Poll: Changing the Tournament Scene

[mirage]

Looking at it from a purely developmental perspective (and putting the players first, as we should), the two most important features are:

1. One full length game per day - self explanatory why this is important; we all know the kids are not best served playing multiple games in one day.
2. Showcases rather than tournaments - if this is not obvious, the main benefit is that it (hopefully) reduces some of the intense emphasis that coaches and parents place on winning (although it doesn't remove it completely). The showcase format is much better than the standard tournament format where you can potentially play 4/5 games and everyone is obsessed with making the final.

It's interesting that this board is (I expect) mostly used by parents and coaches and yet the two features above are not rated as the most important. Perhaps this is an indication that we still don't actually know what it is we should be changing to primarily benefit the the players, not ourselves (location and flexible schedules etc benefits parents/coaches but doesn't make a big difference to the players).

Okay, enough with development as the main theme.

What is the purpose of soccer development? Ultimately to be a better player to do what?

Win games.

Tournament is not the place for major development. It is a place for measuring progress of development. There has to be a consequence to doing well or poorly.

The biggest nonsense we read is winning doesn't matter, its development. At youngers - we all agree. As players gets older, learning to win is a key part of development.

There are more superstar practice players that suck in games than those who actually perform when it counts. But the practice superstars excel at development..... Except one key aspect in a game (life for that matter) - performing under pressure and making outcomes count. This actually maybe one of the most important development we don't discuss because its really about the person and not something that can be taught on the field.

Its okay to celebrate winning and feel disappointment for losing. Its all part of the game and the reason why we play.

We used to have a emoji animation that's beating a dead horse.... Can really use it here.

 

[Paul Spacey]

Okay, enough with development as the main theme.

What is the purpose of soccer development? Ultimately to be a better player to do what?

Win games.

Tournament is not the place for major development. It is a place for measuring progress of development. There has to be a consequence to doing well or poorly.

The biggest nonsense we read is winning doesn't matter, its development. At youngers - we all agree. As players gets older, learning to win is a key part of development.

There are more superstar practice players that suck in games than those who actually perform when it counts. But the practice superstars excel at development..... Except one key aspect in a game (life for that matter) - performing under pressure and making outcomes count. This actually maybe one of the most important development we don't discuss because its really about the person and not something that can be taught on the field.

Its okay to celebrate winning and feel disappointment for losing. Its all part of the game and the reason why we play.

We used to have a emoji animation that's beating a dead horse.... Can really use it here.

If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development.

Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.

The state of youth soccer and the standard of players the US is producing at the top level would suggest to me (and most others who have a modicum of understanding of the game and athlete development) that we don’t have the approach right here, yet. The large number of ignorant, crazy people involved in youth soccer who think winning is the priority are a big part of that. So we have to change, that’s obvious.

At older ages, I agree with you that winning becomes more important but we’re only talking High School onwards IMO (even then it’s not purely about winning, there is still a lot of developing to do!) Anything before that should be purely development. Nobody gives a shit about who won the ocean surf cowboy cup as a 12 year old but we have swathes of teams, coaches and parents so fixated on winning that they encourage kids to smash the ball from end to end then celebrate being the ‘best’. It’s not a minor issue here; it’s a massive problem at all levels of youth soccer, regardless of the flight or standard. So forgive me for mentioning the word development again.

You say tournaments are not the place for development? In youth soccer, every game is the place for development; that’s why you and I likely do not see youth soccer in the same way and that’s ok. I’m genuinely interested to know though if you are a coach, parent, club official? What is your involvement with soccer?

 

[Grace T.]

If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development.

Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.

The state of youth soccer and the standard of players the US is producing at the top level would suggest to me (and most others who have a modicum of understanding of the game and athlete development) that we don’t have the approach right here, yet. The large number of ignorant, crazy people involved in youth soccer who think winning is the priority are a big part of that. So we have to change, that’s obvious.

At older ages, I agree with you that winning becomes more important but we’re only talking High School onwards IMO (even then it’s not purely about winning, there is still a lot of developing to do!) Anything before that should be purely development. Nobody gives a shit about who won the ocean surf cowboy cup as a 12 year old but we have swathes of teams, coaches and parents so fixated on winning that they encourage kids to smash the ball from end to end then celebrate being the ‘best’. It’s not a minor issue here; it’s a massive problem at all levels of youth soccer, regardless of the flight or standard. So forgive me for mentioning the word development again.

