Didn't see a specific thread so I figure I'll just post it here. I started my D classes this morning. So far it's very basic. That scares me but knowing me it just means I'm overthinking it all. We just sit there while the guy runs various practice sessions. He's said he isn't there to evaluate whether or not someone is a good coach, but just to make sure they understand how to make practice plans and how we get from point A to point B in them. Is that really all there is to this? That seems rather rudimentary and not like something I need to spend 2 weekends learning.
Depending on your personal experience level, the D may be underwhelming. Yes, that's it. How to run a practice session the USSF way, by sending out a guy to run practice session after practice session until everyone is drooling from the monotony. I took the E and D over the course of three very hot weekends out of four in a month. The first two weekends the coaches (ages 18-60) were used as the players and run into the ground. Good Times! The final weekend of the D we had one of the instructor's club provide squads to do the heavy lifting running. A thunderstorm complete with hail drove us off the field Saturday afternoon. Sunday was 25 evaluations. 21 of us got State Level D licenses. No one failed. Four people earned National Ds and I couldn't have told you what the difference was. All the coaches with any provenance (2 current HS, top level club guys, recent D1 college players, a State Champ iirc) got State Level Ds. Going into the final day everyone felt unsure as to exactly what we were supposed to be doing beyond following our lesson plan and hoping some substantial coaching moment came up so we could step in. Slamming three of four (skip the warm-up) activities in an abbreviated time frame with an unfamiliar group of overworked players seemed a poor way of going about the whole process of evaluation. I'll be damned if I know a better way though. Make sure you over-detail your practice plan. I really wish I detailed out mine more, might have made the difference.
I had the same guy run the whole course. I did it through a week of classes. I lost a lot of respect for the instructor over the week because of his continual name-dropping and insistence that the German way of doing things is the only right way. With that said, I learned a lot from my fellow coaches. I made sure I participated as a player in the sessions so I could get a good idea of what were good training sessions. I wrote up all the training sessions I liked and still go back to read them for ideas. I do know why certain coaches got the national - kissing the instructors butt. After that week I decided all my training would be through NSCAA.
I've had both, and let me assure you, the NSCAA instructors like to get their butts kissed as well. As always, it comes down to the quality of the instructors. Just like teachers we had in school... My question to the OP: What did you think you're going to get from this course? My D instructor was pretty up-front. We weren't there to learn how to set up a practice, but rather to learn how to put players right within the context of a practice. We did games, we had lectures and some video, I saw the beep test for the first time, etc, but what he was concerned about was us being able to put players right. We spent most of our time learning how and when to stop a practice to make our coaching points. I didn't really care for the guy, personally, but I got what he claimed he was going to teach.
This is exactly how I'm feeling right now (after day 2 of 4). I'm not sure if I want to bother going back and potentially wasting my time. He's already said he only passes 30% of the candidates and so far, I don't agree with most of his philosophies. Yup, it seems his way is the right way and there is no room for error. I'm really liking the stuff I've gotten from NSCAA more than what I've gotten from the USSF. Between my reffing certification and this, I'm seeing why the US has problems. Seriously. There is no "WHY" to anything with them. I was hoping to learn a bit more about...something. I wasn't entirely sure what but I had expected to learn transitioning from small sided games into reality (based upon pre-class readings). So far all he's done is run practices. We started running some today and he's complained about everyone except maybe one or two. He initially stated he's not here to judge if someone is a good or bad coach but only to see how we progress from warmups throughout the endgame. So far, that's not what he's really knocking people for doing. He was even knocking a guy based upon his personality. Frankly, I think this is going to be my last USSF class. The only reason I went was because almost nothing either USSF or NSCAA is ever offered in KC. I feel if I followed the "directions" laid out by this class it would actually stifle my coaching abilities. It's just too rigid and I don't believe there is only one way to do things. Is it just me? From what I've gathered that seems to be the big difference between the two organizations so I don't think I'm alone.
I read the thread and was confused. So I went to the USSF site to see what was up with the courses and--no surprise--they have changed them again effective January 2012. National E Licenses? Give me a break. USSF must be taking lessons in bureaucracy from Homeland Security. I suspect that part of the problem is due to the instructors being unsure what it is they are supposed to be teaching. The one good thing is that the course materials are available on line. I can sympathize with people not wanting to take USSF license courses because of bad experiences with the instructors. But the course materials are free downloads. I would think you could learn more by reading the material and watching a coach you respect running a practice than watching an instructor (who is required to teach USSF flavor of the month doctrine rather than his personal preferences). I almost signed up for a course last year, which was a stepping stone to another. Now I am glad I didn't take it, because it is no longer a course and the substance of the course has apparently changes.
