SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums United Soccer Coaches & National Awards NSCAA comments about U.S. Soccer's Development Academy

Coaches please find below the link to the announcement for the DA to go forward with their plan to remove players from High school soccer. Ironically the heading at the top of the page is "RESPECT CAMPAIGN". Clearly they are struggling with the definition of respect.

http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Development-Academy/2012/02/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx

This plan is about killing high school soccer and we need to respond. The NSCAA will very shortly have a position clearly articulated and appropriate for the organization. We as high school coaches will need to work nationwide to combat this problem. Please work diligently to sell your programs benefits to the parents and become more aggressive in retaining your players. Please look for follow up emails as we piece together a nationwide response to this affront.

Greg Mauch
Kevin Sims

You can argue all you want about how to improve soccer in the US, the reality has nothing to do with High school, DA, College etc.. Soccer here will only get better when we can attract a majority of the countries best athletes to the sport instead of the few who play now. Soccer is and always will be the top sport in Europe in terms of pay and prestige, in the US it is barely a break even venture. In my time i have seen some tremendous athletes start in soccer but leave for the more "glamorous" sports once they reach high school.

DA will NOT kill HS soccer. That's just not true. If we had 1000 DA players in the state, maybe it might be different. We don't have enough to make a dent in HS soccer.

DA is for the elite players. It's not an extension of a classic team. It is about what is best for the players.

I propose a simple compromise, which would not really require doing anything that has not, in some way, already been done.

I propose that the DA could offer two levels of membership. For those players for whom playing in high school (or in other local options) is important, the previous one-season model would be an option, which would still allow those players to benefit from training at the advertised highest level, expose those athletes to the selection system, and probably attract a certain number of athletes into the program who are qualified and have great potential, but may not be ready to give up all of their other options at this point and might select themselves out of the DA system entirely rather than buy into the all-or-nothing model.

For those players who know that they are dedicated to shaping themselves into the next generation of professional/international players and are willing to totally commit to that goal, the 10-month season would be their option. These groups of players would be able to train year-round at the highest level knowing that they are all challenging each other toward the same goals, unconflicted by second guesses over forced choices.

High school coaches, in turn, should take this offer of choice by the DA in good faith and encourage their elite players to at least participate in the one-season option. They should also respect the PLAYER'S INFORMED CHOICE OF OPTIONS...if at any point a player says "Coach, I've worked in the DA and I believe, to meet my goals, that going full-time with them is MY BEST CHOICE"--then accept that this is not any kind of forced decision or rivalry ploy by the DA or anyone else, but the player's free will choice, given all options. Respect it, encourage it, and tell him how proud of him you are for earning the opportunity and how much you hope to be watching him on the big screen.

That's my humble idea for an ideal model...if the "all the way from the start or we're not going to train you at all/it's either us or them" model still makes more sense, I will bow to wisdom beyond my understanding.

Really? Less than 1% of the kids who play HS soccer in SC not playing....will "kill" the game? Are we engaging in election year hyperbole, or what?

"Coaches please find below the link to the announcement for the DA to go forward with their plan to remove players from High school soccer. Ironically the heading at the top of the page is "RESPECT CAMPAIGN". Clearly they are struggling with the definition of respect.

http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Development-Academy/2012/02/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx

This plan is about killing high school soccer and we need to respond. The NSCAA will very shortly have a position clearly articulated and appropriate for the organization. We as high school coaches will need to work nationwide to combat this problem. Please work diligently to sell your programs benefits to the parents and become more aggressive in retaining your players. Please look for follow up emails as we piece together a nationwide response to this affront.

Greg Mauch
Kevin Sims "

The loss of these kids will not hurt HS soccer at all. Heck a good deal of the best players in SC dont even play DA.

USSF: The move to a 10-month season is being driven by our membership, the majority of which has been overwhelmingly supportive of the initiative because they recognize the value of player development. A number of clubs have already switched to the 10-month season and have seen substantial improvement (Western Conference, Texas Division).

TR: What is the standard of improvement - how is it measured, what does it look like?

USSF: We are competing in a global marketplace. We are not just trying to prepare elite players for college and the pro ranks in the United States; we are trying to prepare players to compete against the best clubs and international teams from around the world. Therefore, our standard has to be higher.

