Release here: goo.gl/dH7nbh Essentially, the national E and F licenses are being replaced by ala carte (their words) age specific courses which are accessible after an initial free introductory module provided by U.S. Soccer is completed. The D license is the first national "leveled" license.
USSF sent out an email describing the planned changes last spring. USSF is trying to make the lower level licenses more relevant to coaches actual training situation. The best example is that coaches in an 11v11 environment in the past had to wait years to see relevant material. Because side size is related to age level, the tracks are related to age level. I get as frustrated as the next guy at continual changes, but this is a step in the right direction. Even if this solution doesn't work, this problem has been identified and eventually it will get solved.
I like it. I will probably end up taking at least the 9v9 and 11v11. No reason not to if they are readily available and can help improve your knowledge base.
I wish I could get my cable service ala carte. Merry Christmas fellow coaches please every player deserves respect no matter what age he or she happens to be.
I wish I underatood more about this. The lisence classification and sequence has always seemed "contrived" with some sort of agenda behind it. Again, IDK but why is there a time schedule between the certifications? Does the organization intend to represent knowledge and professionalism through specific barriers? I am glad to see that there will be some online options as this is much more feasible for the working man that has a job outside of soccer and never has any intention of making money off of the sport. I would just like to take some coaching classes, certification aside.
Sure looks like the organization f/k/a NSCAA is leading this. They moved to this way with their diplomas last year. Now USSF follows suit.
check out united soccer coaches (fka nscaa). they have a bunch of lectures and on-field training sessions from their past conventions that you can watch on demand, and they're $20ish. find a topic you're interested in and push play. they actually just ran a year-end promo where you got one session free. i haven't had a chance to watch the session i picked yet, but the description sounds like it might be worth screening as a coaching education program at our club. fwiw and imo, the ussf licenses aren't about educating. they're about certifying. in areas where getting a job coaching is competitive they're worth pursuing to put on your resume. if you're just a dad who wants to learn, there are other options that provide more content at lower cost. i've always found it odd that we have competing licensing schemes. perhaps this is a move by the ussf to try to bump usc out of the licensing game? i think it makes more sense to have the federation issuing the licenses, but i've always heard the usc courses do a better job of teaching. it seems like there should be room for both. i have a ussf d license, but i haven't done any usc courses yet. i was thinking about doing the usc national or advanced national in 2018 while i'm in the waiting period for my ussf c.
When I took the level 6 (just below the national diploma) the instructor when discussing this topic with a young coach who had her eyes on going high in USSF path put it this way: "NSCAA is definitely geared more toward the coaches learning something. Think of your NSCAA diplomas as 'driving lessons' and the USSF License as your 'road test" where you demonstrate your mastery of the topic.
I'll have to wait to read/experience the new courses. Been waiting to take my next license because I had heard this was on the horizon. But I wish they would offer just classes, maybe for some sort of continuing ed credits. For example, I would love an in-game coaching seminar. Probably one of the weaker parts of my game is observing the opposition. But at the ages I coach at, in-game adjustments for the players are pretty hard for them to do.
Interesting, when coaching my U-12's in the past, I rarely worried about the other team was doing, thinking that my players had more than enough on their plate trying to do the things that they should be doing. There were on rare ocassions where we had very competitive matches and we decided to 'play for the win' we would change our approach, but they were simple, like putting a shadow on a player or trying to force their team to one side of the field that the other team didn't favor or playing long balls over the top (more a condition related to field conditions).
I guess it is my age showing, but if the players are following the principles of play, then there isn't much to change unless you are going to tweak the system. For instance, switch systems or change the line of confrontation. Or as cleansheetbsc said--change the area of the field the team is defending. With really young players, you are teaching fundamentals so there is not a lot of changes you can make and stick to the curriculum. With advanced players, you are teaching them how to win matches, so there is a lot to teach. Such as changing the tempo of play or creating mismatches. What I think adjustments really mostly are is spotting mistakes and weaknesses. With liberal substitutions, there is not much opportunity to make adjustments. It is not like in a pro match where you know who the opponent's 11 are. In short, if you are teaching fundamentals, then I believe your focus should be on fundamentals. That doesn't leave a lot of room for complicated game plans. With U10s to U12s (ordinary house players not travel) I kept the system as simple as possible and only had the 1 simple system. I also rotated players through positions so adjusting the lineup was not an option.