You say tournaments are not the place for development? In youth soccer, every game is the place for development; that’s why you and I likely do not see youth soccer in the same way and that’s ok. I’m genuinely interested to know though if you are a coach, parent, club official? What is your involvement with soccer?

And it's not just that. What great life lessons are we teaching players if they are bringing down gold level players to whip other teams at bronze level tournament play? We're not challenging the gold level players, we aren't teaching the bronze players getting whipped anything other than tournaments are awful, and we're not developing the bronze level kids on the winning team who either sit on the bench or watch the gold players pass it between them. The only ones that benefit are the parents looking for the win, the coaches looking to keep their jobs, and the DOCs looking to recruit more players. Like I said, there was a long list of complaints on the soccer announcement boards particularly about the tournament play this summer. I witnessed it myself, from a midsize club that was looking to recruit more players for their C squad by playing up their "winning" record (gotta have the picture of the kids with their medals when looking for that impact player on an ad). Adding prize money into this mix would make what's going on, particularly with the youngers, even more awful. Outside of the highest levels and showcases (where guest play won't really make much of a difference), there should be strict limits on the amount of guest players and from what level they transfer.

 

[mirage]

If so many coaches, parents and people involved with youth soccer weren’t absolutely, utterly fixated beyond belief with winning, we wouldn’t have to talk about development.

Winning and losing is part of the game and celebrating or being disappointed is fine too; nobody would argue that our kids need to learn that.

The state of youth soccer and the standard of players the US is producing at the top level would suggest to me (and most others who have a modicum of understanding of the game and athlete development) that we don’t have the approach right here, yet. The large number of ignorant, crazy people involved in youth soccer who think winning is the priority are a big part of that. So we have to change, that’s obvious.

At older ages, I agree with you that winning becomes more important but we’re only talking High School onwards IMO (even then it’s not purely about winning, there is still a lot of developing to do!) Anything before that should be purely development. Nobody gives a shit about who won the ocean surf cowboy cup as a 12 year old but we have swathes of teams, coaches and parents so fixated on winning that they encourage kids to smash the ball from end to end then celebrate being the ‘best’. It’s not a minor issue here; it’s a massive problem at all levels of youth soccer, regardless of the flight or standard. So forgive me for mentioning the word development again.

You say tournaments are not the place for development? In youth soccer, every game is the place for development; that’s why you and I likely do not see youth soccer in the same way and that’s ok. I’m genuinely interested to know though if you are a coach, parent, club official? What is your involvement with soccer?

You are making two assumptions.
1 - my comments are for youngers and that the whole thread is about youngers
2 - somehow by articulating and spouting out how US players don't measure up has all to do with development

Those who frequent this forum know that I have boys, not girls, one playing in college and another in HS, since I refer to them time to time. I have lived through U-little to now, at rec to DA levels, and now college.

I have on countless threads, both old and new forum, have said NO ONE CARES how many tournaments a kid won at 12 or goals scored/saved. It is meaningless. Its only meaningful when they are ready to be recruited into college/pro level. I have worked with coaches who are also professional scouts that have shared similar thoughts.

Just tired of reading thread after thread rhetorically discussing how our development is wrong and that we don't produce world class players - don't you agree? All of us are not stupid or ignorant - we have recall and anyone beating on the same soapbox DOES NOTHING.

This is a tournament concepts and approaches thread, and not development thread. Not every thread needs to be about development. Give it a rest....

As for the US problems in soccer (again, not the subject of this thread), its neither development or available players leftover from other major sports. Its simply our approach and player selection. There are plenty of talented players in US that can compete globally. We just don't pick them because of local politics, stereotypes, and mentality - both on players and coaches sides. Its really total lack of innovation.

 

[Paul Spacey]

You are making two assumptions.
1 - my comments are for youngers and that the whole thread is about youngers
2 - somehow by articulating and spouting out how US players don't measure up has all to do with development

Those who frequent this forum know that I have boys, not girls, one playing in college and another in HS, since I refer to them time to time. I have lived through U-little to now, at rec to DA levels, and now college.

I have on countless threads, both old and new forum, have said NO ONE CARES how many tournaments a kid won at 12 or goals scored/saved. It is meaningless. Its only meaningful when they are ready to be recruited into college/pro level. I have worked with coaches who are also professional scouts that have shared similar thoughts.

Just tired of reading thread after thread rhetorically discussing how our development is wrong and that we don't produce world class players - don't you agree? All of us are not stupid or ignorant - we have recall and anyone beating on the same soapbox DOES NOTHING.

