This is a nice idea too, but it requires the sort of investment that (apparently) MLS does not want to make at this moment, compared to say, NIKE and how their project 40 program (alongside US SOccer) seems to have worked out......
Are you saying P-40 is a failure. It unearthed Landon, DMB, Convey, EJ, etc; and others who left college early for MLS (Marshall, Ricardo Clark, Brian West). I don't think all these players would be as good as they are if they played college soccer for 4 years. EJ and Quaranta would probably be in college today.
if you are asking me....HEck, no..... P-40 is by no means a failure.... but for MLS to do something similarrequires investment, something which it would appear they are not willing to make right now......
I think the difference is that in places like Mexico especially most of these kids affiliated with pro teams have been in the pro environment fo rmany years so they are quite a bit further along in their development than players here because they have a better base concerning the basics of the game. At 20 most american players are just beginning to learn the basics that kids in other countries learned at 16 or younger. As much as we hate to admit it the average Mexican player is quite a bit better than the average american player and it comes from longterm immersion in the professional environment. Just guaranteeing playing time for young players won't help unless they have that base of knowledge established first.
They get minutes because they are good enough to play in a quality league argentinian teams don't give players minutes hoping they develop into players who are good enough to play in a quality league. One coems before the other. Saying "we need to get them minutes" is a gross oversimplification that ignores the most important aspects of youth development. Namely preparing players BEFORE they ever hit the first team. I don't see how Mexico can be criticised when they have a league comprised overwhelmingly of domestic talents yet they have perhaps the best league in the hemisphere.
They do, they just limit the defintion of "top" to just a few players. $75k is what Gaven made his rookie year, IIRC, and of course Adu and Szetela made more. The problem is it's also what Memo Gonzalez made too so there is some risk of overpaying. The college players and particularly the seniors make considerably less because they have fewer options available to them. Because there's little market for American college players overseas, MLS has succeeded in monopsonizing that small section of the overall U.S. player market. To what long term benefit that serves, I don't know. The US problems with player development start long before the college/pro dilemma so I think if we set things right to begin with, the college/pro dilemma would be less important. If we had a couple of Wayne Rooneys coming out of the high school ranks every year, it would be ridiculous for such a player to even consider college ball. In short I agree paying the top high school talent 6 figures would be a good strategy, but only if their already established talent level warranted such expenditures. For that we need a much more comprehensive player development strategy.
Ya but there aren't that many Adus, Gaves, Magees and Mapps ... even if there are interspersed with Devon Barkleys and Memo Gonzaleses.