Socal named as Operator for National 1 League

[sigmabody]

Things that should get shut down by parent collective outrage - that doesn't happen

Stay and play tourneys. This should get eliminated. That's low hanging fruit. (there is some evidence this isn't holding up as well as clubs/tournament directors planned)

Kit and backpack packages should top out at 250-300 - it shouldn't be a profit part of clubs.

Clubs should be responsible for ref fees not parents (I know this one will get a lot of grief)

Agree with the above, although things like ref fees would just be passed through as club fees regardless. Some clubs pay for tournaments, for example, and some do not, but all those "freebees" (where offered) are just passed through in club fees.

The thing I'd like to see banned from the higher level orgs (who are the only ones who could) are things like restrictions for players playing in multiple leagues simultaneously, and to really take on the whole "lock in" factor with the "elite" leagues. Many kids would be able to get more play time in games without the lock in, and ultimately that would help all of player development.

 

[The Soccer Dr]

Pro/rel in a CSL style team based open system (not ecrl halff assed pro/rel) is the best way to concentrate talents and allow talents to move around freely.

In the current system, talents are concentrated in MLS next free to play academies and once you are in they own you. MLS next HD pay to play, ECNL pay to play, MLS next AD pay to play are all the same and all fake pathways designed to make parents feel good about their kids until the time they apply for college. Then they realize none of these kids are going to good colleges and those that do are often getting less than 1/4 scholarships (boys side).

But can you really blame the clubs for doing this?Their primary goal is to make parents happy so their pay to play model can continue. All these fake elite leagues badges make people open their wallets.

The claim that Promotion and Relegation stifles development is a get out of jail card for coaches, every kid that plays tracks the score and making each game competitive motivates the kids to focus and work hard. There is enough commentary in this forum to highlight what happens when there is no consequence to poor results on the field. Clubs charge more for a label on the box, teams travel more, and progress is stifled. Rewarding teams, players, and coaches for results on the field is the best way to ensure each game is competitive and players are having fun. The essence of sport is competition.

 

[Grace T.]

The claim that Promotion and Relegation stifles development is a get out of jail card for coaches, every kid that plays tracks the score and making each game competitive motivates the kids to focus and work hard. There is enough commentary in this forum to highlight what happens when there is no consequence to poor results on the field. Clubs charge more for a label on the box, teams travel more, and progress is stifled. Rewarding teams, players, and coaches for results on the field is the best way to ensure each game is competitive and players are having fun. The essence of sport is competition.

you got the incentives wrong. The coaches don't like it because they are caught between a rock and a hard place especially outside the highest placing teams: on the one hand it's pay to play, so the club rewards the number of signups and retention...to make money the club has to fill its bench, but on the other hand if you bring a kid on just to pay the fee and they aren't up to snuff at that level the parent (who is paying thousands) will be upset they are paying and their kid isn't playing. But if you play them the team suffers and will lose, which will also impact your retention (and your bonus) because families will leave. So the answer is developing a player long term is risky and as a coach hurts your money. It's rational to recruit the tallest players, not mess around with passing around the goal, boot the ball and put it over the top into a footrace. There are plenty of valid grounds to defend pay or play, but neither merit (you are just rewarding people who recruit and coaches who take enough of a pay cut so they can spread scholarships) nor incentives is the way to do it. There are ways to fix pro/rel so that it works but that involves removing the incentives that make people care as much including screaming at the refs (by removing college from the equation) OR by tying players and clubs together (the best players can't leave without release, you take a bad player you later regret and you are stuck with them...pick poorly enough and you don't have a team at that age level because it explodes).

