Youngsters in MLS (1997 or later)

Can't you say the same thing in every league?

Teams want to win. You play the players who are performing. The overpaid players may get moved and the underpaid players will look for a raise or a move to somewhere where they will get paid.

Montero got benched numerous times in Seattle. He was a little streaky.
Ljunberg got benched and was sent packing. He had a bad attitude that wasn't helpful.
Blaze Nkufo got bought out and sent packing after half a season maybe.
Christian Tiffert wasn't working out and he wasn't kept around.

A player actually has to perform to get playing time. That's the way it works in any league.

Every league has players at different levels of pay. But they still have to perform to get playing time. Same in MLS.

You can't just make shit up then only apply it to MLS and not the rest of the world.

 

Who is making anything up? There have been a number of posts with data on this thread about how little US youth domestics actually play in MLS, especially compared to European leagues. It’s not even in the same ballpark. Are we expecting the Bundesliga to develop our youth for us?

 

They have to earn the playing time.

You were making stuff up about players not getting played because of what they get paid.

You think MLS is investing millions of dollars per team each year to not develop players?

They are the ones leading the charge with respect to youth development in the US, not USSF. And you think they are going to just going to not play their youth because? Another player makes more money? HGPs get cap exemption, if they are good enough to start regularly that means the team can shift resources to other positions on the field to make the team stronger. Even young players who aren't HGPs and are on lower salaries will be seen this way.

Reality is, MLS is improving yearly and signing better players. It's not as easy for a kid to get minutes as it was 10 years ago.

A player like Carleton who spent large portions of last season away from his team for youth tournaments isn't going to get much of an opportunity.

This year he will get the chance to fully integrate with the team. He will be competing with and against players making up the best attack in the league. He will learn a lot from those players and hopefully he earns some playing time and then has the opportunity to show he deserves more.

 

Not sure if it was mentioned already but SJ signed '98 Eric Calvillo.

 

MLS has reserve roster spots that can only be filled with homegrown players.

 

Spots 27-30 on the roster I believe?

 

Reserve roster is 25-28 and has to be either homegrown players or players on minimum salaries under 24 years old. 29-30 have to be homegrown players.

 

Let’s provide a little context. In 2017 6 US U-20 players received 1,000+ minutes in MLS. Six. The below leagues had the following for their own U20 domestic players:

EPL-11
Bundesliga-23
La Liga-28
Ligue 1-36
Serie A-17

Let’s take it a step further. The percentage of total minutes played for U-22 Americans in MLS last year was 2%. The below leagues had the following:

Serie A- 4.2%
EPL- 4.5%
La Liga- 5.1%
Bundesliga- 7.6%
Ligue 1- 9.5%

Do all those leagues not value competition for roster spots? Is the Timbers’ drive to eek into a playoff spot greater than Schalke’s drive to finish in a Champions League place? Does Columbus want to win more than Swansea and Hamburg want to not get relegated?

 

Nope.

Other leagues participate in the global market and global business with a completely different set of incentives than MLS does.

I'm not going to go thru all the differences again but the business environment and incentives in the Ered or Bund or Ligue 1 are a universe away from what we have here.

 

DPs have a purpose, but the “artificially” increase the quality of play. I am suggesting that teams limit the number to as few as they can to get all the benefits, but that it doesn’t interfere with the focus of raising the game of the Americans that make up the bottom half of the roster. I think that ideal number is 2 or 3. All the energy and money spent toward the 4-7 players, should be focused scouting, coaching and spreading minutes to raise the bottom up.

My thoughts on this arent thoroughly thought out but more a first attempt at a draft outline that needs many more details to fill in the holes and determine the priorities. For example, i actually think the 4th division side should be the priority. That team should be a development squad that is complete u23. I’m not sure if I wouldn’t push the the current USL side to the 3rd division. The ideal for the second division side should be competitive side which should be similarly to the MLS side in terms focus on winning games. So you have u23 development team to connect to the DA, a 3rd division development side with no age restriction side, and then first and second team focused on competing. I think the point of designing and communicating the the structure allows teams to move at their pace. Just like with the DA and USL, some teams have embraced while others have lagged. The ambitious teams should be able accelerate their process as opposed to waiting the laggers to complete the USL phase before determining what the next one.

