SCDSL adding Discovery Division

I don’t know the deal with Kane and Scholes, but both Bale and Gerrard were in danger of being cut. Bale was late in achieving physical maturity, and then when he grew he lost his coordination for a long time until he got used to his new body. Bale was ranked at the bottom of Southampton’s academy for a couple of years. Gerrard was also a late bloomer and had a late birthday, but Liverpool stuck with him because he had shown enough that they wanted to see what he would look like when he fully matured. Both of these players, had at some point I’m their youth careers, signs of high levels of speed and athleticism.

I frankly have no idea why some of you seem to be advocating hold on to every good, slow, unathletic player to see if he will be the next Pirlo. Teams have a limited number of spots. The hit rate with fast skilled players is a lot higher. Everybody misses on players, nobody knows for sure how a kid will develop. It makes complete sense to me that teams play the odds and favor guys with skill and speed vs. guys with only skill.

I think in Europe, where there are so many academies, and so many open spots, it’s the perfect place to develop the good slow player that shows signs of being something special.
 
JJP said:
I frankly have no idea why some of you seem to be advocating hold on to every good, slow, unathletic player to see if he will be the next Pirlo. Teams have a limited number of spots. The hit rate with fast skilled players is a lot higher. Everybody misses on players, nobody knows for sure how a kid will develop. It makes complete sense to me that teams play the odds and favor guys with skill and speed vs. guys with only skill.
Click to expand...
1. Nobody is advocating holding on to EVERY slow, unathletic player. Just their own. ;)
2. I think the problem with this whole debate is that both coaches and parents think their job is to develop the next Pirlo, or Bale, or Messi, or X great player. It's not. Each kid on that field at practice or tryouts or in the game deserves to be evaluated, coached, and supported in the way that will maximize what God gave them as long as they put in the effort. Period. Dismissing a 10 year old as being "too slow" or "too small" or "unathletic" is dumb, because they're freaking 10 years old. That doesn't mean they should get to be on the top team or be a starter for heaven's sake, but concentrating only on the players that fit the high "hit rate" measureables hasn't exactly worked for US soccer, has it?
3. All under-12 soccer leagues and teams should be disbanded and every field freed up during those practice and game times for that age group to show up and play pick-up soccer with no coaches, refs, or parents interfering. Just like street basketball, if you suck, you're the last one picked or not picked at all. If you can ball out, you get picked. All the regulars on the court know who can ball, and they don't care if you're short, slow, white or latino or black, who your dad is, how much you pay the club, etc. If you can ball, you can play. If a kid and their family is so inclined, they can pay for private training. I've not seen any long term benefit on the whole for US soccer by having a massive pay-to-play club structure in place for little kids. (I know, I know, pure fantasy. But still . . .)
 
Mystery Train said:
1. Nobody is advocating holding on to EVERY slow, unathletic player. Just their own. ;)
Click to expand...

That’s true. My second son is starting to play now and it’s interesting to compare coaches reactions to my two boys. My first son was always the most explosive and physical player on the field and coaches loved his potential. My second boy is a lot smarter and has better technique, and he’s not slow, but he doesn’t have that burst of speed, and the stupid coaches are meh on him.

2. I think the problem with this whole debate is that both coaches and parents think their job is to develop the next Pirlo, or Bale, or Messi, or X great player. It's not. Each kid on that field at practice or tryouts or in the game deserves to be evaluated, coached, and supported in the way that will maximize what God gave them as long as they put in the effort. Period.
Click to expand...

That’s not the case with Academy. They tell you flat out they want players that could end up on the USNT

Dismissing a 10 year old as being "too slow" or "too small" or "unathletic" is dumb, because they're freaking 10 years old. That doesn't mean they should get to be on the top team or be a starter for heaven's sake, but concentrating only on the players that fit the high "hit rate" measureables hasn't exactly worked for US soccer, has it?
Click to expand...

So what’s your solution? Don’t take the most athletic players because it didn’t work this WC cycle? That makes no sense to me.

I think the best approach is always to cram as much soccer skill and soccer IQ into the fastest players that can run for 90 mins.
 
JJP said:
That’s not the case with Academy. They tell you flat out they want players that could end up on the USNT
Click to expand...
Yeah but their ability to forecast that is piss poor in my opinion. Not to mention I think the USMNT selection process has not worked very well either. I'm talking mostly about younger kids here. Your logic about speed is pretty spot on at the elite level of the older youth spectrum, but I am a firm believer that pre-puberty, none of this is applicable and actually counter productive to development of all players and the game in general.
 
JJP said:
So what’s your solution? Don’t take the most athletic players because it didn’t work this WC cycle? That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Good heavens, no. Nobody in their right mind would ignore the most athletic players. I'm just saying it's often highly over valued at the younger ages. For context, how old are your boys?
 
Mystery Train said:
Yeah but their ability to forecast that is piss poor in my opinion. Not to mention I think the USMNT selection process has not worked very well either. I'm talking mostly about younger kids here. Your logic about speed is pretty spot on at the elite level of the older youth spectrum, but I am a firm believer that pre-puberty, none of this is applicable and actually counter productive to development of all players and the game in general.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s the selection process, I think the main problem is developmental. France selects between Kylian Mbappe, Ousmane Dembele and Anthony Martial for their wingers. You can pick any 2 of the 3 and you’ve made the right choice. I don’t even know who the US selects from, but it’s probably going to be the wrong choice, because the selection pool is filled with meh players.

Player development is stalling from age 14-18, and I also believe a lot of the top athletes are bailing out of soccer and choosing other sports by that age group.