 

[Jamisfoes]

you got the incentives wrong. The coaches don't like it because they are caught between a rock and a hard place especially outside the highest placing teams: on the one hand it's pay to play, so the club rewards the number of signups and retention...to make money the club has to fill its bench, but on the other hand if you bring a kid on just to pay the fee and they aren't up to snuff at that level the parent (who is paying thousands) will be upset they are paying and their kid isn't playing. But if you play them the team suffers and will lose, which will also impact your retention (and your bonus) because families will leave. So the answer is developing a player long term is risky and as a coach hurts your money. It's rational to recruit the tallest players, not mess around with passing around the goal, boot the ball and put it over the top into a footrace. There are plenty of valid grounds to defend pay or play, but neither merit (you are just rewarding people who recruit and coaches who take enough of a pay cut so they can spread scholarships) nor incentives is the way to do it. There are ways to fix pro/rel so that it works but that involves removing the incentives that make people care as much including screaming at the refs (by removing college from the equation) OR by tying players and clubs together (the best players can't leave without release, you take a bad player you later regret and you are stuck with them...pick poorly enough and you don't have a team at that age level because it explodes).

There is no scholarship to be had anymore with NIL. People need to get that. You are right the current system is set up for college exposure. But with scholarships dwindling, I think it’s time to go back to pro/rel.

 

[The Soccer Dr]

you got the incentives wrong. The coaches don't like it because they are caught between a rock and a hard place especially outside the highest placing teams: on the one hand it's pay to play, so the club rewards the number of signups and retention...to make money the club has to fill its bench, but on the other hand if you bring a kid on just to pay the fee and they aren't up to snuff at that level the parent (who is paying thousands) will be upset they are paying and their kid isn't playing. But if you play them the team suffers and will lose, which will also impact your retention (and your bonus) because families will leave. So the answer is developing a player long term is risky and as a coach hurts your money. It's rational to recruit the tallest players, not mess around with passing around the goal, boot the ball and put it over the top into a footrace. There are plenty of valid grounds to defend pay or play, but neither merit (you are just rewarding people who recruit and coaches who take enough of a pay cut so they can spread scholarships) nor incentives is the way to do it. There are ways to fix pro/rel so that it works but that involves removing the incentives that make people care as much including screaming at the refs (by removing college from the equation) OR by tying players and clubs together (the best players can't leave without release, you take a bad player you later regret and you are stuck with them...pick poorly enough and you don't have a team at that age level because it explodes).

You raise several relevant topics that influence the decision making by coaches, but the bottom line is the current system is broken if a coach is asked to do things that neither maximize the enjoyment of the player experience or satisfies parents. Rosters that are too big to make the financial numbers work helps no one, the recruit and steal model hurts teams and coaches who are frozen out because of the closed league system, and promoting a college scholarship when less than 2% of the players will get there is just a lie. An open system that rewards performance on the field, offers value to every player - regardless of the level they play - and a structure that allows every coach, paid, and unpaid to utilize their skills is the only way to improve retention and increase overall participation. Players should stay with a team because they are having a great experience not because of a contract their parents were made to sign.

 

[The Soccer Dr]

Promotion/relegation is not a good solution for youth soccer. If an ECNL club is relegated, do all three levels (ECNL, ECRL SW, ECRL SoCal) get relegated one level each? What if a relegated ECNL club opens a big gaping hole geographically for areas served? Or if a promoted club sits right on top of another club? Promotion/relegation would create chaos in youth soccer and incentivize clubs to prioritize results over development.

Promotion and relegation has not caused chaos, the USSF has. Their efforts to take control of the youth soccer market so they can use it as a tool for the Player Identification model have caused chaos. The DA caused chaos when they designated a limited number of clubs and froze everyone else out. They caused chaos in 2015 when they mandated birth year team structure and mandated player development changes without any guidance as to how they should be implemented. Now they are causing chaos by going back to a school year model for most, birth year for some, and rushing to create a team based league - National 1 League - without any idea of the chaos it will create to the broader youth soccer ecosystem.

 

[Grace T.]

Promotion and relegation has not caused chaos, the USSF has. Their efforts to take control of the youth soccer market so they can use it as a tool for the Player Identification model have caused chaos. The DA caused chaos when they designated a limited number of clubs and froze everyone else out. They caused chaos in 2015 when they mandated birth year team structure and mandated player development changes without any guidance as to how they should be implemented. Now they are causing chaos by going back to a school year model for most, birth year for some, and rushing to create a team based league - National 1 League - without any idea of the chaos it will create to the broader youth soccer ecosystem.

