Another US Soccer idea...

Good in theory, but with GDA being less than one year old will be interesting to see if it works out. Hopefully it does but consumers (that's you, parents of the 99% non-unicorns, this is a busine$$ remember) should remain skeptical until then.

I have to add that's it's majorly flawed to have # of invitees to the National Training camps as a barometer of success - as shown on the boys side the politics massively enhance chances of a call up and there's financial reason for US soccer to do so: "Look how good our DA program is, everyone invited plays DA....no no don't pay any attention to the Spanish C teams beating our A teams 10-zero, we're about development not results...."
 
futboldad1 said:
Good in theory, but with GDA being less than one year old will be interesting to see if it works out. Hopefully it does but consumers (that's you, parents of the 99% non-unicorns, this is a busine$$ remember) should remain skeptical until then.

I have to add that's it's majorly flawed to have # of invitees to the National Training camps as a barometer of success - as shown on the boys side the politics massively enhance chances of a call up and there's financial reason for US soccer to do so: "Look how good our DA program is, everyone invited plays DA....no no don't pay any attention to the Spanish C teams beating our A teams 10-zero, we're about development not results...."
Click to expand...

The premise of your post has a flaw, which is the USSF's mission appears to be misunderstood. Taking a step back:

The USSF is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization recognized by the US Olympic Committee as the "national governing body" (NGB) for the sport of soccer in the US. As the NGB for soccer it is limited in what it can/cannot do and the constituency of its board. Because the USSF is a "non-profit" it cannot engage in "for-profit" activities that would generate "unrelated business income" without invalidating its status as a non-profit. The relevance of the foregoing, is that the USSF's hands are tied on many activities that would be perceived as engaging in a "for profit" operation, which is why the USSF's hands are also tied when it comes to the MLS, SUM and the other for-profit "professional" leagues.

To the extent you believe "...there's financial reason for US soccer to do so...." with regard to call-ups, the reality is much different. There is no "financial" incentive for US Soccer to call any players to the youth National teams. While "politics" may have a role for a few select athletes, the sole motivation of the US Youth National teams is national pride and to raise the profile of US Soccer to increase the value of the brand. To this end, US Soccer's youth national teams have the singular goal of playing in the following global tournaments (assuming they get out of CONCACAF):

2019 U17 World Cup (Peru) - Prize Money = $0.00
2019 U20 World Cup (Poland) - Prize Money = $0.00

As far as financial benefit for operating the DA, the USSF receives $50 for every DA player registered with the USSF and $50 for every coach registered in the DA. There are about 17,000 DA players registered between boys and girls in the US ... so $850k. The USSF receives nothing but expenses as a result of operating the DA. The only financial incentive would be to grow the DA base by adding coaches and players, thereby getting somewhere around $1,250 for every 25 player team added. The total amount received by the USSF in "youth" membership fees last year was roughly $4M of which the DA was about 20%. See, also, US Development Academy Report.

I just don't understand why many of you believe the USSF is money motivated, when all of its programs (except the US National Team) are financial losses. Can somebody explain the thought process here.
 
ATRTDT said:
The pressures off if they fail since most universitys don't come with a price tag. These kids can reach for their dreams earlier with minor financial impact on the tail end.
Click to expand...

MOST?? Is this new? This was not my experience. I believe the Scandinavian countries, and as of last year, Germany, don't charge undergraduate tuition. Other than that, please share more details since Scandinavia isn't known as a hot bed of soccer development. Germany? Now that is news.
 
MWN said:
The powers that be at the DA have made it very clear that DA clubs receive kudos and points for developing players that get invited to National Training camps, and team standings, etc., are not important. For this reason, DA tournaments are typically "showcases," where teams play 4 teams over a 5 day period and not "tournaments" with a champion. The DA doesn't even keep standings until U15. Playoffs are limited to the top 3 teams from each region with a few wildcards thrown in. Coaches at the DA level are also encouraged to play players up.

The DA could really care less if clubs are at the top or bottom of the standings, as long as, those clubs are competitive and following the DA program. The DA also tracks where players move from/to, knowing that the MLS residential programs can often pick and chose from the non-residential programs.

