|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jun 21, 2018 7:43:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jun 21, 2018 12:11:34 GMT -5
Why just the boys and not the girls? Isn't this part of what the clubs that left the girls side to go back to ECNL or become "all-in" said was what they wanted? The freedom to schedule friendlies or tournaments to help their bubble players get more playing time?
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Jun 22, 2018 9:50:14 GMT -5
Why just the boys and not the girls? Isn't this part of what the clubs that left the girls side to go back to ECNL or become "all-in" said was what they wanted? The freedom to schedule friendlies or tournaments to help their bubble players get more playing time? Same reason girls DA took so long to exist.. second class citizens.
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Jun 22, 2018 11:52:38 GMT -5
I've heard the same changes will be introduced for the GDA, so I'm confused as to why they didn't announce it along with the BDA announcement.
I think that they ignored the GDA in their announcement is evidence that the change is less about giving DA clubs freedom, and more about giving the MLS backed academies the cover they need to play each other a lot more and move towards a tiered DA. I think the MLS and USSF win if there is even more pressure for the top talent to further migrate to MLS affiliated DA clubs. This change is a pretty subtle way of allowing that to naturally happen. Turn the heat up slowly so the non-MLS clubs don't realize they are being boiled (left-behind).
Since there are so few fully funded GDA clubs I don't think there is much urgency to promote any changes on the girls side which ultimately just make the GDA look more like ECNL.
It is ironic that LAFC made their All-In announcement the day after the USSF announced they were trying to look more like ECNL. Could the ECNL have a few more clubs in its back pocket?
|
|
|
Post by crossbar on Jun 22, 2018 12:36:48 GMT -5
Why just the boys and not the girls? Isn't this part of what the clubs that left the girls side to go back to ECNL or become "all-in" said was what they wanted? The freedom to schedule friendlies or tournaments to help their bubble players get more playing time? Same reason girls DA took so long to exist.. second class citizens. Second class citizens... Unless you measure it in terms of things like college scholarship opportunities. I'd say the girls side is doing pretty well when viewed through that lense. Yes, I realize we're talking about DA here, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jun 22, 2018 18:01:57 GMT -5
Same reason girls DA took so long to exist.. second class citizens. Second class citizens... Unless you measure it in terms of things like college scholarship opportunities. I'd say the girls side is doing pretty well when viewed through that lense. Yes, I realize we're talking about DA here, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. That may be true about scholarships but that is solely due to the other football. The USWNT has done better than the USMNT so I think the women's side has not had as much attention in development in part because they haven't needed it...until lately. The world is catching up there. For girls looking to play pro it is still second class citizens all over the world though less so here than in many places. Still I think the USSF is just not that concerned about girls...they are just still going through the motions
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Jun 22, 2018 20:21:38 GMT -5
I think that they ignored the GDA in their announcement is evidence that the change is less about giving DA clubs freedom, and more about giving the MLS backed academies the cover they need to play each other a lot more and move towards a tiered DA. I think the MLS and USSF win if there is even more pressure for the top talent to further migrate to MLS affiliated DA clubs. This change is a pretty subtle way of allowing that to naturally happen. Turn the heat up slowly so the non-MLS clubs don't realize they are being boiled (left-behind). Further insulating DA from outside competition, while playing nearly zero home grown players on the MLS first teams, will put US men's soccer even further behind the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by gaprospects on Jun 22, 2018 20:39:36 GMT -5
I think that they ignored the GDA in their announcement is evidence that the change is less about giving DA clubs freedom, and more about giving the MLS backed academies the cover they need to play each other a lot more and move towards a tiered DA. I think the MLS and USSF win if there is even more pressure for the top talent to further migrate to MLS affiliated DA clubs. This change is a pretty subtle way of allowing that to naturally happen. Turn the heat up slowly so the non-MLS clubs don't realize they are being boiled (left-behind). Further insulating DA from outside competition, while playing nearly zero home grown players on the MLS first teams, will put US men's soccer even further behind the rest of the world. You should pay closer attention to how many young domestic players are playing on MLS first teams. Seven teenage Americans have appeared in more than half of their team's matches this season. 16 American teens have appeared in total. And the Canadian clubs are playing their kids more, too. We want MLS clubs to operate more like clubs around the world, specifically when it comes to youth development, but then we continue to complain when MLS clubs take steps towards that goal? We want players in our domestic league to be challenged day in day out in training because iron sharpens iron, but then we complain when MLS signs foreign players that increase that challenge for those players? So much of what is said concerning youth development in USSF, MLS, etc. is contradictory at best, hypocritical at worst. We all should think a bit about the depth of these issues before just declaring an outcome.
|
|
|
Post by be real on Jun 23, 2018 9:27:19 GMT -5
Further insulating DA from outside competition, while playing nearly zero home grown players on the MLS first teams, will put US men's soccer even further behind the rest of the world. You should pay closer attention to how many young domestic players are playing on MLS first teams. Seven teenage Americans have appeared in more than half of their team's matches this season. 16 American teens have appeared in total. And the Canadian clubs are playing their kids more, too. We want MLS clubs to operate more like clubs around the world, specifically when it comes to youth development, but then we continue to complain when MLS clubs take steps towards that goal? We want players in our domestic league to be challenged day in day out in training because iron sharpens iron, but then we complain when MLS signs foreign players that increase that challenge for those players? So much of what is said concerning youth development in USSF, MLS, etc. is contradictory at best, hypocritical at worst. We all should think a bit about the depth of these issues before just declaring an outcome. There has to be a financial incentive for clubs to develop the kids to the pros and a financial incentive for the mls to play their young prospects. There also has to be a financial gains and clear path to the pros for kids to believe in. Kids pursuing NFL, nba, mlb dreams have this. Soccer kids do not!
|
|
|
Post by gaprospects on Jun 23, 2018 14:25:59 GMT -5
Totally agree that what's missing with MLS youth development is financial incentive, specifically in the transfer market. It's still better in terms of financial assets for an MLS team to trade a player within the league than sell them abroad, which makes no sense.
