I guess that answers the question about how concerned the establishment is about pay-to-play. I'm almost afraid to see what the C and above courses will cost...
we just had our state association annual meeting, and they explained how the new licensing pathway works, costs, etc. basically, USSF charges $25 for each course, and the state associations are allowed to charge whatever they want on top of that for in person course. the USSF fee goes toward the $8M they spent on the online DCC system. the states do what they want with the fees. in our state believes in free coaching education so they're not charging anything over the $25 for ISA members up through the D. it doesn't sound like much has changed with the C up so i imagine the costs are similar. our club will probably reimburse the $25 to our coaches who take the courses if they show us their certificate. i don't know what we're going to do for my C when i take it next year. our state DOC suggested clubs could have the candidates pay half and the clubs pay half up front. then have the club reimburse 25% each of the following years that the coach stays with the club.
I just finished my C in Feb. It was $1600 not including any meals or boarding. I paid it out of my pocket, with no reimbursement. I think it was pretty reasonable, but wouldn't argue seeing these prices reduced.
C License is listed at $1880. But there’s also a third weekend where hotel and room and board are required. So total cost is prob $2500-3000 easy.
A rumor I heard was that USSF is filling the B classes with USSF DA coaches with C licenses, making it impossible for others to find space. This of course makes the DA clubs look better on paper.
probably true. it's a cash cow of their own making. Didn't they stipulate that you needed X-license to coach at certain ages? Now they have a vested interest in making sure the DA is stocked with licensed coaches. I only have contact with a few DAs in the Northeast, two with MLS clubs and the coaches I know are quality. Hopefully they are representative of the whole body.
I'm planning on taking my C in 2019. Can you talk more about what they cover? Differences from the D?
that was something else our state DOC addressed. he said if any of us have trouble finding a spot, we can let him know, and he'll get us in.
Anyone have reviews on the DCC? $25 doesn't seem too bad for a year's subscription but frankly, I don't need it. I've been doing all my session plans analog (by hand) but they do look nice printed up and such.
You get a year's subscription with a license course. You have to use it for the courses. Access to the center is free. It is the lesson plans, etc., that you pay for. I don't think they are worth $25 a year. But then I am a paper type of guy too. My club requires coaches to have a smart phone and use their aps. The aps of course track your information and give it to the "sponsors." Up to now I have avoided aps and smart phones, but I am in a vanishingly small minority. Last stat I saw 95% of cell users have smart phones. It is just a marketing racket. Selling people dumb terminals so that they can charge more for uploads and downloads. .
Are you saying that they have pre-made lesson plans that you pay for? Or that to use their lesson plan software is what costs $25 for the year? Are you saying that your club requires the DCC or that your club has it's own coaching app?
It's interesting that the applicant doesn't design their own sessions in the new pathway. That was a huge focal point in the D course.
You have access to a library of submitted plans as well as your own work. NSCAA (USC) and USYSA have similar shared libraries. My club doesn't require DCC. It requires certain aps and a smart phone. My club is part of Rush. I don't know, but my guess is that Rush has its own ap. They are very good at marketing.
i believe they have you start your own planning with the C course now. i was told i will be ahead of my classmates in the C if they've gone through the new pathway because of the experience in the E and D of drawing up my own plans.
For our local rec/travel club we (the board) adopted the pre-made plans from USSF for our U6 through U10 age groups. It worked well if you had volunteer coaches with very little soccer experience. At least you were going to get a competent 60-minute session. AND there were only a handful of sessions, so the coaches could, over 1-2 seasons, get to really know the content, coaching points, equipment, space needs, numbers needs, pacing and how their players relate to the drills. I taught it to our volunteer coaches because, I felt, it was sound. I personally wouldn't coach that way, because I don't feel it teaches kids enough of what they need to know at these ages. Paradoxically, we did develop more kids than we have in the past—measured by how many kids we felt would be able to play at the "travel" level. Is that because of the sessions or is it because we actually took ALL the kids in the age group and gave them development and technical focused training?
Here is the thing, if you are capable of giving more, great! But the fact that all your players are at least getting minimal competent training is a huge step. That wasn't the case in the past. For us we've always wanted two things in this order out of a season 1. Young kids have fun 2. Good training. If you've eliminated #2 with basic plans, you get to concentrate on the other.
One of things I'm remiss about taking my daughter to club I coach for is that they went 7v7 at U7, when they should have stayed 4v4 with no GKs until u9. Don't get me wrong, her teammates have adapted well to 7v7 BUT, again, I'm remiss that they missed out on two years of 4v4.
looking for them but can't find 'em. DoC says they may have been taken down because of the new curriculum. Which is funny because I thought that they were for the new curriculum. I will get them in a pdf and I can e-mail them to you or post them here, somehow.