ODP Selection Criteria

What about this thought.....

Have the State ODP players attend Regional Camp not as a team, but as individuals. Put them in a big pool and let an objective group of Regional level coaches view the players and separate them as the Camp progresses. No State Coaches allowed, no lobbying for thier players and no late night discussions/bartering about whose horse gets into the race.

The kids arrive, all get Regional Camp t-shirts and are integrated with different players than they are used to. Allow the kids to be promoted/relegated into groups each day and see who rises to the top.

Mix up the previous years Regional Coaches- send the Reg 2 coaches to Reg 1 camp, Reg 3 to the Reg 4 camp, you get the point. Don't give the coaches the player list from the previous years and see if they end up close to the same.

In this model, you have changed three very important things. 1) politics have been removed, 2) bias toward previous players is erased, 3) the coaches feel bigger need to look more closely at EACH of the players since they know none of them.

Never happen, but it would be interesting to see what percentage of the picks would be consistent with the previous year's. Also, would be interesting to see how the on-field product would change when going out and competing internationally.

 

I have a different idea:

Reduce the politics and bias by swapping coaches at regional camp. Have Region I coaches run the Region II camp. Have the Region II coaches run the Region III camp, and so on.

If the coaches are qualified to be a regional ODP coach (and I will assume they are), they should be able to do an objective evaluation of any group of kids. Yeah, they are still going to meet at night to discuss, but the discussions will be more in line with what ODP camp should be: honestly assessing the group of young men or women in attendance without the baggage of barstool deals, playing favorites, etc.

It won't solve every issue, but the kids going to a regional camp would know up front that they have to bring their "A" game and sell their abilities and skills on the field to a group of coaches who have probably never seen them before. Those kids who think they are a lock to move on will have to work, and the kids who go in resigned to not even making a daily pool might have a more positive attitude and turn it up a notch.

 

Now you're talking my language -

1) Mix the players regardless of state.

2) Mix the kids regardless of age. No more segregating the younger kids from the older players.

3) Bring in coaches who have never seen any of these players.

4) Give the coaches no information about who was selected for past teams.

May the best players win.

 

I would agree with with your Idea. I will go one step further and say that the region coaches should be from all regions.

 

My only concern with that approach is that the regional coaches would already have a working relationship with each other--one or two being GK coaches, etc.

Bringing a potluck of coaches in from a mix of regions would require that they spend additional time away from their real nonsoccer jobs (if they have one) simply trying to figure out who is who. Depending on the personalities, it might work...it might not.

But I think we all generally agree the current setup is flawed.

 

I am trying to stay away from a word like "flawed" that is confrontational, and suggests that I am complaining. Certainly at times I have been confrontational, and I have complained, but I am attempting to mend my ways.

So I would say, a blind system strikes me as preferable. I value the independence and fresh eyes, more than I value the knowledge that is lost by removing the coaches who have seen the players before.

 

Maybe I too should avoid the term flawed, however, the problem with ODP starts much sooner than the camps. For example, when you apply to the state camp you have to commit and pay for regional camp. Does anyone realistically think you have a shot if you put on the state camp app that you are not going to regional? I saw one kid who had been on the state team for 2 years who was a non-select the first year he said no to the regional camp.

Maybe it is coincidence, but maybe it isn't. Personally, there is little doubt in my mind that money is a big motivator for the program......

 

It isn't. The guys in our state were quite explicit, if you do State but not Regional, don't apply next year. Their logic was that they didn't want players who clogged up the process by taking up somebody else's slot, then dropping out.

 

A "blind" system has been considered, but not accepted for a few reasons.

First, the person who has perhaps the most say in the selection of players for Regional Pool is the National Staff coach assigned to the Region. Unless you shuffle them around, they will remember who was who from the previous year. They also attend and evaluate each State's program every other year, and would see the players at the State events when they are there. Finally, if you wanted to showcase your club team to the National Staff, it is the Regional coach whose expenses you would normally pay to come for the visit and they would see your players as they see others across the Region. Are you going to shuffle them, too?

Second, bringing in coaches from all over drives up the expenses of Regional Camp. You would increase travel costs and require an additional day of meals and lodging. Given the current costs, would you be willing to pay up to an additional $200 to do this?

