that about every position? Who at u9 or u10 has mastered their position? At u9 or u10 there is so much to learn at every position and one kid who is elite at that level could be extinct 5 years later, way too many factors to consider.
> 
> I think you can only look at what is comparable...what is the top level goalkeeper look like at u9 and u10 and are they above their peers? There are going to be some that are better, and some that aren't, but trying to identify a gk as being elite because of a certain skill set is ridiculous.  You have to look at them comparable to world class and see where they rank. An elite player, is an elite player, because they have more skills than someone at that same age...if you are trying to identify an elite player based solely on a skill set you will come up short, especially in the younger ages.


There are certain basic skills a goalkeeper has to master at the basic levels.  They include: catching, diving, distribution, playing with the feet, stance, and positional play.  I'm excluding here higher level stuff like tipping over bar or extension diving.  This is the basics.  At age 10, their bodies simply aren't wired to do it and they don't have enough training to successfully execute it.  Yes, you can have a superathletic kid that does a good job at one particular aspect of the play....that doesn't make him elite because they don't have the training.  A reputable GK trainer won't even start training a GK before age 8/9...there's no point....they can't safely execute the very basics of the moves without hurting themselves.  And at U10 the expectation really should just be try and block the stuff that's shot right at you.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> You're moving the goalposts.


cute....funny


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> There are certain basic skills a goalkeeper has to master at the basic levels.  They include: catching, diving, distribution, playing with the feet, stance, and positional play.  I'm excluding here higher level stuff like tipping over bar or extension diving.  This is the basics.  At age 10, their bodies simply aren't wired to do it and they don't have enough training to successfully execute it.  Yes, you can have a superathletic kid that does a good job at one particular aspect of the play....that doesn't make him elite because they don't have the training.  A reputable GK trainer won't even start training a GK before age 8/9...there's no point....they can't safely execute the very basics of the moves without hurting themselves.  And at U10 the expectation really should just be try and block the stuff that's shot right at you.


I understand what you are saying. 
But if your premise is a gk doesn't have the all the skills and training to be elite because they are missing the "higher level stuff" then you would have to say that same thing about field players at u10 as well, because at u10, field players are missing a lot of higher level stuff as well. Not even necessarily higher level, but simple things like checking the shoulder....how many u10 kids that play midfield constantly check their shoulder? and how many of them check their shoulder and understand why they are checking their shoulder? I haven't seen many do that, or know why they're doing that.... so does that mean there are no u10 ELITE midfielders in the world? No, that's silliness, your definition of elite is a little off 

Elite isnt defined by a specific skills set, it has to be defined by their ability compared to their peers.  You start by looking at the world class level, look at all the gk or midfielders that are at the top of u10, in the WORLD, then you can identify where each kid would fit on that world scale...those players that are BETTER than others at their age group are the ELITE players.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

Emma said:


> Again - you use one game or 1 person as an example and rarely does a team get retained at a bracket over one game or 1 person.  Do you often see teams that are affected by 1 person or 1 game in league (tournaments is different bc it's 2 days)?  It's a whole season and a whole team that is reflected in standings.
> 
> As for parents caring about moving up, I offer you up as a prime example - you're not happy because a team who came in third has to stay in the same bracket or petition to go up.  Why does it bother you at all that the team has to remain at the same level for another year until they improve a few more areas? I offer you my evidence of all the new advanced divisions we keep creating to keep up with demand, to a point where no one even understands the system anymore - Discovery, Europa, Champion, ECRL, CRL, ECNL, GA, DPL, SDDA Flight 1 Gold, SDDA Flight 1 Blue, SDDA Flight 2 Blue, SDDA Flight 2 Gold.


At the younger ages, when they are playing 7 and 9 a side, 1 person absolutely makes a difference.  My son's very first extras team back at U9 had their striker break an arm.  They went from winning every game by 3 or 4 points to losing by 1 or 2 until he was back.  The biggest challenge the early ages is shooting technique.  If you have 1 or 2 good shooters it can propel you up the standings....miss that one element and no matter how good the GK, the defense or the team's passing technique, you aren't going to win games.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I understand what you are saying.
> But if your premise is a gk doesn't have the all the skills and training to be elite because they are missing the "higher level stuff" then you would have to say that same thing about field players at u10 as well, because at u10, field players are missing a lot of higher level stuff as well. Not even necessarily higher level, but simple things like checking the shoulder....how many u10 kids that play midfield constantly check their shoulder? and how many of them check their shoulder and understand why they are checking their shoulder? I haven't seen many do that, or know why they're doing that.... so does that mean there are no u10 ELITE midfielders in the world? No, that's silliness, your definition of elite is a little off
> 
> Elite isnt defined by a specific skills set, it has to be defined by their ability compared to their peers.  You start by looking at the world class level, look at all the gk or midfielders that are at the top of u10, in the WORLD, then you can identify where each kid would fit on that world scale...those players that are BETTER than others at their age group are the ELITE players.


No I'm saying that at U10 they aren't just missing the higher level stuff, they are missing the basics.  You might have a natural that is better at some aspects (maybe the kid can kick real far, for example), but what they are doing isn't really goalkeeping technique.  There are 4 archetypes for goalkeepers at this age (at least on the boys side):

1. The super big kid.  Put in goal because may not be able to play the field as well and just blocks more of it.  Unless puberty is kind, that kid won't be playing at U13, because at that age they need to start extension diving and you can't do it without being more athletic.
2. The super athletic kid.  Can block shots directly shot at them and hustles for the loose ball and maybe plays out of the box.  Still, what they are doing isn't "goalkeeping"....it's defending in front of the goal.
3. The wanna be goalkeeper.  Is doing goalkeeper training but their trainer is teaching them to dive safely, not effectively.  You may see them dive but balls are still sailing past him.  May give up more goals than 2, but this kid is actually more advanced than 2.
4. The rotater.  Coach doing it right...rotating a bunch of kids through goals to give them some experience, see who has talent, and who might want to continue it after U9/U10 to get them some training.


----------



## dad4 (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> MLS is the pro bound system, at least on the boys end (there's no reason for a boys ECNL to exist if the tiers really are about competition).  It's the MLS teams and cannon fodder so they can scrimmage without having to fly every time.  The problem then becomes every one wants to join this system because they don't want to be left out of the competition/college looks/prestige.  I agree there are too many teams.  If you want it tiered flight 1 should mean flight 1 which is just a handful of teams that the truly superior players can go to.  But then (until the MLS has pro/rel) there is no pro/rel for these teams.
> 
> There are natural GKS and early bloomers but no GK coach worth their salt is teaching a U9/U10 goalkeeper how to cut off the angles.  .At that age, the GKs aren't even supposed to be playing in goal full time and aren't supposed to be doing much extra training on it and are supposed to be rotating through.  There are no "elite" GKs at U9/U10....that just doesn't exist.  You have some big players that can block big goals and you have some athletic players that can do a decent job but none of them know what they are doing.  At that age, the GK coaches of any repute are teaching them how to dive safely (not effectively), the basics of positioning, the basics of distribution (to be used later), catching and stance.  If they are teaching tactics and angle play to an 8 year old they are doing it wrong.


Have to disagree with you on whether an 8 year old can learn tactics.

My son was probably about 8 or 9 when he started learning to cut off the angles when playing goal.  9 or 10 when he started thinking about where to be to cut off the cross as well.

Not an elite player by any means.  Nor even a full time goalie.  But he’d played enough forward to be aware that a goalie near you is often harder to beat than a goalie with their heels on the line.  So he learned a bit about how to be that kind of goalie.


----------



## Eagle33 (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No I'm saying that at U10 they aren't just missing the higher level stuff, they are missing the basics.  You might have a natural that is better at some aspects (maybe the kid can kick real far, for example), but what they are doing isn't really goalkeeping technique.  There are 4 archetypes for goalkeepers at this age (at least on the boys side):
> 
> 1. The super big kid.  Put in goal because may not be able to play the field as well and just blocks more of it.  Unless puberty is kind, that kid won't be playing at U13, because at that age they need to start extension diving and you can't do it without being more athletic.
> 2. The super athletic kid.  Can block shots directly shot at them and hustles for the loose ball and maybe plays out of the box.  Still, what they are doing isn't "goalkeeping"....it's defending in front of the goal.
> ...


At U10 future goalkeeper ("future" is key word) needs to be playing on the field at least half the time and have a good goalkeeper coach who work with him/her on technical stuff - footwork, catching, stepping. Those keepers also needs to be on team where they constantly being challenged. Not on good teams, where they have 1 shot on goal if any, and not on teams which get blown out every game. If this scenario exists, your keeper will be just fine until all those skills will be needed at age 14-15. 
I'm speaking from the 1st hand experience btw.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Have to disagree with you on whether an 8 year old can learn tactics.
> 
> My son was probably about 8 or 9 when he started learning to cut off the angles when playing goal.  9 or 10 when he started thinking about where to be to cut off the cross as well.
> 
> Not an elite player by any means.  Nor even a full time goalie.  But he’d played enough forward to be aware that a goalie near you is often harder to beat than a goalie with their heels on the line.  So he learned a bit about how to be that kind of goalie.


"a goalie near you is often harder to beat than a goalie with their heels on the line".  This is just wrong.  There are more variables involved including the position of the ball relative to the goal.   Sometimes the goalie absolutely is better off with their heels on the line.  It's a complex trade off between cutting off the angle v. reaction speed and (which you'll appreciated) is actually pretty rooted in both mathematics and physics.  You need some basic understanding of both before you can start to make the tradeoffs which starts for those trained goalkeepers somewhere between U12-U14.

I don't doubt that it's possible for a kid out there who is 8 or 9 to maybe pick up tactics and angles (despite that in school they've just been introduced to the concept).  I don't doubt there's a kid out there that can be sweeper keeper and play like Neuer out of the box.  I don't doubt there are some kids (despite the physical limitations of the human body at that age) that can regularly catch the ball shot at them in a proper W.  The problem is that even among the basics there are so many things the goalkeeper needs to learn learn it's virtually impossible to pickup it all up at that age.  Or as you statement itself demonstrate: "Not an elite player by any means.  Nor even a full time goalie"....if that had been the case neither would be true.


----------



## dad4 (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> "a goalie near you is often harder to beat than a goalie with their heels on the line".  This is just wrong.  There are more variables involved including the position of the ball relative to the goal.   Sometimes the goalie absolutely is better off with their heels on the line.  It's a complex trade off between cutting off the angle v. reaction speed and (which you'll appreciated) is actually pretty rooted in both mathematics and physics.  You need some basic understanding of both before you can start to make the tradeoffs which starts for those trained goalkeepers somewhere between U12-U14.
> 
> I don't doubt that it's possible for a kid out there who is 8 or 9 to maybe pick up tactics and angles (despite that in school they've just been introduced to the concept).  I don't doubt there's a kid out there that can be sweeper keeper and play like Neuer out of the box.  I don't doubt there are some kids (despite the physical limitations of the human body at that age) that can regularly catch the ball shot at them in a proper W.  The problem is that even among the basics there are so many things the goalkeeper needs to learn learn it's virtually impossible to pickup it all up at that age.  Or as you statement itself demonstrate: "Not an elite player by any means.  Nor even a full time goalie"....if that had been the case neither would be true.


Who said any kid played like Neuer?  Mine liked Howard and de Gea better back then anyway.

I just pointed out that 8 year olds can learn tactics.  This is why we both used wiggle words (“often”, “sometimes”) to describe whether the goalie should come out of the box.  It’s because there are multiple possible tactics, and the goalie needs to choose between the options.  Even at 8.

Now, do I expect the 8 year old to always get it right?  Heck no.  He can learn.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No I'm saying that at U10 they aren't just missing the higher level stuff, they are missing the basics.  You might have a natural that is better at some aspects (maybe the kid can kick real far, for example), but what they are doing isn't really goalkeeping technique.  There are 4 archetypes for goalkeepers at this age (at least on the boys side):
> 
> 1. The super big kid.  Put in goal because may not be able to play the field as well and just blocks more of it.  Unless puberty is kind, that kid won't be playing at U13, because at that age they need to start extension diving and you can't do it without being more athletic.
> 2. The super athletic kid.  Can block shots directly shot at them and hustles for the loose ball and maybe plays out of the box.  Still, what they are doing isn't "goalkeeping"....it's defending in front of the goal.
> ...


Okay, we are kinda going in circles. I understand what you are saying. GKs at u10 are missing aspects of what a goalkeeper should be doing, okay, but what I am saying is that the "basics" are relative to the age. If nobody at that age is doing those basics then that is par for the coarse, if there are some that do a few of the basics, then they are above average, then you have a FEW that do more of the basics and they are the ELITE.  If you are ELITE, than you are better than the above average player, that's being elite, its comparable to those that play your position at the same age. 

Elite doesn't have to do with having a certain amount of skill set, at a certain age, otherwise when you say elite players you would only be classifying the best players in the world, De Bruyne, Mbappe, Salah, Messi, Ronaldo. If you are going to classify elite by age group then you need to identify the best at those positions, it is irrelevant if they are missing a certain skill set or are missing certain "basics", they are elite because they have more than the others, even if the more is not very much


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Who said any kid played like Neuer?  Mine liked Howard and de Gea better back then anyway.
> 
> I just pointed out that 8 year olds can learn tactics.  This is why we both used wiggle words (“often”, “sometimes”) to describe whether the goalie should come out of the box.  It’s because there are multiple possible tactics, and the goalie needs to choose between the options.  Even at 8.
> 
> Now, do I expect the 8 year old to always get it right?  Heck no.  He can learn.


