US SOCCER

[MWN]

Cal South has CRL where you earn you way in, National league Pacific conference, and there are others that goto national champions with us club but yeah there all using qualifications and promotions to get better competition. If you don't finish high enough you don't get invited back pretty simple concept unless you go through play in or other qualifications.

DA would be well served to do the same: every season top 4-5 promoted, let's the rest qualify and include outside comp. Top 12-14 in each age group starting say U14.

Yes having a son play for a MLS academy is nice but when there always trying to find better comp since only about a dozen games are so where close over the 30 development can be hit & miss.

The rest of the stuff you wrote is in your head or something?

I tend to agree with @InTheValley's economic analysis. Taking a step back, the problem with P/R is that it violates the basic premise of the DA, which is placing "development" of players over win/losses.

After years of floundering around and analysis (Double Pass) the Federation has come to the conclusion that at the Youth level, we are placing waaaaaay too much importance on trophies. The drive to win, win, win, is causing development of players to be retarded. We all know that a winning strategy can be to play over the top and let your super-speedy forwards score a few. Screw possession, drop a few over the back line and play the percentages. It works really well at the youth level and does alright at the professional level too. But is this developing elite soccer players? No.

Wins are nice, provided those wins don't retard development of players. So the Academy has established a few principals:

1. All FT players start at least 25% of the league games. The Development Academy has explicitly mandated game time for players, even if this means a DA team is at a competitive disadvantage.
2. Teams are encouraged to have youngers play up, even if that means that "younger's" team is put at a disadvantage.
3. Fewer games ... because its development and not competition we are seeking.
4. Follow international standards for games (i.e. limited substitutions). By forcing 25% of the players to start, we drive fitness, even for the bench players.
5. Practices 4 times a week with A/B licensed coaches.

P/R at the Academy level would violated the principals of development because teams/coaches would be motivated to win at all costs. The Development Academy doesn't care about how "teams" do, it cares solely about identifying the unicorns, the super-elite players that are Youth National Team candidates and hopefully candidates to go pro and skip college (a wasteland for development).

From a practical standpoint, P/R would not work for 2 big reasons:

1. There is no monetary incentives in the DA. We don't reward youth clubs for developing talent through training/solidarity compensation. Clubs that support the DA are doing so purely for marketing reasons in order to suck dollars into their lower tier teams.
2. Coaching licensing is tough. Many clubs don't want to undertake the B.S., dollars and length of time it takes to get a "B" license, let alone an "A" license. If you were to drop teams/clubs, you could easily find yourself in a position that there are no qualified teams ready to step up. Moreover, some highly qualified teams would be faced with economic ruin because they couldn't take on the travel requirements. Socioeconomic realities are such that those parents from Oxnard are not financially prepared to pay 4k/year to play in the DA.

P/R worked for CRL when it was the only game in town. It worked until it didn't. Clubs got pissed at the rigidity and left, forming the SCDSL. The SCDSL has become the better league for girls, whereas the CRL reigns for boys. Bottom line, P/R at the DA level would be a disaster and violate the basic tenants of the league, which was formed because leagues like the CRL promote wins/losses over development.

 

[espola]

Cal South has CRL where you earn you way in, National league Pacific conference, and there are others that goto national champions with us club but yeah there all using qualifications and promotions to get better competition. If you don't finish high enough you don't get invited back pretty simple concept unless you go through play in or other qualifications.

DA would be well served to do the same: every season top 4-5 promoted, let's the rest qualify and include outside comp. Top 12-14 in each age group starting say U14.

Yes having a son play for a MLS academy is nice but when there always trying to find better comp since only about a dozen games are so where close over the 30 development can be hit & miss.

The rest of the stuff you wrote is in your head or something?

For that to work you would have to find clubs (or teams or players or parents) that want to be promoted so that they will have to put up with the DA nonsense.

 

[espola]

I don't know but I have been told that freshly-demoted teams lose all their best players to freshly-promoted teams.

 

[younothat]

I tend to agree with @InTheValley's economic analysis. Taking a step back, the problem with P/R is that it violates the basic premise of the DA, which is placing "development" of players over win/losses.