Finally, at the younger ages the players have been "mixed" for the "Developmental Camps." There were advanatges and disadvantages to this. The advantages were you saw who could react to a new environment and players, something that will occur if they make a National Team. The disadvantages were more subtle. You lost the the knowledge the players had gained from playing with each other. Such knowledge is often crucial for the "play makers" whose passes and movememtn is very dependent on knowing how team mates will move. To a lesser extent the same is true for defenders working in a zonal defense and knowing how to space themselves relative to each other - it helps to know your team mates speed and reaction time. You will find the better individual players, but will you find the best play makers who will show better when they know who they are playing with?

There are costs and advantages with each system. Right now you are seeing some of the advantages, but I would be curious how you would address the costs.

 

I had no intention of using the word "flawed" in the confrontational sense. Let's try it this way: The current ODP setup is not ideal.

 

Logical except that is not what I saw.

You know the story with my son's team. 100 pound twerps, asked to play up in age against the big fast hairy monsters. They won anyway -- not just the best team at their own age bracket, but among the best teams at the next age group up. Due to tactical excellence, decision making overcoming athletic inferiority.

And you know the moral to that story. The team that won because of tactical excellence, became the only Regional champ I've ever heard of that didn't get a single player onto even the Regional pool.

So what's this about keeping teams together to find playmakers?

As for costs ... that is a genuine concern.

My modified proposal is that the Camp Director be brought in from elsewhere, that the rest of the evaluation staff be from within the Region, and that nobody be allowed to comment on a player from their own state. They must recuse themselves.

Although if as you write, if the Region II national staffer is overseeing the process and calling many of the shots, then my proposal doesn't really matter anyway ...

 

I understand, John. Think about it some more. Contrary to myth, no one is married to the way things are done.

As to not being considered for the State team if you indicate you have no intention of going to Regionals - yeah, that is the way it is. Money, however, has nothing to do with it. The purpose of the whole process is to select players who will play on a National Team. The trials start at the State level and progress through Regionals to the National level. If you do not want to participate, why is the player there? For the resume?

It would be no different that showing for a club tryout, stating that you had no intention of playing for the club if selected, and then moaning about not being selected.

As to money being the motive - WRONG. Most States lose money on ODP (Not all - most). Each Region loses money on ODP. For Region II the amount is about $100,000 on both the girls and boys side. That money is made up by a contribution from USYS that in turn is funded by sponsorship money from Adidas.

Instead of guessing and being wrong, how about getting the facts. The orgainizations in question are all 501(c)(3) tax exempt entities. As such their financials are open records you can review.

There is no doubt the system is not "ideal". If you truly want to see a viable fix you need to know what the root of the problems. Inventing spurious issues does not help. Just the opposite.

 

No question, a management consultant who recommended best practices for decision making, would create a very different camp. For a start, management consultants are into data, data, data ... listen to Mitt Romney, you'll know what I mean. The management consultants would score & measure the players on everything.

I don't see that being adopted.

Kid on a neighboring state was buried in his first ODP Camp. The next Camp, his State Coach arrived selling him HARD. If you take one guy from my state onto Regional team, and you'd better take one guy, this is your player. The kid was of course put onto the Regional team, and now the National staffers love him, too.

I'm pretty sure that cases like that, in addition to the reality that soccer guys aren't likely to think much of management consultants, will kill off the arguments for data-driven approaches.

 

Not all kids and family's lives can be open to that week where you have regional camp. Note, regional camp scheduling assumes that you are attending a school that takes all summer off (for that matter all ODP sheduling assumes it). Year rounders could have major problems.

As to the comment about a resume filler, just what in the heck does the poster think any of the kids are in ODP for? I am sure they and their parents are spending thousands of dollars just because they like the people in ODP and have a really good time at the camps.

 

Then why even bother to have a state team if the ultimate goal is to fill a regional team? The truth is not everyone can commit to a regional team and we should not be in the business of forcing it upon them.

Sorry, but no matter how you shake it out I think the academy system (while also flawed) is a much better route to follow to develop soccer in this country.

 

Soccerdaddy,

I understand your frustration, but your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions.

First, not all States are the same. In my State three years ago we cut the cost of participation in ODP by 50%. In the younger ages this amounted to a cut from $350 to $179, and at the older ages from $175 to $89. We achieved the cut by eliminating the overnite residence program and making the initial camp a day camp. The cost saving in not having to rent dorms or provide meals we passed back to the participants.

