The missing link in the current chain appears to be the reserve league. It isn't doing a better job than college, although it's perfectly situated to do so. I imagine in time it will. That, or will be replaced by the USL Pro so all professional players will play (essentially) weekly. Once this mythical bridge appears to cover the age gap between 18-21 I believe we'll see the younger talent blossoming on MLS fields at age 20 instead of 25.
There is no homegrown player limit per se. Teams can sign as many homegrown players as they want, and can have as many as they want on a roster. Teams are limited in the number of high-value GA-style contracts they can offer to homegrown players (two per year). However, this is unlikely to be a serious hindrance, since (1) most homegrowns are signed to $35-$45k contracts, not six-figure GA-style deals, and (2) most MLS academies don't produce two GA-level talents every year. Montreal signed four homegrowns this year. All were on the books at $35,125. When they can come up with three Juan Agudelos a year instead, we can worry about only having two big money contracts to hand out crimping teams' style.
Under the current structure, the problem isn't so much about finding big money as it is about finding incrementally better money. My impression is that a lot of kids need more than $35-45K to leave school, but not much more. As examples, Kellyn Acosta left his Maryland commitment for a guaranteed $71K Matt Miazga left his Michigan commitment for a guaranteed $67K Danny Garcia left UNC for a guaranteed $64K Shane O'Neill left his Virginia commitment for a guaranteed $61K DeAndre Yedlin left Akron for a guaranteed $53K As MLS academies mature, the college ranks are becoming increasingly stocked with players like these, and it seems reasonable that clubs should have a lot of flexibility about how many to sign and when. It's a relatively small expenditure.
http://www.socceramerica.com/article/60042/czech-coach-full-of-praise-for-us-u-18s.html A fair amount of MLS talent in this group.
The Czech coach is right also. I was in fairly deep with US youth nat soccer a decade ago. It's night and day. Wonderful to behold. Best part? We are still only just getting started.
The full video is available in youtube.com. The game starts at minute 20. A couple of notes. These are all 97s except for Haji Wright who is a 98. These are all US trained players except for Carter-Wright from Tottenham. http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/08/13/16/40/140813-u18-czech-roster By about the 20th minute (40 on the video) you can already see the technical advantage that the US team has over the Czechs. The back-line passes the ball around the Czech forwards with complete confidence. The forwards attempt dribbles into the box. It's good stuff to see that our academies are producing players with good technique in all positions. I still see some tactical mistakes when using technique. First touch landing the ball on the wrong side for an approaching player. Pass choices sometimes aren't right. However, these are exceptions and not the rule and have more to do with concentration and decision issues that are less worrisome at this age group.
I also would like to give credit to college soccer. Many four year soccer players are excelling in this league. Players like Luis Silva, Graham Zusi, Seth Sinovic, Kyle Bekker, Luke Mulholland and a large part of the DC United Roster show that you can turn pro at 23 and be successful. Sure some players don't go pro or turn pro earlier but the colleges are churning out better players also.
I'm not giving it to much. They are getting dragged along. As recently as 3 or 4 years ago many college coaches were whining, complaining and accusing MLS of hurting their game as academies grew and younger players were signed. They have resisted and fought the league for the most part over these first two decades. Only recently, with the growth of the game and MLS in general has college started to play ball. They see the writing on the wall now, and have to try and work with MLS and how the game is developing here. The number of competent, quality pros college has produced, considering the vast number of players they have had in their system has always been pitiful. The culture is forcing change, and the players are improving through the culture for the most part. There will always be players who make it out of college because of the numbers, but the quality is still clearly inferior to run of the mill players from around the world. They are still nothing but filler, but improving, less naive filler...and college has had little to do with that quite honestly. That's club ball and growing up with a better cultural/more knowledgeable soccer society. College soccer is still an incredibly limited environment overall. Exceptions are still that...exceptions.
Yeah but look at what is happening at DC United. This team is made up four year soccer players who play with each other with a unity that could make them champions of MLS. Many of the players on that team were 23 when they turned pro. If they win MLS Cup I could see a rethink on what it takes to succeed in MLS.
Oh, I don't know. I think DC has done OK with HGPs. In particular, selling Najar was a huge boost for DC. If anything this year just confirms what has been known for a while. Because of the cap there are always some good players floating around. If you have allocation money you can do wonders to make your squad very competitive.
FWIW the u18s won their tournament. Seemed like a another dominant outing against Ukraine. http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/08/23/09/54/140823-u18mnt-international-tournament
Jordan Morris from the Sounders Academy and entering his Sophomore year at Stanford received a call up to the USMNT. http://www.sounderatheart.com/thefuture/2014/8/28/6079585/jordan-morris-gets-first-usmnt-call-up According to that link, the last College player to get a USMNT Cap was Ante Razov in 1995. So if Morris can get time during the friendly that seems like a pretty good sign for his development.
