http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/ne...oblems-american-soccer-leander-schaerlaeckens As I was reading this article and seeing the perspectives of some of the "top American soccer minds", I wondered if 20-24 MLS teams really do justice to the incredible and scouting, education, monies, and development of the young talent needed to fully cover the vast regions of the US. There are so many US states not represented in having channels of access to MLS development scouts/team tryouts. Imagine the urban areas, the rural areas, the states such as Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, the Carolinas, etc. I mean, 18-20 Top National League club teams work with smaller geographical countries, such as Germany, England, Spain, Italy, etc., but the US is arguably double if not triple the geographical size, youth playing the sport recreationally, and NEED for delevelopmental rosters associated with a MLS club. My personal feeling is as MLS grows, teams will choose to invest and recruit in their "own" youth developmental teams/programs and move away from college drafts and college soccer as a viable source for scouting and developing talent, quicker and more suited for a professional environment. College is still and always be "Amateur" because it has to abide by NCAA guidelins first, not expectations and changes necessary for professional soccer culture mandated by MLS clubs, or US Soccer. So I see MLS cclubs moving away from the NCAA restrictions they place on college soccer. Yes, this could also be an argument for having our most talented youth go the MLS Developmental Program route rather than the NCAA College Soccer route. But MLS still needs more teams that talented, promising US soccer youth can get the professional training, coaching, and overall environment to make the league better and US Soccer National Teams better. So realistically, how many MLS Teams are necessary to have their developmental teams adequately cover the vast US? With only 23-28 players per U-20, U-18, U-16 (however MLS teams organize their development program), I'm thinking 30-34 MLS Clubs necessary to cover the entire US. 20-24 MLS clubs, just doesn't seem like enough... Some interesting points that appealed to me... Bob Bradley: ""You can look at different places around the country where things are going in the right direction, money is being spent, and people have a good feel for identifying talent. Other places are behind. There is no getting around the fact that a big money commitment is still key. Germany put a lot of money into their program when they were at a low point. We've made progress, but not enough." John Hackworth: "It starts with being a cultural issue with our sport. The key period of development for a young player is at an early age, when their acquisition of technical skills is so important. But in this country that is not emphasized at the appropriate age or time in development." and... " If you're a parent and your child is trying to play a piano recital in Carnegie Hall, they practice hours and hours and hours and play just once when they've perfected it. It's the opposite for kids in soccer; they play games and play games and play games and only practice every once in a while. We have it backwards. There is too much structure. What's appropriate for kids is not winning games and tournaments. Soccer is a skill game and you need to practice and practice. Most of that for a young kid is a lot of time on the ball in an environment where an adult really shouldn't be doing much more than cultivating creativity. The ball itself is the best coach there could be." Caleb Porter: "Over time, that gets passed on and leads to uniformity, helping you to identify and isolate players that could be effective in a certain role. There are so many ways to do things that otherwise kids get lost in the shuffle. If what one coach is looking for is different from what another coach is looking for, it creates confusion." My take: College Coaching Vs. Professional MLS Developmental Team Coaching Tab Ramos: "I think at times there's no question that we're going to miss players. It's a big country and there are a lot of kids playing soccer, so it's difficult to say we're getting them all. In recent years it's become easier to identify players with the Development Academy. But obviously we need to improve and hope that down the road we're not missing any." Thomas Rongen: "First, we need full-time skills teachers at the youngest levels who can teach in a game context, through repetition, proper technique for both feet that's required at the highest level. In the successful countries, you see the best coaches at the youngest ages. We still fall short there, because coaches are paid much more to oversee the older players. I got a lot of players on the U-20 national team that were technically very deficient, and they were some of the best players in the country. That's one of the ways we need to go. Question is, how you do that? Would a YMCA in central Florida hire a skills coach? Eventually, we need to go to regional centers throughout the United States and have technical directors, coaches and specific coaches in areas of strength who would have players training a few times a week from ages 6 to 19. " "...you look at the rest of the world, most teams train four or five times as a team, as a group, but also then have two individual trainings, which are really geared towards positions. We still get players that don't know how to play a position within a certain system well. We have too many players without a position." My take: Another NCAA College Vs. MLS development Program Debate Sigi Schmid: "That means players have to play outside their age groups at the youth level or leave college early. A lot of times at the youth level it's more important for coaches to win an under-13 tournament rather than put him on the under-15. At the youth level, players get retained at a certain age group because it's going to help win a championship, because a coach might say they might make more money if they win a championship." and... "Club soccer and MLS discount college soccer because it's different than the way it's done in Europe and South America. But colleges have a budget of a million dollars for their soccer team when you add it all up, and sometimes people try to discount that. We need to make the money that's already available for soccer work better for us." Earnie Stewart: ""I see logistical problems in the United States and [NCAA limitations on practice time in college soccer] make it difficult. It all goes back to repetitions, hours and hours and hours. Kids from 18 to 22 are only practicing a few hours a week -- and these are some of the top players in the United States? That's ridiculous. If you see what we in Holland put in for hours and what the United States puts in, it's not even close."