In order for it to be a day camp we had to run the camp in three locations across the State. That meant more work for the volunteer administrators, but there were other hidden costs. One was that the coaches (most not all) were not able to evaluate players at the day camps. Some coaches could not make all of the camps, others cannot effectively evaluate a player absent other players to compare against.

By reducing costs and making the program more local we opened it up to more players, but made the evaluations process less effective. There are costs in all things you do.

Under either system the program was designed to break even. The coaches make very little. They are paid $50 a day plus expenses for time spent on State practices and if they go to Regional Camp they are paid an additional $500.

Not all States are the same. As I wrote most States lose money on ODP.

Second, as a whole the program does want players to try out each year because they change, develop and improve. However, there is no point in trying out if you are not going to go to Regional Camp. There is nothing inconsistent about suggesting that people who did not make the State Team the previous year try again and still tell people if you are not intending to go to Regional Camp you will not be selected for the State Team, unless you are suggesting that the only people to not make the State Team were players who let it be known they would not go to Regional Camp.

As to players who attend school year round, there is a problem for them. We all make choices. What would they do if they made National Pool and were invited to the week long evaluation camp? Would they pass on that too because of school? Tell me how you craft a program that allows a coaching staff to evaluate a potential player pool in each age group of thousands of players if you cannot bring portions of that pool together for a period of time to allow the coaches to see the players in relation to one another? Tell me how to structure a program, keep the costs down and have it be effective.

Finally, no one is forcing a player to do anything. It is the player's decision to participate or not. The Academy has its own problems. For many players, though be no means all, the costs are actually greater in the Academy. The same cries of politics and bias are also beginning to be heard. One the West Coast many players could not participate due to cost and time in travelling to clubs. Many who were participating have left to play in high school. Whether one is better remains an open question. There is no doubt that the Academy will be better for some players and the current ODP system for others. Which is better overall will take a few years to answer.

 

Here's my take on some of the problems with ODP.

First, it seems to have two separate, though overlapping, missions. First, it is a program to identify elite players for consideration for the National Team--it's most obvious mission.

Of course, the majority of players on state level teams and even in state-level pools aren't nearly that elite. So then it acquires a second mission of gathering together reasonably good players from around the state to be 'exposed' to a higher level of play through various state pool and state team related activities. Here, a player may train and play with the better players from his or her particular area, perhaps be exposed to a different coaching staff and learn some new things about soccer, make friends at said activities etc. Again, this mission is somewhat official.

(A third misson, though probably most definitely not an official mission, is to build a soccer resume. Even for those players who are clearly not National team caliber, to say your are part of a Regional team/pool or even a state team adds to your soccer credentials for college)

Some people love ODP because they get to meet other players, exposed to different coaches etc. Some of these people could care less about selection for Regional/National team. These people focus mainly on the second mission. Others focus mostly on the selection part.

But I think ODP needs to decide if it is a selection system, or is it a system to 'expose' kids to a higher level of play, because I think the problems come because of these two overlapping missions. I will give you an example from my state in a particular age group. This age group is a younger age group with well over 30 players in the pool.

There are various events scheduled for this age group. Some involve the entire pool, others involve just a team of 18. It seems as though most of the same players are on that team of 18--there are very few changes (maybe 1 or 2) throughout the ODP season. So here is where I have a problem--why have well over 30 players in the pool if the same 18 are chosen for the team events?

Here is an even more interesting part. There is one event which involves some travel in which they take only 18 players, but they also invite some of the better players from the younger ODP age pool--about 4 or 5. I understand it is a good way to get these more skilled younger players exposed to a higher level of play, but then again, why have so many people in the age appropriate pool? If these age appropirate players aren't even as good as these younger players, and ODP is about identification of elite players, why are most of these players chosen? Clearly it can't be for National team identification purposes.

Even of those 18 who make it to Region Camp, only 4 or 5 get 'promoted' by the state administrator and coach to the regional coaches. In my experience, unless you impress a state coach early on in the season, you won't get promoted at region camp--it is a mistake to think that Regional coaches look at the whole team--they rely on what the state coach and adminsitrator says.

It seems a mistake to have a state/region/national level system. There are just too many cooks in this soup at various levels, with various interests and missions. So I think ODP becomes bloated in trying to please too many people.

ODP should be streamlined--I think you should eliminate the youngest age groups--U13/14 and maybe 15--especially for boys, for the obvious problems having to do with growth spurts, puberty etc.