I'm in a stage in life, young kids and such, that the courses are such a PITA. I end up just sitting in on most of them, getting the learning but not the license. I've found that after your first one, where you learn a lot. The amount you learn drops off considerably. I feel lucky if I pick up one new thing in a weekend's worth of coaching courses—which isn't bad. But they really make it restrictive for anyone who isn't into coaching full-time. I see their rationale that they want to weed out guys who are not really serious but I think the E and D are more for part-timers and it really doesn't reflect the nature of the end-user. In my state assoc, we've had to cancel Ds the last 4 D courses due to lack of interest, I think they should just have more flexibility with the dang thing.
USSF D The D License Course Curriculum Section Description INTRODUCTION 1.0 US Soccer Federation Coaching Education 1.1 The "D" License Course 1.2 Schedule METHODS OF COACHING 2.0 The Game - What is Soccer? 2.1 The Game is the Best Teacher 2.2 Using Small-Sided Games to Teach 2.3 What is Player Development 2.4 Role of the Coach 2.5 Age Characteristics 2.6 How Do Players Learn 2.7 What to Give the Players 2.8 How To Teach 2.9 Components of Coaching Soccer 2.10 Practice Organization TEAM MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION 3.0 Safety and Ethical Aspects 3.1 Team Organization 4.2 Principles of Defense 4.3 Defensive Roles 4.4 Principles of Attack 4.5 Attacking Roles 4.6 Tactics Video TACTICS 2 5.0 Application of the Principles of Attack and Defense 5.1 General Tactics 5.2 Team Organization GAME ANALYSIS 6.0 Observing Your Own Team 6.1 Attitude (Psychological) Assessment 6.2 Fitness 6.3 Defending 6.4 Attacking 6.5 Technique LAWS OF THE GAME 7.0 Referees and the Laws of the Game 7.1 Modified Laws of the Game CARE AND PREVENTION OF INJURIES 8.0 Overview of basic care and prevention procedures It is very useful
rca, we aren't even going over any of that kind of stuff. It's not like a clinic where you actually learn anything. It's more show up, run a session from start to end, and if he liked it, you pass. It's supposed to be showing if you can run practice from the warm up to the very end 6v6 game and the progression of the topic throughout. Hence my disappointment. I was hoping to learn something new other than the random drills I've picked up from others.
I understood that which is what confused me. That is merely asking you to demonstrate knowledge of coaching methods. That is not what the course used to be about. Now it seems that the courses differ only in the age range that they focus on (and the length of course). Where D and E don't really get past principles of play and SSGs, C covers 11 a side team tactics. Since they keep changing thier approach, I am not sure how they can pretend to be managing coaching eduction. (Remember coaches are supposed to be getting a year or two of experience between licenses.)
From what I gather it seems like they actually USED to teach coaches stuff but not now. That is really sad. It just seems like a power trip/money grab thing to me. I think this will be my last bit with USSF and I'll strictly stay NSCAA and various clinics. I've heard rumors that many places are not only seeing NSCAA diplomas as equivalent but sometimes more preferred. Is there any basis to this?
I think we're seeing the differences in Course instructors/quality from state to state and even within associations. I know who I would like to run courses in my state when I take them. But even instructors whom I learned a lot prior can have a jekyll and hyde quality to them too. As I said I sit in on courses so I've seen these instructors multiple times, whereas most unless you work with them, only see 'em maybe once a year.
Hopefully Dakota Soccer will be able to clarify what is going on with the D and E courses: license testing or coaching education. We haven't heard from him in a while though. He must be busy.
From my experiences, the USSF courses merely test your coaching ability to see if you reach their standard for that particular license. The NSCAA courses are truly there for you to learn. From my experiences, The USSF instructors have been very strict and usually unapproachable. The NSCAA instructors spend a lot of time with each candidate and truly seem to care about their development. From my experiences, the USSF courses hold more weight in the soccer community. As previously mentioned, the instructors are strict and have pretty high standards. I generally feel if a coach has an "A" license, they know their stuff. The NSCAA is more coach-friendly. With that being said, I know several coaches who have their Premier Diploma who, in my opinion, are not very good coaches. Another thing I have found in my experiences with the USSF is that you have a huge advantage if you are a great player. I'm a pretty decent player and a pretty decent coach, I like to think, which is why I have been okay. However, I have seen people who were great players but poor coaches pass. I've got some stories that will really make you scratch your head. The NSCAA does not require you to participate to pass.