An 8 year old shouldn't be learning keeper tactics (difference between can and should too)....even as a keeper there are too many other things to learn first (beginning with safety) and the 8 year old shouldn't be playing in goal full time and should be learning how to be a soccer player first.  He can learn yes...but let's wait 2 years at a minimum.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> Okay, we are kinda going in circles. I understand what you are saying. GKs at u10 are missing aspects of what a goalkeeper should be doing, okay, but what I am saying is that the "basics" are relative to the age. If nobody at that age is doing those basics then that is par for the coarse, if there are some that do a few of the basics, then they are above average, then you have a FEW that do more of the basics and they are the ELITE.  If you are ELITE, than you are better than the above average player, that's being elite, its comparable to those that play your position at the same age.
> 
> Elite doesn't have to do with having a certain amount of skill set, at a certain age, otherwise when you say elite players you would only be classifying the best players in the world, De Bruyne, Mbappe, Salah, Messi, Ronaldo. If you are going to classify elite by age group then you need to identify the best at those positions, it is irrelevant if they are missing a certain skill set or are missing certain "basics", they are elite because they have more than the others, even if the more is not very much


No, you are missing the point again.  See the archetypes I laid out.  The kid who is learning how to dive safely or how to catch properly or how to use the backpass is actually MORE advanced than superathletic kid who may be doing a few of these things like defending out of the box really well like Neuer.  The kid who is learning how to dive safely (not effectively) you might see him dive and the balls are sailing past him into the goal because he can't do it effectively but he's learning not to land on his elbow or hand, to extend the arm properly, timing, to not roll over and to not dive backwards.  The kid who is coming out like Neuer may be saving the goal by using his feet but is not learning the technique he needs in 2-4 years.  At U9, because the pressure is for the team to advance, the coach would rather have the superathletic kid who isn't using goalkeeping technique because it prevents goals and gets him a win....at U12 when the coach actually needs a goalkeeper that can dive if the superathletic kid hasn't stopped those bad habits that kid will either transfer to the field or be cut if his field skills have stagnated due to being placed in goal.


----------



## Woodwork (May 19, 2021)

notintheface said:


> Control of what, exactly? Who plays who and when? Have you ever been a part of the SCDSL bracketing and scheduling process? It is a clusterfuck to define all clusterfucks.
> 
> "I'm going to move this team to flight 1 so I can extract another year of fees from my parents" is such a ludicrous statement when you consider that most parents care about drive time to practices more than anything else.


It must be nice to live in your world.


----------



## outside! (May 19, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> ECNL system is set up to put kids into Colleges not to pros


ECNL was setup up to funnel money into ECNL clubs by marketing college exposure to parents. They do a fair job at it, but any high level team that can find decent competition can do it also.


----------



## watfly (May 19, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> At U10 future goalkeeper ("future" is key word) needs to be playing on the field at least half the time and have a good goalkeeper coach who work with him/her on technical stuff - footwork, catching, stepping.


Thank you for not saying "diving".


----------



## Woodwork (May 19, 2021)

notintheface said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CSL made an exception to its pro/rel.  You can see here that the team you focus on had a losing record the prior year:  https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/standings?YEAR=2019&SEX=G&AGE=10&SEASON=fall&BRACKET=SS&Send+Form=Standings! 

Apparently, someone at the club thought it was good for development to move that team up.


----------



## Woodwork (May 19, 2021)

watfly said:


> Thank you for not saying "diving".


When my kid plays goalie, she relies on the five D's: Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No, you are missing the point again.  See the archetypes I laid out.  The kid who is learning how to dive safely or how to catch properly or how to use the backpass is actually MORE advanced than superathletic kid who may be doing a few of these things like defending out of the box really well like Neuer.  The kid who is learning how to dive safely (not effectively) you might see him dive and the balls are sailing past him into the goal because he can't do it effectively but he's learning not to land on his elbow or hand, to extend the arm properly, timing, to not roll over and to not dive backwards.  The kid who is coming out like Neuer may be saving the goal by using his feet but is not learning the technique he needs in 2-4 years.  At U9, because the pressure is for the team to advance, the coach would rather have the superathletic kid who isn't using goalkeeping technique because it prevents goals and gets him a win....at U12 when the coach actually needs a goalkeeper that can dive if the superathletic kid hasn't stopped those bad habits that kid will either transfer to the field or be cut if his field skills have stagnated due to being placed in goal.


okay, so let me ask you this...are there any field players that are Elite at u10?


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> okay, so let me ask you this...are there any field players that are Elite at u10?


Yes, though fewer than the rosters of the highest placed teams.  

The issue is the goalkeeper skills require a little more maturity in the body to execute than the field skills, and a little more maturity mentally to comprehend.  An 8 year old can run, pass, tackle, shoot.  Most 8 year olds can't catch a ball hurled at their head, dive, perform 1 v 1 techniques without sliding feet first, or even remember to remain in the unnatural stances required of goalkeepers.  It's for that reason many orgs such as AYSO don't even play with goalkeepers until U8/U9...you are asking them to do something which even at the European Academy level they aren't capable of doing.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Yes, though fewer than the rosters of the highest placed teams.
> 
> The issue is the goalkeeper skills require a little more maturity in the body to execute than the field skills, and a little more maturity mentally to comprehend.  An 8 year old can run, pass, tackle, shoot.  Most 8 year olds can't catch a ball hurled at their head, dive, perform 1 v 1 techniques without sliding feet first, or even remember to remain in the unnatural stances required of goalkeepers.  It's for that reason many orgs such as AYSO don't even play with goalkeepers until U8/U9...you are asking them to do something which even at the European Academy level they aren't capable of doing.


haha...that made me laugh a little, must be coming from a gk parent!! Have you even played in the midfield in a competitive soccer game or understand tactics from an attacking position? We can agree to disagree, but there are an incredible amount of tactics and technique that even the best u10 field players are missing. They aren't even close to having what they need to be an elite player at u18, I find it interesting that you feel a u10 field player can possess the skills to be Elite but a GK at that age can't.  You kinda have to laugh at that!!! 

I guess at a u10 game you can see players positioning themselves inside the pocket, or knowing when to switch channels, or checking their shoulder to know when a man is coming and then knowing which direction to take their touch to give themselves more time, or understand when to dummy a pass for their teammate, or when they need to ping a ball or how to weight a pass, how to create numerical advantages...I've got to see those u10 games, they would be fun to watch.

And the reason AYSO doesn't have goalkeepers is because they want to promote scoring, and they understand goals are what keep kids in the game. Go talk to a uLittle, first thing they tell you about is if they scored a goal and the first thing a grandpa ask a kid who plays soccer is "did you score any goals?"


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> There are certain basic skills a goalkeeper has to master at the basic levels.  They include: catching, diving, distribution, playing with the feet, stance, and positional play.  I'm excluding here higher level stuff like tipping over bar or extension diving.  This is the basics.  At age 10, their bodies simply aren't wired to do it and they don't have enough training to successfully execute it.  Yes, you can have a superathletic kid that does a good job at one particular aspect of the play....that doesn't make him elite because they don't have the training.  A reputable GK trainer won't even start training a GK before age 8/9...there's no point....they can't safely execute the very basics of the moves without hurting themselves.  And at U10 the expectation really should just be try and block the stuff that's shot right at you.


I am frequently amazed at how constrained your view of the soccer world has been.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> haha...that made me laugh a little, must be coming from a gk parent!! Have you even played in the midfield in a competitive soccer game or understand tactics from an attacking position? We can agree to disagree, but there are an incredible amount of tactics and technique that even the best u10 field players are missing. They aren't even close to having what they need to be an elite player at u18, I find it interesting that you feel a u10 field player can possess the skills to be Elite but a GK at that age can't.  You kinda have to laugh at that!!!
> 
> I guess at a u10 game you can see players positioning themselves inside the pocket, or knowing when to switch channels, or checking their shoulder to know when a man is coming and then knowing which direction to take their touch to give themselves more time, or understand when to dummy a pass for their teammate, or when they need to ping a ball or how to weight a pass, how to create numerical advantages...I've got to see those u10 games, they would be fun to watch.
> 
> And the reason AYSO doesn't have goalkeepers is because they want to promote scoring, and they understand goals are what keep kids in the game. Go talk to a uLittle, first thing they tell you about is if they scored a goal and the first thing a grandpa ask a kid who plays soccer is "did you score any goals?"


Kids train soccer as young as 3 and 4. It is possible that by 8/9 you have some kids that are better at it than others. You might even have some unicorns that are really good at it. They don’t start to train goalkeeping until age 8, most good coaches won’t take em before 9. As one of my sons trainers once told a parent of a little one: happy to take your money if you insist but at this age it would be a waste of time....teach them to play soccer first. He wouldn’t take my kid until age 9.  Unlike field work you can execute the basics of field play at age 8.  You cannot do the same with goalkeeping work.  Assume they start age 8...gotten really good at the basics in 1 year with classes once a week?  Even if their dad is a college level or pro gk that takes them out every day it’s hard because the physical skills are just really different. And at 10 the kid who is learning to dive but is still letting goals fly past them is more advanced than the athletic kid running around playing like a defender and foot stopping everything even though the later will save more goals and be told he’s a natural in the position. 

As for ayso yes I’m sure that played into it. I was involved in our regions discussions when they removed the goalkeepers.  The parents complained the loudest...the scores would be too high if the team had a unicorn shooter. But the rational was why sacrifice a kid in the position since unless the ball is shot straight at them the kids can never do anything to stop the ball. The Spanish dont play with goalkeepers either until u9.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> I am frequently amazed at how constrained your view of the soccer world has been.


Back at ya...particularly given the era you were active


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> cute....funny


You can't see it?

Maybe you should google "no true Scotsman".


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No I'm saying that at U10 they aren't just missing the higher level stuff, they are missing the basics.  You might have a natural that is better at some aspects (maybe the kid can kick real far, for example), but what they are doing isn't really goalkeeping technique.  There are 4 archetypes for goalkeepers at this age (at least on the boys side):
> 
> 1. The super big kid.  Put in goal because may not be able to play the field as well and just blocks more of it.  Unless puberty is kind, that kid won't be playing at U13, because at that age they need to start extension diving and you can't do it without being more athletic.
> 2. The super athletic kid.  Can block shots directly shot at them and hustles for the loose ball and maybe plays out of the box.  Still, what they are doing isn't "goalkeeping"....it's defending in front of the goal.
> ...


But no "true" keeper is elite?  Right?


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> An 8 year old shouldn't be learning keeper tactics (difference between can and should too)....even as a keeper there are too many other things to learn first (beginning with safety) and the 8 year old shouldn't be playing in goal full time and should be learning how to be a soccer player first.  He can learn yes...but let's wait 2 years at a minimum.


There is no "shouldn't" (except perhaps in an AYSO-friendly coaching manual).


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> But no "true" keeper is elite?  Right?


Once again you have it backwards (as always). The fallacy would apply if I set the standard with a high bar. For example...yeah they can pass but can they tip over bar.  You aren’t an elite goalkeeper unless you can tip over bar.  The discussion here is competence in the basic skills of goalkeeping for which kids will not have trained for more than once a week for about a years time (give it take 6 months) while they will have been training general soccer skills as early as age 3 or 4 if the parents like


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> There is no "shouldn't" (except perhaps in an AYSO-friendly coaching manual).


You are in rare form today...funny


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Once again you have it backwards (as always). The fallacy would apply if I set the standard with a high bar. For example...yeah they can pass but can they tip over bar.  You aren’t an elite goalkeeper unless you can tip over bar.  The discussion here is competence in the basic skills of goalkeeping for which kids will not have trained for more than once a week for about a years time (give it take 6 months) while they will have been training general soccer skills as early as age 3 or 4 if the parents like


My neighbor's son was the worst soccer player in his AYSO team at age 7-8.  They pulled him out of soccer.  When he turned 12, the kid decided that he wanted to play again.  He started at defense and then moved to goali at age 13.  With 3 years of 5 days a week training and dedication, he made it to the Seattle Sounders Academy and then moved on to play at an Ivy League school ( Academics was his priority).  

My point being is that at a younger age, it's rare to really say a certain kid will be an elite player.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Kids train soccer as young as 3 and 4. It is possible that by 8/9 you have some kids that are better at it than others. You might even have some unicorns that are really good at it. They don’t start to train goalkeeping until age 8, most good coaches won’t take em before 9. As one of my sons trainers once told a parent of a little one: happy to take your money if you insist but at this age it would be a waste of time....teach them to play soccer first. He wouldn’t take my kid until age 9.  Unlike field work you can execute the basics of field play at age 8.  You cannot do the same with goalkeeping work.  Assume they start age 8...gotten really good at the basics in 1 year with classes once a week?  Even if their dad is a college level or pro gk that takes them out every day it’s hard because the physical skills are just really different. And at 10 the kid who is learning to dive but is still letting goals fly past them is more advanced than the athletic kid running around playing like a defender and foot stopping everything even though the later will save more goals and be told he’s a natural in the position.
> 
> As for ayso yes I’m sure that played into it. I was involved in our regions discussions when they removed the goalkeepers.  The parents complained the loudest...the scores would be too high if the team had a unicorn shooter. But the rational was why sacrifice a kid in the position since unless the ball is shot straight at them the kids can never do anything to stop the ball. The Spanish dont play with goalkeepers either until u9.


My son started playing indoor peewee at age 4, where there wasn't really a goalkeeper, just a small goal.  He insisted on getting a keeper jersey and gloves at age 6 when he was playing Div 7 Rec because he wanted to work out in the club's weekly skill clinic.  He had the advantage of a retired pro keeper as coach and learning by watching and imitating the older kids.  He and another kid in the league got so good at running the ball up from the keeper position that the club changed the rules the next year.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> My neighbor's son was the worst soccer player in his AYSO team at age 7-8.  They pulled him out of soccer.  When he turned 12, the kid decided that he wanted to play again.  He started at defense and then moved to goali at age 13.  With 3 years of 5 days a week training and dedication, he made it to the Seattle Sounders Academy and then moved on to play at an Ivy League school ( Academics was his priority).
> 
> My point being is that at a younger age, it's rare to really say a certain kid will be an elite player.


That’s really impressive particularly how late he started, even with natural skill, given the amount there is to learn.

I’m even more impressed he was able to ivy with the demanding soccer schedule of an academy


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> My son started playing indoor peewee at age 4, where there wasn't really a goalkeeper, just a small goal.  He insisted on getting a keeper jersey and gloves at age 6 when he was playing Div 7 Rec because he wanted to work out in the club's weekly skill clinic.  He had the advantage of a retired pro keeper as coach and learning by watching and imitating the older kids.  He and another kid in the league got so good at running the ball up from the keeper position that the club changed the rules the next year.