BUT THEY ALSO SAY

We are talking about a group of players that want to continue at the next level, whether that is professional or college, which is still the destination for a majority of our graduates.
AND

The elite players who choose to commit to the Development Academy will be around like-minded individuals in pursuit of a similar goal and will experience many of the same benefits. Players will have the chance to compete with and in front of their family, friends and club members, along with college and pro scouts, and most important, our Men’s National Team scouting network on a weekly basis.

TR: The facts are there are over 60,000 college soccer players in this country, with slightly more girls than boys. So one does not need to play DA to play in college.

The realities of US professional soccer can be found here (a bit dated but still fairly accurate):
http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/03/22...season-preview/

and here:
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/09/climbing-ladder-role-us-players-mls

My problem with the FAQs is that US Soccer asks appropriate questions but in a manner that makes high school soccer sound like a picnic where everyone has juice boxes and sings songs. I know I don't have juice boxes at my training sessions.

I wonder how many US Soccer representatives have been to a high quality high school training session or do they just buy into the myth that all high school soccer is crap and all club soccer is great.

What US Soccer fails to realize is that a 10-month DA schedule is not the ultimate solution to improving the quality of our national team. I do believe that this could be a step in the right direction, but soccer in the US needs to have one governing body. I believe that US Soccer and USSF must merge. Does England have two governing bodies for soccer? For that matter, we actually have four when you factor in NCAA and NFHS. You now have US Soccer promoting it's DA product as the ultimate way for players to improve but USSF making all the coaching decisions?! I would be interested to hear what USSF has to say about this. Do they support this move or do they still champion their methods as the best?

I do not think that this single move will kill high school soccer as long as other leagues do not follow suit.

It will be interesting to see how this impacts the top level. Years ago ODP was supposed to be the solution... then State League... then Super Y... then Region 3 Premier League... then ECNL... now a 10-month DA schedule.

By the way, how much does US Soccer charge for this privilege? If you want to really mirror what the rest of the world is doing perhaps you should start there.

It will be interesting to see how this impacts the top level. Years ago ODP was supposed to be the solution... then State League... then Super Y... then Region 3 Premier League... then ECNL... now a 10-month DA schedule.

By the way, how much does US Soccer charge for this privilege? If you want to really mirror what the rest of the world is doing perhaps you should start there.

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner!

I agree with this statement. 5-10 years from now, we'll have a 'new solution' to this issue. I still believe the best way to achieve quality soccer growth is for the MLS teams (which still are not totally solvent on their own terms in some cases) to anchor residential programs that recruit/attract the top 1% of players to train in a professional development free of cost to the player.

As for what the S.C. United Battery (DA team) will charge, who knows, but I would be very surprised if it was fully funded. If you end up charging $2,000-$4,000 per player to be involved for a 10-month season, will you truly attract the top 1% or just those that think they're in the top 1% because their parents can write the check. What are the advantages for a #15-20 player on a DA roster? Are they "guaranteed" at least a DI college scholarship? If so, are they full-ride players, or are they only going to garner $2,000-$4,000 per year in scholarship money?

Those are the questions that need to be asked of DA and what it means to all the players involved -- not just the top 2-3 ringers on each squad that would be able to play DI soccer regardless of involvement with DA.

I find this quote interesting and kind of hypocritical.

"We understand there may be unique situations for a small population of players, such as those in certain private schools, and we are willing to discuss different options and determine a solution so they can participate in the Academy."

Said differently... if you are the elite of the elite and you decide to play high school soccer, we will work with you so that we can say you play Academy. I am curious as to what the private school reasoning is.

So according to the 2011-2012 DA conference alignment, there is only one DA in South Carolina.

Can single teams play in the DA League?

What? Again?

It's becoming a regular thing...my brain has gone all detached from the rest of my body. I'm learning to live with it.

Did I say something incorrect? Or are we just marveling at the acronyms?

Yes....the Academy is run by USSF.

Marveling, BD...always marveling.

To clarify: The United States Soccer Federation is at the top of a pyramid of soccer governing bodies, under which you will find US Soccer Development Academy, USYS, US Club, AYSO, Super Y, etc. The USSFDA is run directly by the Federation.