After years of floundering around and analysis (Double Pass) the Federation has come to the conclusion that at the Youth level, we are placing waaaaaay too much importance on trophies. The drive to win, win, win, is causing development of players to be retarded. We all know that a winning strategy can be to play over the top and let your super-speedy forwards score a few. Screw possession, drop a few over the back line and play the percentages. It works really well at the youth level and does alright at the professional level too. But is this developing elite soccer players? No.

Wins are nice, provided those wins don't retard development of players. So the Academy has established a few principals:

1. All FT players start at least 25% of the league games. The Development Academy has explicitly mandated game time for players, even if this means a DA team is at a competitive disadvantage.
2. Teams are encouraged to have youngers play up, even if that means that "younger's" team is put at a disadvantage.
3. Fewer games ... because its development and not competition we are seeking.
4. Follow international standards for games (i.e. limited substitutions). By forcing 25% of the players to start, we drive fitness, even for the bench players.
5. Practices 4 times a week with A/B licensed coaches.

P/R at the Academy level would violated the principals of development because teams/coaches would be motivated to win at all costs. The Development Academy doesn't care about how "teams" do, it cares solely about identifying the unicorns, the super-elite players that are Youth National Team candidates and hopefully candidates to go pro and skip college (a wasteland for development).

From a practical standpoint, P/R would not work for 2 big reasons:

1. There is no monetary incentives in the DA. We don't reward youth clubs for developing talent through training/solidarity compensation. Clubs that support the DA are doing so purely for marketing reasons in order to suck dollars into their lower tier teams.
2. Coaching licensing is tough. Many clubs don't want to undertake the B.S., dollars and length of time it takes to get a "B" license, let alone an "A" license. If you were to drop teams/clubs, you could easily find yourself in a position that there are no qualified teams ready to step up. Moreover, some highly qualified teams would be faced with economic ruin because they couldn't take on the travel requirements. Socioeconomic realities are such that those parents from Oxnard are not financially prepared to pay 4k/year to play in the DA.

P/R worked for CRL when it was the only game in town. It worked until it didn't. Clubs got pissed at the rigidity and left, forming the SCDSL. The SCDSL has become the better league for girls, whereas the CRL reigns for boys. Bottom line, P/R at the DA level would be a disaster and violate the basic tenants of the league, which was formed because leagues like the CRL promote wins/losses over development.

I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.

Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything
Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well. Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.

Winning doesn't have to retard anybodies development, the 25% league start thing is a loose rule so those types of players wait to get starts until the comp drops and they don't start vs the better teams.
Playing up is the same, no changes, the national team player candidates are basically required to play anyway so if your good enough doesn't matter and your talking about very few players either way.
Number of games doesn't change; USSDA keeps all the stats anyway starting at U15 so draw the line each year; those that don't perform don't return.

Let the market decide who can afford what, Oxnard played CSL, CRL, Surf Cup, NPL, etc so they spent that much or likely more anyway in 4 different leagues

P/R works for CSL, CRL, National League, some of the USclub leagues so it can work for DA. Heck even SCDSL had made a attempt on a in house P/R with there tiers in the different flight and those that want only "discovery" can play in those brackets.

Double pass was another expensive eval, I haven't noticed any difference or very little change after the classified report(s) came out.

No current youth league in the US including DA is really good enough after a certain age, U16,+ players need to be training with U18+ or USL pro players if they have hopes of making it pro or internationally. The DA is not competitive enough across the board at u15+ either past the top teams, keeping the same established clubs and teams, year after year no matter there performances or not is not helping.

 

[jpeter]

High School sports even have promotion/ regulation. 1-4 division you more up or down depending on performances. I'm a parent so I don't have any other incentive other than helping my players finding the best training & competition around.

High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.

 

[timbuck]

I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.

Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything
Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well. Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.

Winning doesn't have to retard anybodies development, the 25% league start thing is a loose rule so those types of players wait to get starts until the comp drops and they don't start vs the better teams.
Playing up is the same, no changes, the national team player candidates are basically required to play anyway so if your good enough doesn't matter and your talking about very few players either way.
Number of games doesn't change; USSDA keeps all the stats anyway starting at U15 so draw the line each year; those that don't perform don't return.

