This has been the experience for us as well. Top players are getting additional play and I see my child is simply filler. The training is essintially the same from top to bottom but far less for the less skilled players. I do not understand how this approach is supposed to help them improve? The players my daughter practices with are only slightly better then the team we left which was much closer to home. My daughter has improved but she is not really happy so we are exploring other options. We have not been at Sockers long so there is not much of an attachment and I am not worried about whether her coaches know or not that we are leaving.
U11 is really to young to judge much, they can get great skills at any club big or small at that age, depends completely on the coach and the kid. For the U13, if she is not on the top ECNL team, then she is just money filler. The club brought in players from over 1000 miles away to play, some moved here, some just played games. You will know when your child is the stud. If your kid wants to become great, they can do that anywhere.
Your sentiments are shared by many people. They are about numbers and numbers equal dollars. Too much arrogance, deceit, and intimidation (with a dash of nepotism thrown in for good measure!). My feeling is that you are paying for a service. If you’re not happy with your service, you get a new and better service.
For me, this is one of the key factors as to whether a club is really about development or not. Does the roster, from top to bottom, develop? Are players 11-15 able to make big gains? Challenge for playing time and position? The worst kid in our team is SO much improved over last year. Both in skill and attitude. It’s awesome.
Sockers is doing the same thing. Entering 3 boys teams in one age group, that I'm aware of, to US Club Regionals(Academy included). Only if you register and make a payment prior to 5/15.
I don't know about deceit, intimidation or nepotism but I do know that it is a kind of my way or the highway mentality. Coaches say they are not concerned with winning at the Pre-Academy level but they clearly are. The better players are getting far more opportunities to train and play games. younger players are bumping some of our players and my general feel overall is that you have Development Academy players, players who should have stayed with smaller clubs to get more "development" and then players who are have strings dangled before them to keep them on board so that their Pre-Academy teams do not completely fall into B and C levels. Like I said the pool is slightly better then where we came from but I don't think my player is going to make the DA based on the training she's currently getting. So I think it's important to at least make the experience fun and right now she's not giving me that vibe. I personally think she would enjoy the game more if she went back with her friends. We'll see. Anything is possible.
I think there is of course improvement. But when players are split mid-season, they start to wonder why and the thinking process takes it's toll. They already have enough going on with internal changes. I think that can impact the process and make the situation worse for them. I see the club struggling to field Pre-Academy teams, focus on development and maintain those top players who are currently Pre-Academy. We lost a lot in Fall and no one wants to deal with that. But stacking teams to maintain your top players is not development and that's where I am coming from.
Our coach fed us that line too at the Pre-ECNL level for U11 girls. Yet he never changed up his starting lineups. Never played kids in diff't positions. Never mixed the starters with the non-starters (for fear of what tainting the starters?) Became absolutely insufferable when we were losing. Got on the girls every single time they made a mistake. Yet it wasnt about winning it was about developing. Total bullsh**.
MA not sure who your coach was but I know my kid never started - which I was fine with. her pool was good and I was happy we got lucky in that sense because it's always better to end up with better players. However when my kid did go in, when the game became close, she'd be pulled right away - I mean it was so obvious. I'm not talking after an error on her part - just a closing game in terms of score. She was often replaced with a player well below her. Since we left we heard many stories that led me to believe this player was getting more play time because her sister is a rockstar and they do not want to lose her. As crazy as that sounds - I've heard of similar stories going on. This sort of crap did not just happen to my player as well.
There was a girl on my daughter's Pre ECNL team who did not belong on the top team at all. She already had 2 siblings in the program and another on the way. Had to of been the only reason.
I like this because it is interesting. I am guessing Eclipse have this issue as well - not necessarily FCU because their program is much bigger. Not only that, they offer other platforms such as MRL and meaningful tournaments for their non-DA teams. I think Sockers biggest issue is that they have so poorly managed the girls end of the club, that they cannot get quality players in at the PDA levels. In many cases they cannot even get the numbers to field full - appropriate aged teams. That would indicate too me that parents and players are not necessarily looking at Sockers as the place to go in the u-little stages of the game. It's not only mis-management but also the organic progression of smaller clubs that now offer 3v3, Futsal, Technical Training and more. Coaches progressing through the licensing ranks and clubs looking at this as a business now - not just soccer. In other words, many clubs are or have caught up. If you look at rankings like YSR (Yes I know they are not a 100% bell weather) but you will find - at almost all age groups Galaxy, Team Chicago, Eclipse, FCU, CSA, Chicago Inter and SLSG consistently well ahead of Sockers. The legend was always - that Sockers develops players. The numbers don't really show that. That should be food for thought for both parents and the club. But getting back to the comment... What is the right path in this case? Do you keep the age groups together and develop through the losses - building all players. MA makes a point here that by doing so, you could lose the top 05/06 players during try out season. Or do you cater to the top players and sod off the rest - potentially losing some to other clubs and putting coaches in the position where they may have a hard time ever fielding an age appropriate team down the road?
2005 tryouts are a cluster********. Some clubs doing this weekend others are doing end of May. IWSL says 05 are not High School so they can’t have tryouts until May 18th.
US Club teams seem to have no tryout rules. The DA or ECNL can have open houses but you know they are offering IWSL spots at that time. All IWSL teams should be following the same calendar but the league does nothing to those that don’t. A rival club did their tryouts on the Saturday when the league said they couldn’t start until Monday. The club set a deadline to commit at 3pm Monday so naive parents were trapped. It was all on their website by IWSL did nothing.
I don't think Sockers is doing the same thing as FCU. From this thread I think FCU wants payment commitment within 48 hours of an offer for the 2019-2020 season. Sockers is asking for payment by 5/15 for US Club Regionals which are in June. And the team registration deadline is June 1. So asking for payment by 5/15 is reasonable so they know how many players they will have. And we also got the May 31 deadline email from Sockers. And that deadline is for a discount for 2019/20 season and retention of your jersey #. So it is a meaningful monetary commitment but is also giving a full month to decide.
Talked on 4/24 to the Father of a girl who made the FCUDA U14 next season out of their 3/10 ID Session. He had not been required to pay any money as of 4/24.
Looks like on the Eclipse website that there will be possibly an MRL team? USYS link. Wondering if the first team is at OB, second team up north, will the third team be an MRL team out of OB?
Frankly I think they would be smarter having an MRL team(s) up north. Between Team Chicago, Inter, Galaxy and plenty more in the south who are already fielding strong teams in Prem 1 & 2, I am not so sure they will get the players. They would likely have a better chance of more highly skilled players from the north IMO.
Eclipse MRL will be for East teams only. Heard HS tryouts were pretty big. Many FCU and Sockers (ECNL/HS) girls on hand. One coach said many of the apps left the "current club" blank.