Ok, here's are the elements I was trying to reconcile in that statement:

"U.S. Soccer is the national governing body of the sport. Includes news, video, tournaments, coverage of all US National teams and information on USSF member organizations." --www.ussoccer.com

"As the governing body of soccer in all its forms in the United States, U.S. Soccer has played an integral part in charting the course for the sport in the USA for almost 100 years. In that time, the Federation’s mission statement has been very simple and very clear: to make soccer, in all its forms, a preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels.

To that end, the sports exponential growth in the past two decades has been nothing short of remarkable.

Multiple soccer specific stadiums have opened their doors to resounding success, and new arenas around the country are currently being planned and built. The National Training Center in Carson, California is entering its seventh year of existence, and in 2007 the U.S. Soccer Development Academy kicked off with much fanfare at the state of the art facility." --www.ussoccer.com/about

"But US Soccer has nothing to do with Academy." --Big Daddy

"And USSF is directly managing the Academy." --Big Daddy

Big Daddy will have to resolve that, but I'm guessing that he meant to say that US Youth Soccer has nothing to do with the DA.

Ah, that would make sense.

Traveling yesterday......

Got hung up on acronyms. Guess I confused US Soccer with US Club Soccer. Have only heard folks (and have adopted as my own) people refer to USSF as....USSF.

No worries--all is clear now! (There's that alphabet soup for ya!) USSF seems to refer to itself almost exclusively as US Soccer these days--guess it sorta emphasizes the all-encompassing nature of the organization.

Pretty good article. And thankfully.....portrays an outcome without all the drama. Should work out for all sides.

"Soccer is not an American-driven game. [Elsewhere] soccer is all global," says U.S. national team coach Juergen Klinsmann, who grew up in the German club system. "It's 11 months a year. You might get three or four weeks off. That's it. So if a kid goes to college [in the U.S.] and plays a three-month season, he loses eight months compared to all the other kids the same age."

Sooo...if college participation is a problem, why have 14-18 year olds play ten month seasons just to achieve a 3 month college one? A 22 year old emerges from the college system having played 12 months of high level games in 4 years. His global counterpart has played 40 months in 4 years. If this is the problem, then the Development Academy should be a 10 month league geared for players who are 18-22 and who choose not to play for college (note I did not say forego college). The players would be more mature and be able drive themselves and...oh nevermind...I just realized it might be harder to squeeze money from parents of a 20 year old than a 16 year old. And for a second there I was concerned about making soccer better rather than profit. My bad.

Who is it that you think is making a profit on USSDA?

And - I expect most DA programs will be free, or very close to free, in the near future.

Loosely applying the theory of constraints....T Robinson has a good point.

Moving to a 10 month Academy is fantastic for development for 14-18 year olds. Great first step.

But what happens when most of these kids come rolling out of Academy and straight into NCAA programs? The Fall season is what......3 1/2 months? Time allowed on the ball in the spring....is another 2 months?

Does it make sense to train 10 months a year from 14-18 and then from 18-22 scale it back to 5-6 months?

NCAA needs to loosen up rules on practice.......or more likely talented kids will not go to college or leave early to compete professionally. Or......they will stay put and regress, as compared to their international peers.

The answer my friends......is club affiliation. In effect, a minor league system. A professional development environment that is more than a few months over summer break. Every Academy program shoudl be partnered up with an MLS club. Top players in Academy get pulled up to train with reserves and maybe 1st team. Lets assume SCU was affiliated with New England Revolution. At 18 a kid could sign a pro contract and be loaned to say, the Battery.

MLS could also form a developpmental league or an alliance with leagues in Mexico or other countires in the region. Outside of the MLS season.....younger players could continue to train and play. Just like winter leagues in baseball.

How about USSoccer investing in improvemnt of high school programs junking the academy idea all together?

Really 10 month club is the solution? How dumb can we get?

High School Soccer Speaking Points

Soccer America
8/28/12
Interview by Mike Woitalla


The impact of the U.S. Soccer Development Academy's banning its players from high school ball is being felt across the nation as the fall scholastic season begins. We spoke with Joe Cummings, the CEO of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America (NSCAA), more than a third of whose 30,000-plus members are high school coaches.


SOCCER AMERICA: What do you say to high school coaches who are upset that the NSCAA didn’t prevent U.S. Soccer from implementing the high school ban on Development Academy players?


JOE CUMMINGS: First of all, the statement we issued last year is one we still believe in. We are predominantly an educational institution and we feel that you should not mandate choice.