Let the market decide who can afford what, Oxnard played CSL, CRL, Surf Cup, NPL, etc so they spent that much or likely more anyway in 4 different leagues

P/R works for CSL, CRL, National League, some of the USclub leagues so it can work for DA. Heck even SCDSL had made a attempt on a in house P/R with there tiers in the different flight and those that want only "discovery" can play in those brackets.

Double pass was another expensive eval, I haven't noticed any difference or very little change after the classified report(s) came out.

No current youth league in the US including DA is really good enough after a certain age, U16,+ players need to be training with U18+ or USL pro players if they have hopes of making it pro or internationally. The DA is not competitive enough across the board at u15+ either past the top teams, keeping the same established clubs and teams, year after year no matter there performances or not is not helping.

The mandated/suggested 4-3-3 is a bit silly to me. Yes- good to have a base. But 4-3-3 always playing against 4-3-3 causes a team to act/think the same way all game.
Why not let a team try to figure out how to break down a 4-4-2 or 3-4-3? Or how to defend against different attacking formations.

 

[mahrez]

I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.

Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything
Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well. Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.

Winning doesn't have to retard anybodies development, the 25% league start thing is a loose rule so those types of players wait to get starts until the comp drops and they don't start vs the better teams.
Playing up is the same, no changes, the national team player candidates are basically required to play anyway so if your good enough doesn't matter and your talking about very few players either way.
Number of games doesn't change; USSDA keeps all the stats anyway starting at U15 so draw the line each year; those that don't perform don't return.

Let the market decide who can afford what, Oxnard played CSL, CRL, Surf Cup, NPL, etc so they spent that much or likely more anyway in 4 different leagues

P/R works for CSL, CRL, National League, some of the USclub leagues so it can work for DA. Heck even SCDSL had made a attempt on a in house P/R with there tiers in the different flight and those that want only "discovery" can play in those brackets.

Double pass was another expensive eval, I haven't noticed any difference or very little change after the classified report(s) came out.

No current youth league in the US including DA is really good enough after a certain age, U16,+ players need to be training with U18+ or USL pro players if they have hopes of making it pro or internationally. The DA is not competitive enough across the board at u15+ either past the top teams, keeping the same established clubs and teams, year after year no matter there performances or not is not helping.

Us soccer has known about the competitive balance problems in the DA for some time. Finally they decided to act with this new structure

http://www.ussoccerda.com/20180619-NEWS-DA-To-Introduce-New-Competition-Structure-for-2018-19-Season

Step in the right direction? Lots of verbiage but few details?

Showcase matchup formulas ( like records) to adjust schedules or based on last year's records until x number of games. Not pro/rel but at least da is acknowledging the problem and trying to do something about it.

 

[espola]

Us soccer has known about the competitive balance problems in the DA for some time. Finally they decided to act with this new structure

http://www.ussoccerda.com/20180619-NEWS-DA-To-Introduce-New-Competition-Structure-for-2018-19-Season

Step in the right direction? Lots of verbiage but few details?

Showcase matchup formulas ( like records) to adjust schedules or based on last year's records until x number of games. Not pro/rel but at least da is acknowledging the problem and trying to do something about it.

They're acknowledging that it's not about "development".

 

[InTheValley]

High School sports even have promotion/ regulation. 1-4 division you more up or down depending on performances. I'm a parent so I don't have any other incentive other than helping my players finding the best training & competition around.

High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.

Ok, now you’re being too obvious that you’re punking us. Seriously, your theories were suspect enough when you were just saying that US soccer should model a system after CSL, which can’t produce any players good enough to play beyond the age of 18, except for a handful of kids who were able to save a few bucks on tuition at d3 directional and/or evangelical colleges.

But that stuff about HS, well, you’ve just gone too far. I mean, you’re going to lose credibility with even your most brain dead believers if you’re going to argue that more emphasis on HS soccer will help turn the US into a soccer power.

Seriously, Neymar was being paid about $35k a month by the time he was 16. Mbappé was already playing at Monaco. Messi was playing for freakin’ Barcelona when he was 16. Ronaldo dropped out of school completely when he was 14 and was at Sporting Lisbon when he was 16. Even the late blooming Harry Kane was a professional soccer player by the time he was 16. You think spending 3 months a year playing HS soccer will put US players on the same level as guys who are already spending all of their time playing soccer, getting the best training possible, and playing with and against some of the best pros in the world? That is really funny. Shoot, you can’t even go to HS, let alone waste your time playing HS, if you want to have a real shot at being the type of player who can actually make a difference on an international level.

