U.S. Director Of Coaching Education Proposes Changes To ODP By Bobby HoweU.S. Soccer Director of Coaching Education This is a preview of an article that I have just written for U.S. Soccer Magazine addressing some of the criticism that has been leveled at the Olympic Development Program. I have also provided some suggestions for improvement. My opinions are based on much experience in the program for the last 15 years at all levels from district tryouts to national youth team coaching. Undoubtedly, ODP in its present form has to change. The article is meant purely as a starting point for discussion and to assist those states that are not clear in their ODP direction. For many years ODP has served as the primary selection process for national teams in the United States. The program has served this country well. However, as soccer has grown, several cracks have developed and much criticism has been leveled at the ODP structure and operation. The program is expensive and much of the cost is borne by the parents of the players. Soccer at this elite level has become a sport for the middle and upper classes and therefore has excluded many players. As many of our most experienced coaches work full time with clubs, they do not have the time to devote to ODP. Consequently, in many states, players participating in ODP are not exposed to the highest level of coaching available. As club programs have developed to create more year-round activity, incredible scheduling problems have occurred for administrators, too much unnecessary traveling time has occurred for players and a tug-of-war for players’ loyalties has developed. ODP has become administratively driven. More time has been devoted to the rules and finances of the operation than to the well-being of the players and, hence, to the progress of the game. Soccer should provide an equal opportunity for all players to participate, regardless of ethnic heritage or financial background. The only criterion for participation at the next level must be ability, with the understanding that there is no such thing as equality: some players are naturally better than others. At this time ODP does not recognize this simple fact. Development occurs when players of similar abilities are able to compete all year. As ODP is seasonal and sporadic, too often our best players are asked to play at inferior levels. There is no easy solution or magic formula that will eliminate criticism. The following suggestions are offered in the spirit of providing simpler, more efficient development opportunities for our players. As clubs emerge and grow stronger, they must bear the responsibility for the development of our players. Club Coaches have regular access to the players and must be judged on their ability to develop players. This will create much more accountability than already exists. Players must be encouraged to try out for club teams. Players should be scouted for their state teams in league and cup competitions by the state coaching staff. Players identified should be invited to try out for the state team. District tryouts, and therefore district training, should be eliminated. Not only would this ease scheduling, but it would also eliminate the majority of criticism at state level. At this time a player’s first experience of ODP is at district level where there exists the lowest level of experience in player identification and coaching ability. In those states that have strong club programs, state team training should be eliminated to avoid scheduling conflicts. In those states that have weak club programs, the state staff should bear the responsibility of training its best players. It should be the responsibility of all states to schedule games with other competitive states throughout the year (weather permitting) to provide competition. When there are scheduling conflicts between clubs and ODP, state ODP must take priority except for state, regional or national club competitions. Regional identification/development camps must be eliminated to be replaced by sub-regional tournament play. Not only are the existing camps expensive, they serve no developmental purpose. At this time players who are selected at these camps receive no more than eight to 10 days of realistic soccer activity. Regional players should be selected at state friendlies and sub-regional tournaments. Regional training should be eliminated to avoid scheduling conflicts, but regional teams should have more games throughout the year. In regional/state/club conflicts, the region must take priority except for state, regional or national cup competitions. At state and regional levels, year-round match play is a much more important development tool than training. The ODP has served its purpose well. Like the game itself, however, it must evolve to provide more efficient, developmentally sound and less expensive playing opportunities for the elite players in the United States.
I will never understand the obsession with making sure that things are in the one and only "right" forum. That was interesting to me and I wouldn't have seen it if it weren't here.
Serie Zed, it's not as bad as people suffering through a nervous breakdown because some one revealed a score on a soccer website, for a match they probably will never see or for many have little interest in. While of some relevance to the USMNT, this post really belongs in the youth soccer thread. That said it is about time (long overdue) the USSF overhauled ODP and made it accessible for the best players regardless of their financial situation and furthermore, improved the level and consistencey of the coaching and player evaluations.
Don't tell me, let me guess. This is sarcasm, right? Are you always so anal retentive, or just when you're on the internet?
I think it's an important topic and ought to stay in the USMNT forum -- the fact that this information is presented in this forum means that the discussion should skew towards what affect Bill's article has on the future USMNT, thus providing "analysis" which is some of what we're supposed to be getting here. Whereas the same topic presented in a youth forum would lead to discussion that focuses on youth soccer and its problems. I hope you leave it here.
OMIGOD!!! SOmeone with the native intelligence to get the point!!!! Are you sure you're in the right place?
I think that you are half right I have not been in the ODP system long enough to say, but let me try to help by asking some quesitons. Is ODP even necessary in some states? Can't the clubs play enough to teach and showcase their players without throwing players onto unfamiliar teams for a few events? Although I agree that pro coaches are best, I am not ready to hand over the reins to the coaching cadre. Many are profit driven, and win driven, and there is little incentive for them to take the attitude that winning is secondary to player development. A u13 to 16 coach for Ajax has one job-produce players for Ajax. That's what he's paid to do. We don't have that yet. We have the "almighty scholarship" but that's a poor proxy-measurement for developing soccer talent. How can ODP bring about something similar in a country that does not have soccer apprentice programs? just other questions to consider. Hope they help
ODP's name just sounds good, the Olympics are something that every American knows and can see as a way to fame and fortune. There are changes that need to be made, for sure. You do only get the middle/upper class kids whose parent's can afford the fees and can take time off work to drive their kids all over for games and practice. ODP should be free or at least heavily subsidsed by USSF or some other organization.
