While doing some research into how the ODP program works, I thought I would bring it up on here and get opinions on how we should change or if we should change it all. Here is my opinion: I think the system needs to undergo major changes. Now whether we have the funding or enough quality coaches for my system. Anyway, my proposal, which is of course up for debate. We slowly branch the system out to where every kid has a chance to train at an elite system like Brandenton. First we develop regional training centers. The south will continue to train at Bradenton. Out west, they will train at the new LA Galaxy facillity. We could develop something in the Midwest at say, St. Louis. Maybe one in Texas at Austin and maybe one in the Northeast in maybe Boston or New York. These regional centers would serve the same capacity as Bradenton. The top players from each region would come to train there under elite coachig staffs. The next step would be to develop state centers. I think it should be left up to the indivdual state to fund these, with some help from the USSF. The problem would be finding so many quality coaching staffs. These centers would have to be first-class, like Brandeton. The top players from the state stay and train there. As you can see, It is built on the current system. Now sure, it would have many disadvantges both on and off the pitch. It would elimante the "my club coach wont let me tryout for ODP," becuase you wont be playing form him anymore. Your thoughts?
This is true. It would have to be kept fresh every year for players who develop into better players as they age.
but if you have state centers the leval is a lot different. and would prolly not develop players like landon donovan and so on. so u would prolly still need the national and regional centers.
I can agree with this. The key here is getting enough quality coaches to take part. If we could do that, it would start pumping out youth players left and right.
they should keep one residence for each region at the same time having the states own residences. So, then they top....oh lets say 4-6 players from each state go to the region residence. Then, the top 8 from each region proceed to a National Residence(I think it would be practical to have this in DC). This would be much better than just picking a regional pool from small views of the players....and so on to the national pool.....just my opinion
1. USSF and MLS are different entities. 2. There are 10 MLS teams. There are 280 million Americans. 3. We live in the real world, not Magical Fairyland.
Having states involved is what causes problems in the 1st place. Capitalism always produces better results than socialism. If the USSF really wants to take a major leap in the youth to professional development process, it can be done with little difficulty. Eliminate the youth residency program in Bradenton (it's outlived it's usefulness) and take the cost savings to fund youth development grants for all 10 MLS teams, and, say, the top 6 A- League teams. This would distribute youth development resources extremely efficiently throughout the important population centers in the US, and would put clubs in the player development business, which is where they should be. When combined with the donation leverage those grants would create, it would be enough money to fund both a U18 (for U16-U18) and PDL (for U19 to U23) team for each franchise. Most of the coaching could be done by franchise players, who have a vested interest in their club's fortunes. This would immediately jump start the pool of future professionals from the 20 or so who feed at the USSF trough in Bradenton, to over 300 in one fell swoop.
This is the best way to go. Unfortunately the people in the current fifedoms are set up to perpetuate the current amateur system and this includes college coaches, local club coaches etc. They do not want to let go of the current system because it's making them money.
What is USSF's motivation to develop players? Crappy players pay the same dues as do the elite players (on a certain level). Professional clubs motivation would be $$$. They get good players cheap (not having to buy them) and they can sell other players they don't want. Win/win for the clubs. Yes, there are only 10 MLS clubs. How many A-League clubs? 18, 20, 22? I'm not sure. I like the idea of shutting down Bradenton and using the Nike money for the MLS clubs and the top 6 or 8 A-League clubs. If you don't finish top 6 or 8, you lose your grant for the year. How's that for motivation? We don't have promotion/relegation but we could have some serious dogfights at the end of the season as teams fight for the $$$ from Nike. No, we don't live in cloud cuckoo land do we? But, instead of attacking someone's point of view why not come up with some alternatives? This shouldn't be too hard for the professional clubs to create. All they need to do is break down about 25 years worth of amateurish structure and political bickering. Personally, I would love to see the youth soccer people knocked down a peg or two. And I sit on the board of a local soccer club. Go figure.
