The Notre Dame story has another subplot: On top of Joe Lapira and soph GK Andrew Quinn (next year's apparent starter) it seems Bobby Clark may also help Jack Traynor get a look at Aberdeen. The clan of Americans could even increase to three if the Dons decide to take up the offer to look at Notre Dame left-back Jack Traynor. Link: http://www.thisisaberdeen.co.uk/dis...tentPK=17147335&folderPk=85371&pNodeId=148325 Jack is a sophomore and an '87 with a Scottish grandfather. College bio: http://und.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/mtt/traynor_jack00.html
If a decent sized European club is really interested in mining talent from US colleges... Why wouldn't they pay for one dedicated employee (scout) who looks at all the colleges, scouts many X the players than in the Notre Dame relationship, and then manages a process in which Aberdeen brings in several players during the year. It just seems doing this on the cheap doesn't make sense. There should be a lot more bang in the buck with a little investment- potentially a huge return (if you sign a re-sellable player). After all, there are only so many players at Notre Dame- especially those good enough to offer Aberdeen something (+ easily qualify for work)
Why spend money when one of your team's most beloved and trusted former players is doing the work for you for free? Yeah, they're limiting themselves to players Bobby Clark likes and recruits but it's not costing them anything and they're getting a chance to scout some good players. On the flipside, if I'm a high-end D-I recruit who is eligible for an EU passport, Notre Dame is going to to the top of my list for colleges I want to play at. Nothing like having a coach who can arrange a trial in Europe with one phone call. That's something very few, if any, other coaches in college soccer can do.
The degree to which overseas scouting in this country is still done on the cheap would probably stun us given the amount of teenage talent we have here. Probably the Mexican clubs are the only ones that do anything close to systematic beyond attending ESP and Dallas Cup and watching our YNTs play. I suppose that's bound to change eventually, at least in the major cities.
I agree is that is the best way to do a (pretty riskless, no/low cost) way of finding a 'nugget'. But time is money, lost opportunity is money- and if these clubs really believed there was a wealth of talent here....I just think (just an opinion) that it is proper risk/reward to invest some more resources. On Aberdeen scale, I'd think one fairly paid, but knowledgeable resource would make sense. If you source one player (that later can sell for $1m), then you've paid for that dedicated employee's cost over a 10 year period or more. On a grander scale: If I were a Barcelona/Real Madrid, I would have bought into MLS a while back (Miami), and developed a strong US/Latin America connection complete with full academy, branding, schooling....surely given how the big clubs throw money around (on just one middling player), the investment would have been worth it (regardless of asset appreciation of the club). Now, given the rise in expansion fee, etc.- I'm not as sure if that is such a no-brainer, but certainly I'd think an academy in Miami for Barcelona would make sense.
There were at least three pro combines in the U.S. earlier this year -- MLS, USL and InfoSport. Add in ESP and maybe the regional ID camps and you have quite a few combines. But I don't get the sense that anyone in this country or otherwise thinks they are really all that valuable. Grassroots scouting is the solution, but in a country this size you really probably need quite a few people doing it to unearth good prospects -- and that's if you're not competing with anyone else (which, of course, you would be). No wonder clubs would rather do it on the cheap.
Eh, yes and no. You can show speed, acceleration, strength, etc. If you add a few small-side 3 vs. 3 and 5 vs. 5 games, you can get a sense about the tactical abilities. At least, that will give the clubs an idea about a player. Then they could just get the top candidates to their own facilities and run extended trials there. But they don't get the same players, do they? The hierarchy is MLS first, then USL and finally InfoSport? IMO, if MLS picks the top candidates, then it's unlikely for the lower combines to attract the same quality talent. Then it becomes sort of like the East vs. West All-Star game in Hawaii vs the North-South game in Montgomery, Alabama. The top stars will be in Hawaii for a de facto combine. North-South will get some decent performers but very of the Rd 1 or 2 candidates. Still, if this is what the NFL does, the idea can't be that dumb.
Nitpicking but the Senior Bowl in Mobile, Alabama is by far the most prestigious of the all-star invitational bowl games, with the Hula Bowl and Shrine Bowl, respetively, next on the pecking order. After that, you have a handful of other games. However, only the Senior Bowl is run by the NFL. Plus, these are completely different than the NFL Combine since you practice for a week (doing positional drills and plays, often in pads and helmet) and then play a full game. The NFL Combine essentially tests athletic ability and not much else.
They have the same purpose. The All-Star games are obviously more exclusive (and yes, I was picking on the Senior Bowl). My original point is that if, let's say, Bundesliga, Jupiler, Tippeligaen, Eredivisie, SAS, Alsvenskan, etc. decided to put together a combine for the US prospects, they'd be able to share costs and still audition a number of players that they are unlikely to see under the present system.