All those can be (and many are) true. Doesn’t mean pro rel will fix any of that. Pro rel of itself in the absence of other changes would just make a poor situation worse because it would shift what’s happening at the older age groups onto the younger age groups because those clubs would need to secure top slots early to be in a position to sell academy and college recruitments.

 

[Jamisfoes]

All those can be (and many are) true. Doesn’t mean pro rel will fix any of that. Pro rel of itself in the absence of other changes would just make a poor situation worse because it would shift what’s happening at the older age groups onto the younger age groups because those clubs would need to secure top slots early to be in a position to sell academy and college recruitments.

Again with the college recruitment myth. THERE ARE NO SCHOLASHIPS ANYMORE!!!

 

[Grace T.]

Again with the college recruitment myth. THERE ARE NO SCHOLASHIPS ANYMORE!!!

That doesn’t matter. a) it’s not just about scholarship but preferential admissions which totally still take place, b) admissions also takes into account high school activities and if you aren’t doing travel soccer by 14 you are unlikely to make hs varsity let alone college in many schools now days (witness the ayso kid thread complaining a few months back), and c) re scholarships the clubs still sell em and the parents believe em until they hit junior year and the hs counselors set them straight.

 

[Jamisfoes]

That doesn’t matter. a) it’s not just about scholarship but preferential admissions which totally still take place, b) admissions also takes into account high school activities and if you aren’t doing travel soccer by 14 you are unlikely to make hs varsity let alone college in many schools now days (witness the ayso kid thread complaining a few months back), and c) re scholarships the clubs still sell em and the parents believe em until they hit junior year and the hs counselors set them straight.

a) preferential college admission is a myth as well. There are a lot of bad schools players are committing to where they could easily get in without soccer. The good colleges only take LAFC and Galaxy kids and these kids aren’t going to be premed majors there. If you tell D1 schools you want to major in hard sciences, they won’t give you a scholarship. b) being on the high soccer team doesn’t pull much weight with the college admission officers. c) parents like the idea of college soccer but the reality is either you are on the academic track or you are on the soccer track, you can’t have both.

 

[Grace T.]

a) preferential college admission is a myth as well. There are a lot of bad schools players are committing to where they could easily get in without soccer. The good colleges only take LAFC and Galaxy kids and these kids aren’t going to be premed majors there. If you tell D1 schools you want to major in hard sciences, they won’t give you a scholarship. b) being on the high soccer team doesn’t pull much weight with the college admission officers. c) parents like the idea of college soccer but the reality is either you are on the academic track or you are on the soccer track, you can’t have both.

Used to work admissions for an Ivy. Here’s what I can tell you about sports. For most of the “good colleges” (any of the uc schools for example qualify) being on the soccer team doesn’t pull that much weight. Being all cssf is not going to get you into Harvard. But not being on some kind of team can and will hurt you. It’s not a positive…but its absence is a negative. They expect you to be well rounded but also well oblonged (accomplishing something in the field you are going to study). You could technically check the box playing Latino league or ayso (but I don’t think ayso does u19 anymore).

Ps one interesting shift I just noticed a few months ago. It used to be in the 2000s fake charities were all the rage. Then post 2016 social justice and environmental activism became the big thing to have. Somehow holding a job is now on many admissions counselors lists. . When I was doing it in the 90s and 00s admission officers would put working at the bottom of the stack and sometimes even give it a negative score. I remember one officer dripping with disdain at how a girl applicant was working at kfc to give her younger brothers music lessons. But now that it’s become hard to do given the restrictions before you turn 18 and the difficulty in getting a job, it somehow now carries a lot of bang for its buck. . What’s more the admissions officers seem to have gotten wise to the entire fake charity thing and many now look at it with disdain. I think it’s funny things have gone full circle.