So he was elite level gk by age 9?


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Back at ya...particularly given the era you were active


I admit that I have never been a certified referee (although I took and passed the written test once while waiting for my boys' class to finish, and I used to act as an AR when my kid's teams were practicing plays close to the offside line).  I have a lot of other bases covered from ages 12 or so to 70+.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> So he was elite level gk by age 9?


His big-field indoor play was good enough that coaches on other teams started teaching their keepers to imitate him.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> His big-field indoor play was good enough that coaches on other teams started teaching their keepers to imitate him.


he was playing for an elite team as a gk age 9?


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> he was playing for an elite team as a gk age 9?


Did you look up "no true Scotsman" yet?


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> Did you look up "no true Scotsman" yet?


Don't have to. It's a basic fallacy and I answered you.  By your avoidance of the question, what your son seems to be doing is in a very small goal doing some defending, "running the ball up", and doing some imitation.  I don't know how you get from there to elite goalkeeping at age 9.  What's the opposite of the true Scotsman fallacy (honest question....I don't know)?  

"No true Scotsman drinks whiskey with soda".
"But my uncle drinks soda.  True Scotsmen can drink soda."


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Don't have to. It's a basic fallacy and I answered you.  By your avoidance of the question, what your son seems to be doing is in a very small goal doing some defending, "running the ball up", and doing some imitation.  I don't know how you get from there to elite goalkeeping at age 9.  What's the opposite of the true Scotsman fallacy (honest question....I don't know)?
> 
> "No true Scotsman drinks whiskey with soda".
> "But my uncle drinks soda.  True Scotsmen can drink soda."


In the midst of your denial you provide an example.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> In the midst of your denial you provide an example.


You always lose the thread, don't you?  The example is the opposite fallacy (which is what you are doing).  The Scotsman Fallacy would read:

"No true Scotsman drinks whiskey with soda"
"By my uncle, a true Scotsman, drinks Whiskey with soda."
"But no true Scotsman drinks whiskey with soda"

That's not this.  The Scotsman fallacy would be if I argued for a higher bar: only true goalkeepers extension dive for example.  Here's it's a low bar....the basic skills involved in goalkeeping which a. are not trained at that age by most (or have been trained only for a short time so everyone is a "beginner"), b. their bodies aren't physically mature to master, and c. their minds struggle to comprehend.  There's also the shoulda of it all that kids shouldn't be full time goalkeepers before U13 and should be rotating in U10.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> You always lose the thread, don't you?  The example is the opposite fallacy (which is what you are doing).  The Scotsman Fallacy would read:
> 
> "No true Scotsman drinks whiskey with soda"
> "By my uncle, a true Scotsman, drinks Whiskey with soda."
> ...


I have nothing new to offer.  You're just repeating your empty positions.


----------



## soccersc (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Kids train soccer as young as 3 and 4. It is possible that by 8/9 you have some kids that are better at it than others. You might even have some unicorns that are really good at it. They don’t start to train goalkeeping until age 8, most good coaches won’t take em before 9. As one of my sons trainers once told a parent of a little one: happy to take your money if you insist but at this age it would be a waste of time....teach them to play soccer first. He wouldn’t take my kid until age 9.  Unlike field work you can execute the basics of field play at age 8.  You cannot do the same with goalkeeping work.  Assume they start age 8...gotten really good at the basics in 1 year with classes once a week?  Even if their dad is a college level or pro gk that takes them out every day it’s hard because the physical skills are just really different. And at 10 the kid who is learning to dive but is still letting goals fly past them is more advanced than the athletic kid running around playing like a defender and foot stopping everything even though the later will save more goals and be told he’s a natural in the position.
> 
> As for ayso yes I’m sure that played into it. I was involved in our regions discussions when they removed the goalkeepers.  The parents complained the loudest...the scores would be too high if the team had a unicorn shooter. But the rational was why sacrifice a kid in the position since unless the ball is shot straight at them the kids can never do anything to stop the ball. The Spanish dont play with goalkeepers either until u9.


I don’t get why you associate the skill of the player with what makes them elite.  You are making it way too difficult, an elite player is one that is clearly above the peers, simple. Every player has different strengths and weaknesses, it’s those that have more strengths that are better. If you took the top u10 keepers in the world and put them up against a bunch of rec players in keeper wars, who would win. Those players are at an Elite level compared to some Rec kid. Why is that hard to understand?

The funny thing is, by your own premise, it must be easy then to become an elite keeper. If you don’t start training until u10/u11 and by u17 be considered elite, wow, maybe more kids should try and become an elite keeper???? Compare that to a kid whose been playing since they were 3 and u10 they can’t even start to sniff the elite level, they’ve already been at it 6 or 7 years.

If it were that hard to be an elite GK they be demanding the highest salary? Nope, look at what players get paid the most...Very few want to play keeper, that’s why there aren’t many of them, and it’s evident by salary and how long it takes to develop that it is easier than being a field player.

Keeper parents


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> he was playing for an elite team as a gk age 9?


I see your point.  H's not an elite player because he is not playing on an elite team, and the reason it is not an elite team is that there are no elite players on it.


----------



## Giesbock (May 19, 2021)

I’ll drop this non seqitor into your going’s on about 9 yo keepers...

i lived in Germany as a teen back when soccer balls worn down to kinda suede leather, absorbed wet so were heavy. I didn’t know anything about soccer and ran my ass off for two weeks of tryouts. Coach stuck me in goal - I was tall, fast, agile couldcover ground.  I’d come home pummeled and covered in mud and scrapes from the dirt / gravel field we were on.  Never forget trying to stop balls in the chest and catch them with bare hands.

Anyway after enduring that for the last week of tryouts I got cut.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> I see your point.  H's not an elite player because he is not playing on an elite team, and the reason it is not an elite team is that there are no elite players on it.


I didn't set that parameter, Emma did.


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> I have nothing new to offer.  You're just repeating your empty positions.


Yet you still offered.  ^\_  _/^


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I don’t get why you associate the skill of the player with what makes them elite.  You are making it way too difficult, an elite player is one that is clearly above the peers, simple. Every player has different strengths and weaknesses, it’s those that have more strengths that are better. If you took the top u10 keepers in the world and put them up against a bunch of rec players in keeper wars, who would win. Those players are at an Elite level compared to some Rec kid. Why is that hard to understand?
> 
> The funny thing is, by your own premise, it must be easy then to become an elite keeper. If you don’t start training until u10/u11 and by u17 be considered elite, wow, maybe more kids should try and become an elite keeper???? Compare that to a kid whose been playing since they were 3 and u10 they can’t even start to sniff the elite level, they’ve already been at it 6 or 7 years.
> 
> ...


Whereto start?

1. Make it simple then.  You can't have an elite keeper because at age 8 and 9 all keepers are beginners and they should be part timers.  That's not true of the field players since some kids have been training since age 3 or 4.
2. Are there kids that are better?  Sure, but the criteria at that age for goalkeepers is different.  Why?  Because the more advanced kid at that age will actually be giving up more goals.  We are sort of constrained here by the parameters originally set by Emma which was there is a distinction between the "superior" players playing on higher level teams than on the lower level teams.  Espola's point that there could be superior players playing on lower level teams is actually equally valid, but that's not where this long winded side debate began with Emma's post.
3. Soccer development is not linear.  Much like physical growth in kids, it comes it spurts and stops.  One of the biggest spurts for the goalkeepers comes with puberty.  For the boys, being able to touch the cross bar is actually very useful in ability to stop goals.
4. There isn't a shortage of keepers on the boys side...that's mostly true of the non-elite levels for girls.  There are a shortage of trained keepers on the boys side but there are keepers a plenty.
5. The amount of stuff a GK needs to learn just simply exceeds that of a field player.  They need to learn soccer + the goalkeeping skills.  So yes, it is very hard to be an elite GK at the highest levels.  They also have a shorter time period to learn it all, particularly if they start late, which makes it all the more impressive.
6. The salary stuff is an irrelevancy.  You assume that soccer is actually a meritocracy (it isn't).   If you read soccernomics, you'll see that the goalkeeper actually ads only mediocre value to a team because they can only stop (some) of the shots and so are only reducing a hole the team is in.  To win, the team needs to score.  That's why those up front pull in the highest salary.  It's basic market economics.

Typical field player parent.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Whereto start?
> 
> 1. Make it simple then.  You can't have an elite keeper because at age 8 and 9 all keepers are beginners and they should be part timers.  That's not true of the field players since some kids have been training since age 3 or 4.
> 2. Are there kids that are better?  Sure, but the criteria at that age for goalkeepers is different.  Why?  Because the more advanced kid at that age will actually be giving up more goals.  We are sort of constrained here by the parameters originally set by Emma which was there is a distinction between the "superior" players playing on higher level teams than on the lower level teams.  Espola's point that there could be superior players playing on lower level teams is actually equally valid, but that's not where this long winded side debate began with Emma's post.
> ...


1, 2 -- not true.
3, 6 -- irrelevant.
4, 5 -- what's your point?


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> 1, 2 -- not true.
> 3, 6 -- irrelevant.
> 4, 5 -- what's your point?


 Again, you always miss the thread.  I'm responding to various points made by soccersc.  Your contribution as usual is stunning.


----------



## espola (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Again, you always miss the thread.  I'm responding to various points made by soccersc.  Your contribution as usual is stunning.


I look upon my contribution as fact-checking.


----------



## Emma (May 19, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I didn't set that parameter, Emma did.


Not quite sure how I get credit for it.  I do believe there are elite players at every level.  Those elite players may or may not remain elite as they AD others proceed thru training and puberty.  My definition of elite for soccer players is any soccer player that is playing much better than other players at their age group and each age group has it's own parameter.  I do not compare an elite u9 with an elite adult pro or even an elite u11 since children grow significantly mentally and physically within 2 years.  U9/u10 elite goalies catch more balls and kick away more balls than 95% of their peers because they are better at judging angles and more agile.  Whether they stay that way is different.  Some kids can train and get better to become elite at u11 and some can become elite at u18.  Some train a lot and still remain average because they have physical or mental limitations.  

You never know if your kid will become elite at u18 so don't stop paying those training fees


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

espola said:


> I look upon my contribution as fact-checking.


That’s funny...as I said you are on a roll


----------



## Grace T. (May 19, 2021)

Emma said:


> Not quite sure how I get credit for it.  I do believe there are elite players at every level.  Those elite players may or may not remain elite as they AD others proceed thru training and puberty.  My definition of elite for soccer players is any soccer player that is playing much better than other players at their age group and each age group has it's own parameter.  I do not compare an elite u9 with an elite adult pro or even an elite u11 since children grow significantly mentally and physically within 2 years.  U9/u10 elite goalies catch more balls and kick away more balls than 95% of their peers because they are better at judging angles and more agile.  Whether they stay that way is different.  Some kids can train and get better to become elite at u11 and some can become elite at u18.  Some train a lot and still remain average because they have physical or mental limitations.
> 
> You never know if your kid will become elite at u18 so don't stop paying those training fees


“Kick away more balls”...that’s the issue right there. If they are doing that inside the box then they may be more effective than their peers of that age but they are not more advanced (since the more advanced kids are practicing diving for the ball and missing it). Our disconnect probably centers on 2 things:  a. What superior means (more effective v more knowledgeable and developed) and b. If there can be a meaningful distinction among fresh beginners.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> “Kick away more balls”...that’s the issue right there. If they are doing that inside the box then they may be more effective than their peers of that age but they are not more advanced (since the more advanced kids are practicing diving for the ball and missing it). Our disconnect probably centers on 2 things:  a. What superior means (more effective v more knowledgeable and developed) and b. If there can be a meaningful distinction among fresh beginners.


Diving and learning news technique is all great at u9/u10 but if it's ineffective because their bodies and mind are not ready to use it effectively then it seems too young to be focusing on such a technique.  Learning those techniques early just means your parents have more money to invest in a formal trainer at a young age - it doesn't create an elite goalkeeper.  Kicking balls away is an effective defensive technique for goalies at all age groups and easier/cheaper to master at u9/u10.


----------



## soccersc (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> “Kick away more balls”...that’s the issue right there. If they are doing that inside the box then they may be more effective than their peers of that age but they are not more advanced (since the more advanced kids are practicing diving for the ball and missing it). Our disconnect probably centers on 2 things:  a. What superior means (more effective v more knowledgeable and developed) and b. If there can be a meaningful distinction among fresh beginners.


Thats them problem, you are trying to define elite by comparing a u10 player to a pro. Can you not see that? Superior isn't hard to define, Neuer or Matt Turner, and ECNL keeper or a F3 keeper, it is very easy top see a superior player vs an average player, even at u10.  You think just because a player doesnt have a certain skill set at u10 they can't carry over that skiil set when they get older? That is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, the point is there are certain players that are better at every age group, the players that are far better than their peers at the same age are elite. I am having trouble understanding how you can't see that????

What is funny is that you think that keepers have more "stuff" to learn and exceeds that of a field player. Okay, go ask a top level coach that question and see what they say. Make sure you don't tell them you are a keeper parent before you ask the questions. You lost a lot of credibility right there!!


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

soccersc said:


> Thats them problem, you are trying to define elite by comparing a u10 player to a pro. Can you not see that? Superior isn't hard to define, Neuer or Matt Turner, and ECNL keeper or a F3 keeper, it is very easy top see a superior player vs an average player, even at u10.  You think just because a player doesnt have a certain skill set at u10 they can't carry over that skiil set when they get older? That is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, the point is there are certain players that are better at every age group, the players that are far better than their peers at the same age are elite. I am having trouble understanding how you can't see that????
> 
> What is funny is that you think that keepers have more "stuff" to learn and exceeds that of a field player. Okay, go ask a top level coach that question and see what they say. Make sure you don't tell them you are a keeper parent before you ask the questions. You lost a lot of credibility right there!!