In a normal league, yes. In single-entity MLS, I'm not so sure. My impression is that, in most leagues, clubs want to develop quality youth players for two main reasons: 1. To help win games (both to attain survival/promotion/international competition and the money that brings, and simply because winning teams sell more tickets and advertising). 2. To make money off of transfer fees. #1 doesn't apply in MLS - survival and promotion aren't an issue, of course. More importantly, every win for one team is a loss for another arm of the the SEM octopus; a player who helps his team win a ton of games provides no net gain for anyone. So, why bother? #2 is a little more realistic - but, consider the fact that any transfer revenue would go to the league as a whole, not to individual clubs. So, even if you give an MLS team a grant for youth development, where's the motivation for the management of the individual team to devote much attention to assuring that it's a high quality program? And considering the general lack of interest from abroad in paying for MLS players, and that MLS is currently stating their intent to try to hold onto young stars, there may not be enough transfer money out there to provide any real incentive for this at all, even for the league as a whole. I don't really understand this. How exactly do you attract good players, good coaches, administration, etc. if your grant and thus your whole youth development program stands a good chance of disappearing after the season? Maybe you could explain a little further, if I'm missing something here.
Ah, but there's another funding source for the Federation which is equally, if not more, important - corporate sponsorships. Like it or not, corporate sponsorships for the Federation are affected by the quality of our national teams. So, the Federation does have a pretty significant motivation to want to develop quality players. They don't have the motivation that the pro clubs do, obviously, but to say they have none is wrong.
Why they bother is that the success of leagues is just as much about star players as it is about great teams. MLS knows that if they develop soccer's version of Joe Namath, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky, the league has the chance to enjoy the kind of financial successes the other four major sports did. I believe they would have even more motivation if the league's teams were more competitive with each other developmentally, but that fight will have to come another day.
"Yes, there are only 10 MLS clubs. How many A-League clubs? 18, 20, 22? I'm not sure. I like the idea of shutting down Bradenton and using the Nike money for the MLS clubs and the top 6 or 8 A-League clubs." Pound the Commissioner with this at the supporters conference during MLS Cup.
Exactly correct and this is where the leverage comes in. Corporations can be gotten very interested in supporting things that have "youth" and "developmental" among the buzzwords. By having the USSF disperse youth developmental grant money to the pro clubs, it helps the clubs raise significantly more money in the form of corporate sponsorships. In addition, it also helps creates much deeper ties into the community since the youth players involved all have families, friends, and friends of friends who will begin paying more attention to the franchise, attend games, buy merchandise, etc.
For leagues below a certain level of popularity, it isn't about either. If I informed you that the National Lacrosse League or whatever it's called currently features Joe Blah, one of the best lacrosse players in US history, would you immediately run out and buy season tickets for the privilege of seeing him play? I don't really buy that. For example, Landon Donovan scored two goals in the USA's successful World Cup run, has been on the cover of SI and ESPN magazine, appeared in Nike ads, has been interviewed on numerous talk shows, and has basically received as much attention and hype over the last few months as any American soccer player is likely to recieve in the forseeable future. And yet, last I heard, San Jose tickets are still pretty easy to come by. Exhibit B is the average attendance of the WUSA. Saying that MLS could be popular if it developed its own Michael Jordan is like saying that professional badminton could be popular in the US if they only had their own Tiger Woods. It can't happen before the league attracts some degree of widespread national awareness by some other means. MLS already has American stars - why aren't they celebrities already? Even if we accept that creating a bunch of junior teams will automatically result in a slightly higher quality of American stars showing up years down the road (I say "slightly" since I don't think that even the most fervent supporter of pro development would expect the creation of MLS reserve sides to result in a regular supply of American Ronaldos), there's no evidence to suggest that this will provide a measurable boost to the league in financial terms.
You're missing the point. Stars follow the opportunities, not vice versa. All of these stars kicked their respective sports into hyperdrive, but the sports and infrastructure existed well before them. Although professional soccer has an inherent profit motive, the basic interests of the USSF and MLS are well aligned in terms of the need for shared success, unlike any other US sport. For the US to be a major soccer power, we need a strong domestic professional league. For the US to have a strong domestic professional league, we need to consistently identify and produce more good professional players than we can use, so the bar always remains high. Preparing 20 or so "annointed" players every 2 years simply isn't enough. It's well in the interest of the USSF to become co-involved with MLS in this effort, even if only financially, as USSF benefits just as equally as MLS in the long run.