This thread would probably be better in the Youth and Development subforum. As for how many MLS teams are needed to cover the whole country, I would say that depends on how many affiliates MLS teams are allowed to set up and how effective those affiliate relationships are at improving both the identification and coaching of players.
Well Continental USA is 3,000,000 square miles (land); say 1,000 square miles per club, that would mean 3,000 MLS clubs give or take a few hundred. How about by population? Say 1 club per million people? that means 310 MLS clubs. Next Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States
This is always such a stupid argument. We don't need a club in every city. You could have 8 clubs cover the entire United States, they would just need 5 regional academies. RSL has their Arizona academy, Columbus has their Michigan Academy, Philadelphia has 3-4 affiliated academies. Regional academies are the answer.
A lot. The Census bureau measures market-size by something called MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which they rank by population. Note that these are NOT the same as media markets, so someplace like the Bay Area might be grouped together for ranking of TV markets but is separated for MSA rankings. Here are the 55 largest MSA's not in MLS. 8. Miami 9. Atlanta 11. San Francisco (doesn’t include San Jose and the South Bay) 12. Detroit 13. Inland Empire, CA 14. Phoenix 16. Minneapolis 17. San Diego 18. St. Louis 19. Tampa 20. Baltimore 22. Pittsburgh 24. Sacramento 25. San Antonio 26. Orlando 27. Cincinnati 28. Cleveland 30. Las Vegas 33. Charlotte 34. Indianapolis 35. Austin 36. Tidewater, VA 37. Providence 38. Nashville 39. Milwaukee 40. Jacksonville 41. Memphis 42. Louisville 43. Richmond, VA 44. Oklahoma City 45. Hartford 46. New Orleans 47. Buffalo 48. Raleigh 49. Birmingham 51. Rochester, NY 52. Tucson 53. Honolulu 54. Tulsa 55. Fresno 57. Albuquerque 58. Albany, NY 59. Omaha 60. New Haven 61. Dayton, OH 62. Bakersfield, CA 63. Oxnard/Ventura, CA 64. Allentown, PA 65. Baton Rouge 66. El Paso 67. Worcester, MA 68. McAllen, TX 69. Grand Rapids, MI 70. Columbia, SC 71. Greensboro, NC Obviously some of these MSA's are fairly close and in terms of MLS expansion don't make a lot of sense because they'd duplicate TV markets and, in the case of most of the ones in the lower half of the list, are just too small to realistically support an MLS team. But, a lot of them, in terms of player development, are too far apart or the traffic too thick to make going from one to the other realistic so from a player development perspective you'd need a separate team if that's your objective because you're just not getting kids from, say San Rafael, CA just north of San Francisco going to San Jose on a daily basis. It's just not realistic. And even if you had a team - MLS or otherwise, in all these markets plus the existing MLS ones, you'd still be leaving out places like Des Moines, IA; Charleston, SC; Fort Meyers, FL and Syracuse, NY.
