Wynalda Perspective on US Soccer

[whatithink]

Looking at the GA Cup MLS academies tournament, it's pretty clear the US academy boys were able to hang in there with the international invites including Real Madrid. The US boys academies are probably generally on par with the European B level academies such as Sevilla and Valencia. None of the games were blown outs and Real Madrid got knocked out of the u15 tournament in the quarters. The issue isn't at the youth level. It's that transition level out of youth and into adult. There's too few opportunities for talent to play in Europe (partially due to immigration issues), too few are offered the chance to actually play in the MLS, and too many of the academy kids are on the college as opposed to the pro track. I agree part of the issue is that the clubs can't develop and sell players. But another issue is there isn't pro/rel. There aren't any lower level MLS teams for these players to cut their teeth on, and the higher level teams because of the salary caps don't offer tempting enough salaries for the players to aspire to. College is too limited of a season and poor training to develop a pros so once they are off to college, you essentially lose any chance to really develop that talent. If US Soccer is really concerned about developing world class talent, they need to fix the MLS system and provide opportunities for those transitioning out of youth.

I thought the route is MLS Next (youth) > MLS Next Pro (2nd teams) > MLS. If you look like you could make it, you get a run with MLS Next Pro and if you exceed some bar, then you can get signed to that level. If not, then college ball or bust ...

You also have USL Premier, L1 & L2, so its starting to expand.

The MLS closed league is a fundamental problem with developing a healthy soccer culture & infrastructure, although changing that will not drive youth development into the pros, it's more likely to have the opposite effect as owners/coaches are not going to chance a youth prospect when the downside is relegation. Bizarrely, the MLS closed system should incentivize, to some extent, teams to promote/develop youth players as there is no fear of relegation.

The number of academy kids that make it in the pro leagues in Europe is tiny. Making an academy at a young age gives you a minimal advantage. Some large clubs use academies to generate money to make them self funding and obv. hope to get some players.

Alternatively, you can build a team if you "require" yourself to restrict your choice ... Athletic Club Bilbao being a stellar example.

 

[Grace T.]

I thought the route is MLS Next (youth) > MLS Next Pro (2nd teams) > MLS. If you look like you could make it, you get a run with MLS Next Pro and if you exceed some bar, then you can get signed to that level. If not, then college ball or bust ...

You also have USL Premier, L1 & L2, so its starting to expand.

The MLS closed league is a fundamental problem with developing a healthy soccer culture & infrastructure, although changing that will not drive youth development into the pros, it's more likely to have the opposite effect as owners/coaches are not going to chance a youth prospect when the downside is relegation. Bizarrely, the MLS closed system should incentivize, to some extent, teams to promote/develop youth players as there is no fear of relegation.

The number of academy kids that make it in the pro leagues in Europe is tiny. Making an academy at a young age gives you a minimal advantage. Some large clubs use academies to generate money to make them self funding and obv. hope to get some players.

Alternatively, you can build a team if you "require" yourself to restrict your choice ... Athletic Club Bilbao being a stellar example.

If that were the case the la Galaxy’s brief 1 year flirtation with academy players should have been a rip roaring success. Instead they reverted to their usual model: 1 major dp, supporting cast of internationals, round it out with bargain veterans. The Galaxy certainly couldn’t do worse with academy players than they are doing so far this year with their standard model. When everyone is set up at parity because of spending caps, the small differences make an impact and no one wants to be like the la Galaxy.

by contrast if the mls were like the premiere league we’d have 4-6 clubs with the finance to build world class teams. Academy players would not likely play for these teams but they’d be on par with Sevilla, Milan and west ham. Your analysis also applies to the middle of the field looking to ensure against relegation. But the issue with the bottom third as well as the relegation league is that some owners simply don’t want to spend the money to avoid relegation or get promotion. It allows the top teams to sell their academy players to these teams who are looking for a bargain and to moneyball it. It creates playtime at the bottom which nevertheless get to play against athletes from the top 6 teams.

 

[Mosafie]

What’s curious about it? If you are on the academic route the admissions officer may not even know the difference between ea/npl/ea2/e64. They check the box that says plays an extracurricular sport on the evaluation form. And if you are going private school and your essay is all about how you want to build your own tech company once you get that engineering degree, they’ll wonder why you are spending 3-4 afternoons a week doing soccer instead of winning the robot Olympics. The future political activist went out and tried to get the school to go vegan and formed some fake charity that did some useless recycling that won’t survive the students graduation from high school, while you wasted your time chasing some little ball around like an idiot.

Consider this. 25% of admitted undergraduates students at Harvard every year are Division 1 recruited athletes.

You look at the top schools such as Stanford, UCLA, and the stats are similar.

A division 1 athlete with good grades can write their ticket to schools that similar students with just good grades can't get in.

I agree if you aren't good then it wouldn't help college missions. Do something else instead of sports.

Remember the varsity blues controversy. Parents were paying thousands to have their kids pose as fake athletes to get into USC and Stanford.

