The C course is being offered locally next fall, and I'm going to sign up for it. Has anyone on here taken it since all the changes began? From what I can tell, all of the courses, from the bottom up, have been revised over the last year or so. I was told in the spring that the new C covers a lot of what the old D covered, but I'd like to hear some real world experiences if anyone has them.
I was just having this conversation last night. Colleague just took the USSF C and he said it's more tactical in focus. He did not compare it to old D.
tactical how? the old D was primarily focused on training a single line of your team to work together. my understanding is the C is focused on training your full 11 as a unit, combining the lines. is that accurate? how much of the focus is on using proper diagrams in training plans? i can't believe how much time i've spent on that in my E & D courses.
I had to drop out, but the early focus was on coaching methodology (Play-practice-play) on tactical concepts. That format is inefficient for technical and SAQ training, which should be done when players are fresh. The one example that bothers me the most is "building out of the back". It comes up repeatedly at every age level. And it is functional training. To be fair they also covered principles of play. I didn't see the old progression on coaching the individual, line, and team. But I wasn't there for testing and evaluation at the end. That is where they may have evaluated the coaches on coaching a line of players. The new grassroots material covers 4v4 to 11v11, so I think that is a break from the old progression. They change so fast, I expect USSF to revise it again next year. When I took the E, USSF was basically revising the presentations and sending them to instructors while we were in the class. The impression I got was that "grass roots" (including D) meant recreational. C is for competitive players and teams. That is a guess though. They don't say that, but I cannot see travel coaches using much of what was presented. I also base it on the push to require C licenses to coach travel.
I took it last year. I wouldn't say the focus is tactical per say. It very fast paced, focusing on improving you as a coach. The D previously, as mentioned above, focused on a single line of players. The main focus of the C was coaching 2 lines (defense-midfield). If you haven't taken a USSF course in the last 2 years, the vocabulary has changed and you will spend the first 2 days or so playing catch up. Basically, everything that you do needs to be "game realistic" for your training sessions. Each candidate gets assigned a mentor, and that is the person who evaluates you. Overall, it was a more relaxed atmosphere and everyone was approachable in my experience. There is not much value in some of the instruction topics, aside from interaction with the other candidates. You are not going to see an instructor led session, and you are going to be pushed beyond your comfort zone. Oh, and you will definitely get familiar with the DCC and USSFs session planner.
Agreed with the sentiment that it helps to have been in the D (or other USSF course) recently. And yes, you will become very adept with the DCC planner. I did the old C and the new B. Very different. I understand the new C is much more involved. At the B, we did have a few instructor-led sessions.
I took the C three years ago and it sounds like some stuff has changed since but overall, I was extremely disappointed in the course. Our grade was based on filmed sessions that you ran with a team of your choice plus a field session you ran on the second weekend at the course location. At my location, we had two teams for eight candidates and the coaches that went earlier got a lot better response from the players. By the end, brothers, sisters, and other coaches were jumping in to give the kids a break but it led to a very mismatched skillset and I thought those coaches that went later were at a real disadvantage especially if they had a very specific session. As the poster above mentioned, they are obsessive about using the DCC session planner which is actually not at all intuitive or user-friendly. I found it taking an hour or more to find the right type of lines/shapes so I didn't lose points on a sub-optimal session plan. We also had to do a spreadsheet after we edited our filmed session down to 20 minutes where you typed a quote of your coaching point and put a time stamp on it so your "coaching mentor" could review it. It was a lot to do in season so I'd suggest trying to do it between seasons if at all possible. Another point is that my team was too young (U12) even though they were high enough caliber for a filmed session so I had to find a coach with an old enough team willing to let me cover a session for his or her team. I coach at a large club with ECNL so it wasn't a problem but if you coach at a smaller club that doesn't have ECNL or DA teams, that could be a challenge. It just seems like USSF is trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with their own terminology that they force feed you and if you don't use it, you will fail. It was an exercise in mimicking the instructors the best you could and when I figured that out, I was able to pass. But, I didn't take a whole lot back with me other than a shiny and very expensive piece of paper.
Thanks, @UncagedGorilla. Your experience sounds a lot like my D course. I usually coach 6Us and 8Us in the fall so I've already thought about needing to find a team to train for my homework. I will be reaching out to a couple high school coaches to see if I can use their players.
Good luck, @stphnsn . I guess my experience is a little dated but fyi, there was a guy in my class who used his girls high school team for his sessions and he got ripped because the team wasn't very good and the instructors didn't think they were up to the level he'd be expected to coach with a C. He got an 11/25 on his practice session grade which made it very hard for him to pass, not sure if he pulled it off or not. Find a very good high school team to coach if at all possible.