And that in the case of the Development Academy, they have mandated you must choose, and we feel that high school players should have the opportunity to do both. It shouldn’t be an either or situation.

To those who feel that the NSCAA should have done more -- we are an individual membership organization. We wouldn’t be the ones to take this on. The NFHS (the National Federation of State High School Associations) would be the one to take this on. Not the NSCAA.

The companion to this would be for a college coach to feel that the NSCAA should take on and issue the deals with legislation at the Division I, II, III, junior college or NAIA level. And that’s not our role. It’s not the function we would serve for the colleges, nor is it a function we would serve for the high schools. Nor is it a function that we would serve for our youth members if it were relative to a youth issue.

I will say that we work very closely with the NCAA, we speak with them, and we have spoken with NFHS about a couple of initiatives. But for us to be lead of this issue is not a function of the NSCAA.


SA: The NSCAA’s statement is pretty clearly disapproving of U.S. Soccer’s high school ban …


JOE CUMMINGS: Of all of the things that we could do or would do, we’ve done. Anything that we feel is within our purview, we have done. I’ve spoken to U.S. Soccer. I’ve spoken to anyone within U.S. Soccer I felt I should address it with. I’ve met multiple times with the folks at NHFS. We have had a meeting with NHFS with both of our boards' members. We’ve given our high school membership a forum, a separate forum on our Web site.

We have posted both sides of the view on our Web site. Those who feel the decision by the Development Academy is wrong, we’ve given them an opportunity to express themselves using our Web site.


SA: What do you know about the NHFS effort on behalf of high school soccer coaches?


JOE CUMMINGS: As the governing body of the high schools I feel they have taken a very active role, whether it be through meetings, phone calls and letter-writing.

They have taken an active role in expressing their position on this and that’s the group that should do it. We certainly have spoken with them and helped them with the message. We’ve been active with them.


SA: What was the NSCAA’s stance in discussions with U.S. Soccer?


JOE CUMMINGS: Isn’t there a way for peaceful co-existence? Isn’t there a way for a player to still participate in high school and continue to play on his Academy team? I would have hoped that would have been the decision.

Personally -- this is not an NSCAA position – if this was all under the umbrella of the professional teams I’d be much more -- not accepting of it – but I could nod my head and say, “OK, fine.” Because most of the professional teams I believe aren’t charging the kids a fee. And then it would the number of MLS clubs times 40 or so kids [kept out of high school ball]. Instead of 80 Development Academy programs times 40 kids or whatever.

[Editor’s note: Academy clubs field one team in each of the two groups: U-15/16 and U-17/18. Minimum roster size is 18.]


SA: One argument for the ban from the Academy, which is a national league, is that high school seasons are played at different times throughout the nation, making it difficult to have a break for high school play …


JOE CUMMINGS: In that regard I agree with Development Academy folks. It’s very hard to schedule something when you know some of the kids won’t be there in the fall, some of the kids won’t be there in the winter, some won’t be there in the spring. If we were all playing high school soccer during one season, or even during two seasons, it might be a little easier.


SA: What has obviously angered high school coaches is U.S. Soccer’s implication that they can’t be trusted to develop talent. And that three months playing high school ball is going to impede the players’ progress …


JOE CUMMINGS: This is one that I do bristle at, not only because I was a high school coach. We have some really, really good high school coaches. I don’t think you can say a kid’s not going to improve by playing high school soccer.

And improvement can be in a lot levels besides just talking about shoot, pass, dribble, head and receive. Couldn’t it be true they’re going to improve a lot of ways, from a leadership standpoint, from a management standpoint, from a teamwork standpoint?

SOCCER AMERICA
By Mike Woitalla

The U.S. Soccer Federation continues increasing its influence on boys soccer.

Launched in 2007 with 64 clubs, the U.S. Soccer Development Academy enters its 2012-13 season with 80 clubs, and for the 2013-14 season will add a younger age group, U-13/14.

Academy clubs currently field one team in each of the two groups: U-15/16 and U-17/18. The U-13/14 division will include teams from clubs not part of the current Academy structure.

The U-13/14s will, like the older age groups, play a 10-month season. It will, during the winter, include a futsal component.

Tony Lepore, the Development Academy Director of Scouting, answered questions about the Academy's growth during a Friday morning conference call.