Sure, but the thread could have a better title, like,"The End of ODP? and its possible effects on the future of the national team." I don't want the good threads to get swallowed up by junk like "Do you think X-player likes Doritos?" or $hit like that. I"m not saying this thread is like that, just that ODP is explicitly a youth development tool and effects the youth teams a lot more than the full national team since its used to scout and pick players for those teams. The full national team uses professional soccer, be it MLS or foreign leagues to scout and pick players for the team...
It appears that Bobby Howe is borrowing from Steve Sampson's work in California-South. Steve Sampson had a nightmare at the 1998 World Cup and has never accepted responsibility for his obvious blundering of the job. He simply was not anywhere near ready to be the World Cup coach and his refusal to accept responsibility for his mistakes afterward proves it. Having said that, his work in Southern California in player development was brilliant. Memo Gonzalas is where he is because of Steve Sampson. I am a strong believer in the saying, "Simplicity is genius." The approach to player development that seems so simple to us all now, is being discussed by Howe because Sampson had the vision and initiative to go out and make it happen. We will hear from Sampson again and in a big way. I just hope that he will have learned to avoid his habit of ducking responsibility for his mistakes by then.
On the surface a case can be made for removing the player development responsibilities of the State and placing them at the Club level. You could redirect the current administrative costs to a scholarship pool for the clubs to ensure that they were able to roster players regardless of ethnic heritage or financial background. However the bottom line is people work to the goals that they are measured against. The club coach measurements are wins and losses not player development. While these are not necessarily mutually exclusive it is certainly to the coaches immediate benefit to take good players with a marginal upside as opposed to poor players with a huge upside
I think it's okay here, but given the importance of this topic to youth development, I'm sending a copy of this thread there. Hopefully Bill is cool with that. BTW - people shouldn't worry about starting something here that doesn't belong -- even if it ends up being moved, it will reach a wider audience.
Yes and no. (And FTR I'm done discussing where this thread is, was or ought to be. If DK is happy, I'm happy) The picture with ODP has changed with the implementation of project 2010, and it's key that we understand that. The goal of ODP (which was founded (and funded) after the LA Olympics as a means to make us more competitive at an Olympic level) is now to identify players for Bradenton. With the expansion of that program to 30 players, it's clear they intend to get the vast majority of high-promise kids in there. The best of them are then signed to Pro40 deals and shuffled to MLS for full time professional work. That's the real goal here - to ID these kids and get them into top level training, with the end goal being the USMNT. Nobody gives a crap anymore whether the Georgia 86's beat the Texas 86's. Those days are fading, and good riddance. The real question now is what player on those teams can we fast-track into the program and how soon are they a full national prospect. It ain't your father's ODP anymore.
I think Bill is right that there have already been significant changes made in ODP. Steve Sampson's have been well-publicized, but there have been other states, Gordon Miller in Virginia is one good example, where scouting is used much more extensively rather than just relying on a tryout. The player pools in Virginia are pretty fluid. If a player is not cutting it in training and another player somewhere in the state is tearing it up in his league, changes can (and have been) made. The article though is pretty superficial at points, like when it talks about state staff running training when there is a weak club program, but not when there is a strong program. Who decides that? He says state and regional training should be avoided to reduce scheduling conflicts, so I guess that leaves nothing but matches to be played. These kids already play plenty of matches with their clubs. They need training from top-quality coaches, not just a few more matches. Ultimately, you will always need a national identification system. What I would like to see is for the Fed to run it top to bottom. Get the ridiculously corrupt USOC out of the picture. Change the name to something like National Player Identification and Development System (NPIDS doesn't quite roll off the tongue, somebody help me out here The Fed should take the best coaches and admins (as needed) from the existing program (there are a lot of good ones) and employing them to provide the best training (augmenting the club programs), limited competitive opportunities (best against teh best, and select teams competing overseas for the experience, additional evaluation opportunity) and thorough and worthwhile evaluation. Focus on evaluating them in their own environment whether that's Super Y or whatever other top leagues they are playing in. Use the staff to scout, provide additional training and shepherd the competitions that are truly useful, all of the direction and feedback coming from and going to one central soccer authority. Funding will be a huge question to this. No doubt the state programs generate a huge amount of jack. Short of some kind of national sponsorship (and the Fed cannot just plop the money down, that's not realistic), players will still have to generate a good bit of the revenue. But administratively, profit margins can be cut BIGtime to make those costs more reasonable and help subsidize those who otherwise could not participate. There should never be a player not involved because his family cannot afford it (although in truth, this is mentioned too often - every state has some kind of scholarship setup under USYSA) And I know, the political response to the above proposal within the U.S. Soccer Community would be freak city, but we're already seeing the beginnings of some sea changes at the youth soccer level, I no longer doubt the possibility of such changes. I think it's happening. The train is leaving the station and people who want to be a part of things, and have something constructive to offer, need to get on board.
Bobby Howe How old is this article? Bobby Howe resigned as US Director of Coaching Education in 2000 and that position no longer exists. http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/2000/apr24c.htm
The article was posted May 1, 1999. It's nearly 4 years old. Here's a listing of news articles -- this one appears halfway down the page under archives. http://www.soccerclub.com/news/ReadPub.asp?PubCode=NE
Very interesting. It was circulated by USYSA to coaches and administrators and was dated March 4, 2003. Wonder what the deal is?
That is pretty bizarre. I can confirm that this article is freshly being circulated in more than one avenue. One theory is that the more progressive elements within the organization, real soccer people involved with ODP, are trying to motivate some of the more laggardly states re reforming their programs. But using that particular article to do it would still be a bit unusual.