The changes went into effect yesterday and apply to people without a license. Current holders of the E can still apply for the D. Current holders of the F have to take grassroots courses first. So today there is no more E and F courses. Killing the F course doesn't make sense to me.
this isn't quite accurate. E holders have to take the intro to grassroots course. F holders take the intro, the 11v11 in-person, and one other grassroots course. i don't have a problem with it, but i'm assuming everything in the F will be covered in the new courses. here's a link: https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...o-know-grassroots-pathway-coaching-initiative
The value of the F was its accessibility. The requirement for E holders is to take a free on-line 20-minute "Introduction to the Grassroots Coaching" module. I don't consider it a course, just an explanation of the changes. It is just another preparation requirement, and probably the easiest. The first impact of these changes is that currently there are no license courses scheduled in my state this year. Unintended consequences.
IN still has D courses scheduled, but I don't see anything on the new grassroots licenses yet. that could be an issue with the ISA requiring the corresponding licenses to coach each age group beginning this fall.
Perhaps they should change their requirement to being a candidate rather than a holder. That would be more in line with the USSF licensing strategy which requires candidates to be coaching as part of the process (for D and above).
My state doc held an "intro to the new grassroots coaching" presentation last night, for his instructor staff, DOCs and club officials. This covered the 4v4 - 11v11 modules, not the new D. The key takeaways: It's all guided discovery. The instructors are no longer supposed to run model sessions. Candidates run the sessions, the instructors ask questions - " is it organized, what could be done better". LIkewise, the first "Play" part of the session should be a small game with no instruction, a break where the coach asks something related to achieving the goal, then more play. Then the practice part, then end with scrimmage. Candidates no longer design sessions. There will be sessions in the dcc to pick from for assigned topics. Sessions must be run with age appropriate players. I'd always wanted to see the instructors run a session with average u10s vs using the other candidates who learn like adults. That only happend when I took the old usys u6/u8 and u10/u12 modules. They put up a slide covering Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunity/Threats, but didn't dwell on it. They are aware at some level that this method could lead to coaches hiding/just throwing out cones and a ball, and if the coach doesn't know what the game should look like they probably won't guide the discovery all that well. I'm not a huge fan of guided discovery only - I read Inverting the Pyramid, I'm not going to have a team for 100+ years to go through it in real time
@CoachP365 Thanks for the update. On reading this my first thought is that the most common newb coaching mistake is to teach children like adults, and now they want to teach coaches like children. My own approach was to use different teaching methods for different aspects of the game. By that I mean I used different methods for ball skills, for attacking tactics, for defensive tactics, and for mentality. While I have used guided discovery, I have no use for USSF's distorted version of it.
interesting. at this point i haven't seen anything from our state association that i haven't already received from ussf. our state AGM is in early March so I assume there will be a session on this then.
Cal South has classes scheduled now. The 9v9 and 11v11 take place this weekend. I know one of the instructors and she asked if my team could participate. Seems they want kids doing the drills and not coaches. There are a few “D” courses scheduled. The cost is $525. That’s steep!!!
https://cysa.affinitysoccer.com/eventmanager/public/event.asp?calid=9474916&eventtype=CE For both weekends.
In So Cal there are currently 5 9v9 and 11v11 classes scheduled. Looks like they run them concurrently and you need to pay $75 for each one. Or $150 for the weekend. Figure class size of 30. That’s $22,500 There are 4 “D” courses at $525. 30 per classes 120 attendees x $525= $63,000 You’ve got $85,000 coming in. I don’t know how many instructors they have or what they pay to rent facilities. But seems like easy income for the association.
I am sure the instructors are not getting rich. The saddest thing is that the financial burden is eventually falling on the parents of the youth players. From USSF's actions, it seems USSF doesn't intend amateur coaches to have these licenses.