Will players at the U-13/14 level also be banned from high school play?

TONY LEPORE. First of all, there’s no high school ban. There’s high school choice. There’s a 10-month choice. And we think this will help.

This is an age group with some entering high school, some in the eighth grade, and I think it’s much easier to make the decision when you’re in the Academy structure and environment and you really know what to expect from that environment.

So it will be a much more educated decision. We’ve also seen during these transition years to the 10-month season that the hardest decisions are for the players who’ve gotten a taste of high school. And in most cases it’s been that social draw to pull them back.

With the 14s they’ll enter an Academy environment early enough so they’ll be much more educated and we think that when the top players get in this environment early, they will know how to make the choice that’s best for them. The Academy is not for everybody.

How closely will the U-13/14 season resemble the older age groups?

TONY LEPORE: We’ll probably build in a longer break period in the winter for this group. We’re also going to implement a futsal program, because we know the benefits of futsal, during that winter time.

And then it will be the same standards in terms of approved events outside the Academy that meet our standards. For example, the Dallas Cup is in a window for the 15, 16, 17, 18s, and Disney is another one of those. It will be similar for 14s. We’re also encouraging all our age groups to consider international experiences during these open windows.

What’s the rationale for welcoming clubs outside the Academy to field U-13/14 teams?

TONY LEPORE: Really there’s three parts to that. For us the first one is we want to spread the philosophy of the Academy, the principles, the approach to player development. We want to also fill in some travel gaps.

We know that the current schedule, when we look at the match schedule for the 15, 16, 17, 18s, that doesn’t fit [the younger division].

That was part of the challenge in the beginning. That model doesn’t fit the 13, 14s. In some cases we can, where there’s less travel, but there’s certain parts of the country where the 15, 16, 17, 18s' schedule would just be too much travel. So we’re going to look to fill in those travel gaps.

The other piece is we want to cast a wider scouting net. The Development Academy has always been an extension of our youth national team programming. As you know, we start at U-14s there. So we want to cast a wider scouting net with younger players, which is in line with our training centers as well, going into 12s, 13s, 14s as we scout these national team prospects. Bringing in more clubs helps with those three things. …

Obviously this is exciting because it opens up room for some more clubs. We’ll continue to be careful. There are areas where we probably won’t expand at all for the same reason we don’t expand at 15, 16, 17, 18s, which would be because it would dilute the competition.

How do you evaluate potential clubs?

TONY LEPORE: We have nine full-time technical advisors and through our training center models they not only know the Academy clubs intimately, they also know about non-Academy clubs. We’ll be looking for coaching, philosophy, history of player development – how many players they’re sending to our training centers and our youth national teams. We also know it takes good facilities – availability and quality, not just for matches but for training. We’ll also look at their funding model. We continue to push for no pay to play at the youth level.

How much progress has been made in alleviating the costs for Academy players?

TONY LEPORE: We’ve seen progress but we still have a long way to go. Sometimes it’s surprising for people to hear there are a number of non-MLS clubs that are providing full scholarships for their players. They have moved away from pay-to-play. The MLS clubs are leading the way, but that’s motivated the others, especially where an MLS club is a neighbor and they want to continue to compete with each other, which is healthy.

There are 24 fully funded clubs now. [Half the clubs cover at least 50 percent of the costs for players.] We’re making progress but this is a big one so we still have a long way to go.

Will there be a national championship for the U-13/14s?

TONY LEPORE: We know that the league needs to be competitive, because that’s part of any good league. But at the same time we know we want to put development ahead of results. We also want to be careful about the showcase model.

Right now, we’re leaning toward not having a national championship because we want to regionalize everything, including their travel.

What’s the main benefit of expanding to the younger age group?

TONY LEPORE: The first thing that comes to mind is training hours. We know that’s where players develop. We’re moving to four times a week, and that’s a big increase in training hours in the top environments.

A lot of the same philosophy we apply to the 15, 16, 17, 18s we wanted to spread to the younger age group, which is more meaningful games -- games where they’re held accountable for technical execution, decision-making.

This is a really important age group that needs that calendar cleaned up, and that model cleaned up. And also shifting the focus on development ahead of results. The big benefit will be increased hours in the training environment and more meaningful games in terms of their technical development. …

We also know the best model is where one club takes charge of a player’s development. We want to empower the club.