Very oversimplified response... The key positive of pro/rel is it allows anyone who wants a team to have one. It decentralizes the sport from being run by 30 billionaires. It then rewards those that succeed as opposed to currently needing to get into system and becoming a closed network of people who gets the jobs. It has the possibility of finding quality caoches and owners and gives them a platform to increase their impact on the game here.

At the top, it punishes the apethetic teams that spend less and regularly don’t make the playoffs by dropping them down a level if they don’t produce. It is a carrot and stick approach that allows more people into the game and rewards the best. Let’s not get into debat on this here. More than happy to discuss offline.​

 

Maybe those players actually, you know, earned their playing time.
Maybe there is just a higher level of talent in those countries...

It couldn't be that simple could it? Maybe their best youth stick around a little longer.

Not all MLS teams academies are equal. But nearly every single one of them is working to improve. The 2nd team initiative has only been going for a few years now.

So first they got the academy system up and running. They worked on expanding it down to younger ages. They are working to get more coaches coaching licenses and higher level certifications.

Now they are building up the pathway between academy to first team. They are creating the 2nd teams and putting them into the 2nd and 3rd divisions. So young players are now getting the opportunity to develop and prove themselves to work their way up the ladder.

You want to snap your fingers and think everything can be solved in a year?
This is stuff that will take more than 10 years to fully integrate. 10 years from now with a more fully fleshed out D3 and a stronger D2 we will still be playing catch up.

That is just the reality of the situation.

Our Americans who go abroad and actually get minutes in top leagues, they would be getting minutes in MLS as well. Its ok if they seek out challenging situations though. I would venture to guess those comparable players in other countries in Europe stick around in their home leagues longer where as ours our more likely to leave.

Players find their level. Maybe we just aren't at the level of Germany, Spain, Italy and England yet. Shocking right?

Its almost as if they have a deeply embedded soccer culture that has been going on for a hundred years and is deeply ingrained into their societies...

 

From an American development perspective the major improvements need to be made at the academy and USL levels. We aren’t producing enough players good enough to fill out MLS rosters. The answer isn’t to make MLS worse. It’s to create and improve the AAA, AA, A levels of the game.

 

I am curious about 11 EPL domestic players from U20 getting that much time in the EPL. This was an article from the daily mail that listed the number of minute by teenagers from mid May 2017. I guess a lot of minutes could be picked up by those who played U20 but were no longer teenagers or maybe it is folks who played U20 and started getting minutes this year after they turned 20 (but who didn't play much in the 16-17 season). I am just trying to understand the data. Can you point me to the source? From what I saw the EPL youngsters played fewer minutes than MLS youngsters. I am not seeing a ton of time for teenagers in La Liga either. There have been a good number in Germany and France.

Everton 2140
Manchester United 1924
Manchester City 464
West Brom 386
Hull City 313
Liverpool 256
Stoke City 240
Southampton 155
Burnley 107
Bournemouth 81
Watford 38
Tottenham 18
Sunderland 9
Arsenal 1
Chelsea 0
West Ham 0
Leicester City 0
Crystal Palace 0
Middlesbrough 0
Swansea 0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...elsea-failed-play-single-teenager-season.html

 

It was dug up from earlier in this thread, I’ll try to locate it and copy it here. Semantics, but the daily mail described teeenagers, whereas other U-20 data includes those 20years of age and younger, so that could be the reason for the discrepancy

 