 

[jpeter]

Ok, now you’re being too obvious that you’re punking us. Seriously, your theories were suspect enough when you were just saying that US soccer should model a system after CSL, which can’t produce any players good enough to play beyond the age of 18, except for a handful of kids who were able to save a few bucks on tuition at d3 directional and/or evangelical colleges.

But that stuff about HS, well, you’ve just gone too far. I mean, you’re going to lose credibility with even your most brain dead believers if you’re going to argue that more emphasis on HS soccer will help turn the US into a soccer power.

Seriously, Neymar was being paid about $35k a month by the time he was 16. Mbappé was already playing at Monaco. Messi was playing for freakin’ Barcelona when he was 16. Ronaldo dropped out of school completely when he was 14 and was at Sporting Lisbon when he was 16. Even the late blooming Harry Kane was a professional soccer player by the time he was 16. You think spending 3 months a year playing HS soccer will put US players on the same level as guys who are already spending all of their time playing soccer, getting the best training possible, and playing with and against some of the best pros in the world? That is really funny. Shoot, you can’t even go to HS, let alone waste your time playing HS, if you want to have a real shot at being the type of player who can actually make a difference on an international level.

You have a very strange way of accepting anybody else view point.

The is the USA not Eupore so High School sports has it's place.

There are no DA or any other youth players on us youth teams who compare to those foreign players. Not even close and that's a problem so why in the world would you want to continue with the status quo?

Tell you what come up with one orginal idea in how to improve youth soccer in the usa and we can continue.

 

[MWN]

High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.

The USSF does not "shun them." The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS. Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.

Let me restate this. If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING. High School football... USA Football? Nope, NFHS. High School Baseball? USA Baseball? Nope, NFHS. Soccer? U.S. Soccer Federation? NOPE, NFHS.

Please for the love of all things semi-intelligent. High School Soccer is regulated, controlled, dictated and directed by the NFHS that works (here in California with the CIF) various state associations the are all HIGH SCHOOL associations.

Just so you all are clear ... the NCAA and soccer at the college level has nothing to do with the US Soccer Federation. High School and College Soccer have EXPRESSLY exempted themselves from any ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, CONTROL, or other suggestions of the US Soccer Federation.

Why is this so hard?

@jpeter, what exactly would you propose that the USSF do? Sue and do a takeover of the NFHS?

 

[espola]

The USSF does not "shun them." The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS. Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.

Let me restate this. If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING. High School football... USA Football? Nope, NFHS. High School Baseball? USA Baseball? Nope, NFHS. Soccer? U.S. Soccer Federation? NOPE, NFHS.

Please for the love of all things semi-intelligent. High School Soccer is regulated, controlled, dictated and directed by the NFHS that works (here in California with the CIF) various state associations the are all HIGH SCHOOL associations.

Just so you all are clear ... the NCAA and soccer at the college level has nothing to do with the US Soccer Federation. High School and College Soccer have EXPRESSLY exempted themselves from any ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, CONTROL, or other suggestions of the US Soccer Federation.

Why is this so hard?

@jpeter, what exactly would you propose that the USSF do? Sue and do a takeover of the NFHS?

I think you missed the point.

 

[jpeter]

The USSF does not "shun them." The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS. Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.

Let me restate this. If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING. High School football... USA Football? Nope, NFHS. High School Baseball? USA Baseball? Nope, NFHS. Soccer? U.S. Soccer Federation? NOPE, NFHS.

Please for the love of all things semi-intelligent. High School Soccer is regulated, controlled, dictated and directed by the NFHS that works (here in California with the CIF) various state associations the are all HIGH SCHOOL associations.

Just so you all are clear ... the NCAA and soccer at the college level has nothing to do with the US Soccer Federation. High School and College Soccer have EXPRESSLY exempted themselves from any ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, CONTROL, or other suggestions of the US Soccer Federation.

Why is this so hard?

@jpeter, what exactly would you propose that the USSF do? Sue and do a takeover of the NFHS?