 

[whatithink]

If that were the case the la Galaxy’s brief 1 year flirtation with academy players should have been a rip roaring success. Instead they reverted to their usual model: 1 major dp, supporting cast of internationals, round it out with bargain veterans. The Galaxy certainly couldn’t do worse with academy players than they are doing so far this year with their standard model. When everyone is set up at parity because of spending caps, the small differences make an impact and no one wants to be like the la Galaxy.

by contrast if the mls were like the premiere league we’d have 4-6 clubs with the finance to build world class teams. Academy players would not likely play for these teams but they’d be on par with Sevilla, Milan and west ham. Your analysis also applies to the middle of the field looking to ensure against relegation. But the issue with the bottom third as well as the relegation league is that some owners simply don’t want to spend the money to avoid relegation or get promotion. It allows the top teams to sell their academy players to these teams who are looking for a bargain and to moneyball it. It creates playtime at the bottom which nevertheless get to play against athletes from the top 6 teams.

Not really on the Galaxy flirtation. Following an academy-oriented approach for your first team isn't a one season wonder. Ajax are an obvious example in Europe and they hit the jackpot sometimes, but the rest they compete. There's no guarantee that your academy products are going to be first team capable, and in reality the empirical evidence would state that the overwhelming majority of academy products will never play in top leagues, never mind top teams in top leagues.

For sure on the top teams building better teams than anyone else - doubtful if any would be world class mind as the money is not there. (and I get there are billionaire owners, but they are not going to spend mega bucks on an MLS team when they could buy a team in Europe and spend their instead if they wanted to waste their money).

 

[Grace T.]

Consider this. 25% of admitted undergraduates students at Harvard every year are Division 1 recruited athletes.

You look at the top schools such as Stanford, UCLA, and the stats are similar.

A division 1 athlete with good grades can write their ticket to schools that similar students with just good grades can't get in.

I agree if you aren't good then it wouldn't help college missions. Do something else instead of sports.

Remember the varsity blues controversy. Parents were paying thousands to have their kids pose as fake athletes to get into USC and Stanford.

I think you misunderstand. Those 25% of athletes are on the athletic recruited route. The athletic and arts recruits are handled through a different procedure, a different pool, than regular academic admits (there are rumors BTW that some schools have separate consideration pools/procedures for the big mega donors....we aren't just talking legacies here....the people who donate buildings). Those athletic and arts recruits do not get handled in the same way the academic recruits are. Indeed, if there are alumni interviews, not all alumni are allowed to interview them because of fear of running afoul of NCAA regs (such as buying them a cup of coffee or something stupid like "would you like something") so usually it goes to a staffer, a coordinator, a trusted alumni or an alumni who has taken some extra training.

If you are going the recruited route, of course it makes sense to pursue higher level athletics. The point was if you are going the regular academic route, high level athletics give you very little bang for your buck. The issue is, however, that many athletes (particularly on the boys side outside of the MLS academies) find that they may not be able to get into Stanford or UCLA that way, and may instead wind up in Ohio and St. Louis.

 

[socalkdg]

Consider this. 25% of admitted undergraduates students at Harvard every year are Division 1 recruited athletes.

You look at the top schools such as Stanford, UCLA, and the stats are similar.

A division 1 athlete with good grades can write their ticket to schools that similar students with just good grades can't get in.

I agree if you aren't good then it wouldn't help college missions. Do something else instead of sports.

Remember the varsity blues controversy. Parents were paying thousands to have their kids pose as fake athletes to get into USC and Stanford.

You were right about Harvard with 1222 athletes. 7100 undergraduates. But it should be noted that graduate students also play D1 sports. Not sure how the money works with them since they only give out need based money.

For some perspective:

UCLA has 881 athletes. 32000 undergraduates. Average $18,000 in sports student aid per year.
Stanford has 862 athletes. 7700 undergraduates. Average $28,932 in sports student aid per year.
Cal State Fullerton has 449 athletes. 35000 undergraduates. Average $8,500 in sports student aid per year.

 

[watfly]

You were right about Harvard with 1222 athletes. 7100 undergraduates. But it should be noted that graduate students also play D1 sports. Not sure how the money works with them since they only give out need based money.

For some perspective:

UCLA has 881 athletes. 32000 undergraduates. Average $18,000 in sports student aid per year.
Stanford has 862 athletes. 7700 undergraduates. Average $28,932 in sports student aid per year.
Cal State Fullerton has 449 athletes. 35000 undergraduates. Average $8,500 in sports student aid per year.

The more relevant comparison dollar wise would be to look at net cost per athlete. While Stanford gives over 3x more in aid than CSF, it is probably still more expensive on a net basis. Of course, that doesn't account for the perceived value of a Stanford education.

 

[crush]

The more relevant comparison dollar wise would be to look at net cost per athlete. While Stanford gives over 3x more in aid than CSF, it is probably still more expensive on a net basis. Of course, that doesn't account for the perceived value of a Stanford education.

Cal State who? CSF had some of the best pick up basketball in the 80s bro, second only to the days when Pauly Pavilion had the best summer action. Cedric tried to bring me to ball in Westwood and be his personal PG but I just wasn't good enough.

 

[socalkdg]

The more relevant comparison dollar wise would be to look at net cost per athlete. While Stanford gives over 3x more in aid than CSF, it is probably still more expensive on a net basis. Of course, that doesn't account for the perceived value of a Stanford education.

Yes you are correct. CSF costs 31K less 8.5, gives net of 22.5K. UCLA comes in at 43K less 18K giving us 25K. Stanford at 79K less 29K is still 50K. All these based on living on campus.