No I’m not. I’m comparing basics to basics. Using your own words as definition is “far better” among raw beginners a meaningful distinction. If your point is every once in a while a Mozart comes along ok, but Mozart’s are few and far between and even at the European academy level you can count them on one hand...not as pro level skills...competent in the basics.

The field players have been at it longer so there is a greater possibility for unicorns but the question there is also what does superior mean: more effective or more developed. For the keepers at least the ones who are diving but missing more are more developed than the ones going in for their feet.

lastly it’s self evident keepers need to know more. They have to do all the regular soccer practices and then do the keeper training on top of that.  Keeping is almost like training an entirely different sport on top of the sport you are in (yet you get to use both skills about only 50% of the time). Not saying field players don’t have a lot to learn (but at the early ages the skills are just more natural and developmentally appropriate). Keepers just have more skills to learn since they MUST also learn all the soccer skills including shooting and their goal specific training has virtually zero overlap with the soccer skills. Again we are comparing basics to basics: running, passing, shooting, defending basic mechanics v catching, diving, 1v1 defensive play, and stance.


----------



## soccersc (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No I’m not. I’m comparing basics to basics. Using your own words as definition is “far better” among raw beginners a meaningful distinction. If your point is every once in a while a Mozart comes along ok, but Mozart’s are few and far between and even at the European academy level you can count them on one hand...not as pro level skills...competent in the basics.
> 
> The field players have been at it longer so there is a greater possibility for unicorns but the question there is also what does superior mean: more effective or more developed. For the keepers at least the ones who are diving but missing more are more developed than the ones going in for their feet.
> 
> lastly it’s self evident keepers need to know more. They have to do all the regular soccer practices and then do the keeper training on top of that.  Keeping is almost like training an entirely different sport on top of the sport you are in (yet you get to use both skills about only 50% of the time). Not saying field players don’t have a lot to learn (but at the early ages the skills are just more natural and developmentally appropriate). Keepers just have more skills to learn since they MUST also learn all the soccer skills including shooting and their goal specific training has virtually zero overlap with the soccer skills. Again we are comparing basics to basics: running, passing, shooting, defending basic mechanics v catching, diving, 1v1 defensive play, and stance.


I think you just read part of my post then respond and ignore the rest.  If you are comparing basics to basics, then compare one player at u10 to another. compare the age group and position, that is when you will see an elite player.  I'm not even saying every once in a while, I'm saying the elite players are the ones that are above their peers, they are superior to their peer group.  Now I see, what you are describing is a generational talent, if you are talking about a player who only comes along every X amount of years, than that is different, that isn't what we are talking about though.  Superior was the term used, as comparing them to someone in their own age group.  The elite players are the ones that stand out above their peers.  Generational player is someone who comes along once in a lifetime or a few and far between and they aren't necessarily at every age group or position. 

It doesn't matter if keepers have to learn those skills, they are nowhere near the same level of skill as a field player. 

Think about this and it might help you understand. How many top level keepers at u15 come out of goal and end up being an effective field player on a top level team? Compared to...How many u15 top level field players end up going into goal and are effective keepers on a top level team? That was rhetorical, I already know the answer, WAY more field players go into goal, never have I seen it go the other way.
I can throw an ELITE tall striker who played little league all growing up in the net and tell him to stop the ball and he would do a better job than a keeper in the field. Wonder Why?


----------



## dad4 (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> No I’m not. I’m comparing basics to basics. Using your own words as definition is “far better” among raw beginners a meaningful distinction. If your point is every once in a while a Mozart comes along ok, but Mozart’s are few and far between and even at the European academy level you can count them on one hand...not as pro level skills...competent in the basics.
> 
> The field players have been at it longer so there is a greater possibility for unicorns but the question there is also what does superior mean: more effective or more developed. For the keepers at least the ones who are diving but missing more are more developed than the ones going in for their feet.
> 
> lastly it’s self evident keepers need to know more. They have to do all the regular soccer practices and then do the keeper training on top of that.  Keeping is almost like training an entirely different sport on top of the sport you are in (yet you get to use both skills about only 50% of the time). Not saying field players don’t have a lot to learn (but at the early ages the skills are just more natural and developmentally appropriate). Keepers just have more skills to learn since they MUST also learn all the soccer skills including shooting and their goal specific training has virtually zero overlap with the soccer skills. Again we are comparing basics to basics: running, passing, shooting, defending basic mechanics v catching, diving, 1v1 defensive play, and stance.


It’s not just the occasional Mozart.  At the beginner level, about one player in 300 is good enough to make it impossible to balance AYSO teams.  Maybe one in 10,000 is good enough to play up a year in club and lift the team a flight by doing so.

That isn’t few and far between.  It’s a normal part of life in sports.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I think you just read part of my post then respond and ignore the rest.  If you are comparing basics to basics, then compare one player at u10 to another. compare the age group and position, that is when you will see an elite player.  I'm not even saying every once in a while, I'm saying the elite players are the ones that are above their peers, they are superior to their peer group.  Now I see, what you are describing is a generational
> talent, if you are talking about a player who only comes along every X amount of years, than that is different, that isn't what we are talking about though.  Superior was the term used, as comparing them to someone in their own age group.  The elite players are the ones that stand out above their peers.  Generational player is someone who comes along once in a lifetime or a few and far between and they aren't necessarily at every age group or position.


You assumption here is that all (or almost all) field player playing at the highest level are elite.  They aren't, at least not at U9 and U10.  As I said, the roster of "elite" players (far better than their peers, as you've defined) is smaller than the roster of the top level teams.  The other question we have to ask ourselves is why: is it because they are more developed, or is it because they are taller and closer to the age line.  But surely you would concede there are no elite field players at U6?



soccersc said:


> I think you just read part of my post then respond and ignore the rest.  If you are comparing basics to basics, then compare one player at u10 to another. compare the age group and position, that is when you will see an elite player.  I'm not even saying every once in a while, I'm saying the elite players are the ones that are above their peers, they are superior to their peer group.


You didn't say superior.  You said far better.  Can one player be better than another at age 8 or 9?  Yes.  Can one goalkeeper be better than the other at age 8 or 9? Yes.  Can one goalkeeper be far better than the average at age 8 or 9?  No, because they are all rank beginners at that age, except for a handful of prodigies, far less than there are high ranking teams in SoCal.



soccersc said:


> Think about this and it might help you understand. How many top level keepers at u15 come out of goal and end up being an effective field player on a top level team? Compared to...How many u15 top level field players end up going into goal and are effective keepers on a top level team? That was rhetorical, I already know the answer, WAY more field players go into goal, never have I seen it go the other way.
> I can throw an ELITE tall striker who played little league all growing up in the net and tell him to stop the ball and he would do a better job than a keeper in the field. Wonder Why?


Part of the explanation for this effect is that the goalkeeper has to split their time so doesn't have the full amount to get proficient on the field.  You see the same effect between strikers and defenders that shift position but it's not as much since the skills overlap.  But then I hear the rejoinder: what about the tall striker that  goes into goal.  Well, here's a little secret.  Again, you have to use the principle of like to like but most keepers really suck.  They have some major deficiency so few players are ever able to achieve perfection in goalkeeping which is not the case for strikers (where world class strikers exceed the number of world class goalkeepers).  Exhibit A: David De Gea, who even in his heyday was not all around excellent, yet receives the enormous pay day he does.  Part of the reason (and why Americans filled the position for so long) is because the Europeans didn't know how to train goalkeepers.  Exhibit B: David Bingham of the Galaxy...could execute the basics, mildly effective on cross defense but couldn't save a 1 v 1 to save his life ...yet a premier goalkeeper on the MLS.  That's changing.  Training goalkeepers has become more of a science and both here and in Europe kids are beginning to specialize earlier (now at about age 9/10 whereas before it was 12/13).  Hence the United Soccer guidance to not specialize in goalkeeping until age 13, and to not seriously train keeper skills until age 10.  How much they can push that, though, is a question mark since the body simply isn't prepared to execute most of the required skills at that age, while it can execute running, passing, shooting, defending.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

dad4 said:


> It’s not just the occasional Mozart.  At the beginner level, about one player in 300 is good enough to make it impossible to balance AYSO teams.  Maybe one in 10,000 is good enough to play up a year in club and lift the team a flight by doing so.
> 
> That isn’t few and far between.  It’s a normal part of life in sports.


Fair as to field players.  The GK doesn't have that influence because the GK can't score (and one solution in AYSO to the too good player that's scored 12 goals or so is to put them in goal).  It also then beg's espola's question of whether a player can be "elite" if they aren't playing on an elite team (I think he's right, the answer is yes, but it gets difficult)

The other question is why?  Is it because of developmental skill, or is it because of size and closeness to the age line.  It's a mix of the 2 in most cases, but I haven't seen a lot of data over how heavily it leans towards one or the other.


----------



## soccersc (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> You assumption here is that all (or almost all) field player playing at the highest level are elite.  They aren't, at least not at U9 and U10.  As I said, the roster of "elite" players (far better than their peers, as you've defined) is smaller than the roster of the top level teams.  The other question we have to ask ourselves is why: is it because they are more developed, or is it because they are taller and closer to the age line.  But surely you would concede there are no elite field players at U6?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think this is turning into a discussion on semantics.  Superior and far better, mean the same to me.  Elite means the player is superior,  far better, or distinctly stand out above those in age group they are playing.  So, yes,  I have seen a u6 player stand out and were clearly far better than those that they were playing against.  Does that mean they will be elite at u10, not necessarily, because there are a crazy amount of factors that come into play, but at u6 they can be elite because they are better than their peers at that age. 

I just don't agree that all keepers at 8 or 9 are all at the same level, I'm not sure why you think that, but maybe you haven't seen a rec keeper, or you are only exposed to keepers that go to keeper training or play club????


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I think this is turning into a discussion on semantics.  Superior and far better, mean the same to me.  Elite means the player is superior,  far better, or distinctly stand out above those in age group they are playing.  So, yes,  I have seen a u6 player stand out and were clearly far better than those that they were playing against.  Does that mean they will be elite at u10, not necessarily, because there are a crazy amount of factors that come into play, but at u6 they can be elite because they are better than their peers at that age.
> 
> I just don't agree that all keepers at 8 or 9 are all at the same level, I'm not sure why you think that, but maybe you haven't seen a rec keeper, or you are only exposed to keepers that go to keeper training or play club????


No I've seen keepers at all levels play at the 8 or 9 year old.  I think that we just have different standards for what "elite' means (which I regard as different than either "better" or "superior" and it's relative to average, not the worst) and what goes into making that player elite (skill v. size/age).  I also don't think there are 5 year old elite field players.

p.s. there has to be some line....4 year old elite field players, 3 year olds, 2, babies???


----------



## dad4 (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Fair as to field players.  The GK doesn't have that influence because the GK can't score (and one solution in AYSO to the too good player that's scored 12 goals or so is to put them in goal).  It also then beg's espola's question of whether a player can be "elite" if they aren't playing on an elite team (I think he's right, the answer is yes, but it gets difficult)
> 
> The other question is why?  Is it because of developmental skill, or is it because of size and closeness to the age line.  It's a mix of the 2 in most cases, but I haven't seen a lot of data over how heavily it leans towards one or the other.


Why?  Occasionally, it’s just talent.  I’ve watched a 7 year old girl dribble a field of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade boy defenders.  That had nothing to do with age, height, weight, hard work, or training.  That’s just undeveloped genetic luck.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

dad4 said:


> Why?  Occasionally, it’s just talent.  I’ve watched a 7 year old girl dribble a field of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade boy defenders.  That had nothing to do with age, height, weight, hard work, or training.  That’s just undeveloped genetic luck.


Agree, occasionally, it's just talent.  Sometimes, it's just age or height.  Other than the hockey player study though that started that entire debate, is there much data on how often it's one v the other?  Both BTW are genetically or circumstantially based, though you can do more with training and hard work for skill than age/height.  One is finesse, the other is a blunt instrument.


----------



## notintheface (May 20, 2021)

soccersc said:


> I get what you are saying, but if you don't think putting a higher level on a team brings in more players you are wrong.  Advertise a F3 tryout in Irvine and post and ECRL tryout in Irvine and see how many players come to the F3 tryout.  Of course that is the extreme, but there are going to be more players trying out for a higher team then a lower one.  And what brings in the money, the players.  The higher the team, the better chance a club has on being able to keep the team together and actually bring in more players.  In my opinion, that is a big reason why those mega clubs broke off, they knew that was how to get the players, they have more control of were they place the team and that matters. It unfortunately all comes down to the money


Respectfully disagree -- your club should have a good working relationship with your local AYSO chapter to bring in those flight 3 players. If anything we see a better pipeline for youngers of AYSO select/extra players than we do of kids looking to move from one club to another.

Put it this way -- established flight 2 and flight 1 teams have about a 20% churn rate no matter what. Families move, kids decide it isn't for them, life happens. Those 2-3 kids either get replaced by lower flight kids or by external recruiting. It is rare in my experience to catch a large group of flight 1 kids all wanting to move at the same time and so your hypothetical ECRL tryout will tend to get a small amount of kids new-to-the-club regardless.

But that's all a moot point. The number one question that gets asked at large tryouts is, and will continue to be, "when and where does the team train?" because parents generally don't want to drive two hours round trip two or three times per week. It is only the most rabid parents who come up and ask "is this team prepared to be first place in flight 1 with an eye towards moving to discovery" and the moment some father (here's where I'm being a little sexist, because it's almost always fathers) asks that question it's a giant red flag as to that family's commitment and behavior.


----------



## notintheface (May 20, 2021)

Emma said:


> Why does it bother you at all that the team has to remain at the same level for another year until they improve a few more areas?


