2006 DA Standings

[osvaldo]

First year DA is a little wonky. It’s pre-puberty and clubs are still trying to figure out what’s what and who’s who. It improves as they grow older, in terms of proper level of competition. Still, the MLS academies and a couple of the top funded clubs struggle at most age groups to find good competition. A short term fix for now is to play players up and challenge them in that way. The ideal though would be to have tough competition week in and week out for all teams and all players within each age group. A solution is to condense DA and reduce the number of teams. Play every team more often, but the competition would be better since there will be less roster spots to fill across the league. Conceptually, the better players would fill those limited spots. Doubt that will happen though. DA will continue to be the top league in the US, but not nearly as robust as it should be.

Couldn't agree more.....my son's U13 Academy team schedules U14 friendlies whenever we have a free weekend away from DA schedule. There are too many Academy games not competitive enough, his academy has to look outside the division.
Let me add this filter as well to the discussion: I'm wondering how many quality kids from lower income families are languishing in cheaper leagues and clubs (presumably less quality coaching) simply because they can't afford some of the steep fees being charged by some of the DA clubs. I know from experience that some of Academies in the 06 standings printed above charge plenty a month for the privilege of having junior wear the shiny DA patch on their kits. My fear is they're using their status as a cash cow and not as a vital cog in US soccer development.
Let's MANDATE that all DAs be fully funded. Let the kids compete on a level playing field regardless of socio-economic circumstances. We'd have superior, competitive teams overall and we would weed out from the mix those clubs that can't offer fully funded: thus fewer DA clubs, also adding to the overall competitiveness.

 

[texanincali]

The lack of competitiveness is an issue all over the country. Recently spoke to friends back home and they were saying the same thing. Three teams that are 5-6 goals better than all the others and only get competition when they play each other.

Will be interesting to see what the Federation does with MLS request to have an MLS only league.

Definitely a double edged sword - the more teams, the greater the chance for a wide gap in quality. The fewer teams and then you have logistical and financial issues in regards to more frequent travel over greater distances.

Agree on the fully funded bit, but I don't think its a reality. Either the parents pick up the tab, or the clubs do - and the clubs would go broke with the additional travel requirements.

 

[watfly]

I can double check. It was a pain to do so I may have made a mistake. If you know of something specific feel free to let me know.
I did want to double check. I thought it odd that one team had a massive Goal Differential but high win percentage.

I had gone through a few of teams earlier in the week and I had come up with the following (WLT) SDSC 15-3-4 (74%) Strikers 15-3-8 (68%) Albion 17-7-2 (66%) LAG 11-7-4 (56%) Rebels 12-9-5 (53%) Surf 9-7-6 (50%). It looks like Nomads only won one game, hence the terrible goal differential. West Coast, Arsenal and CV were in the bottom half. I think these numbers are in the ballpark but I can't vouch for their complete accuracy.

Thanks RedDevil for the first stab at it. Your GD seems in the ballpark for my WLT.

 

[Shottas]

The futsal tournament was last weekend or so and it looks as if the games were based on these rankings, so the scores should be somewhat correct. Scores aside the competition is not there and even at the U- olders, so the problem does not get better with age.
Money should be taken out of the equation so there can be more access to families who cannot afford the fees.

 

[Zvezdas]

I'm wondering how many quality kids from lower income families are languishing in cheaper leagues and clubs (presumably less quality coaching) simply because they can't afford some of the steep fees being charged by some of the DA clubs. I know from experience that some of Academies in the 06 standings printed above charge plenty a month for the privilege of having junior wear the shiny DA patch on their kits. My fear is they're using their status as a cash cow and not as a vital cog in US soccer development.
Let's MANDATE that all DAs be fully funded. Let the kids compete on a level playing field regardless of socio-economic circumstances. We'd have superior, competitive teams overall and we would weed out from the mix those clubs that can't offer fully funded: thus fewer DA clubs, also adding to the overall competitiveness.

I definitely agree that there are families from low income strata or minority families that cannot afford fees some of the DA clubs charge. However, I also know that some DA fees are lower than what some smaller clubs charge in Conejo Valley area for their regular 2006 teams! US Soccer Federation should mandate that all DA clubs are fully funded, including expenses for tournaments and showcases. Unfortunately, lots of kids from lower income families also cant afford "smaller" community clubs that compete exclusively in CSL or SCDSL...

 

[PaytoplayinLancaster?]

If DA was truly about development then US Soccer should put some funding toward the programs and subsidize non-MLS clubs. If the funding went to the coach you would see the best coaches focusing on one team. (Like the MLS teams). They would have more time to go over film with the kids, or run a skills night / agility practice. Maybe do a Futsal program. There are so many lost opportunities for these kids to maximize their potential over this year. The LA Galaxy International Cup should help bring meaningful games and more high level tournaments should be sought to supplement the development.

 

[justneededaname]

Last June I overheard a conversation that seemed to indicate that the DA was going to mandate that all DA teams U15 and above were fully funded. Has anyone heard anything about this? The conversation involved two coaches from different DA clubs comparing how much they thought the club would have to budget per team.