My experience with the E was similar. The basic theme was "do this just like we are with no deviation." There was no context. You had candidates who were coaching or going to be coaching U8, U10, U12, yet we were the "players" we were coaching (I understand the logistical issues with having age-appropriate players.) They put us in groups of four or five and each of us did one part of a lesson plan. I did a group game leading into a free play SSG that the instructors had done previously, with a group of college players as my "team." The contextual problem is that the drills and coaching moments you have with younger age groups are different than with adults. Sure, as a coach you should recognize those moments no matter what, but I've never coached college players nor do I intend to. The major problem is that the instruction of the license courses doesn't relate to the age group unless you're taking the National Youth License, which you can't take unless you've got the D, or at least it was that when I took the E. It should be age-based licenses, not letter-based. People go through the E-D phase with no intention of coaching very young players, or are allowed to skip out on those levels. You have a lot of coaches wanting the license to coach to a standard, but the standard doesn't apply to the age they're coaching. I learned more from the other coaches who coached near my age group level than I did from the course itself.
From what I understand, the licenses are very skewed to former pro/college players for the 'C' and higher. As in they will get it because they played at a high level. Those that did not play at this level but are committed rarely stand a chance of advancing. The licenses are basically age-based. The old F (youth Module) was for U-8 and U-10. The E is designed for the U-12 players as the main age group. Beyond that it is set for the U-14 and higher.
I'm not attacking you but rather the logic of the USSF licenses . . . So, here we stand, lamenting the problems of kids who grew up in our system the last 20 years+ . Now we want to create a cohort of coaches who grew up in this flawed environment? Representing some of the most ass-backwards attitudes about soccer? This isn't just a hypothetical. I see other coaches in their 20s and 30s merely regurgitating what their coaches put them through. Great and we specifically want THESE guys showing us the way. *Not all players who turn to coaching of recent vintage are clueless. I'm just saying that discriminating against those who didn't go through college soccer is misguided.
While I've seen some of this, in my experience the USSF side hasn't been nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm decent but not great shakes as a player (HS soccer and adult amateur), but passed my C and B licenses the first time out. At my B course, I was in the bottom 3rd player-wise, but top 3rd coaching-wise and passed without too much difficulty. There were a number of candidates there, much better players than I, who were on their 2nd or even 3rd attempt to pass, and unless there is something seriously wrong with the universe, there were several high-level players who did not pass. I do agree that the NCSAA is skewed more towards actually helping coaches learn, but I got a lot out of both NCSAA and Federation courses. In fact, there was even one instructor who was at both my Advanced National and B courses. Go figure.
Well I just got home from day 4 of my course. As soon as I'm able to move I'll be heading for a beer and an ice bag or two. I haven't played that hard in a long time due to injury. Anyway, I ended up at a friend's house last night working on my practice plan. I figured since he has his A then he could really help me figure out what to do. We all did our things today with no trouble. As is practice, feedback was not given...until the last few. The last three candidates had both evaluators and instead of using other candidates to play, the main instructor brought in his hs girls club. After the sessions the evaluators were giving feedback to the candidates. A few of us were wondering why and one lady asked. The answer? The guy told us they saw these candidates had a future career in coaching so they expected more from them. I guess the rest of us were chopped liver. This all seems a bit fishy to me and well, the rest of the class. As I believe someone mentioned above (and I've heard elsewhere), the USSF seems biased towards the ex pro/high level player types. Apparently they are the only ones who can coach in the USSF's eyes. The three that went last today were 1. a guy who trained for a bit with the Wizards and now coaches college 2. a guy who currently plays for the Comets (KC's MISL team), and 3. a guy who played for a local D1 university and now who is an assistant at another university under the second evaluator. As one of the other candidates said, "It's not a conspiracy theory; it's a conspiracy."
I guess you shouldn't be holding your breath to see if you got the national license. Seems odd that a college coach and an assistant are only getting their D license at this point in their career.
Sorry to hear about your experience turning out that way. It certainly can be political and you always worry if these "gate keepers" have the best interests of their "students" in mind. There is certainly a situation where higher licensed coaches would NOT want to welcome more coaches into their ranks, because it would devalue their own personal license. Hard to make a buck coaching if there are dozens of A-B-C licensed coaches around. At the USSF courses they always seem to start off talking about the weeding out process for coaches going for higher licenses.
I thought there was an exemption for these 'high level' former players to move right into the national licenses without having to get the D & E.