These kids have, on average, six years of playing this sport before they're done. That's 70-85 league games in total. If you spend more than one year in bronze, you will have wasted time that they simply do not have. Here's the scenario: a team plays its first year in bronze, U9, and out of a bracket of 6 teams let's say they come in 4th. Second year, U10 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, new team joins, this team comes in third because any myriad of reasons. Third year, U11 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, this team loses some kids but maintains a good core and manages to come in first. Fourth year, U12 silver, team has not been challenged and it's time to switch to 11v11, and they subsequently find themselves near the bottom of the table. Fifth year, U13 silver, you lose a few kids because the pro/rel process has failed them, team struggles again, near the bottom of the table. Sixth year, U14 you lose most of the rest of your original team, again because they're burned out and the whole process failed them top to bottom.

I have seen this happen time and time and time again in Coast. This does not happen in SCDSL. That U9 team plays flight 3 their first year and then flight 2 their second year and they have their second and third years to really develop, and by their fourth year and the switch to 11v11 they are ready to completely eat up other teams and so their fifth and sixth years you retain most of your players and you're rolling in flight 1. This is *reality*. This is why you tend to hear from coaches why they prefer the SCDSL format because they are not under pressure at that U9 U10 group.

I have no doubt that there are exceptions to this-- of course there are. Are there too many letter leagues? Of course there are and the fragmentation is absolutely a money grab. But pro/rel is 100% not the solution that parents (and Coast admins apparently!) think it is because you cannot tell me how it serves these youngers acting as some arbitrary gatekeeping.


----------



## notintheface (May 20, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> CSL made an exception to its pro/rel.  You can see here that the team you focus on had a losing record the prior year:  https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/standings?YEAR=2019&SEX=G&AGE=10&SEASON=fall&BRACKET=SS&Send+Form=Standings!
> 
> Apparently, someone at the club thought it was good for development to move that team up.


Your link is to 2009s. Take a look again.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

notintheface said:


> These kids have, on average, six years of playing this sport before they're done. That's 70-85 league games in total. If you spend more than one year in bronze, you will have wasted time that they simply do not have. Here's the scenario: a team plays its first year in bronze, U9, and out of a bracket of 6 teams let's say they come in 4th. Second year, U10 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, new team joins, this team comes in third because any myriad of reasons. Third year, U11 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, this team loses some kids but maintains a good core and manages to come in first. Fourth year, U12 silver, team has not been challenged and it's time to switch to 11v11, and they subsequently find themselves near the bottom of the table. Fifth year, U13 silver, you lose a few kids because the pro/rel process has failed them, team struggles again, near the bottom of the table. Sixth year, U14 you lose most of the rest of your original team, again because they're burned out and the whole process failed them top to bottom.
> 
> I have seen this happen time and time and time again in Coast. This does not happen in SCDSL. That U9 team plays flight 3 their first year and then flight 2 their second year and they have their second and third years to really develop, and by their fourth year and the switch to 11v11 they are ready to completely eat up other teams and so their fifth and sixth years you retain most of your players and you're rolling in flight 1. This is *reality*. This is why you tend to hear from coaches why they prefer the SCDSL format because they are not under pressure at that U9 U10 group.
> 
> I have no doubt that there are exceptions to this-- of course there are. Are there too many letter leagues? Of course there are and the fragmentation is absolutely a money grab. But pro/rel is 100% not the solution that parents (and Coast admins apparently!) think it is because you cannot tell me how it serves these youngers acting as some arbitrary gatekeeping.


Your reality isn't true bc the flight 1 you think your team is in...is actually flight 5 or 6 at SCDSL but they labeled it flight 1 for parents to think their kids are moving up. Your kids haven't moved up in that scenario, your kid is in the same flight but with a different name.  CSL doesn't lie to you.  If your at bronze, you're at bronze level until you improve enough to move forward. It's ok to do so.  

ECNL=flight 1
ECRL=flight 2
DISCOVERY=flight 3
CHAMPIONS=flight 4
Europa = flight 5
Flight 1= Flight 6

I've seen teams break up and I've seen teams stay together that do not move up.   When teams break up, it's all for the same reasons, (1) bad coach, (2)the kids aren't a good combination of skills or personality together or (3) the parents are too toxic.  Teams should break up if 6 kids are very good and 6 kids are very bad.  You can't keep them together at 11 v 11 because those 6 good kids can't cover for the 6 bad kids at 11 v 11.   If the six good kids want to play more challenging teams, they have to change their teammates at 11 v 11.


----------



## notintheface (May 20, 2021)

Emma said:


> they labeled it flight 1 for parents to think their kids are moving up.


Come on. If you truly believe there is no difference between flight 2 and flight 1 then it's like everyone telling you the sky is blue and you refusing to take them at face value, it's just not worth the effort to get through to you. Youngers flight 2 is where teams work hard on their game. Youngers flight 1 is where the great teams play against great competition. The olders flights are probably excessive but look, olders need parity more than anything in order to keep their development and competitive edge going.



> CSL doesn't lie to you.


Okay everyone, I found the Coast admin!


----------



## lafalafa (May 20, 2021)

Coast soccer will likely always have a niche and good for them to provide a platform and league for teams to play in.

The #strong... this is being used in marketing a bunch nowadays and everyone wants to portray themselves as....some...strong...

Forget about the comparison saying a xyz league flight is equivalent to another league bracket called uvw.  It's all alphabet soup and there is no real hierarchical system in youth soccer besides a marketing one.  Flatter or holacratic in real teams where things are based on what clubs are members of what leagues.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

notintheface said:


> Come on. If you truly believe there is no difference between flight 2 and flight 1 then it's like everyone telling you the sky is blue and you refusing to take them at face value, it's just not worth the effort to get through to you. Youngers flight 2 is where teams work hard on their game. Youngers flight 1 is where the great teams play against great competition. The olders flights are probably excessive but look, olders need parity more than anything in order to keep their development and competitive edge going.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay everyone, I found the Coast admin!


I'm not saying there's no difference between flight 1 and flight 2 by the time you get to 11v11 (but it's a lot less than you think), what I'm saying is your flight 1 is actually flight 5 or 6 relabeled to make parents think their kids have improved to a flight 1 level.  If your kid's team improved to a flight 1 level, they should be playing ECNL or Discovery (based on the club access).  If your kid is still at flight 1 (scdsl labeling) at 11 v 11, your kid is still at at least a flight 3 or less level.

And taking my words out of context is silly.  We're discussing the merits of the CSL pro/rel system.  I hope CSL does pay me for making this argument in support of them.  Please DM me if you can pay me.  I need the extra coffee money.


----------



## futboldad1 (May 20, 2021)

with presidio my DDs did never play in Coast SL but I remember the league was a real power house 10 years ago and still competitive  even 5 years ago...... a lot has changed since then...................


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

Emma said:


> Your reality isn't true bc the flight 1 you think your team is in...is actually flight 5 or 6 at SCDSL but they labeled it flight 1 for parents to think their kids are moving up. Your kids haven't moved up in that scenario, your kid is in the same flight but with a different name.  CSL doesn't lie to you.  If your at bronze, you're at bronze level until you improve enough to move forward. It's ok to do so.
> 
> ECNL=flight 1
> ECRL=flight 2
> ...


re CSL doesn’t lie to you, yes it does.  Because if most teams are average the vast majority would be silver/silver elite. Instead if you look at the pyramid the vast majority of teams for u12 boys are bronze. One of this reasons this is done isn’t for sorting but to keep competition local so parents at the lower levels don’t have to drive as much.  But if it’s about making teams better, you shouldn’t have new teams playing existing bronze teams and there would be 6 or 7 levels as in Europe none labeled things like gold/silver/bronze medal colors.


----------



## PracticeWYpreach (May 20, 2021)

Emma said:


> I'm not saying there's no difference between flight 1 and flight 2 by the time you get to 11v11 (but it's a lot less than you think), what I'm saying is your flight 1 is actually flight 5 or 6 relabeled to make parents think their kids have improved to a flight 1 level.  If your kid's team improved to a flight 1 level, they should be playing ECNL or Discovery (based on the club access).  If your kid is still at flight 1 (scdsl labeling) at 11 v 11, your kid is still at at least a flight 3 or less level.
> 
> And taking my words out of context is silly.  We're discussing the merits of the CSL pro/rel system.  I hope CSL does pay me for making this argument in support of them.  Please DM me if you can pay me.  I need the extra coffee money.


Isn't CSL the same thing? Top clubs leaving for the other top leagues and then gold, silver elite, silver, bronze? I personally like the pro/rel system at the top level like SCDSL is implementing this year. But I agree at the younger middle levels it really isn't that important.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 20, 2021)

- I see the value of CSL in terms of making it fair with relegation and promotion and maybe this works with the older groups.  
There is one important factor to consider and that's speed of play.  Ive seen with my kids over the past 10 years that they learn to play faster and better if they get moved up and challenged against tougher competition.   If we keep a young player in bronze or silver for a long period of time, this could create a false sense of ability and skill. 

Recently, my dd played a scrimmage with a high level team and I recognized that she adapted and started playing faster.   In a way, SCDSL does allow players to develop when they move up.  My complaint with SCDSL is that they need to eliminate so many tiers at the flight 1 level.  Eliminate discovery and just keep it to Flight 1 Champion and Flight 1 Europa.     CSL also has too many tiers (5) and they should stick with 4 max.


----------



## Woodwork (May 20, 2021)

notintheface said:


> Your link is to 2009s. Take a look again.


Oops.  So the team that lost 10-0 was promoted from the top 3 of Silver.  Probably lost key players but went Silver Elite anyway. 

Not sure what your point is.  Sometimes teams, despite their best effort, have an issue during the season.  It doesn't justify a team that couldn't finish at the top of F2 deliberately choosing to lose in F1 by 10 points for "development."  Even if the team thought they were getting something out of it, the opponent doesn't.  I say no to this.

Also, something to appreciate about CSL: They don't even really give a top flight credential to youngers.  That's right kids - don't let your heads get too big.  You still have work to do.


----------



## Woodwork (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> re CSL doesn’t lie to you, yes it does.  Because if most teams are average the vast majority would be silver/silver elite. Instead if you look at the pyramid the vast majority of teams for u12 boys are bronze. One of this reasons this is done isn’t for sorting but to keep competition local so parents at the lower levels don’t have to drive as much.  But if it’s about making teams better, you shouldn’t have new teams playing existing bronze teams and there would be 6 or 7 levels as in Europe none labeled things like gold/silver/bronze medal colors.


Maybe Bronze is for average teams.  Its kind of a point of pride in CSL to be in Silver or Silver Elite because it is earned.  It is an SCDSL thing to think you should advance a flight just by virtue of existing long enough as a team. 

CSL has, at the older ages, 5 levels.  But the top three levels are not really that far apart.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

[Q. UOTE="Grace T., post: 394625, member: 2423"]
re CSL doesn’t lie to you, yes it does.  Because if most teams are average the vast majority would be silver/silver elite. Instead if you look at the pyramid the vast majority of teams for u12 boys are bronze. One of this reasons this is done isn’t for sorting but to keep competition local so parents at the lower levels don’t have to drive as much.  But if it’s about making teams better, you shouldn’t have new teams playing existing bronze teams and there would be 6 or 7 levels as in Europe none labeled things like gold/silver/bronze medal colors.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure CSL lies to you occasionally like any league does. I'm just referring to the level the teams are playing at.  CSL requires team to earn their promotion, not just belong to large clubs or relabel levels to appease parents.  

Keeping competition close by at the lower levels is a good thing.  Leagues don't develop players. Individual players, teammates, friends, coaches, trainers, and parents help develop players.  League just organizes appropriate level games in appropriate locations.  However, bronze teams are now thinking they should drive 50 mil

If your kid is playing at bronze level, put your effort into taking your kid to the nearest park to kick around rather than drive the extra 50 miles to play a team that might be slightly better than the team 5 miles away. The time is better spent on individual or team training than driving the extra 45 miles.

If there are 6-7 flights, it's fine too.  My problem with SCDSL is there's no true pro/rel and the larger clubs decide where they want to put teams rather than where they deserve to be at.  I do commend them for trying to do this at the higher levels but they won't do this at the lower levels because parents need their kids to be in flight 1 by 11 v 11 to continue with soccer but flight 1 is actually flight 6 and that's the part I don't like.

CSL levels are below and then divided into locations.
1. Premier
2. Gold
3. Silver Elite
4. Silver
5. Bronze

Then Rec

Most teams play at the Silver level, not bronze.  I agree that they should label it Flight 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 but CSL's labeling system is more clear than ECNL, ECRL, Discovery, Champions, Europa, Flight 1

Disclosure - my children no longer play at CSL but I still prefer the CSL flighting system because it gives a more accurate representation of a team's improvement than the constant addition of higher flights.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

PracticeWYpreach said:


> Isn't CSL the same thing? Top clubs leaving for the other top leagues and then gold, silver elite, silver, bronze? I personally like the pro/rel system at the top level like SCDSL is implementing this year. But I agree at the younger middle levels it really isn't that important.


Grace, notintheface, and I are just arguing the merits of CSL rel/pro (with petitioning ability) vs. relabeling flights to give parents a false sense of vast improvement by big clubs.


----------



## PracticeWYpreach (May 20, 2021)

Only counter to that is that the larger clubs move their players up and down to form their competitive teams. So the teams don't necessarily stay the same every year. So is ECNL/ECRL a part of SCDSL? I thought the top teams of any league joined ECNL/ECRL/GA, and then teams decided to either play coast or SCDSL. But then again I am new and am still learning.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

PracticeWYpreach said:


> Only counter to that is that the larger clubs move their players up and down to form their competitive teams. So the teams don't necessarily stay the same every year. So is ECNL/ECRL a part of SCDSL? I thought the top teams of any league joined ECNL/ECRL/GA, and then teams decided to either play coast or SCDSL. But then again I am new and am still learning.


Top teams from any league can NOT join ECNL or GA.  ECNL and GAL are monopolies for the clubs that formed the league or clubs that get big and strong enough to join.  You don't get into ECNL because your team is good enough, you get in because your club is big enough for ECNL to add you or you were part of the founding members of ECNL.  My children are in monopolies but I wish they weren't monopolies and would allow 4 team to play in every year and relegate teams if they are performing below a certain level, not neccesarily according to wins but how close the games are.  If a team loses with mostly 6-0 to 12-0 scores, relegate them unless they pick up better players/coach to win the play in games.