Agree that 1-3 dp's on a team can be beneficial if they are the right dp. More important than dp's is raising the level of play so that it is consistent over most of the team. It is ok to have 1-3 players that are clearly a step or two above the rest but it shouldn't be at the expense of the overall quality of the middle class. Ideally, that same concept would apply to the divisions as well. first division clearly better than 2nd but not too big of a gap. I agree we need multiple levels and am not positive that solidifying d2 first (as I suggested) is best. The main reason I said that is I suspect it might be best to spend more time on USL now instead of leaving it half finished. It is a lower level and we need to fill in the gap anyway and USL is partway done we might as well finish that and then work on the next one...whether that is d4 or d3 is almost unimportant in my mind. perhaps we are already at the point where we can take on the building of a d3 or d4 team while also continuing to strengthen USL? I don't have that knowledge...just making a few assumptions that we, as a country may not be able to support it yet. I don't know the number of teams needed to begin a d3. My guess is that it would work better as a small regional league to start (10 or so teams in a relatively small but populated area with a lot of ethnic neighborhoods...maybe near the east coast somewhere that could branch out and spread from there?

If it is financially feasible for some of the teams to field a d2 and a d3 (or d4) team while others play catchup that is fine. Right now, USL is made up of a combination of teams supported by MLS and teams that are independent. I expect that to continue and see nothing wrong with it.

 

Are you referring to MLS teams forming D2 AND D3/D4 teams?

Because USL is forming D3 already. http://www.usld3.com/

I suspect some MLS 2nd teams will be in D3 rather than D2.

It will be a long while before MLS teams have 2 teams between academy and MLS.

 

As somebody I think mentioned above (edit: and ASOC beat me to it) there are two separate efforts at building D3 leagues. The USL is taking a closed league approach and is supposed to announce their first team next week and should start spring 2019. Peter Wilt's NISA is built on pro/rel and plans to have a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th division. That said he doesn't have enough teams right now and I question whether it will ever start, particularly since the teams that left the NASL went to the USL and not the NISA.

This is kind of an interesting read as it has some numbers.

http://midfieldpress.com/2017/06/06...onal-soccer-league-expects-to-launch-in-2018/

As you can see, you need attendance of 3k per game and significance sponsorship to make it go at a bare-bones D3 level, which is why getting owners is so difficult.

My guess is that about half of the MLS2 teams will drop down to D3 in 2019 (but that's just a guess) because of the D2 stadium requirements. Having 4 levels of teams

MLS
USL
USL2
U-23
+Academy

is going to be such a big expense that I doubt it would happen for a while. I'm just guessing but it wouldn't surprise me that it would cost around $15m/year combined for the levels below MLS. That's a big number for a system that hasn't shown much ability to generate a regular stream of players.

 

Doesn't seem like there would be much point in having a USL and USL2 team if you're an MLS organization. PDL also doesn't really seem to make much sense as it currently works (short season, no credit toward HG, college-related rules) unless perhaps you can just handle soccer operations and offload the rest.

 

yes. MLS teams can put their teams where they want and I agree that some will go with d3. My main point wasn't so much about MLS but that the focus could be on D2 first. Wait until d2 reaches maturity. I don't think it is a team thing as much as a league thing. Of course many people smarter than me are closer to USL than I am and if they feel the time is ripe than perhaps it is. I am just a bit wary of starting a d3 before USL reaches maturity. Start what you finish before you begin something else. (in other words do as I say not as I do...)

Right now several mls teams are already putting a large amount of money into their development system which includes youth and usl teams. My guess is that the infrastructure cost is a large enough percentage of the price tag that some clubs with sufficient infrastructure investment will be able to add a second team at d3 relatively cheaply. The majority of the teams will likely begin with one team and may stay with one team for quite some time.

 

I am so sorry to everyone reading this, but if would pro/rel be easier to accomplish between D2 and D3?

 

If it’s USL 1 and 2

 

I think we should wait until all of the roster moves are made before going too far down the rabbit hole on FCD roster analysis. I don't think Clavijo is done wheeling and dealing. But why the hell not blather on a bit.................its what I'm best at. What I do know is that their roster is essentially now full. One spot will open when Chala's sale becomes official. Maybe that's a 3rd keeper like Avilez?