Thank you for providing a text book example of shun...persistently avoid, ignore, or reject something or somebody.

Ussf could start by repairing the relationships: with the da winter break & new structure posted they is room in the schedule for high school play, allow that again and one of top drawbacks of da is mitigated, a good start & will.

 

[InTheValley]

You have a very strange way of accepting anybody else view point.

The is the USA not Eupore so High School sports has it's place.

There are no DA or any other youth players on us youth teams who compare to those foreign players. Not even close and that's a problem so why in the world would you want to continue with the status quo?

Tell you what come up with one orginal idea in how to improve youth soccer in the usa and we can continue.

I agree with many points of view. Just not ones that are really, really dumb.

If you want an original idea, I’ll give you one: relax. The US is doing about as well as possible with its current youth systems given the country’s geography and cultural, societal and educational demographics. There’s absolutely nothing that can be done at a macro level to substantially improve soccer here, unless we make structural changes to society that would make the US a worse place to live and which are unrealistic anyway. Or maybe Bill Gates decides youth soccer is more important than clean water in Africa.

If you can’t make your own kid into a soccer phenom, the best you can do is hope that a core group of sufficiently young kids, all around the same age, end up at a place like IMG Academy at the same time, and who all have immense athletic ability, innate skill and burning desire. These kids will need to be so immensely gifted by the time they’re 17 that a pro soccer future presents a better financial decision than a $200,000 full ride to Stanford plus the millions they could make with the degree, or they’re so dumb that a free meaningful college education is out of play. There are maybe 10 Americans who make at least a million a year playing soccer, and 4-5 in US history for whom signing a pro contract at 17-18 made more sense than free college. Ultimately, the only thing likely to cause this sufficient core of talent to exist is sheer luck and/or enough dumb or desperate parents who do not value higher, or even primary, education for their kids. In the meantime, enjoy the WNT and all the other sports at which the US excels. There are plenty to choose from.

I’ll leave the discussion of solidarity payments for another day, but they probably wouldn’t help either even if they were legal, which they probably aren’t. In fact, solidarity payments could cause significant harm to youth soccer. But at least that’s debatable.

 

[Keepermom2]

I do believe that the NCAA should treat the various sports for each gender equally and the total number of athletic scholarships should be balanced. Now, this means that if a schools is going to offer Football (M), Soccer (M&W), Basketball (M&W), then it needs to balance the athletic scholarships through other sports Golf (W), Field Hockey (W), etc., to make up for the imbalance. Having 9.9 scholarships available for men v. 14 for women ultimately harms the goal of increasing popularity.

I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total.

"The first compliance prong of Title IX deals with overall sport and athletic participation offerings available for men and women. A three-part test for participation opportunities determines if institutions provide female and male students with equal athletic opportunities.

1. Proportionality: That’s a big phrase and a chance for you to use a little math. The first test means to compare the ratio of female to male participants in the athletic program with the ratio of female to male full-time students (undergraduates for intercollegiate investigations). If the resulting ratios are equal, the school is most likely in compliance in this area of Title IX.
2. History and Continuing Practice: Has your school shown a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex? The courts have been firm in noting that the word “continuing” is important when using the second test. Many schools added considerable numbers of women’s teams in the 1970s but either kept the status quo or decreased opportunities during the 1980s. Those changes occurred quite long ago. So, let’s stay focused on our current generation of young people and their athletic opportunities.
3. Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities: Are the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex fully and effectively accommodated by the current program? In the third test, the key words are “fully and effectively.” Educational institutions that offer athletic programs are required to effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of their students. Under Title IX, these institutions must provide opportunities for individuals of each sex to participate in sports, as well as provide those individuals with competitive team schedules."

"The second major compliance prong of Title IX encompasses athletic financial assistance. The only monetary requirement of Title IX deals with the area of scholarships. Scholarships must be allocated in proportion to the number of female and male students participating in intercollegiate athletics. Funding for women’s and men’s programs does not have to be equal, but a significant disparity in funds does suggest that institutions could be found non-compliant in other program areas." When you go to the OCR reading room, you see that there are still more findings related to not offering financial assistance to women in proportion to their enrollment.

