It used to be this way, but they've changed it.I was under the impression that in the past that U13, u14 were a combo deal, that you couldn't just get a single year.
No hating, but what a waste. Fusion hasn’t had any good boys teams and BF310 is a relatively new club and Brad Friedel left BF310. I don’t see them pulling any kids from Oxnard. What a joke!Congrats to VC Fusion/BF310 for getting U12 DA for Oxnard area! Congrats to TFA, LA Premier, Chula Vista, OC Surf (West Coast FC), LA Galaxy SD, Murrieta Surf, Legends FC, San Diego SC for getting expansion! Will see how will this work this fall for U13 in terms of organization, new division or same traveling to SD or OC for one match only...
Where is the cash being massed from? Most of the DA teams are free. Also, I'm curious what you're disappointed with. What would you like to have seen happen?Diluting talent, massing more cash, just another league, very disappointing.
I’ll take this one.Where is the cash being massed from? Most of the DA teams are free. Also, I'm curious what you're disappointed with. What would you like to have seen happen?
The myth of fully funded DA teams lol, aside from two mls sides, Pats and TFA none of the other clubs are free! Parents pay the regular club fee...
...plus coaches cost of traveling, equipment, at olders you gotta pay for airline tickets and hotel to Vancouver, San Jose etc.
Ideally, there would be contraction, not expansion. Consolidate the talent into fewer teams, which would lead to more competetive, more meaningful games.
Yes, and I see no problem with that. Better to play a good team 4 times a season and be challenged, than what is currently happening. I think you can pare the league (2004s for example) down to 5-6 teams. The better players on those lesser teams cut will gravitate to those remaining.I hear what you're saying, but wouldn't that mean that, in LA at least, the same 4 teams would play each other over and over? Or else they'd have to travel farther and farther to find games?
Yes, and I see no problem with that. Better to play a good team 4 times a season and be challenged, than what is currently happening. I think you can pare the league (2004s for example) down to 5-6 teams. The better players on those lesser teams cut will gravitate to those remaining.
Golden State is also funded and LA Premier announced that they will be funded next year. I don't know about the rest.
Sure, but that money doesn't go to US soccer.
I totally disagree, playing each team 3 times is bad enough, 4 would be even worse. The kids would get bored playing the same team over and over again and thus the challenge is gone. Every league has its good teams and bad, including the professional leagues EPL, La Liga, etc. The diversity in each teams style of play is the challenge and the good teams need to find the key to unlock it each week . For the good teams their challenge is to stay consistent and not fall in to the style of play of the weaker team. The challenge for the weaker team is to compete and raise their level of play.
Each game presents a development opportunity no matter if the score is 1-1, 1-0 or 7-0, it should be up to the coach to identify that development opportunity and coach accordingly.