You don't understand. The players ARE that means to widespread national awareness. Landon Donovan was EVERYWHERE in the several weeks after the World Cup. Overnight, he became a known name, and with him, MLS got some of the notoriety it's been seeking for seven years. You can't buy that kind of publicity. You also seem to want immediate results to come out of the national awareness the league has just gotten (ie, your point about SJ's ticket sales). Generally, it doesn't work that way. The financial rewards that the other majors have gained from their star players have usually taken many years to be fully realized. The NFL didn't capitalize fully on the attention-grabbing successes of the 60's and 70's until the major TV contracts started appearing in the 80's. The NBA was still a distant third for several years even after the emergence of Magic and Bird. So, though I'd love to see an immediate "pop" from Donovan and the US Nats recent successes, I can also wait. It's coming. Now, I can see a case to be made that MLS doesn't have the foundation of support that the other majors had when their breakthrough stars appeared on the scene (you compared soccer to badminton and lacrosse in this regard). However, it is a very poor case given that the league typically pulls in 2 million fans per year.
Sorry, one more thing: Well, this is like asking why Britney Spears is a "major star" and India Arie isn't. They both are great performers, but one has hit on a formula that has more mass appeal with the buying public than the other. MLS has had some modest success with selling its homegrown American stars - it has overcome the aging and/or disappearance of the foreign and American stars the league had as it's original base of attraction. But it has yet to hit on that right formula to fire the public's imagination. Do you know why? I don't, not exactly anyway. All I can say is that the league hasn't yet hit on the right formula. And if you ask my opinion, individual players, probably Americans, hold the key to finding that formula. The more development efforts the league makes, the more likely they'll find it.
I still contened that we need to branch out are youth talent. Take a city for expample like Memphis. It has great soccer talent. Players such as Clark Talley, Ross Paule, Jonthan Walker, and Richard Mulrooney have come from the city. It dosent have a MLS team or an A-League team. So it wouldnt develop this kind of talent in a professional system of devlopment. Too many quality players would fall through the cracks in that system.
Charger, your point is even more well taken when you throw in two major producers of top US talent, Philadelphia and St. Louis. If you ask me, what I think will work best in this country is a two-pronged system: 1) a top-down, pros-developing-pros system that filters kids up to MLS, and 2) a bottom-up system which filters kids through professionally coached youth clubs up to elite U-20, U-23 or "adult" club teams which would compete in leagues like the PDL (or perhaps D3 for the top clubs) and then gain the eye of the MLS scouts. Obviously, MLS is going to have to put their money and commitment into system 1. But system 2 will take care of the breadth problem - making sure no kid is missed. I wish I knew more about the youth clubs, though. I'm not sure I know what the clubs think about all this or why they might or might not want to participate in such a system. If anyone can enlighten us, I'm all ears.
A fact then an opinion The ODP is run by and for the USYSA. It is not run by the USSF. The USSF benifits from the results of the ODP. ODP must be funded by the money that those willing to donate give to it. If no one donates any money, including the state YSA's, then it must be self funded by those who participate. It's big $ to stay a regional camp. = = = = = = = = Put on your tin foil hat then think about these ideas. Bruce Arena has expressed the desire to take more control of the youth program. Dr. Bob, of the USYSA, has been re-elected as president of the USSF. Who is in charge? That will determine the focus of the ODP. = = = = = = = = The USA's biggest problem with the development of youth players is a lack of reward. Clubs are not rewarded for developing players. First and formost typically the players pay the club to play. The clubs are providing a service to the players. If the player wants to stop paying then that is the end of the relationship. The club has no legal hold over the player. Even if the club paid the player there is no such thing as a transfer fee because of the laws against indentured servitude (Slavery). Our laws are structured to let kids do what they want when they turn 18. Ask Macaulay Culkin.
Re: Re: Current State of ODP Program The "states" you refer to are private, state soccer clubs, not the state governments.