Ford Williams will be very surprised to hear that. Dan, correct me if I'm wrong, but league dues help fund USSF. So you're suggesting that all that money collected around here should go to Charleston, et al.? Let me tell you about a little something called the Boston Tea Party. If you honestly think it is both a) a good idea and b) fair for the money that CASL now sends to the USSF for Bradenton would go instead to pro teams around here, you live in a different world from me. I want the US to have a great national team, too, but there are lines I wouldn't cross to get there.
Most of the Bradenton money comes from IMG. Over a mill as I recall. BTW I notice you continue to ignore the $$$ the pros put into USSF coffers. You argument tries to consider dues for support of USSF ending up supporting pros. I'm on the record for keeping those dues down. In fact at one time I had an online vote going against such an increase. But I am on record for sponsor $$$ and pro $$$ to USSF to go back to the pro game. Keeping Bradenton alive is not the way to do it.
I have to believe the actual cost of operating the residency program (separate from the costs of the U17 team) are significantly higher than $1mm.
The New Zealand effort (LD, et al) was rumored to be $2.7 mil. That included Bradenton, but I don't have the breakout.
Yes they do. These kids will someday play for the USA. Hence the USSF has a selfish interest in properly training them. So the pro clubs will invest the proper amount of time in these young players because . . . . . . The USSF will pay them, they are really nice people and it's the right thing to do?
Why would the USSF train them any better than they would be in the professional ranks? An investment of $1mm to $2mm dollars yearly is being hugely squandered on a handful of players. That money could be leveraged up 100% in the pro ranks, with 10 times the number of players being professionally trained, and the USSF interests would not have been the least bit diluted.
Umm 100% would be two times the number being trained. But here is my point, the clubs don't KNOW that the youth player will play for them. On turning 18 the kid could claim the "contract" was with his parents, not him, and go to another club. There is a huge risk in a pro club training players since they have no hold over them once they turn 18. The USSF has 0% risk because these kids, having been capped, CAN'T go somewhere else. I don't think the clubs have much interest in this because they have no hold over yotuh players. It is because our "indentured servant" laws were modified by the 14th, 15th and 16th (I think) amendments in response to slavery. I think the USSF should eliminate the current middle man, the USYSA, but because of Dr. Bob's ties to the USYSA they won't.
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. We USA SOCCER FANS really hope that this is the print for the future of USA SOCCER as a world POWER ......... good work!
Is the USSF able to develop players much better than say, FC Delco, Colorado Rush, CASL, NY Hota, Houstonians, or FC Portland? Does the USYSA miss out on spotting some good players?
And the answers are: 1. They think they can and that's why they have the Bradenton residency program. 2. Definitely
Agree on both counts. THEY think they can (or they like to try). They miss out on some diamonds in the rough. What should the USSF do about that?
As noted on the Super Y league thread, I think you're going to see a much broader involvement by the USSF (and Arena), than currently through the USYSA structure.
Excellent. I would love to see that. I would love for the USSF to send scouts out rather than wait see what USYSA comes up with.
Re: Re: Re: Current State of ODP Program No. The demand of the professional marketplace is what cultivates the professional player pool, not regional centers. Its what makes just-in-time manufacturing more effective than loading up warehouses full of widgets when there's no market for them (read Goldratt sometime). It's market "pull" vs. "push" theory. Professional clubs need the talent to sustain and advance the professional sport. To the extent they do, their interest lies in "pulling" appropriate players into their ranks and cultivating the capabilities of those players for their future use. Regional centers will end up only as more costly ODP regional pool training facilities once the turf battles begin. The excess players would, of necessity, be targeted into the college ranks, so no real problems would have ben solved over the current regional ODP system. Private academies serve the interests of enterprising coaches and their financially well endowed student clientele.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Current State of ODP Program I think this is absolutely correct. I find it hard to believe that a system constructed under an amateur organization like USSF or ODP, regardless of its "commitment to excellence" or whatever highfalutin' slogan it might have, would become a successful pro and/or international soccer factory as Kayasoleil envisions. Look at existing amateur structures to see what is more likely. If you want to find a high concentration of young players in a development system you have to follow the money. Wherever there is a significant financial incentive to produce quality players, there will be quality players. Two examples - college basketball and youth basketball camps. Where is the talent concentrated? It is at schools with the highest financial incentives to be successful - UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan, Arizona, etc. These are schools with huge buildings, large alumni support and significant advertising opportunities (ie, professional basketball passing itself off as amateur). And youth camps? Look to the shoe sponsors. If Nike or Adidas are involved, you'll probably see lots of future NBA players. If not, forget it. If we want talent factories like those in basketball, financial incentives will have to enter the picture somewhere.