Why place it all on MLS? Where's the push for NASL and USL teams to have developmental academies? It shouldn't be dependent on one level of the pyramid to develop young players.
We need a system whereby a residential academy exists to minimize distance to enhance the selling of professional residential training and education to the player and family. And to allow enough spots for elite players no matter where they are from the ability to train for 5 days a week vs top talent without paying anything. It will benefit US soccer so much if we can have 250 players paying nothing traveling 75-150 miles for top training rather than 40 players traveling 1000 miles. With that said there is no perfect answer. We need an MLS team to make the jump and prove to the rest of the MLS it is viable talent acquisition tool longterm. Essentially if we have the MLS teams all with residential training it will allow players the ability to have family closer making the sale easier and increase those who are getting the number and quality of training the rest of the world can offer. Until then I hope we are putting money away or selling the idea to large corporate sponsors to start digging or renting apartments close to training or developing host family infrastructure.
You make a good point but unfortunately that's where the money is. Until NASL and USL can increase revenues to the point the can easily pay salaries every year with consistency and then develop academies that's the role of 78 DA's. The professional development pyramid in my mind is Rec - USYS - Non-MLS DA - MLS DA - Reserve - First Team. NASL and USL are so disjointed to that system its hard for me to envision them taking any significant role in true development. Sure HS, Club, College, NASL and USL will all take a small role but its so patchwork and not integrated we need to develop one solid pyramid progression then work on the others with limited resources with soccer in US 2012
Exactly. If San Rafael is really that far a drive, then San Jose can set up an Academy north of the bay. They can set up an academy in Sacramento. MLS teams aren't limited to having only one academy.
You've also got a lot of teams that are pretty limited by their geographical regions. Portland produces some good players. But if 15 years down the line we're all relying primarily on developmental academies, we'd never win a game against Dallas or LA. And expanding to Bend or Eugene just isn't going to cut it. If I were Merritt Paulson, I would be trying to stick a second academy somewhere in the Southwest, Southeast or Florida as soon as possible.
OK, let me re-phrase then. Where's the push for financially secure large soccer organizations outside of MLS to develop pro-ready players? I know lots of NASL and USL have financial challenges, but that doesn't mean they can't aim to have development success (and some of the USL teams have strong youth systems already in place, they just don't link between them and the pro team as seamlessly as MLS is trying to). Where are the PDL or NPSL or (pie in the sky) USL Pro teams extending the age levels of the clubs in the developmental academy and possibly giving them a chance to sign someone at 17 and sell them domestically or even internationally? My main point was to take on the myopia of the OP. It's a huge country. Youth development just can't be laid at the feet of MLS and we need to push other levels of the structure to take a more holistic view of themselves as a club and not a youth program.
In theory a very good post. In practice I just don't know how the NASL and USL will have the financial resources. How do you push financial resources. NASL and USL will have to secure youth development financing themselves. USSF is too busy working with developing USSF Development Academies and MLS are working with their own acamemies. They don't even have the money to really fix the 2 major issues within their organizations USSF pay to play and MLS with residential academies. You ask where's the push, ask them *NASL and USL its up to them. I think they would answer we got alot of other issues we're working on. We have essentially only 2 large financially secure soccer development organizations. USSF and MLS. They drive the development dollar. Right now we have no integrated development process. There is one starting with the USSF DA's and MLS DA's beginning to cooperate. Unfortunately NASL and USL are independent organizations without any affiliations with USSF and MLS. I do think there may be an opportunity to bring NASL and USL ultimately into that developing pyramid and relationship that's starting to grow. It's just #42 on a list of things that need to be done.
Just to chip in, the Dynamo also have academy connections now in several locations: McAllen, TX - South Texas Academy is a full operation and has U15, U17, and U18 teams All of these cities have Dynamo Juniors programs: Austin, TX El Paso,TX Lafayette, LA Gulfport, MS Mobile, AL Gulf Breeze, FL Cocula, Mexico I think the initial thread starting question was kind of limited. MLS teams can all have multiple academy teams.