Contrast this with club soccer, where clubs need wins to attract parents/players. Winning programs grow and trophies are critical because most parents in club/competitive soccer perceive winning programs with college opportunities, and they would be basically correct because winning programs also tend to garner more interest and make more appearances at college showcases. "Gaming the system" is a necessary evil given the importance of wins to the customer base and will continue to be an ever present issue because parents value team performance and trophies over player development. This system rewards direct play, kick ball, over the top as a primary strategy because it results in wins against weaker teams. At the DA level, Academy Directors and Technical Directors are talked to consistently about correct training and their coaches are counseled to train their players correctly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links to the Solidarity articles. Interesting read.
However, it appears you've been wildly mislead as to DA's true nature. They do keep tables. They're just not public. They do not go from club to club evaluating their style of play. It's all about the wins. If you don't win you play teams that don't win at showcase.
Not sure what you mean by a club being competitive yet not winning, but DA clubs are no different in regard to the need for wins to attract players.
It's true you will see a more forward style of play at non-DA club games. Keep in mind, though, that DA is the new tier 1 club soccer, nothing more save for a patch. You could expect to see a more pleasing style of play because the players have a more talent, intelligence, etc. Same as before.
 
In my mind US Soccer needs to learn to walk before it can run. "Bio Banding" is an advanced and unproven concept (or as one expert called it, a "joke"). USSF needs to prove that it can develop a program to consistently produce internationally competitive players (let alone world class players which it claims is the purpose of the DA) before it embarks on an program as specialized and speculative as bio banding. DA has not proven its ability to do develop this level of player, mainly because its a league, not a development program, and USSF has comparatively little investment in its success.

Unfortunately, I know more about bone density and bone age than I should have to as parent. Bone density is the only reliable way to determine where you are on the growth curve. While taking the parents height and kids weight might give an indication of a child's final height it will not tell you where the child is on the growth/maturation curve. Are they going to MRI kids for bio banded tournaments and have to have an MD create the brackets based upon that data? Bio banding is primarily designed to benefit the late developer. Can you imagine the claims of "sand bagging" when a kid 2 years older then his bone age, and with 2 more years training, starts dominating younger kids at a bio banded tourney! With the emphasis on winning I wouldn't put it past a club to put together teams of young bone aged kids.

It appears that the clubs mentioned use bio banding in training with a split of age based training. I guess I can see some benefit to doing that on a club basis but not on a nationally competitive basis. My sons team often practiced or scrimmaged within the club with teams both younger and older...not exactly apples to oranges, though. How is "bio banding" going to work with pay-to-play? Are parents going to tolerate their kid being moved to a younger team away from their friends and peer group?

I also worry about bio banding backfiring in the US. Smaller, slower kids have to play smarter against bigger, faster kids. I think its safe to say that comparatively speaking the US has a shortage of the smarter, technical and tactical player, but no shortage of the athletic player. Is putting the smaller kid with kids his own size group going to negatively impact his need to play smarter?

I don't have the answers but it seems to me USSF is putting the cart before the horse.
 
watfly said:
In my mind US Soccer needs to learn to walk before it can run. "Bio Banding" is an advanced and unproven concept (or as one expert called it, a "joke"). USSF needs to prove that it can develop a program to consistently produce internationally competitive players (let alone world class players which it claims is the purpose of the DA) before it embarks on an program as specialized and speculative as bio banding. DA has not proven its ability to do develop this level of player, mainly because its a league, not a development program, and USSF has comparatively little investment in its success.

Unfortunately, I know more about bone density and bone age than I should have to as parent. Bone density is the only reliable way to determine where you are on the growth curve. While taking the parents height and kids weight might give an indication of a child's final height it will not tell you where the child is on the growth/maturation curve. Are they going to MRI kids for bio banded tournaments and have to have an MD create the brackets based upon that data? Bio banding is primarily designed to benefit the late developer. Can you imagine the claims of "sand bagging" when a kid 2 years older then his bone age, and with 2 more years training, starts dominating younger kids at a bio banded tourney! With the emphasis on winning I wouldn't put it past a club to put together teams of young bone aged kids.

It appears that the clubs mentioned use bio banding in training with a split of age based training. I guess I can see some benefit to doing that on a club basis but not on a nationally competitive basis. My sons team often practiced or scrimmaged within the club with teams both younger and older...not exactly apples to oranges, though. How is "bio banding" going to work with pay-to-play? Are parents going to tolerate their kid being moved to a younger team away from their friends and peer group?