Next, why not have a tryout for the national team in each state in which 4 or 5 National coaches come down to look at the U18-U16s. They take what they think are the top kids and then arrange activities during the year to get an even better look.

Then it really is about selection for the National team. Why have the second mission?

 

No, I'm not.

I broadened your discussion of data points, that's all. There is a TON of academic research on how to make the best decisions; the factory example that you give is only one such example.

And the research all ends up in the same place, that the best decisions come from when the data talk, not the people.

 

perf, I have money, more than enough money to fund my son's desire to play soccer. In fact, his club team costs way, way more than ODP would ever cost.

However, I just got off of a six year stint on a park board where I had to deal with people who, literally, struggled to afford $35 for each of their kids to play lowly rec league soccer. They shopped for boots secondhand, which almost assured their child had painful feet. Some of them had talented kids who might go somewhere if they had the chance. Now imagine, that parent gets online and see's this ODP thing and scrapes together the money to send their kid to the state ODP sessions and camps (parents do that). Then, when they couldn't afford the region camp their kid is automatically cut. I spoke with a single mom at the state camp whose son was in the U14 group. It was his third year in the program but it was also his last since the expense had just gotten to be too much for her to bear with the younger kids growing up.

That is wrong in so many way that I cannot begin to list them. Mind you, that was not me. We opted out of ODP for many issues not least of which was the realization that the team my son plays on offered him almost all of the advantages he would gain from ODP and some extra ones not offered by ODP. It travels widely and is nationally ranked. I have gone to tournaments 2 states over and met people who recognized my son's team because of how widely they travel. However, we are lucky enough to have access to such a team and not all kids are. Those kids need ODP and they are often the ones with the least chance of participation.

Currently, ODP policies best serve people like my son who, quite frankly, has a lot of other options. On the other hand, those same policies actually work against kids for whom ODP may be their only avenue to quality soccer and training.

The above is why I think academies are the best route to go. They are more local and once word gets around about a good player it is amazing how often a scholarship (if necessary) is found to pay the kids way and team parents are good at working to limit travel expenses. Moreover, my son's team has a very active fundraising program. For the current year, fundraising has taken care of 75% of dues. Next year we should be able to take care of 100%.

As to school, that is the most important thing in my son's life. It should be too, an education will take him places most soccer players will never go. It should never, ever come down to an option of ODP or school.

 

Pantagruel -

Of course, that is pretty much what the National guys have decided with the Academy system, you have clubs and you have a national pool, nothing in the middle.

 

But of course it does, never mind year-around students and summer camps. The guys on the Regional teams are removed from the conventional school calendar 2 weeks per year, maybe more.

I pity the player who also wishes to be a top student. The best students at my son's high school are not only brilliant to start with, but they don't do anything but study. Take 2 weeks off, they will destroy you.

 

I am not saying my son is a hotshot academic. He is a WAY better soccer player than he is a student. He makes the honor roll but it is a struggle. If we were to start dropping weeks out of his schedule it would be too much for him academically. That is exactly why we don't miss school.

I am realistic, my son is a very good soccer player and can probably play division one soccer if he continues down this path. However, I do not see a million dollar professional contract in his future (or even a $17,000 one like the bottom of the MLS pays).

Soccer will probably be no more than that little extra that gets him into a good school. If it does that we are happy. Us because he is in a good school and him because he is playing a sport he loves.

 

Soccerdaddy,

Implicit in what you wrote are many things that people believe and find fault with in ODP that are wrong. Part of the problem is due to how some promoted ODP over the years. That is another topic and one I will try to address in a reply to pantagruel.

First, club and ODP do not serve the same purpose. For higher level players club is the place to develop a player's talent. ODP cannot be a major development tool. There is not enough time spent in training. Even States which train twice a month cannot come close to the concentrated time a player has with their club.

Development has to be local as you suggest. ODP cannot be local. It does not have the resources. In many States players have an hours long drive one way to ODP sessions. It simply is not possible to have development as a significant focus of ODP.

ODP is about player selection. It always has been. Development can happen whenver a player touches a ball and development will happen in ODP, but it is not and should not be a primary purpose of the program.

As to cost, I understand the issue. Things have to be paid for, however. The fields need to be rented; the coaches paid; each item costs and has to be paid for. Where does the money come from?