Mystery Train said:
Good heavens, no. Nobody in their right mind would ignore the most athletic players. I'm just saying it's often highly over valued at the younger ages. For context, how old are your boys?
Click to expand...

I don’t think athleticism is overvalued. Hi level athleticism IMO exhibits itself early and the most athletic kids in college were the most athletic in HS, middle school, primary school and kindergarten.

What gets overvalued and mistaken for athleticism IMO is maturity. It’s hard to judge athleticism with confounding age effects clouding any evaluation. I like to see top players in an age group competing up a year. If they are still dominating an older age group, that kid is probably a special athlete.
 
Raggamufin said:
Your club registar have to submit an application for any team that wants to enter.
Cost is $1000. They then review and send invites .
Click to expand...
Another thread says that invites went out this week.
Is the cost $1,000 above and beyond whatever the $450 per team that SCDSL usually charges? Or in place of it?
Those "included" referee costs and "free tournament credit" are coming from somewhere?
And now that we have the DA and ECNL "adjustments" along with the DPL stuff going on - I still wonder how necessary this new division is?
 
timbuck said:
Another thread says that invites went out this week.
Is the cost $1,000 above and beyond whatever the $450 per team that SCDSL usually charges? Or in place of it?
Those "included" referee costs and "free tournament credit" are coming from somewhere?
And now that we have the DA and ECNL "adjustments" along with the DPL stuff going on - I still wonder how necessary this new division is?
Click to expand...

With regard to the later, the Discovery league would not have happened if the SCDSL members clubs didn't support it. While I was not in the room, I imagine the discussion went something like this:

SCDSL: Ok guys/gals, we have the CRL/National League - Pacific Conf., ECNL and DA, of which many of your clubs have teams in. We are seeing an incursion by US Club soccer and now Super-Y with the ECNL-Boys, NPL, and Super-Y. All of these leagues are attractive because they offer showcases, and provide various accolades and awards. How do we respond?

Clubs: Well, other than being our top Division (Flight 1 - Champions), it really offers nothing special than the Flight 3 divisions.

SCDSL: You know, we also have another problem and that is we are losing some of our younger teams due to new rules, and they were playing at Silverlakes under our $15k per day contract, can we do something to fill that gap? What if we rebranded the Flight 1 Champions as a new division and then added some extras, like DA and ECNL do?

Clubs: Ummm, OK ... you know, our parents of the these flight 1 teams also want video taping for their kids recruiting tapes, and medical, and some other benefits.

SCDSL: We also have a special relationship with the Surf Cup dude that we might be able to exploit in a mutually beneficial way.

SCDSL: [... crunching some numbers ... talking behind the scenes to some DOCs].

SCDSL: How about this:
  • Teams will play an 11-game fall season.
  • Games will all be played at Silverlakes in Norco — unless teams from the same area like San Diego are scheduled to play each other in which case games will be played at the Surf Cup Sports Park in Del Mar.
  • All fall test dates are accommodated.
  • Referee fees will be covered by the league for this division.
  • 1st and 2nd place of each division will receive a tournament stipend of $1400 from the SCDSL to participate in the tournament of their choice after the end of the SCDSL season. This means that 20 teams from the SCDSL will receive a stipend to assist them in after-league competition to further their college exposure.
  • Winners will receive guaranteed acceptance into Surf Cup.
  • There will be end of season awards voted on by coaches in each game via a nomination process.
  • There will be the option to have games video taped.
  • Convenient scheduling with games being played youngest to oldest similar to DA and ECNL formats.
  • A designated onsite social media presence and a division specific statistician on site for all game days.
  • There will also be a spring College Showcase for the Discovery Division paid for, and hosted, by the SCDSL. There is no fee for this. Teams from outside of SoCal will be invited, college coaches will be invited and the DOC’s are all committed to making this an exceptional event for the players towards their goals of playing college soccer.
 
timbuck said:
Another thread says that invites went out this week.
Is the cost $1,000 above and beyond whatever the $450 per team that SCDSL usually charges? Or in place of it?
Those "included" referee costs and "free tournament credit" are coming from somewhere?
And now that we have the DA and ECNL "adjustments" along with the DPL stuff going on - I still wonder how necessary this new division is?
Click to expand...

The new SCDSL division is trying to offer some benefits, like video taping games and making travel more predictable. In order to to this, teams have to play at common locations, like SilverLakes. The increased cost isn’t much relatively speaking. One can still make a reasonable argument that it is better to simply play home and away without video - I get it. Either way, this is not a big change.

Hopefully, the majority of the teams will be at the same level so games will be competitive and players can develop. The only thing worse than making the drive between San Diego and LA to play game that ends in a blowout is making the drive between AZ and SoCal for the same.
 
With all this being planned, is there an official list of teams that have been invited?
Looking at 2003 age in particular.

thanks in advance
 
In case JoeZ is watching, there is no need for his league, they could have done all these same things in the Champions division.
 
Simisoccerfan said:
Kinda sounds similar to DPL.
Click to expand...

With the minor difference that you don’t have the clubs (and the parents that repeat what the clubs tell/sell them) telling themselves (and anyone that overhears them) that the same players and teams are now better than they were the day before just because a reorganization has occurred.
 
Dummy said:
With the minor difference that you don’t have the clubs (and the parents that repeat what the clubs tell/sell them) telling themselves (and anyone that overhears them) that the same players and teams are now better than they were the day before just because a RENAMING has occurred.
Click to expand...
#Dummy if I may correct you? See above
 
Dummy said:
With the minor difference that you don’t have the clubs (and the parents that repeat what the clubs tell/sell them) telling themselves (and anyone that overhears them) that the same players and teams are now better than they were the day before just because a reorganization has occurred.
Click to expand...

Just wait. It will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top