One further note on Academies. They are no subsitute for good coaching AND practice time. Most foriegn youth clubs practice two to two and half times what our amatuer elite clubs do. (Source: survey by Fire Academy)
Give me world class talent and good coaching over good talent and world class coaching. Bureaucracies love centers. They love to make the case for new buildings with more people in them. It's an easy sell to contributors, congressmen, etc. You know what's hard to sell? The idea of sending out a bunch (three dozen?) scouts to find the best 40 to 70 players at each age of 15 years, 16 years and 17 years. If the USSF did that you'd have a very nice pool of players to draw from once domestic professional, overseas professional and college level development had given them the time to reach their full potencial by age 19 or 20. Identify them, give them a boost into a program willing to help them and wait for the cream rise to the top.
I think you are missing the point about development and what it means. Yes it is true that producing high quality players, factory style as you put it, will most definitely depend on financial incentives somewhere in the picture. A big hurdle in itself is the USSF's apathy towards adopting FIFA player compensation rules. Internationally, according to FIFA regulations, clubs can be compensated for player development as early as 12 years of age (am not 100% positive on the age and do not know what compensation terms). This makes investing in ages 13-17 very difficult indeed in the US. However, the issue that really turns the page here is how to develop players. Player development requires year round development instruction. That means highly repetitive technical training (which only the rare US player receives today) in an environment where there is a critical mass of highly talented players. The US is huge and so travel constraints dictate that the talent be pooled regionally. The ODP does nothing for development (or perhaps you can tell me what it does do other than get kids together for some showcase trials and tournaments). There is no comparison. Club soccer is much more about development, but how many club teams are focused daily on technical development? I would wager very few and so very few kids develop sound technical skills. You can verify this by watching any club game, any NCAA game or any MLS game. Even on the women's side we are behind Norway, Germany, China and more in terms of technical adeptness. We win on the women's side because we are superior athletes. This is what the centers of excellence, or Soccer Academies, are well designed for in this sport. The financial justification for getting such a venture off the ground at this stage in the soccer industry's maturity, involves several key components. The first is some sort of investment from the MLS. They need to participate because maturation and financial solvency of the league depend on it. The same for the WUSA and perhaps some of the A-league teams. Club soccer or super Y stuff for a couple of months out the year will not make great players. The player compensation issue raises a big flag because when a player turns 18, he can wherever he/she wants and no institution responsible for the player's development gets compensated. That can change and will (some time I pray). Second, at this stage there must be some soccer lovers with deep pockets who want to see the sport prosper in this country. The same situation you see with the MLS and WUSA. People who think the potential is there to make money, but not for a few years, and not without all the pieces present for success. Creating larger pools of talented players is a critical piece (along with soccer specific stadiums, improved marketing, etc...) We have to keep soccer in the limelight within the scholastic environment, despite any glaring improbabilities currently evident in the high school and collegiate systems. If you develop some elitist clubs and whatnot outside of the schools, then you leave soccer as some wayside sport not for the masses. Academies can be a bridge of sorts to keep soccer in the sights of high school kids. It has to get a foothold in the culture of America. Schools are it, as every other team sport with a measure of success in the country will verify. Another point to be made is the pure market readiness for specialized academies. You see it with winter sports at the National Sports Academy in NY and with the International Junior Golf Academy in SC and I am sure that IMG is making some money down in Florida. There are about 30,000 kids in the US who want to be the best soccer players in the country. If we find 10% of them that want to develop year round, put them in boarding schools dedicated to their development, we have a few thousand candidates for the world stage (or at least a better pack for the MLS). Some can afford it, some will get it paid for by scholarships, financial aid and other sources. It can and will happen. But I am very interested to hear about other ideas for seriously developing soccer players in this country.
I think you need to get a better understanding of what makes soccer different in the US. In the European clubs the clubs pay the players. In American youth clubs the players pay the clubs. The clubs are offering a service to the players. The players are entitled to 100% of the money they earn for the contract they signed. The club put no money forward. None. The youth club deserves nothing. Now the day the youth clubs pay the players that is different. Oh hold on, they won't pay the player. They paid his parents. See my earlier comment on yet another reason all these "European Lessons" can't be applied to American players. Having read more I see kayasoleil said, "There is no comparison. Club soccer is much more about development, but how many club teams are focused daily on technical development? I would wager very few and so very few kids develop sound technical skills. You can verify this by watching any club game, any NCAA game or any MLS game." No what you are seeing is what happens when parents pay a club to train their kids rather than the best kids. You can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse no matter how much you pay the club. You can make a hell of a pig's ear purse though. "The player compensation issue raises a big flag because when a player turns 18, he can wherever he/she wants and no institution responsible for the player's development gets compensated. That can change and will (some time I pray)." Start the process of amending the Constitution and whatever you do don't let the NAACP know that you are trying to over turn the laws that prevent indentured servitude. They have a "thing" when it comes to that issue. " Second, at this stage there must be some soccer lovers with deep pockets who want to see the sport prosper in this country." This one I agree with. Men and boys and the price of their toys. Some real men with deep pockets who want to find and develop players would be a big help. It is now. You would be surprised the number of people offering "scholarships" into youth clubs. Now we just need to turn the pressure up by making them compete against each other.