 

[SBFDad]

Couldn't agree more.....my son's U13 Academy team schedules U14 friendlies whenever we have a free weekend away from DA schedule. There are too many Academy games not competitive enough, his academy has to look outside the division.
Let me add this filter as well to the discussion: I'm wondering how many quality kids from lower income families are languishing in cheaper leagues and clubs (presumably less quality coaching) simply because they can't afford some of the steep fees being charged by some of the DA clubs. I know from experience that some of Academies in the 06 standings printed above charge plenty a month for the privilege of having junior wear the shiny DA patch on their kits. My fear is they're using their status as a cash cow and not as a vital cog in US soccer development.
Let's MANDATE that all DAs be fully funded. Let the kids compete on a level playing field regardless of socio-economic circumstances. We'd have superior, competitive teams overall and we would weed out from the mix those clubs that can't offer fully funded: thus fewer DA clubs, also adding to the overall competitiveness.

US Soccer is sitting on $150M. Why? A chunk of that money could go to improve the financial picture of deserving clubs with DA teams. Mandate fully funded DA teams, subsidize those clubs that need it, and many of the best players will find their way to those clubs.

First things first...scrub the league down and boot out those clubs that vastly under-perform year after year, across all of the age groups. That’ll lessen the financial burden on USSF as well. First to go in SoCal? Arsenal. Playing them is a complete waste of time in pretty much every age group. Not looking to pick on them, just a prime example of a club that under-performs and shouldn’t be in DA. Their better players that are DA quality will find homes elsewhere in the league...ideally at no cost to their parents.

Also, get rid of clubs that don’t have all age groups or grant them full status if deserving. No sense in providing a pathway, then cutting it off at U13 or U15 or whatever. Consolidate the efforts, funding, and oversight into fewer clubs.

 

[3leches]

US Soccer is sitting on $150M. Why? A chunk of that money could go to improve the financial picture of deserving clubs with DA teams. Mandate fully funded DA teams, subsidize those clubs that need it, and many of the best players will find their way to those clubs.

First things first...scrub the league down and boot out those clubs that vastly under-perform year after year, across all of the age groups. That’ll lessen the financial burden on USSF as well. First to go in SoCal? Arsenal. Playing them is a complete waste of time in pretty much every age group. Not looking to pick on them, just a prime example of a club that under-performs and shouldn’t be in DA. Their better players that are DA quality will find homes elsewhere in the league...ideally at no cost to their parents.

Also, get rid of clubs that don’t have all age groups or grant them full status if deserving. No sense in providing a pathway, then cutting it off at U13 or U15 or whatever. Consolidate the efforts, funding, and oversight into fewer clubs.

I agree with you. I'm not a TFA parent and not sure of all the politics involved with TFA and US Soccer, but why not give them more age groups and keep the DA competitive. It makes more sense than giving LA Premier (no offense) a single age group bracket and possibly more next year.

 

[texanincali]

USSF isn't in a place to mandate anyone be fully funded until they act like the rest of the world and start adhering to FIFA transfer policies.

There are numerous clubs around the country that would be in a much better position to pick up DA costs if they would have received proper compensation for players via solidarity and development payments. I think the influx of young Americans moving to Europe is beginning.

There are plenty of ways for USSF to help out these clubs, let's start with the obvious ones.

 

[Zvezdas]

I agree with you. I'm not a TFA parent and not sure of all the politics involved with TFA and US Soccer, but why not give them more age groups and keep the DA competitive. It makes more sense than giving LA Premier (no offense) a single age group bracket and possibly more next year.

LA Premier is really struggling in their first DA year, however TFA has its own set of issues too... Lots of Galaxy and LAFC DA parents argue for a creation of MLS DA and NON-MLS DA divisions...I don't think any of these concepts would help kids currently playing in the DA circuit, it would just further dilute the quality.

 

[seuss]

LA Premier is really struggling in their first DA year, however TFA has its own set of issues too... Lots of Galaxy and LAFC DA parents argue for a creation of MLS DA and NON-MLS DA divisions...I don't think any of these concepts would help kids currently playing in the DA circuit, it would just further dilute the quality.

So what do those parents want?
LAFC vs Galaxy every week?
That sounds like a parent that thinks “it” is special because their kid is in DA this year.
This is making me sick right now.
Am I missing something?

 

[Zvezdas]

Exactly... That's why I am quite surprised with many of our fellow DA parents on this board that argue for a smaller league without those clubs that "underperform". I am totally ok with these 10 clubs in U12 division (LA), yeah some struggle and some play exceptionally well but I believe at this age and with the constant reshuffling of teams (on a weekly basis) there is enough quality, certainly more than in the CSL Gold or SCDSL flight 1.

 

[3leches]

Do you really believe that each team is reshuffling the teams each week ?

 

[Zvezdas]

I know our team does, and since we have friends on three other teams I can vouch for 4 out of 10...