If it is to be subsidized and is from a State Association it has to come from either sponsors or from general revenue derived from player registration. Many States cannot afford to subsidize ODP from general revenue - their registration fees are already higher than competing organizations like USSSA, SAY and US Club. Those registration fees also have to cover the expenses of the State Organization and a number of programs that the USSF mandates that State Associations offer, programs USSSA, SAY, AYSO and US Club are not mandated to offer, often do not offer or do not at the level required of State Associations (programs like Coaching Education, Start Soccer, Top Soccer, etc.)

All of this means is that most State ODP programs have to be self sufficient and actually book some of their expenses for ODP into other programs. For example, the State DOC probably spends about 40% of his time on ODP, but in almost every State the ODP budget is not charged this expense. This is why I said ODP loses money.

You are right it can be expensive for many families. The desire to make it less does not produce the dollars needed for the reality that costs must be covered. Tell me how to make the reality - the money - available.

Second, every State offers scholarships for players to go to Regional Camp. In addition many club will scholarship players selected for Regional Camp. No one is cut because they cannot afford the Camp. They may chose not to ask for help in going to Regional Camp, but then they have made the choice - their pride is of more value to them than what the Camp may offer. I have no problem with that and respect the decisions people make. To suggest that system is "flawed", however, because people amake such choices is specious.

The Academies have good points, but there is much that is lacking. The Academies are not everywhere. As presently structured they reach slightly over 35% of the soccer playing population in the relevant age groups. That is a lot of players being missed. Right now on boys side the only way those players can be recognized are through ODP. In Region II many major markets are missed by the Academy including Minneapolis/St. Paul and Kansas City. In addition, the Academies do not reach girls at all, only ODP serves them on a National basis.

For the Academies to subsidize the cost as some do, they also must raise the money from some source. Many Academy programs are pulling back on promises of low to no cost. Some are pulling out entirely for they are losing too much money. The entire concept of the Academies was poorly thought out and planned. At the Federation level last February Sunil tolld the USSF Annual General Meeting that there would be no Academy program and this was after the December, 2006 USSF BOard Meeting where the concept was actually voted down. However, in March, 2007, the USSF coaching staff was pushing it in meetings with Nike clubs in Oregon. A slight disconnect. The planning for it on the business side was so poor no one considered the need for insurance let alone how to fund it. Insurance is one of the major costs of youth soccer programs. This and other blunders have caused the Academy program to cost the Federation $400,000 that was not in the budget. Such are the results of "coaches" pushing a good idea without developing a business plan.

The Academies probably will survive these mistakes, but if such problems continue survival becomes less likely. To assume, however, that Academies are a pancea without cost is very wrong.

Ultimately the Acdemies will confront the same issues ODP does, ones you allude to. The purpose of the Academies and of ODP is in truth player selection. For the Academies the push is from the MLS and National Team Staff. The absence of a professional league for women is one reason you have no one pushing Academies or something similar on the girl's side.

How many of the players in the Academy structure for any given age group will play in the pros, even the minor league levels of the USL? Perhaps Fifty? Yet the pool that is in the program is about 1,600 players. You imply a complaint about ODP that is equally valid against the Academies. You ask why have State Teams that number about a 1,000 a year if it is only Regional level players we are interested in? The exact same complaint can be directed at the Academies, which should suggest to you that the complaint is "flawed" at a fundamental level.

The reason we need to have State Teams and Academies with these numbers, is because you cannot sort the players in many cases without seeing them play. You may know who the best in Iowa or Southern Ohio are, but you do not know if they are the best in the Region. If you screen at the State level you will miss players. I know of many players that were considered strong, but not strong enough until they were seen against others at the Regional. At that point their true abilities could be seen and contrasted. Screen at lower levels and you miss these players.

You need to have sufficient players to have teams to allow the screening. You also need to have some consistency for planning purposes. The thought of limiting expenses by screening players at an earlier stage has been considered for years, but no one has yet developed a viable system that allows planning up to a year in advance, which is how the program has to function economically. The Academies are certainly an alternative, but look at how many players they miss, and the economic viability and you have to wonder will they survive in their current form.

Rather than complain, think about a solution. Then figure the costs for the solution. Then think of all that go wrong with your fix and figure out how to fix those problems. Then post it and see how well your idea holds up. Good luck.

If you have ideas about how to structure the system to save costs and screen players early, post them. There are a few peole who come here on occassion who may be able to do something.