Big clubs as well as small clubs generally have player change, that's why CSL does allow a petition based on changes or circumstances but at it's core, it relies on team performance.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Maybe Bronze is for average teams.  Its kind of a point of pride in CSL to be in Silver or Silver Elite because it is earned.  It is an SCDSL thing to think you should advance a flight just by virtue of existing long enough as a team.
> 
> CSL has, at the older ages, 5 levels.  But the top three levels are not really that far apart.


If it's for an "average" team then it would be in the middle of the tiers since there are also new teams and disasters of teams.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

Emma said:


> I
> Most teams play at the Silver level, not bronze.  I agree that they should label it Flight 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 but CSL's labeling system is more clear than ECNL, ECRL, Discovery, Champions, Europa, Flight 1
> 
> Disclosure - my children no longer play at CSL but I still prefer the CSL flighting system because it gives a more accurate representation of a team's improvement than the constant addition of higher flights.


At U11, U12, U13 most teams absolutely do not play at silver (at least on the boys side).  Look at the regions on line.  That's simply not true.  There are a ton more at the bronze.  Silver may have a few more teams in them but there are far more bronze than silver.  At the upper ages it's that many of those bronze teams just go away and dissolve....all the good kids having moved on....all the rest having given up.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Its kind of a point of pride in CSL to be in Silver or Silver Elite because it is earned.


Further, the thing about "earning" levels makes no sense because of the churn NOTIF talked about.  Assume he's right and the churn is about 20% on an average team.  On a bronze or relegated team it may be more because families leave a situation where all the games are lost (thinking the coaches aren't developing the players) and on a team that's advanced maybe a little less (because clearly then the coach is doing a good job), though coaches may use the opportunity to engage in recruiting upgrades and cut the weaker kids to make the team even stronger and advance yet another level.   In addition kids move, their interests change, financial circumstances may force them to drop out..  So by the time you get to U14, the team is completely different from U9.  My son's former United team (which won one of the state cups) has when last I checked 5 or 6 players from the original squad.  So what exactly has the U14 "earned"....that it wasn't relegated despite the fact that CSL and the clubs bend over backward to not relegate unless everyone agree it's in the best interest?....that it was really good at recruitment and recruited top kids and upgraded others?  The team that earned the silver or silver elite title couple be proud of that, but there's no "dance with the one that brung you" rule. That U14 is a completely different team from the one that started, and may have even gone through a couple coaches.  How less arbitrary is that then just having the coaches decide let's play x level???


----------



## Woodwork (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> If it's for an "average" team then it would be in the middle of the tiers since there are also new teams and disasters of teams.


Its up to CSL whether to put Silver or SE in the middle of the bell curve.  You want it to be, I get that.  But, suppose for a second it isn't.
They usually promote the top 3 or so teams in the group each year, but there isn't anywhere to demote the "disasters" as you call them.  If it is promoting the exceptional ones but not demoting the unexceptional ones, it is going to be the largest group by default.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> Its up to CSL whether to put Silver or SE in the middle of the bell curve.  You want it to be, I get that.  But, suppose for a second it isn't.
> They usually promote the top 3 or so teams in the group each year, but there isn't anywhere to demote the "disasters" as you call them.  If it is promoting the exceptional ones but not demoting the unexceptional ones, it is going to be the largest group by default.


You promote anyone that’s been around more than 2 years out of the bottom tier making it clear it’s for new teams (or teams in the penultimate tier that loses more than 50% of its players and are effectively new). If a team still has an exceptionally bad record (most such teams will have exploded) you allow them to play there too. If a team has an exceptionally good tournament season before you allow them to start the penultimate tier to avoid 15-0 monsters like my sons United team. It also eliminates the stigma of the lower tier( they can’t recruit good players because they are “just bronze”) and you have 3 intermediate tiers (for a total of 6-7 tiers). It would involve more driving and it would mean in the penultimate tier there would be very few games against disaster teams.  Except for exceptional circumstances of voluntary relegation or a team reforming, there wouldn’t be relegation to the new tier. I’d also impose a dance with the one that brung you rule the first year of a teams promotion to levels higher than penultimate. Top teams in the new division skip penulrimate.


----------



## Emma (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> At U11, U12, U13 most teams absolutely do not play at silver (at least on the boys side).  Look at the regions on line.  That's simply not true.  There are a ton more at the bronze.  Silver may have a few more teams in them but there are far more bronze than silver.  At the upper ages it's that many of those bronze teams just go away and dissolve....all the good kids having moved on....all the rest having given up.
> 
> Three reasons for reduction of teams: (1) teams consolidate at u13 to go 11 v 11 (2) players start to move to MLS Next and ECNL teams and (3) kids start picking their favorite sports to play, which is generally the one they are good at and if there skills haven't developed passed bronze level and they've been playing for 5/6 years, they probably won't stay if their parents are looking for a college scholarship.
> 
> I agree with you that more teams are in bronze at the younger ages but that makes sense because only a few teams should move up every year.  If you think CSL should add an additional flight between the bronze and silver level, like bronze elite for teams that come in 3rd-5th place , I can agree with that.  Whatever the number of flights needed, the movement should be based on merit and not additional top flights added every year.  The addition of the flights should be based on where it is needed and maybe in CSL's case an additional flight or two is needed between the silver and bronze level.


----------



## espola (May 20, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Further, the thing about "earning" levels makes no sense because of the churn NOTIF talked about.  Assume he's right and the churn is about 20% on an average team.  On a bronze or relegated team it may be more because families leave a situation where all the games are lost (thinking the coaches aren't developing the players) and on a team that's advanced maybe a little less (because clearly then the coach is doing a good job), though coaches may use the opportunity to engage in recruiting upgrades and cut the weaker kids to make the team even stronger and advance yet another level.   In addition kids move, their interests change, financial circumstances may force them to drop out..  So by the time you get to U14, the team is completely different from U9.  My son's former United team (which won one of the state cups) has when last I checked 5 or 6 players from the original squad.  So what exactly has the U14 "earned"....that it wasn't relegated despite the fact that CSL and the clubs bend over backward to not relegate unless everyone agree it's in the best interest?....that it was really good at recruitment and recruited top kids and upgraded others?  The team that earned the silver or silver elite title couple be proud of that, but there's no "dance with the one that brung you" rule. That U14 is a completely different team from the one that started, and may have even gone through a couple coaches.  How less arbitrary is that then just having the coaches decide let's play x level???


Line them all up and let St. Luigi Scrosopi seed the circuits.

Or you can let logic help --

Assign each team to a small group at the beginning of the season.  After a few games (3 for groups of 4) determine 1-2-3-4 in each group by whatever the league rules and tiebreakers are.  Reform the group so #1 plays in a group of #1s down to #4 plays in a group of #4s.  Repeat a few times until it is clear who the persistent winners are.  Bracket #1 to #4 for a league playoff (or more for a longer playoff as the calendar permits).


----------



## Porkchop (May 21, 2021)

What I don't understand is how a team can be silver 04  Fourth in bracket can take over a 03 Gold team for the current season ?or a new team can saying it's going to be Gold or Premier next season?


----------



## Woodwork (May 21, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> You promote anyone that’s been around more than 2 years out of the bottom tier making it clear it’s for new teams (or teams in the penultimate tier that loses more than 50% of its players and are effectively new). If a team still has an exceptionally bad record (most such teams will have exploded) you allow them to play there too. If a team has an exceptionally good tournament season before you allow them to start the penultimate tier to avoid 15-0 monsters like my sons United team. It also eliminates the stigma of the lower tier( they can’t recruit good players because they are “just bronze”) and you have 3 intermediate tiers (for a total of 6-7 tiers). It would involve more driving and it would mean in the penultimate tier there would be very few games against disaster teams.  Except for exceptional circumstances of voluntary relegation or a team reforming, there wouldn’t be relegation to the new tier. I’d also impose a dance with the one that brung you rule the first year of a teams promotion to levels higher than penultimate. Top teams in the new division skip penulrimate.


And in a leap year you can promote the team with the tallest hair styles.

Or we deal internally with the "stigma" of being in the lowest rung of club soccer.  Any kid who plays club is in rarified air relative to most other kids, but there are also other teams and players that get placed into higher levels of competition or recognition.  You can learn to be happy with what you have or make a big change.  Sometimes the answers are internal.

Bronze is great.  I salute any kid playing soccer, playing club soccer, and I know my daughter is always positive when she meets another kid in club, too.  They have more in common than other kids in school.


----------



## Grace T. (May 21, 2021)

espola said:


> Line them all up and let St. Luigi Scrosopi seed the circuits.
> 
> Or you can let logic help --
> 
> Assign each team to a small group at the beginning of the season.  After a few games (3 for groups of 4) determine 1-2-3-4 in each group by whatever the league rules and tiebreakers are.  Reform the group so #1 plays in a group of #1s down to #4 plays in a group of #4s.  Repeat a few times until it is clear who the persistent winners are.  Bracket #1 to #4 for a league playoff (or more for a longer playoff as the calendar permits).


I like it (that itself is a sign there’s a problem)

the parents will hate it because that means by random chance there’s still a possibility of 12-0 blow outs, lots of driving, and they can’t be sure their little billy will be placed on that silver elite team if the stupid teammates do badly

the big clubs would hate it because their positions wouldn’t be secure and god forbid the b team should ever beat the a team. How can they poach players if they can’t promise a level?

the coaches will hate it because it puts them under enormous pressure to get through those early rounds. Will resort to the usual short cuts: big legged defender kicks goalkicks long, keeper punts, longballs, running game, foul game.

the admins won’t like it. Lots of work for them, lots of anti cheating steps will need to be taken in those early rounds, and lots of complaints of 12-0 victories

You can fix the 12-0 problem by seeding based on the prior years results but that’s not perfext


Woodwork said:


> And in a leap year you can promote the team with the tallest hair styles.
> 
> Or we deal internally with the "stigma" of being in the lowest rung of club soccer.  Any kid who plays club is in rarified air relative to most other kids, but there are also other teams and players that get placed into higher levels of competition or recognition.  You can learn to be happy with what you have or make a big change.  Sometimes the answers are internal.
> 
> Bronze is great.  I salute any kid playing soccer, playing club soccer, and I know my daughter is always positive when she meets another kid in club, too.  They have more in common than other kids in school.


why call it bronze then?  If it’s average then under the bell curve it should hold the most players and there should be players under it. If it’s below average the distribution shouldn’t be slated as heavily there

the bronze division also tends to swing wildly because of the entry of new teams.  You had my sons team which beat almost all teams 10-0 to 15-0. Then there are wrecks of new teams that can’t win a single game.

the other issue is the bronze teams struggle to recruit good experienced players that can lift the team and lose their best players forcing the team to rebuild.  How do you fix that?


----------



## espola (May 21, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I like it (that itself is a sign there’s a problem)
> 
> the parents will hate it because that means by random chance there’s still a possibility of 12-0 blow outs, lots of driving, and they can’t be sure their little billy will be placed on that silver elite team if the stupid teammates do badly
> 
> ...


Eliminate blowouts with a mercy rule or make a team play a man down for every 3 goals they are ahead (or add players to the trailing team).

The initial groups can be based on geography to reduce long drives at least in that round, and distance can be factored into the lower groups as the season proceeds.  I am assuming that the teams who have won their way into the higher groups will be more willing to travel further to maintain their positions.

We can still have voluntary assignment to "Flights", with the above procedures to be used within a flight.  Otherwise, there will be too many teams to manage.  The number of teams that can be accommodated by this scheme is limited by the length of the season and the number of games people are willing to play each week.


----------



## RedCard (May 22, 2021)

Not sure if anyone saw this, but more clubs are leaving CSL for SoCal (SCDSL) for next season. Biggest loss for CSL in my opinion is Tudela, very strong girls program. Claremont Stars, NHB, and SoCal Elite are gone also. Not sure which league the other clubs play in.
SOCAL adds nine new clubs, announces partnership with The Coaching Manual (usclubsoccer.org)


----------



## socalkdg (May 22, 2021)

RedCard said:


> Not sure if anyone saw this, but more clubs are leaving CSL for SoCal (SCDSL) for next season. Biggest loss for CSL in my opinion is Tudela, very strong girls program. Claremont Stars, NHB, and SoCal Elite are gone also. Not sure which league the other clubs play in.
> SOCAL adds nine new clubs, announces partnership with The Coaching Manual (usclubsoccer.org)


The 05 team will be in your division next year.   Probably the best team you will play.


----------



## RedCard (May 22, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> The 05 team will be in your division next year.   Probably the best team you will play.


Oh, I know that. My daughter played against them a couple of times when she was with SoCal Academy 05 Hazell. Those games were a battle. My money is on them to win this year's Cal South National Cup.


----------



## socalkdg (May 26, 2021)

RedCard said:


> Oh, I know that. My daughter played against them a couple of times when she was with SoCal Academy 05 Hazell. Those games were a battle. My money is on them to win this year's Cal South National Cup.


If we win our quarterfinal game, we play them in the semis.   You guys get to play them this weekend.


----------



## RedCard (May 27, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> If we win our quarterfinal game, we play them in the semis.   You guys get to play them this weekend.


Yep...looks like we got placed in the famous “group of death”... Definitely some challenging games, but that’s why we’re going. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

So recently came across an example of why the CSL tier system works imperfectly.  So, in my son's 2019 bronze grouping one team swept all their games except for 1 which they tied.  Against a new team coming up from AYSO, they won 12-0.  Some of the games were closer including against my son's team 3-1 with both teams having good opportunities.  They took promotion to silver.  For the truncated 2020  season this promoted team was in a group with 5 other teams which had been together for a while, all of whom were gunning for silver elite.  The newly promoted silver team did "upgrade" for the season, recruiting some strong kids on the grounds they were now silver and even upgrading their goalkeeper who was dropped and shifted to another bronze team.  They lost every single game in their bracket, some by as many as 8 points.