I wouldn't say that the Jordan Morris call up is the most surprising I've seen. That would be Julian Green for the World Cup. But it still is very surprising. I've never heard of him but apparently he has a rare level of athleticism and a good bit of technique.
Well there is "college" and there are the 10 - 20 programs where most of the top players play. The programs that MLS coaches like Schmid, Arena, and Porter once coached. I'm highly skeptical these types of coaches have been against academy programs as they have made their recruiting jobs a lot easier. Granted just as MLS teams aren't excited about their top kids leaving them for brighter prospects, I'm sure many coaches have mixed emotions about seeing their best player walk out the door early as well. In talking with some of these guys, most seem more than OK if they think it is the right thing for the kid and the kid will excel. After all, when the kid does well and gets big headlines, the coach is then able to bring in several more just like him. That said the increase significant increase in talent and quality has little to do with Academies, MLS or colleges. The explanation becomes is explained pretty clearly in this video http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/08/28/mls-insider-look-next-generation-homegrown-stars. The section from 2:45-3:30 is why we are now producing the players in numbers we never had in the past. We had a Perez here, a Harkes way over there along with a Ramos one year and a Reyna several years later. Now they are everywhere with some teams full of them. The rest is mostly polishing and creating a finished product that was created long before they stepped onto a college or professional practice field.
He is a fine player and a leading light in college soccer. Give him two more years and he will be a monster.
I agree. Soccer development starts as soon as a child can walk. At U-6 it's quite noticeable. There is a huge difference between kids who start walking with a soccer ball at their feet and those who don't. With a lot of work a kid can catch up but more often than not they don't and I've never seen one become the best.
Missed this. Yes, the top ten programs may have acted differently, but the rank and file were not very friendly, accommodating, in support of MLS creating academies. It was looked at as a competitor for talent. This was five, six, seven years ago. Heard many a belligerent comment from assistants and coaches themselves. Things have changed quickly however. Hell, several years ago the big private youth clubs openly resisted and fought the USSF initiatives, and were very dismissive of MLS. AS MLS's image has grown and gained more clout that has changed, but a few short years ago folks in our country really were not MLS fans so to speak. We shouldn't forget that, and how far we have come, and how far we still have to.
This is such a great point. There's been a sea change, and if people weren't following closely, they may not even have noticed.
Most significant change happens in this manor. Most want lighting bolts, epiphany's and look for radical (Non sensical) solutions when it is usually happening right in front of their noses. I always use the analogy of a child. Parents don't notice the changes because it happens slowly, in increments, right in front of them. The distant relatives who you see once a year notice the changes immediately. If you are to involved you may be missing more than you think.
Doesn't seem to make sense as the people MLS would compete with are the very top level NCAA clubs - not the rest. Of course I suppose there are delusional people everywhere so I don't discount what you heard. Big clubs are very different animals. MLS teams undercut their bread and butter. Perhaps the coaches you heard that were against MLS were worried more about their club coaching gigs than anything. Many unpaid assistants make pretty decent money coaching club teams. In many cases the college coach with access to fields and name, use these things to make good money coaching club teams. BTW - I'm not a fan of the USSF national youth program. While the academy has probably been a big plus the the many screwed up areas in the Northeast, he really hasn't helped the kids in California other than those lucky enough to be on MLS teams and get regular playing time.
The club coach point is an excellent one, most likely a big reason for the negativity, and one I shouldn't have missed. The acadamy program was always an ambitious one, and the "it really hasn't helped line" is one I have heard spit out relentlessly.....and not surprisingly those folks were almost always entrenched club coaches who been doing things their way for a long time. Most of the complaints came from the "change is bad" crowd, I know better crowd, don't tell me what to do and don't mess with my livelihood crowd. Not surprising. Let's just be honsest here. Our country is huge and agendas abound. Right? While the acadamy program has caused problems in areas it has helped in others. Change was never going to come easy or quick. I at least applaud the attempt because after 40 years of watching big club politics that sure as hell wasn't working either. I understand and am willing to give it time, and hopefully with MLS acadamies hopefully growing, the imprint will involve. Sure, the acadamy system was going to have issues no matter what in a coujtry like ours, but I do know that doing the same thing iver an dover again wasn't working either....and I'm not insane. The belligerence of some of the most powerful big youth programs I have heard directly, with my own ears, as little as several years ago was quite self serving, sad and disturbing. People on the youth boards used to call them selfish, insulated fiefdoms. Correct IMO. It's gonna be painful, with some ugly, and even will hurt some areas, but the established youth mentality in general is one I won't miss.
I agree with your point that change was needed, but I also think it's important to judge the DA on whether it has delivered on its promises. In particular, one of its most important deliverables was to provide its players with regular exposure to meaningful competitive games. Eight years in, schedules are wildly irregular, many games are lop-sided, and at least in my region, the environment in which they're played is sterile and passionless. It's a college recruiting circuit, not a developmental league.