"This third compliance prong of Title IX requires equivalence in other athletic benefits and opportunities and includes all other program areas not previously covered. Title IX does not require that each men’s and women’s team receive exactly the same services and supplies, but it looks at the entirety of the treatment the men’s and women’s programs receive as a whole. The equivalence of overall treatment is measured on the basis of eleven criteria."

 

[espola]

I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total.

"The first compliance prong of Title IX deals with overall sport and athletic participation offerings available for men and women. A three-part test for participation opportunities determines if institutions provide female and male students with equal athletic opportunities.

1. Proportionality: That’s a big phrase and a chance for you to use a little math. The first test means to compare the ratio of female to male participants in the athletic program with the ratio of female to male full-time students (undergraduates for intercollegiate investigations). If the resulting ratios are equal, the school is most likely in compliance in this area of Title IX.
2. History and Continuing Practice: Has your school shown a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex? The courts have been firm in noting that the word “continuing” is important when using the second test. Many schools added considerable numbers of women’s teams in the 1970s but either kept the status quo or decreased opportunities during the 1980s. Those changes occurred quite long ago. So, let’s stay focused on our current generation of young people and their athletic opportunities.
3. Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities: Are the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex fully and effectively accommodated by the current program? In the third test, the key words are “fully and effectively.” Educational institutions that offer athletic programs are required to effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of their students. Under Title IX, these institutions must provide opportunities for individuals of each sex to participate in sports, as well as provide those individuals with competitive team schedules."

"The second major compliance prong of Title IX encompasses athletic financial assistance. The only monetary requirement of Title IX deals with the area of scholarships. Scholarships must be allocated in proportion to the number of female and male students participating in intercollegiate athletics. Funding for women’s and men’s programs does not have to be equal, but a significant disparity in funds does suggest that institutions could be found non-compliant in other program areas." When you go to the OCR reading room, you see that there are still more findings related to not offering financial assistance to women in proportion to their enrollment.

"This third compliance prong of Title IX requires equivalence in other athletic benefits and opportunities and includes all other program areas not previously covered. Title IX does not require that each men’s and women’s team receive exactly the same services and supplies, but it looks at the entirety of the treatment the men’s and women’s programs receive as a whole. The equivalence of overall treatment is measured on the basis of eleven criteria."

The missing link?

https://www.womenssportsfoundation....at-is-title-ix/standard-language-of-title-ix/

Note that that is neither the NCAA nor the Department of Education.

 

[MWN]

I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total.

After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women. Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string). The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules. Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team. With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):

• NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
• NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women

The other two college sports associations, treat men and women equally, thus, this is an NCAA problem and not directly related to Title IX, because these associations have chosen to allow schools to manage the Title IX mandates.

• NAIA 12 for both
• NJCAA 24 for both

Ultimately, my only point here is that the NCAA is doing no favors to soccer and the popularity of the sport will not occur via the college system because a coach cannot even field an entire team with full-ride scholarship players. To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS.

Moreover, the lack of scholarships available to men is especially harsh for the sport. To the extent that others believe the college game in relevant to increasing the popularity on the men's side, I disagree because the college men's programs are hamstrung by the NCAA scholarship limits.

 

[espola]

After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women. Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string). The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules. Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team. With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):

• NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
• NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women

The other two college sports associations, treat men and women equally, thus, this is an NCAA problem and not directly related to Title IX, because these associations have chosen to allow schools to manage the Title IX mandates.

• NAIA 12 for both
• NJCAA 24 for both

Ultimately, my only point here is that the NCAA is doing no favors to soccer and the popularity of the sport will not occur via the college system because a coach cannot even field an entire team with full-ride scholarship players. To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS.

Moreover, the lack of scholarships available to men is especially harsh for the sport. To the extent that others believe the college game in relevant to increasing the popularity on the men's side, I disagree because the college men's programs are hamstrung by the NCAA scholarship limits.

I think I agree with you, except I don't know what you mean by "To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS."

Any NCAA DI or DII school that awards anything close to the full scholarships allowed for football is ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

[Keepermom2]

After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women. Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string). The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules. Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team. With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):

• NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
• NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women

The other two college sports associations, treat men and women equally, thus, this is an NCAA problem and not directly related to Title IX, because these associations have chosen to allow schools to manage the Title IX mandates.