So what do you do with this team?  Relegate them to bronze where they'll lose their best players but still destroy the newly formed teams up and coming?  Another team from the 2020 season is taking promotion which won only about 80% of its games.  This team is far weaker than the previously promoted team and will likely play in the same silver bracket due to geography.  Is it going to fare much better in the bracket with silver teams that have now been playing together for a while?  At least the 2019 promoted team will now have someone to beat if they stay in silver.


----------



## soccersc (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> So recently came across an example of why the CSL tier system works imperfectly.  So, in my son's 2019 bronze grouping one team swept all their games except for 1 which they tied.  Against a new team coming up from AYSO, they won 12-0.  Some of the games were closer including against my son's team 3-1 with both teams having good opportunities.  They took promotion to silver.  For the truncated 2020  season this promoted team was in a group with 5 other teams which had been together for a while, all of whom were gunning for silver elite.  The newly promoted silver team did "upgrade" for the season, recruiting some strong kids on the grounds they were now silver and even upgrading their goalkeeper who was dropped and shifted to another bronze team.  They lost every single game in their bracket, some by as many as 8 points.
> 
> So what do you do with this team?  Relegate them to bronze where they'll lose their best players but still destroy the newly formed teams up and coming?  Another team from the 2020 season is taking promotion which won only about 80% of its games.  This team is far weaker than the previously promoted team and will likely play in the same silver bracket due to geography.  Is it going to fare much better in the bracket with silver teams that have now been playing together for a while?  At least the 2019 promoted team will now have someone to beat if they stay in silver.


So you come up with one example, therefore the whole system works imperfectly...hahahaha, that's so funny.  I can show you an exhausting amount of teams that were placed in F2 or F1 that got absolutely destroyed and were obviously placed in the wrong group, so does that mean SoCal league works imperfectly as well.  There is no perfect formula, you will always have cases where teams are not placed in the right level, but that doesnt mean throw out the baby with the bathwater!!! There was a team in Discovery this spring that lost 19-1, so there you go??? So leaving the choice to DOC's isn't always the answer either!


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

soccersc said:


> So you come up with one example, therefore the whole system works imperfectly...hahahaha, that's so funny.  I can show you an exhausting amount of teams that were placed in F2 or F1 that got absolutely destroyed and were obviously placed in the wrong group, so does that mean SoCal league works imperfectly as well.  There is no perfect formula, you will always have cases where teams are not placed in the right level, but that doesnt mean throw out the baby with the bathwater!!! There was a team in Discovery this spring that lost 19-1, so there you go??? So leaving the choice to DOC's isn't always the answer either!


a. But there's really no place to put this team.  If you move them down to the bronze bracket they'll wreck the new teams coming in.  If you keep them in the silver bracket, they'll have 1 team they can beat (and unless that team gets upgrades, wreck).  You could make them drive long distances to a more balanced silver bracket but CSL doesn't like to do that because it leads to people lobbying to be placed into brackets they can win. If the entire point is to balance the scores, it's failing in these 2 examples.
b. It's a much more common problem in the bronze and silver levels where you have teams and players that have been at it a while.  At the bronze level you get new teams like my son's AYSO team (example 3) that go in and destroy everyone 12-0 and then they aren't ready for league cup because they haven't had that experience. And you get new teams like the new AYSO team (example 4) in the bronze bracket which lose every game because they aren't playing in a new teams bracket.
c. Silver elite and gold tend to work a little better.  There's less shame for a silver elite team that struggles to play down to silver (my son's current team has that dilemma).  But take a relegation to bronze and the team tends to fall apart.  I'd bet you a drink this team that lost every game DOES NOT get relegated, and it would make no sense in any case to promote a weaker team over them (which I bet, notwithstanding the obvious signs, will take the promotion).
d. The answer would seem that particularly in SoCal where we have a wealth of teams would be more brackets, but that would mean more driving for everyone, which is the main problem parents seem to protest.
e. The team in Discovery that gets destroyed though can adjust the following year relatively easily because again there is that choice.  And they can sell it to the parents that it doesn't need to be forever.  The teams in my example have no happy outcomes if the CSL rules are applied as is: the silver team will get relegated and stomp on the bronze competition, including a raw new team, the bronze team will take its promotion and get stomped on in the silver team's place (and more badly than that team), and the newly minted club team formerly AYSO will likely dissolve since the kids don't like to lose every game (many by double digits) and the parents will blame the coaches for not developing their kids (which should be playing MLS next after all).


----------



## soccersc (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> a. But there's really no place to put this team.  If you move them down to the bronze bracket they'll wreck the new teams coming in.  If you keep them in the silver bracket, they'll have 1 team they can beat (and unless that team gets upgrades, wreck).  You could make them drive long distances to a more balanced silver bracket but CSL doesn't like to do that because it leads to people lobbying to be placed into brackets they can win. If the entire point is to balance the scores, it's failing in these 2 examples.
> b. It's a much more common problem in the bronze and silver levels where you have teams and players that have been at it a while.  At the bronze level you get new teams like my son's AYSO team (example 3) that go in and destroy everyone 12-0 and then they aren't ready for league cup because they haven't had that experience. And you get new teams like the new AYSO team (example 4) in the bronze bracket which lose every game because they aren't playing in a new teams bracket.
> c. Silver elite and gold tend to work a little better.  There's less shame for a silver elite team that struggles to play down to silver (my son's current team has that dilemma).  But take a relegation to bronze and the team tends to fall apart.  I'd bet you a drink this team that lost every game DOES NOT get relegated, and it would make no sense in any case to promote a weaker team over them (which I bet, notwithstanding the obvious signs, will take the promotion).
> d. The answer would seem that particularly in SoCal where we have a wealth of teams would be more brackets, but that would mean more driving for everyone, which is the main problem parents seem to protest.
> e. The team in Discovery that gets destroyed though can adjust the following year relatively easily because again there is that choice.  And they can sell it to the parents that it doesn't need to be forever.  The teams in my example have no happy outcomes if the CSL rules are applied as is: the silver team will get relegated and stomp on the bronze competition, including a raw new team, the bronze team will take its promotion and get stomped on in the silver team's place (and more badly than that team), and the newly minted club team formerly AYSO will likely dissolve since the kids don't like to lose every game (many by double digits) and the parents will blame the coaches for not developing their kids (which should be playing MLS next after all).


There probably isn't any place to put that team, but what I am saying the same thing can happen in SoCal league as well.  This problem isn't  specific to one type of league, it's universal.  I think you are also looking at this through a youngers lense, as the kids get older this becomes less of a problem. 
I think a lot of it has to do with players at the younger ages still don't know if they really like soccer, or they just want to play a sport, or their parents just want them to play.  As they approach middle school those fridge players who didn't really want to play, or they are just average players, begin to drop off and the levels begin to balance out. 

Here's the other major problem...Younger ages still have rec players wanting to play club, I think that's the biggest problem, club is not unique anymore at the younger ages so you get these lopsided teams from clubs that take ANYONE, and then you have other clubs that still treat it as "club" and only take players that are "club ready" If clubs would only take kids that can actually play, there distribution would'nt be so vast and teams would be more balanced at the younger ages.


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

soccersc said:


> There probably isn't any place to put that team, but what I am saying the same thing can happen in SoCal league as well.  This problem isn't  specific to one type of league, it's universal.  I think you are also looking at this through a youngers lense, as the kids get older this becomes less of a problem.
> I think a lot of it has to do with players at the younger ages still don't know if they really like soccer, or they just want to play a sport, or their parents just want them to play.  As they approach middle school those fridge players who didn't really want to play, or they are just average players, begin to drop off and the levels begin to balance out.
> 
> Here's the other major problem...Younger ages still have rec players wanting to play club, I think that's the biggest problem, club is not unique anymore at the younger ages so you get these lopsided teams from clubs that take ANYONE, and then you have other clubs that still treat it as "club" and only take players that are "club ready" If clubs would only take kids that can actually play, there distribution would'nt be so vast and teams would be more balanced at the younger ages.


I agree the same thing can and does happen in SoCal as well.  The difference, though, is no one is locked into anything so it makes it easier to adjust.  The teams in my examples have no such flexibility (if CSL enforces the rules): the silver team would be relegated and destroy the bronze teams (and just get repromoted taking a spot away from another team that might be ready), the bronze team will be promoted and be destroyed itself, the silver teams will be locked into their spots instead of being moved up to silver elite, and my son's former AYSO United team still has to go through bronze and destroy all it's competition 12-0 which serves no one. 

"actually play".  At U9 yes you have some skilled players that know their craft.  As previously stated, in the overwhelming majority of cases that does not include the goalkeeper (who should not be playing FT anyway) and many of those kids are just bigger and older and faster rather than skilled.  And then you have my son's AYSO United team which came largely out of extras and just wrecks its competition.  I don't think it's a solution to say "well it works when it gets older", if the youngers are a mess. Yeah, it works out when they get older, but there are a lot of bad collateral side effects along the way, including the overall focus on having to do what it takes to earn the promotion instead of you know, actually developing your players (like this team which took the promotion, dropped its goalkeeper for an upgrade, and yet still managed to lose all its games)


----------



## socalkdg (May 27, 2021)

That was one of the nice things about league cup, which will continue next year.   You have a tourney that puts everyone together.   Gold teams usually get byes.   They put a silver elite, a silver and two bronze teams together in about 16 groups.   They then play a tournament that is similar to what you would see in State Cup.   Good chance to prove yourself, as well as have data to use to get adjusted for the following year.


----------



## soccersc (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I agree the same thing can and does happen in SoCal as well.  The difference, though, is no one is locked into anything so it makes it easier to adjust.  The teams in my examples have no such flexibility (if CSL enforces the rules): the silver team would be relegated and destroy the bronze teams (and just get repromoted taking a spot away from another team that might be ready), the bronze team will be promoted and be destroyed itself, the silver teams will be locked into their spots instead of being moved up to silver elite, and my son's former AYSO United team still has to go through bronze and destroy all it's competition 12-0 which serves no one.
> 
> "actually play".  At U9 yes you have some skilled players that know their craft.  As previously stated, in the overwhelming majority of cases that does not include the goalkeeper (who should not be playing FT anyway) and many of those kids are just bigger and older and faster rather than skilled.  And then you have my son's AYSO United team which came largely out of extras and just wrecks its competition.  I don't think it's a solution to say "well it works when it gets older", if the youngers are a mess. Yeah, it works out when they get older, but there are a lot of bad collateral side effects along the way, including the overall focus on having to do what it takes to earn the promotion instead of you know, actually developing your players (like this team which took the promotion, dropped its goalkeeper for an upgrade, and yet still managed to lose all its games)


If you want to fix it, you will have to go to all the clubs that take any kid and put them on a club team just to collect the fees.  To them it is a business, when you are getting teams that have no reason to play club, you will get lopsided games.  If  clubs would only select kids that belong in club to their club teams and kids that are rec level go back and play rec, the leagues would be more competitive all around.  But clubs want money so they will continue to take anyone willing to pay.  Because no matter what you do or how you try to determine leagues there will always be a team at the bottom and a team at the top, no matter what league.  Whether promotion/relegation or DOC placement, there is always going to be a team misplaced.  I would argue that teams placed by DOC have way more teams misplaced than teams in promotion/relegation


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

soccersc said:


> If you want to fix it, you will have to go to all the clubs that take any kid and put them on a club team just to collect the fees.  To them it is a business, when you are getting teams that have no reason to play club, you will get lopsided games.  If  clubs would only select kids that belong in club to their club teams and kids that are rec level go back and play rec, the leagues would be more competitive all around.  But clubs want money so they will continue to take anyone willing to pay.  Because no matter what you do or how you try to determine leagues there will always be a team at the bottom and a team at the top, no matter what league.  Whether promotion/relegation or DOC placement, there is always going to be a team misplaced.  I would argue that teams placed by DOC have way more teams misplaced than teams in promotion/relegation


Wow that's the most elitist thing I've seen on these boards.  Those kids aren't worthy to play rec so get rid of them.  You may as well tell your friend Gary "I want you to keep these subs away from me.  I don't want any distractions from these whiny wannabes, just keep them out of my face."

That's not the solution...the solution is to make an appropriate tier for them.  It's not their fault the soccer world has fractured so we don't have a unified development pathway.  It's not their fault we have CSL v. SoCal so the bottom clubs have to play filler.  It's not their fault Extras isn't part of the unified structure.  It's not their fault adults care more about preserving their turf (whether US Soccer, Coast or AYSO) then coming up with them with a unified pathway.

And if we're really talking about pathways, hey how about Europe...everyone except the future pros play rec...your DS and DDs going on to play college ball just play higher level rec.


----------



## soccersc (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I agree the same thing can and does happen in SoCal as well.  The difference, though, is no one is locked into anything so it makes it easier to adjust.  The teams in my examples have no such flexibility (if CSL enforces the rules): the silver team would be relegated and destroy the bronze teams (and just get repromoted taking a spot away from another team that might be ready), the bronze team will be promoted and be destroyed itself, the silver teams will be locked into their spots instead of being moved up to silver elite, and my son's former AYSO United team still has to go through bronze and destroy all it's competition 12-0 which serves no one.
> 
> "actually play".  At U9 yes you have some skilled players that know their craft.  As previously stated, in the overwhelming majority of cases that does not include the goalkeeper (who should not be playing FT anyway) and many of those kids are just bigger and older and faster rather than skilled.  And then you have my son's AYSO United team which came largely out of extras and just wrecks its competition.  I don't think it's a solution to say "well it works when it gets older", if the youngers are a mess. Yeah, it works out when they get older, but there are a lot of bad collateral side effects along the way, including the overall focus on having to do what it takes to earn the promotion instead of you know, actually developing your players (like this team which took the promotion, dropped its goalkeeper for an upgrade, and yet still managed to lose all its games)


Here are some examples for you...this took like 2 minutes to find...I just picked a random age group B2010 in SCDSL Spring these 3 teams are getting blown out by 5-7 goals a game on average.  That's just one age group randomly picked at F2.  It happens at all levels, then they tell the parents something like, well it was our first year in F2 so it is expected and they come back the next year and same thing happens, but maybe they win one more, so they tell the parents, see we got a little better even though they only won 1 or 2 more games, so parents come back again to F2 but by now all the good F2 teams are playing F1 so they win more than half the games and parents are so excited,  I've seen it, too many times 



			http://scdslsoccer.com/_element_display/#%2F73496%2Fschedules%2FSpring2021%2F101046664.html%3Frnd%3D1622147121568
		



			http://scdslsoccer.com/_element_display/#%2F73496%2Fschedules%2FSpring2021%2F99407138.html%3Frnd%3D1622147388793
		



			http://scdslsoccer.com/_element_display/#%2F73496%2Fschedules%2FSpring2021%2F99403088.html%3Frnd%3D1622147434401


----------



## soccersc (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Wow that's the most elitist thing I've seen on these boards.  Those kids aren't worthy to play rec so get rid of them.  You may as well tell your friend Gary "I want you to keep these subs away from me.  I don't want any distractions from these whiny wannabes, just keep them out of my face."
> 
> That's not the solution...the solution is to make an appropriate tier for them.  It's not their fault the soccer world has fractured so we don't have a unified development pathway.  It's not their fault we have CSL v. SoCal so the bottom clubs have to play filler.  It's not their fault Extras isn't part of the unified structure.  It's not their fault adults care more about preserving their turf (whether US Soccer, Coast or AYSO) then coming up with them with a unified pathway.
> 
> And if we're really talking about pathways, hey how about Europe...everyone except the future pros play rec...your DS and DDs going on to play college ball just play higher level rec.