Unfortunately, that sounds like par for the course from the USSF. "Coaches must be educated! Also, you must only coach great teams, and you must pay thousands of dollars for education." It's no wonder why we are where we are.
I would say that you should expect the experience to vary. I had 36 people in my course, so 12 per group. The host club did an excellent job getting player out there for us to use, but coaches still had to supplement. I just added them to the team in opposition of who i was coaching (if that makes sense). The thing that was frustrating was the unknown amount of players that you had for the live sessions, and not knowing what you would get. We had different groups each time, but I was pleased overall with them. As far as the video sessions go, I used a u12 team that was not mine. My instructor/mentor wasn't nit-picky about the quality of the players, just about the coaching. As coaches, we can only do so much, so they expect differing quality play I would imagine.
The course guide/syllabus has been posted for my course this fall. It says 171 hours of instruction/coaching/assignments are required. The number of training sessions and assignments mean you need to be a head coach for this so my plan to borrow some high school players for my homework isn't going to work. It also says the course is aimed at coaches in the 9v9 or 11v11 age groups, which is interesting. At least that makes it easier to find a team to coach.
I know the coaches we had that took the new C had to videotape a session. They borrowed 11v11 teams to do it, as neither worked with one at the time. I do know getting the assignments in on time is key.
The course guide itself looks like it was cobbled together and has inconsistencies throughout. Hopefully, we get more detailed information ahead of time, but judging by past courses I've taken through my state association, I'm not counting on it.
Interesting. What inconsistencies do you see? Even though it's hosted by the states/member orgs, I thought the new C was directly overseen by the Federation like the A and the B.
Yes, but the instructor staff for the "pro" pathway is much more streamlined. When I look from the B to the A manuals, there is a natural flow. I haven't seen the new C manual though.
The biggest thing was the references to 9v9 and/or 11v11. Some places it just says 11v11. Some places it says both. I don't remember others off the top of my head. Looking through the list of assignments, it's not clear exactly what's required or when. That was one of my biggest issues with the D I took. I lost a lot of points because I didn't turn my homework in throughout the development period even though no one ever told me that was the expectation. I also lost points for not being thorough enough in my reflections. Again, I had no idea what the expectation was. My last educational experience with evaluations was law school so to say it was a big adjustment would be an understatement.
I hear ya. The new assignments caught me by surprise. In the B, the assignment deadlines were loaded by first day of class. Procrastination is the biggest enemy, especially for the videotaping. What was helpful is that every meeting, the instructors took the time to go through every line item and deadline, so feedback about prior experiences like yours MUST have been absorbed. Honestly, I didn't know the C incorporated 9v9. When I did (old C) it was 11v11 only.
In myC everything was based on 11v11. Also, they pace out dates for assignments. They are hard dates that need a submission or you are booted from the course. If asked for revision, just follow along what they say needed elaboration. My experience with it was great. I wouldn’t necessarily get hung up on any work pre course aside from the self eval and initial session. You will likely revise those once you meet your mentor anyways. Just be adaptable and open minded to the process. Again, if you are expecting tactical breakdowns and revolutionary systems of play, it’s not the course for that.
Also, any revisions needed to be finished by the end date of your course to be “green lit”. You will understand a lot more once you start the course meeting.
Well said on both points. I agree that it's key to get the assignments done by due date. Now, I'm not entirely sure, but I would bet it's important to get something different down that's coherent too; gibberish would count against you I think. I further agree with McGilicudy: if/when an assignment gets bounced back, simply add detail as directed. If you get them in on time to begin with, I think you'll be fine. And plan for the video!
I was at our state's annual DOC meeting on Saturday, and they made a few interesting statements. First they said that the C is the highest license the USSF wants non-full-time coaches to take. They said the B, A, and Pro licenses are for people who are career coaches so if you're not a full time coach, they don't want you trying to take anything over the C. Secondly, they talked about how hard it is to get into a B course anyway. They relayed a few individual stories for coaches who couldn't get into a B course without major string pulling. This included a current assistant at Ohio State who played high level college AND is the current 15/16U USBNT GK coach. The second, related point was that you need to fill out your DCC profile completely and add verification letters if you want to be considered for upper level courses. The C and below are sign up, and you're in. The B and above are applications that must be approved.
Yep. I’ve heard similar and believe it to be true regarding the B and A courses. Which is shameful from the fed. You would think they would want as many highly licensed folks as possible, but instead they continue to install barriers of entry like these. Looks like my next course may be the UEFA B.