This is a tournament concepts and approaches thread, and not development thread. Not every thread needs to be about development. Give it a rest....

As for the US problems in soccer (again, not the subject of this thread), its neither development or available players leftover from other major sports. Its simply our approach and player selection. There are plenty of talented players in US that can compete globally. We just don't pick them because of local politics, stereotypes, and mentality - both on players and coaches sides. Its really total lack of innovation.

Fair enough, you’re right on all counts; I’ll step aside and go look for that beating the dead horse emoji animation. *sigh*

 

[AFC]

Fair enough, you’re right on all counts; I’ll step aside and go look for that beating the dead horse emoji animation. *sigh*

 

[Zdrone]

View attachment 2960

 

[outside!]

Poor Eeyore.

 

[jpeter]

For the olders I like the prize money idea, if you're playing to win anyway would be nice to get your entry fee back instead of the dust collecting medals.

I heard that DSL is doing this for the discovery division champions & they also get acceptance to surf cup or something like that.

The competition for some tournament can be pretty uneven, the brackets spread out the competition so basically the first place team or seeds sometimes dont even get a good match out of bracket play. By the fourth, fifth, sixth match when better competition is found the quality can be lacking with the tired teams and legs. Seems kind of backwards to me, would rather see the top seeds play each other right away. Not sure what the solution is but would rather play three games vs better comp vs 3 games vs avg comp. Sometimes tournament seem like a waste of time partly due to the way the competition is spread out far and wide, too many or not enough flights I suppose.

To many games in too short of a time span is the number one problem in tournaments in my opinion for olders In the usa. Like somebody else mentioned the week-long tournaments they have in Europe are a much better experience for the players who can play better with sufficient rest.

 

[timbuck]

In all seriousness- there is obviously s demand for year round soccer. We have the fall season. The winter tournament season. The state cup season. The spring season. The summer tournament season.
Why doesn’t SCDSL just do something year round? Take a few weeks off beteeen seasons. Have a playoff at the end of each season.
Let coaches pick an additional 8 weekends that they won’t be able to play.

 

[outside!]

I am sure most managers would like to see check in at the field on the morning of the first game instead of the night before at some hotel.

 

[espola]

How about something like CSL's League Cup, but open to everyone and with games played on Sundays all year long, with flexible scheduling to allow teams to play in their local leagues or other tournaments, except for the final few rounds (top 8 maybe?) scheduled at neutral locations by the organizers.

 

[MWN]

In all seriousness- there is obviously s demand for year round soccer. We have the fall season. The winter tournament season. The state cup season. The spring season. The summer tournament season.
Why doesn’t SCDSL just do something year round? Take a few weeks off beteeen seasons. Have a playoff at the end of each season.
Let coaches pick an additional 8 weekends that they won’t be able to play.

Fundamentally, the problem with having a "Summer" league is that clubs use it to fund-raise and operating a summer league would tick-off the clubs. Moreover, one of the nice things about the tournaments is that it allows clubs to reorganize and build their teams.

 

[timbuck]

Fundamentally, the problem with having a "Summer" league is that clubs use it to fund-raise and operating a summer league would tick-off the clubs. Moreover, one of the nice things about the tournaments is that it allows clubs to reorganize and build their teams.

Not every club has a tournament. How do those clubs that don’t host a tournament survive without the fundraising income?

 

[Dargle]

Looking at it from a purely developmental perspective (and putting the players first, as we should), the two most important features are:

1. One full length game per day - self explanatory why this is important; we all know the kids are not best served playing multiple games in one day.
2. Showcases rather than tournaments - if this is not obvious, the main benefit is that it (hopefully) reduces some of the intense emphasis that coaches and parents place on winning (although it doesn't remove it completely). The showcase format is much better than the standard tournament format where you can potentially play 4/5 games and everyone is obsessed with making the final.

It's interesting that this board is (I expect) mostly used by parents and coaches and yet the two features above are not rated as the most important. Perhaps this is an indication that we still don't actually know what it is we should be changing to primarily benefit the the players, not ourselves (location and flexible schedules etc benefits parents/coaches but doesn't make a big difference to the players).

Why "showcases" and not friendlies? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. Friendlies offer reduced costs and you have more freedom to determine your opponents, location, and number of games per day. Moreover, the vast majority of kids don't need or want to be showcased for scouts anyway, so there's no big loss there.