Why is that elitist...that is how kids can develop.  You don't put a struggling student that has scored below average on state testing in a gate class...they would get frustrated and really want to quit...put them at a level that they can succeed and let them love the game and enjoy it rather than getting waxed every weekend and paying a ridiculous amount of money at a level they aren't ready for.  Continue to work on their own and get better then go try club.  

You are one of the parents that want to give every kid a trophy, that is the problem these days, kids don't understand hard work, they just expect it to be given to them...kids feel they are entitled now because even when they don't work their hardest they still get a trophy or an award because we are afraid to make little Johnny sad....so unfortunate


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

soccersc said:


> Here are some examples for you...this took like 2 minutes to find...I just picked a random age group B2010 in SCDSL Spring these 3 teams are getting blown out by 5-7 goals a game on average.  That's just one age group randomly picked at F2.  It happens at all levels, then they tell the parents something like, well it was our first year in F2 so it is expected and they come back the next year and same thing happens, but maybe they win one more, so they tell the parents, see we got a little better even though they only won 1 or 2 more games, so parents come back again to F2 but by now all the good F2 teams are playing F1 so they win more than half the games and parents are so excited,  I've seen it, too many times
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So why isn't that an acceptable outcome.  In my promoted team scenario that would mean the team has the option to advance or stay put and know they aren't locked into anything.



soccersc said:


> Why is that elitist...that is how kids can develop.  You don't put a struggling student that has scored below average on state testing in a gate class...they would get frustrated and really want to quit...put them at a level that they can succeed and let them love the game and enjoy it rather than getting waxed every weekend and paying a ridiculous amount of money at a level they aren't ready for.  Continue to work on their own and get better then go try club.
> 
> You are one of the parents that want to give every kid a trophy, that is the problem these days, kids don't understand hard work, they just expect it to be given to them...kids feel they are entitled now because even when they don't work their hardest they still get a trophy or an award because we are afraid to make little Johnny sad....so unfortunate


Ha ha.  That's funny.   I'm the furthest from that kind of parent and have actually from time to time been accused by relatives and friends about being a little harsh with the kids.  In both education and sports, I actually believe in tiering and I'm a very harsh critic of the plan to level the math playing field in California until 11th grade.

Which is why I say the kids should have an appropriate path way (not everyone getting the same path way).  The struggling student shouldn't be put on the flight 1 team.  But that struggling student should have a way (mapped out by those in charge) to be put on an appropriate levelled team instead of just getting dropped and the coach waiving too bad so sad see yah next year.

And if you really meant that club ball should be accessible only for the select few, well that select few should be real small....future pros only, like in the rest of the world.  Everyone else including your DS or DD can play tiered rec.

"All those in favor of going A and B next year for the U8 program, raise your hand."


----------



## Emma (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> I agree the same thing can and does happen in SoCal as well.  The difference, though, is no one is locked into anything so it makes it easier to adjust.  The teams in my examples have no such flexibility (if CSL enforces the rules): the silver team would be relegated and destroy the bronze teams (and just get repromoted taking a spot away from another team that might be ready), the bronze team will be promoted and be destroyed itself, the silver teams will be locked into their spots instead of being moved up to silver elite, and my son's former AYSO United team still has to go through bronze and destroy all it's competition 12-0 which serves no one.
> 
> "actually play".  At U9 yes you have some skilled players that know their craft.  As previously stated, in the overwhelming majority of cases that does not include the goalkeeper (who should not be playing FT anyway) and many of those kids are just bigger and older and faster rather than skilled.  And then you have my son's AYSO United team which came largely out of extras and just wrecks its competition.  I don't think it's a solution to say "well it works when it gets older", if the youngers are a mess. Yeah, it works out when they get older, but there are a lot of bad collateral side effects along the way, including the overall focus on having to do what it takes to earn the promotion instead of you know, actually developing your players (like this team which took the promotion, dropped its goalkeeper for an upgrade, and yet still managed to lose all its games)


No One is locked in CSL either - there's a petition that is generally granted.  Only time it's not granted is if your coach lies to you about petitioning and it's probably because the coach knows the team is not ready for the next level but unrealistic parents parents kept pushing for a higher flight.

We've been pushed into a higher flight by parents and DOC.  It caused A LOT of problems.  Losing a lot causes ugly sides of people to come out.


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

Emma said:


> No One is locked in CSL either - there's a petition that is generally granted.  Only time it's not granted is if your coach lies to you about petitioning and it's probably because the coach knows the team is not ready for the next level but unrealistic parents parents kept pushing for a higher flight.
> 
> We've been pushed into a higher flight by parents and DOC.  It caused A LOT of problems.  Losing a lot causes ugly sides of people to come out.


Agree here and that safety valve is the only thing that doesn't cause the entire CSL thing to come crashing down.

If you really wanted an honest assessment, you'd put evaluators in charge to assign flights based on points earned, tournaments, placement in cups and placement in prior league (plus the rankings of individual players coming and going from the team).  But the question remains then who is better at making that assessment (considering bad results can take place in either league): the DOC and coaches, or an arbitrary rule system that has quotas, is mathematically irregular, and only takes a look at narrow criteria.


----------



## Emma (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Agree here and that safety valve is the only thing that doesn't cause the entire CSL thing to come crashing down.
> 
> If you really wanted an honest assessment, you'd put evaluators in charge to assign flights based on points earned, tournaments, placement in cups and placement in prior league (plus the rankings of individual players coming and going from the team).  But the question remains then who is better at making that assessment (considering bad results can take place in either league): the DOC and coaches, or an arbitrary rule system that has quotas, is mathematically irregular, and only takes a look at narrow criteria.


Not cost effective either.  Everything is subjective except winning and losing. Then a petition process for times when it's needed due to losing a lot of players, gaining great players, or if team just made great advancement towards end of season or off season.

Oh wait - we had/have that in CSL.


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

Emma said:


> Not cost effective either.  Everything is subjective except winning and losing. Then a petition process for times when it's needed due to losing a lot of players, gaining great players, or if team just made great advancement towards end of season or off season.
> 
> Oh wait - we had/have that in CSL.


But we don’t because CSL sometimes doesn’t allow it (again due to imperfect info).  Otherwise what’s the difference with allowing teams to pick?  For example: my sons United team that should have started in silver instead of destroying its competition 12-0.  Instead it’s just a game of trying to qualify for the next level and then avoiding relegation by whining about it


----------



## Emma (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> But we don’t because CSL sometimes doesn’t allow it (again due to imperfect info).  Otherwise what’s the difference with allowing teams to pick?  For example: my sons United team that should have started in silver instead of destroying its competition 12-0.  Instead it’s just a game of trying to qualify for the next level and then avoiding relegation by whining about it


Sorry to hear that your team was in the wrong grouping.  Was this just this spring or before covid?


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

Emma said:


> Sorry to hear that your team was in the wrong grouping.  Was this just this spring or before covid?


2 years ago.  It wasn't the only team that petitioned to start up.  My son had been on a team that had been trying to organize, won a few tournaments but fell apart when CSL said no to the petition to start silver.  The good kids they had recruited to play just walked away because they didn't want to play bronze and suddenly they were under the number of players needed.  He was lucky he got picked up by AYSO United at the last minute. 

 They are more lenient with the rel petition appeals than they are with the pro.  And in the rel for silver I've now seen 2 local groupings where teams that lost every game didn't get relegated.  In the current grouping this silver team that lost every game played, 3 of the teams could play silver elite....they wouldn't be at the top of the bracket but they could play....I'm curious to see how many CSL actually promotes out.


----------



## Grace T. (May 27, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> 2 years ago.  It wasn't the only team that petitioned to start up.  My son had been on a team that had been trying to organize, won a few tournaments but fell apart when CSL said no to the petition to start silver.  The good kids they had recruited to play just walked away because they didn't want to play bronze and suddenly they were under the number of players needed.  He was lucky he got picked up by AYSO United at the last minute.
> 
> They are more lenient with the rel petition appeals than they are with the pro.  And in the rel for silver I've now seen 2 local groupings where teams that lost every game didn't get relegated.  In the current grouping this silver team that lost every game played, 3 of the teams could play silver elite....they wouldn't be at the top of the bracket but they could play....I'm curious to see how many CSL actually promotes out.


It's a self feeding cycle BTW.  CSL doesn't want to promote recklessly because it wants to protect the competition level for the higher flights.  Plus, if team does get sent to the higher flights and doesn't perform, they'll whine and complain about getting relegated....which makes them even more reluctant to promote teams which might otherwise be competitive because they can't then get rid of them.  Pro/rel doesn't work without the rel part and except for the highest flight, they don't really want to do it because they know if they do it without the consent of the team it will blow that team up.  And, at least for the youngers, the silver and bronze brackets will remain a mess unless they make even more brackets, which they seem reluctant to do not only because of the driving and admin issues, but because it also blows up the entire gold/silver/bronze thing.


----------



## Eagle33 (May 28, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Wow that's the most elitist thing I've seen on these boards.  Those kids aren't worthy to play rec so get rid of them.  You may as well tell your friend Gary "I want you to keep these subs away from me.  I don't want any distractions from these whiny wannabes, just keep them out of my face."
> 
> That's not the solution...the solution is to make an appropriate tier for them.  It's not their fault the soccer world has fractured so we don't have a unified development pathway.  It's not their fault we have CSL v. SoCal so the bottom clubs have to play filler.  It's not their fault Extras isn't part of the unified structure.  It's not their fault adults care more about preserving their turf (whether US Soccer, Coast or AYSO) then coming up with them with a unified pathway.
> 
> And if we're really talking about pathways, hey how about Europe...everyone except the future pros play rec...your DS and DDs going on to play college ball just play higher level rec.


So I hear SoCal is making Rec tier for next season


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 28, 2021)

Eagle33 said:


> So I hear SoCal is making Rec tier for next season


Leave Rec alone!  Let ayso and other local organizations handle that.


----------



## Grace T. (May 28, 2021)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Leave Rec alone!  Let ayso and other local organizations handle that.


some major clubs set up rec leagues for the littlest ones. There’s one affiliated with real so cal in the west val, another one with the simi clubs in simi, and ole does a futsal league in the east val.It’s a way of identifying “talent” (aka not just soccer skills but kids close to the age line that are otherwise tall and fast) that you can put on your u9 teams so those u9 teams can go on and win promotions

it’s the strategy employed by ayso United which builds teams by drawing from a large rec base from kids that might otherwise play baseball or basketball but because they are there during soccer season ca. Be Id and sold on soccer. To its credit though at least ayso United has an exam which measures soccer skills, even if it does advantage strikers over defenders.

again the issue is these adult figures in the soccer world care more about protecting their turf than creating a unified promotion system like they have in other countries.  So instead of kids getting assigned to appropriate levels based on their skill level, you have this mush of a tryout system where the parents are guessing if a team is appropriate and teams may take players not because they are ready but because they need bodies.


----------



## Woodwork (May 28, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> So recently came across an example of why the CSL tier system works imperfectly.  So, in my son's 2019 bronze grouping one team swept all their games except for 1 which they tied.  Against a new team coming up from AYSO, they won 12-0.  Some of the games were closer including against my son's team 3-1 with both teams having good opportunities.  They took promotion to silver.  For the truncated 2020  season this promoted team was in a group with 5 other teams which had been together for a while, all of whom were gunning for silver elite.  The newly promoted silver team did "upgrade" for the season, recruiting some strong kids on the grounds they were now silver and even upgrading their goalkeeper who was dropped and shifted to another bronze team.  They lost every single game in their bracket, some by as many as 8 points.
> 
> So what do you do with this team?  Relegate them to bronze where they'll lose their best players but still destroy the newly formed teams up and coming?  Another team from the 2020 season is taking promotion which won only about 80% of its games.  This team is far weaker than the previously promoted team and will likely play in the same silver bracket due to geography.  Is it going to fare much better in the bracket with silver teams that have now been playing together for a while?  At least the 2019 promoted team will now have someone to beat if they stay in silver.


Wait until you see what CSL actually does.  First, I believe they didn't require all teams to participate in spring in light of the fact that the pandemic hurt their readiness, and I don't think they intend to punish those that participated this spring despite not being ready.  Second, I have seen a lot of instances where they don't relegate a last place team. Especially at the younger ages, they will move up a whole bunch of teams to SE or Gold because those are new brackets at older ages and the last place teams just stay in silver.  Or they see that there were a lot of close games and will likely be fine next year.  Third, if you really read the CSL "System," they build in their own discretion.  Most of the time, if the coach makes a good argument for staying in bracket, they stay in bracket.


----------