• NAIA 12 for both
• NJCAA 24 for both

Ultimately, my only point here is that the NCAA is doing no favors to soccer and the popularity of the sport will not occur via the college system because a coach cannot even field an entire team with full-ride scholarship players. To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS.

Moreover, the lack of scholarships available to men is especially harsh for the sport. To the extent that others believe the college game in relevant to increasing the popularity on the men's side, I disagree because the college men's programs are hamstrung by the NCAA scholarship limits.

Each college is held accountable to Title IX before NCAA rules in that if a college has 65% men to 35% women participating in college sports then the total sports financial assistance to men needs to be close to 65% of the total financial assistance provided to participating athletes. If they aren't close, then they would be out of compliance and would need to make the male financial assistance congruent with the male/female percentages attending that college. In addition, I could find nothing that talked about NCAA or the like in the OCR findings to various colleges.

For colleges with football programs that would generally make less financial assistance available to men in soccer but in total men's sports financial assistance for that school should be congruent with the male/female percentages attending that college.

 

[jpeter]

Both my kids have been to on bunch of college campus visits/ tours. They liked some of schools but after talking with players, fellow students, coaches and what not the soccer programs really have not excited them much.

My son been to a bunch of college games yet he doesn't think the short season or play is what he's wants to do for 4 to 5 years, much to boring he says. For the boys there are limited partial sholarships, at the D1 he was looking into coaches told him almost all those goes to lower income families. Instead of any more us college visits he's decided to apply for his EU passport and is touring & training at some of the Euporean academies and universities for the next few months

For our daughter who is not even as highly rated in soccer as our son she has been recuited and offered more sholarship opportunies. In the end she decided that she wanted to focus on her career and education, soccer for her in college is too much of a sacrifice without any end game. The academic & citizen sholarships she has obtain so far are going to go a long way when she starts University in the fall.

 

[jpeter]

I agree with many points of view. Just not ones that are really, really dumb.

If you want an original idea, I’ll give you one: relax. The US is doing about as well as possible with its current youth systems given the country’s geography and cultural, societal and educational demographics. There’s absolutely nothing that can be done at a macro level to substantially improve soccer here, unless we make structural changes to society that would make the US a worse place to live and which are unrealistic anyway. Or maybe Bill Gates decides youth soccer is more important than clean water in Africa.

If you can’t make your own kid into a soccer phenom, the best you can do is hope that a core group of sufficiently young kids, all around the same age, end up at a place like IMG Academy at the same time, and who all have immense athletic ability, innate skill and burning desire. These kids will need to be so immensely gifted by the time they’re 17 that a pro soccer future presents a better financial decision than a $200,000 full ride to Stanford plus the millions they could make with the degree, or they’re so dumb that a free meaningful college education is out of play. There are maybe 10 Americans who make at least a million a year playing soccer, and 4-5 in US history for whom signing a pro contract at 17-18 made more sense than free college. Ultimately, the only thing likely to cause this sufficient core of talent to exist is sheer luck and/or enough dumb or desperate parents who do not value higher, or even primary, education for their kids. In the meantime, enjoy the WNT and all the other sports at which the US excels. There are plenty to choose from.

I’ll leave the discussion of solidarity payments for another day, but they probably wouldn’t help either even if they were legal, which they probably aren’t. In fact, solidarity payments could cause significant harm to youth soccer. But at least that’s debatable.

The OP on page 1 summed it up nicely:
"One thing that limits soccer is pay to play"

"If we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely"

IMG is the tops for pay to play, have you seen them play in DA? terrible and near the bottom of the tables.

Ussf has 110+ million dollars in profits they are sitting on, I can think of a many ways they could be spending that profit. He's one orginal one: give out grants to any school or parks that wants to convert parts of blacktops or play space to futstal courts. Getting more kids playing futstal at elementary and middle schools would create a whole generation of players with better skills. I've seen some cities converter some seldom tennis courts too futstal and the cost was minimal.

Im with you on solidarity payments, the established stakeholders are against that so going to take special to get that done, hopefully not a another Olympics or world cup miss.

My kids are almost done with youth soccer so it's pretty much now or never so trying to make the best of it.