While this is true, MLS teams are limited in who they can sign from their academies. Players need to be homegrown...i.e. live within a certain radius of the market in order to be signed directly from the academy. At least that is what the rule was when the academies first were announced by MLS. If that rule has changed, I haven't seen it. There are about 100 different things that need to happen, but 5 more "Bradenton's" spread out around the country would help. You can stick one in the mid Atlantic (Baltimore area perhaps). One in San Diego. One in Chicago. One somewhere in Texas and one in the Denver area. At least this way, you have US academies set up covering most of the US. You quintuple the number of kids in residency. Can set up a uniform training program. Kids and families aren't as displaced by having just one academy in the farthest corner of the US possible. But that takes shitloads of money to accomplish. Shitloads of money that US Soccer simply doesn't have.
Not any more. Initially, you could only add players to your academy team that were in a 75 mile radius. However, the league now makes exceptions. Your MLS teams homegrown territory is now 75 miles radius of your stadium, plus whatever territory you ask for and the league grants you. So RSL can sign players from Arizona. Columbus can sign players in the Detroit area. Basically, if an MLS team wanted to set up an academy and sign players from Florida, all they would have to do is state their case.
Honest questions. Has there been a single example to date of MLS granting a team permission to sign a player from well outside of that 75 mile radius? What is the criteria for MLS granting these additional territories? Because if I'm running a team, I lay claim to every square inch of land in the United States not within 75 miles of my opponents stadium. The rules seem a little too vague, and I have a feeling that MLS headquarters aren't going to let Seattle claim the Miami area as their "homegrown" territory.
Well as long as we're throwing random numbers out there... MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL all have 30-32 teams... so I am going to say between 30-40 MLS teams.
I am in favor of further MLS expansion in order to further youth development, because more teams means more stakeholders in youth development and more resources devoted to it. But as has been pointed out, there will never be enough MLS teams to adequately cover the U.S., which is why affiliates and residential academies are so important. In the long run, I'd like to see every MLS team have a residential academy as well as several affiliates and for each team to have teams down to the U-10 level.
I've wondered this myself...what if an expansion team goes to a place where a team or teams have affiliates? I suppose one solution is to use a portion of the expansion fee for the expansion team to buy the affiliates in question. So the team that set up the affiliate gets compensated for the efforts they put in but doesn't infringe on the new team's territory.
Like many on BS you missed the water even though all you had to do was fall out of the boat given what was written. It was good to see that some of our better coaches actually understand the problem. The problem is not at U16-U18-U20-U23 but instead at U6, U8, U10 and U13. Let me help. Bob Bradley, "It still comes down to how many good people get with clubs and are working with young kids to make sure things are done right. ... Bob Jenkins compiled a best-practices document, which was good. [U.S. Youth Soccer technical director] Claudio Reyna's [coaching blueprint] is a good starting point, in that it adds consistency. But giving someone a stack of papers doesn't ensure that the quality of work is what it needs to be. That's where we are right now." John Hackworth, youth development coordinator, Philadelphia Union "It starts with being a cultural issue with our sport. The key period of development for a young player is at an early age, when their acquisition of technical skills is so important. But in this country that is not emphasized at the appropriate age or time in development. " Thomas Rongen, academy director, Toronto FC "I think there are two components that, to me, are very important that right now we're not addressing and if we don't, we'll continue to produce pretty good but not great players. First, we need full-time skills teachers at the youngest levels who can teach in a game context, through repetition, proper technique for both feet that's required at the highest level. In the successful countries, you see the best coaches at the youngest ages. We still fall short there, because coaches are paid much more to oversee the older players. I got a lot of players on the U-20 national team that were technically very deficient, and they were some of the best players in the country. Earnie Stewart, technical director, AZ Alkmaar "It starts with coaching. A lot of players in the United States from this generation or the generation before that didn't get to meet up with good coaches until they were 18 or 19, at which time they went to the MLS and then all of a sudden their education and development started at a later age.