Seems like there are three possible explanations - (1) Revenue - clubs hosting tournaments/showcases count on those revenues to fund operations and clubs attending them use their teams' successes to drive registrations, which helps their revenue, both of which may help access to the extent they help keep overall costs down or permit scholarships, (2) Value/fun of competition - there's probably both a team bonding and player focus value of tournaments where the pressure to win helps some kids "get it" and gives them fun memories, (3) tournaments/showcases are efficient in the sense that it takes time and effort for a coach or TA to schedule friendlies and sometimes a team is too remote to really get many friendly opportunities anyway.

I'm not sure either of the first two explanations are really sufficient to outweigh the costs (but maybe others view it as a close call) and the third explanation has become less relevant as scrimmage boards have developed and teams have started renting fields for weekends and opening them up as "matchmakers" to permit non-stop friendlies between other teams. I do know that many more friendlies are being scheduled than when I first started as a club parent a decade ago and many teams are reducing the number of tournaments they attend per year at the same time that the number of tournaments being run has increased. Lots of tournaments are begging for teams to fill out brackets now. Although many Orange County clubs still overload on tournaments, particularly in the summer, other clubs have cut back. What has occurred more is the destination tournament, either for a specific reason (e.g., an east case showcase for a high level team of kids looking to showcase themselves to colleges in that area) or for a vacation-style experience.

I also know that parents in other parts of the western states view SoCal parents as having it really good tournament-wise. One Utah dad told me he spent in the five digits last year on soccer because they travel out-of-state for most of their tournaments. Parents from Hawaii, Colorado, Washington, and even Northern California are jealous of us because they feel like we have so many great tournaments we can go to without ever paying for airfare or even hotels.

 

[timbuck]

I just thought of a new business idea. Like a “Tinder” for friendlies.
Build a team profile. How far are you willing to travel. What weekends are you available? Do you have/need a field? Cost to play? Refs? What flight? Is your coach a jerk or not?

 

[SPChamp1]

I like the fundraising possibility. Perhaps instead of the tournament or host club getting the full kickback at “Stay to Play” tournaments maybe each team could get a cut of that. Even a small portion of that could come back and help subsidize the cost of the coach’s room fees which almost every team pays for to begin with.

 

[SPChamp1]

I just thought of a new business idea. Like a “Tinder” for friendlies.
Build a team profile. How far are you willing to travel. What weekends are you available? Do you have/need a field? Cost to play? Refs? What flight? Is your coach a jerk or not?

I like that idea. I can’t program or write code for crap, but I’ll Beta test the hell out of it for you.

 

[focomoso]

One full length game per day (not two shortened games)

While this always sounds like a good idea, it ends up being a major inconvenience. DA tournaments are done this way (with a day off on Friday because of the "no more than two days in a row" rule) which means that in a typical 4 game tournament, you have two games during the week. It's very hard for some players to make it to these games because of school / parents working etc. and the kids are often exhausted and many don't show up.

 

[Simisoccerfan]

While this always sounds like a good idea, it ends up being a major inconvenience. DA tournaments are done this way (with a day off on Friday because of the "no more than two days in a row" rule) which means that in a typical 4 game tournament, you have two games during the week. It's very hard for some players to make it to these games because of school / parents working etc. and the kids are often exhausted and many don't show up.

We have not been to any 4 game DA events. All the official showcases are 3 games in 4 days. It’s about the kids not the parents. In fact parents don’t even need to go since our club travels and stays together as a team. If you are worried about parent inconvenience and want your 4 game in two day events (which I think is not good for the kids) play at a lower level. My kid had no issue with excelling in school while missing a few days.

 

[mirage]

In travel baseball, there is a such a thing called "scout" style game format.

The teams play multiple shortened (3 innings - the roster bats at least once) games. It allows scouts to see different players and situations very quickly without having to sit through the whole game (6~9 innings depending on the age of the team).

If one were to apply the similar concept to soccer, you can have three to four 20~30 minute games with different opponents without a half time. No score is kept and the 100% focus is on displaying players in the front of scouts. These games are back-to-back since they are short (before many of you with youngers get upset over the rest time and number of games in a day, scouts are not looking at them. Its for older players and these are very short games).

If you are playing these kind of games, you can have any given players play 2 games out of four, say, and only really play 40 minutes at the most.

I believe Albion had something similar to this yesterday morning at the Robb field in SD for college coaches.

So if its a showcase, why not put scouts' interest first. They really don't care to sit through a whole half, let alone the whole game. Most can tell within the first 10 minutes or less about if the player is worth pursuing further. This is true in all sports. Your can almost tell how good the player is by simply watching warmup, jogging and attitude.