 

[Dargle]

The key point to remember is that the U12 age group in DA is supposed to be an age group that casts a broad net, both in terms of the number of kids and clubs, and in terms of geography. It's the wide end of the funnel. The system, which only grants one age group DA status for many of these clubs, is designed to get kids in diverse communities into the system, provide intense training, get them scouted, and then either cut them after one year or move them on to a DA club that has a U13 age group. From US Soccer's perspective it doesn't really matter if a club is at the bottom and isn't doing well, as long as it is exposing a group of kids to the higher level training and coaching and passing along the few kids who might otherwise have never been located because of the distance to full DA clubs.

 

[SBFDad]

Exactly... That's why I am quite surprised with many of our fellow DA parents on this board that argue for a smaller league without those clubs that "underperform". I am totally ok with these 10 clubs in U12 division (LA), yeah some struggle and some play exceptionally well but I believe at this age and with the constant reshuffling of teams (on a weekly basis) there is enough quality, certainly more than in the CSL Gold or SCDSL flight 1.

My kid isn’t an 06, so I am looking at it longer term than just what is going on at U12 (yes, I know the thread is 2006 standings).

The talent pool is diluted across multiple age groups. I don’t advocate for an all MLS league. Logistics would be nearly impossible. For SoCal (and other regions I would assume), I do advocate for cutting the teams down to 4-5 total, fully funding them, and consolidating the talent pool. Much more meaningful games week in and week out. So yes, cut the “underperformers”. Not only will this improve the competition at the DA level for those ready for it, but it’ll send those good players not quite at the DA level yet back into the club league talent pool, improving that level of competition.

Not sure why you think that’s a bad approach. Can you explain? If you’re good with the weekly asswhoopings handed out by the better teams - enjoy, but I think tighter competition will serve all of the top players much better over the years, even at U12. And keep in mind that DA was set up by US Soccer to provide a pathway for top players to find their way into the YNTs, and ideally the senior national team. It’s not supposed to provide recreational opportunities or occasionally competitive games for its member clubs. This is about real, long-term development and that starts now for the U12s, not next year or the years after.

 

[Dargle]

The key point to remember is that the U12 age group in DA is supposed to be an age group that casts a broad net, both in terms of the number of kids and clubs, and in terms of geography. It's the wide end of the funnel. The system, which only grants one age group DA status for many of these clubs, is designed to get kids in diverse communities into the system, provide intense training, get them scouted, and then either cut them after one year or move them on to a DA club that has a U13 age group. From US Soccer's perspective it doesn't really matter if a club is at the bottom and isn't doing well, as long as it is exposing a group of kids to the higher level training and coaching and passing along the few kids who might otherwise have never been located because of the distance to full DA clubs.

Just to add to this point. Consider the difference in the number of players in each age group in 2017-2018:

U12: Approx 546 players (21 clubs w/ approx. 26 players each)

U13: Approx 234 (13 clubs w/ approx. 18 players each)

It's certainly possible that some of those brand new U12 DA clubs could apply for an receive approval for a U13 team next year, but other than LAFC I'm not sure there were a lot of clubs that were successful with that this past year. So, what's going to happen is a ton of U12 DA kids are going to be cut from the DA program. Not teams (there are some clubs at the bottom of those lists who are already approved for U13 teams and some near the top who aren't), but players. All of those games against each other is about deciding which kids will stay in the program, not about which teams will stay.

 

[SBFDad]

The key point to remember is that the U12 age group in DA is supposed to be an age group that casts a broad net, both in terms of the number of kids and clubs, and in terms of geography. It's the wide end of the funnel. The system, which only grants one age group DA status for many of these clubs, is designed to get kids in diverse communities into the system, provide intense training, get them scouted, and then either cut them after one year or move them on to a DA club that has a U13 age group. From US Soccer's perspective it doesn't really matter if a club is at the bottom and isn't doing well, as long as it is exposing a group of kids to the higher level training and coaching and passing along the few kids who might otherwise have never been located because of the distance to full DA clubs.

Good point. Still, the funnel is too wide at the U12 age group and doesn’t pare down enough as they grow older IMO. Although I’ll conceed that if you’re going to cast a wide net, U12 is the year to do so. Still, the numbers at U13 and older are too high. Not sure what the magic number is for each region, but it certainly isn’t 100+ clubs nationwide thru U15 (12+ in SoCal)...

U12 = 149 (SoCal = 21)
U13 = 121 (13)
U14 = 122 (13)
U15 = 81 (12)
U16/17 = 76 (11)
U18/19 = 72 ( 10)

 

[watfly]

From US Soccer's perspective it doesn't really matter if a club is at the bottom and isn't doing well, as long as it is exposing a group of kids to the higher level training and coaching and passing along the few kids who might otherwise have never been located because of the distance to full DA clubs.

That's what US Soccer will claim; however, they have not granted U13 to clubs based solely on their previous years U12's DA won/loss record.

 

[SBFDad]

That's what US Soccer will claim; however, they have not granted U13 to clubs based solely on their previous years U12's DA won/loss record.

TFA anyone? A club that should be granted status, geography be damned. It’s about the level of competition a club can provide. They’ve proven themselves over the years.