I also worry about bio banding backfiring in the US. Smaller, slower kids have to play smarter against bigger, faster kids. I think its safe to say that comparatively speaking the US has a shortage of the smarter, technical and tactical player, but no shortage of the athletic player. Is putting the smaller kid with kids his own size group going to negatively impact his need to play smarter?

I don't have the answers but it seems to me USSF is putting the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...
All good points, imho. We should develop ANYONE to international standards. Pulisic did the opposite of bio-banding. He played with kids 2 years older when he was a skinny little guy.
 
MWN said:
The powers that be at the DA have made it very clear that DA clubs receive kudos and points for developing players that get invited to National Training camps, and team standings, etc., are not important. For this reason, DA tournaments are typically "showcases," where teams play 4 teams over a 5 day period and not "tournaments" with a champion. The DA doesn't even keep standings until U15. Playoffs are limited to the top 3 teams from each region with a few wildcards thrown in. Coaches at the DA level are also encouraged to play players up.

The DA could really care less if clubs are at the top or bottom of the standings, as long as, those clubs are competitive and following the DA program. The DA also tracks where players move from/to, knowing that the MLS residential programs can often pick and chose from the non-residential programs.

Contrast this with club soccer, where clubs need wins to attract parents/players. Winning programs grow and trophies are critical because most parents in club/competitive soccer perceive winning programs with college opportunities, and they would be basically correct because winning programs also tend to garner more interest and make more appearances at college showcases. "Gaming the system" is a necessary evil given the importance of wins to the customer base and will continue to be an ever present issue because parents value team performance and trophies over player development. This system rewards direct play, kick ball, over the top as a primary strategy because it results in wins against weaker teams. At the DA level, Academy Directors and Technical Directors are talked to consistently about correct training and their coaches are counseled to train their players correctly.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I've been saying in here, but people don't seem to want to hear it. In many ways DA is _less_competative than Coast - and that's a good thing.
 
ATRTDT said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but more kids in Europe aren't even going to high school. They are simply giving up their amateur status and focusing 100% on their sport and getting by with a basic education.

The pressures off if they fail since most universitys don't come with a price tag. These kids can reach for their dreams earlier with minor financial impact on the tail end.
Click to expand...
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...

Not nitpicking but hope you don't think for moment that soccer scholarship pays for full tuition and board. The NCAA limit on scholarship for soccer is about 1/3 of the total roster. Its almost unheard of to hear a full ride on soccer alone. Grades and socioeconomic need to play apart for that to happen.

There's nothing stopping players to go pro and if it doesn't work out, one can always apply and attend college for its primary purpose - formal education. Its usually the parents that won't let the kid take the chance to goto Europe, South America or wherever to try to make it. Yeah there is that Visa thing too. But many have means to do it (e.g., dual citizenship) yet still do not.

In my personal view, its not USSoccer. The key is with MLS. Once the major league sports really takes off (needs to be on the same schedule as the rest of the world too) and becomes on par with the rest of the world, the kids will have the desire to want to become a pro - just as NBA, NFL, MLB. Then it will be a lot easier to have a national team that can compete.

As a parent of a former DA player (November 23rd birthday, graduated from HS at 17 yrs old) now playing college, and a current regular club player (SCDSL Flt 1), this Bio-Banding is unnecessary micro management of age group for the very competitive players and only hurt them. There are plenty of smaller, less bulky players thriving against the bigger. What this will do is to bring the top 10~15 % into more competitive range. It will hurt the top 0.5~1% by watering it down for them.

I believe we give too little credit for individual desire and will to succeed, and try to fix everything systemically by adding more layers and procedures.

How old was Pale and size compared to adults that competed against in his first WC? I think you get what I mean......
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...

Which is why US Soccer implemented Nike Project40, now Generation Adidas.
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...
The latter thing is very important. For the kid who wants to stay Academy and try pro at 19-23 or so to have to forego collegiate eligibility is bad for both systems.
 
US soccer put out a video:


Good for US trying to do something about the status quo. The stick figure's get the point across even if the production looks like something out of HS.

I have mixed feeling personally about how this applies to the real world.

I feel both my kids benefited tremendously from playing vs bigger, stronger & older kids regularly for a number of years. There where kind of forced to focus on technical skills since that was their "pathway" to be competitive". This benefited them a bunch by the time they grew to the same size as the other players in HS. Without playing up or vs older players I don't think they would have developed as much but it was not easy by any stretch, developing mental toughness and taking your lumps is not for everyone so I can see why physically this could help out some players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top