The two wingers FCD took in the first round are very different types of players to Pomykal. They're pacy dribblers. Exactly the types of players Pareja seems to prefer on the wing (see Barrios, Castillo, etc.). There have been significant rumors about Barrios being sold back to South America for about a year and a half now. Lamah on the other wing has been a disappointment. An expensive disappointment. Would not be surprised to see him sold either. At the very least we can think of these two draftees as part of the succession plan post Barrios/Lamah along with Ferreira/Reynolds. Also, where the hell does Adonijah Reid fit in? Egads. So much young talent there at winger/forward.

More than anything you can probably see those two draft picks as the end of Coy Craft.

One can actually interpret it as Pareja/Clavijo now viewing Pomykal as a central player................like a #10 or #8. Those positions would seemingly be more suited to his skill-set anyway. They've acquired a lot of players this off-season. They have not, however, acquired a back-up to the oft-injured Mauro Diaz. They have dumped some CMs this off-season and have not picked up any. If the roster is near completion, who is the primary back-up to Acosta t the #8 position? It would seem that Pax and Hayes are competing for that spot. And Acosta could be gone a bit with national team camps. [don't have a good feeling of whether the staff views Servania as an 8 or a 6. Gut feeling is a 6...........meaning he's behind both Grueso and Ulloa. Clearly 3rd string to start.]

MLS rosters are 28-30 players. Those slots are going to be filled. I'd rather have them filled with these types of youngsters/prospects from the draft than mediocre Colombian veterans.

One thing that's true is that they have an extremely young roster with all of the recently signed homegrowns and draft picks. They've just picked 4 players in the first two rounds and since the start of 2017 have signed 6 homegrown players (Ferreira, Reynolds, Cannon, Servania, Cano, Reaves)...........plus have two other teens in Pomykal (who signed in late 2016) and Adonijah Reid. They still have Avilez on a USL contract as well I guess.​

 

Ideally you need two teams (not that it's going to happen - it would be very hard to justify the costs). G2 was used by the Galaxy in a number of ways. Senior players needing minutes at a new position, senior players coming back from injury, older domestic and international players auditioning for the first team. A U-21 team would also have been useful but it might be better for it to play in a lower league. Since there aren't going to be enough MLS teams with a U-21 team, it would have to be USL 2.

 

People shouldn't get overly optimistic here. If I'm counting right, of the 23 MLS teams, 9 have USL teams (with Orlando and Vancouver dropping out this year)

"Rich" teams
Atlanta
NYRB
Toronto
LA
Seattle

"Poor" teams
Philadelphia
Portland
Salt Lake City
Kansas City


The division into rich and poor is a little arbitrary, but by this I mean a general commitment to spend significant money including multiple expensive DPs.

If we think about levels of commitment as (1) USL, (2) USL2, (3) Affiliate team, which way do we think things will trend? The only "rich" teams left who aren't on the list are NYCFC and LAFC, and LAFC decided to go the affiliate route, so there isn't much potential gain there.

There are a bunch of poor teams (or better said, teams unwilling to spend) and my guess is that most of them will sit on the sidelines until some of the other poor teams are successful with their academies. SLC has made their youth program a central part of their strategy as a recognition that they are not going to be able to spend the same amount as the top-spending teams. Of course, they are still spending money - they just think they will get more bang per dollar from the academy.

My guess is that 2019 will look a lot like 2018, with maybe a few MLS teams dropping down divisions if USL2 takes off. And 2020 will look a lot like 2019. Until one of the 4 poor teams dramatically improves its performance because of their academy, I don't see a movement for more MLS teams to have minor-league teams.

 

One rule I'd like to see change by MLS is providing more salary budget relief for players loaned for the season to the USL. As of now they can only do so for one player per year. It wouldn't make a huge difference for the elite talent since most aren't on the senior roster anyway, but could see some more investment by MLS teams.

Really would like to see MLS take over the PDL and completely revamp it as a u23 professional league. But I also don't see that happening anytime soon.