But I lose you on the comparison to NFL, NBA, etc. Statistically, far more people are making 7+ figures a year playing soccer than any of those sports. There are literally less than 500 people in the NBA at a given time. Minor league baseball players barely make a living wage. How is that comparison relevant to this conversation?
|
|
|
Post by be real on Jun 23, 2018 15:24:26 GMT -5
Totally agree that what's missing with MLS youth development is financial incentive, specifically in the transfer market. It's still better in terms of financial assets for an MLS team to trade a player within the league than sell them abroad, which makes no sense. But I lose you on the comparison to NFL, NBA, etc. Statistically, far more people are making 7+ figures a year playing soccer than any of those sports. There are literally less than 500 people in the NBA at a given time. Minor league baseball players barely make a living wage. How is that comparison relevant to this conversation? Specifically talking about the MLS in America and not soccer in the rest of the world. How many MLS guys making 7 figures? How many NFL,NBA, MLB guys making 7 figures? And the path way for those are sports are way more defined than it is for our sport. This is a major problem.
|
|
|
Post by gaprospects on Jun 23, 2018 16:00:35 GMT -5
Disagree that the pathway is more defined in other sports. MLS is the only one of those leagues with a direct path from the youth leagues into the pros. All of the others force you to either be subjected to a draft, and/or play for free under the guise of "earning a higher education".
And again, that's ignoring all of the opportunities to play soccer abroad, which largely do not exist in those other sports (other than basketball, which you still have to go through college 99% of the time. And the money overseas is tiny compared to the NBA, which was your original point).
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jun 23, 2018 16:16:10 GMT -5
Regardless of ones opinion of exploiting college athletes - no question college is far superior than currently any alternatives of developing nba and nfl players and the pay checks also show it. As long as the mls continues to pay guys 65,000 a year I’d much prefer my child get exploited at Stanford, Duke, UNC, BAMA or Florida in other sports.
Revenue generating College sports gives these kids a national platform with unparalleled resources and opportunities to showcase their talents in front of millions of people weekly. I’m just glad the nba isn’t drafting 15 and 14 year olds, too many kids change drastically during the next 6 years of their lives.
In any other sports Carleton would have played a year or 2 in college then made millions in America
|
|
|
Post by be real on Jun 23, 2018 17:12:40 GMT -5
Disagree that the pathway is more defined in other sports. MLS is the only one of those leagues with a direct path from the youth leagues into the pros. All of the others force you to either be subjected to a draft, and/or play for free under the guise of "earning a higher education". And again, that's ignoring all of the opportunities to play soccer abroad, which largely do not exist in those other sports (other than basketball, which you still have to go through college 99% of the time. And the money overseas is tiny compared to the NBA, which was your original point). NFL - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. NBA - play AAU, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. MLB - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play minors, make $$, make majors, make $$$$. MLS - play youth, play DA, get homegrown, play USL, make MLS first team, make $$. So maybe "defined" isn't the right argument but rather the other sports have proven that there is really a way to the top. Soccer can talk it's path but I don't think that there's consistent proof that MLS stands behind that path. MLS would rather get an over the hill famous player or younger south of the border guy than letting the us developed kid play. And if there argument is that the us kid isn't good enough than I would say change the system so that that's no longer an issue.
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Jun 24, 2018 22:31:30 GMT -5
Disagree that the pathway is more defined in other sports. MLS is the only one of those leagues with a direct path from the youth leagues into the pros. All of the others force you to either be subjected to a draft, and/or play for free under the guise of "earning a higher education". And again, that's ignoring all of the opportunities to play soccer abroad, which largely do not exist in those other sports (other than basketball, which you still have to go through college 99% of the time. And the money overseas is tiny compared to the NBA, which was your original point). NFL - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. NBA - play AAU, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. MLB - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play minors, make $$, make majors, make $$$$. MLS - play youth, play DA, get homegrown, play USL, make MLS first team, make $$. So maybe "defined" isn't the right argument but rather the other sports have proven that there is really a way to the top. Soccer can talk it's path but I don't think that there's consistent proof that MLS stands behind that path. MLS would rather get an over the hill famous player or younger south of the border guy than letting the us developed kid play. And if there argument is that the us kid isn't good enough than I would say change the system so that that's no longer an issue. A few additions/corrections/comments.
1. Of the 4 you mention, one of these things is not like the other. The other 3 get a college education in case sports doesn't work out. 2. MLS.. you need to drop one of these $ ... $65k/year is what most kids who can code make on their first job.. without a degree. It's definitely not 'pro athlete' money.
3. MLS... you play DA.. unless your club doesn't have DA or you live in an underserved area, so you play.. RPL? NPL? NL? ECNL? HS? The other three sports are everywhere, currently in the US - quality soccer is mostly in the major metropolitan areas.. and best where there's some money.
|
|
|
Post by be real on Jun 25, 2018 8:27:09 GMT -5
NFL - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. NBA - play AAU, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. MLB - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play minors, make $$, make majors, make $$$$. MLS - play youth, play DA, get homegrown, play USL, make MLS first team, make $$. So maybe "defined" isn't the right argument but rather the other sports have proven that there is really a way to the top. Soccer can talk it's path but I don't think that there's consistent proof that MLS stands behind that path. MLS would rather get an over the hill famous player or younger south of the border guy than letting the us developed kid play. And if there argument is that the us kid isn't good enough than I would say change the system so that that's no longer an issue. A few additions/corrections/comments.
1. Of the 4 you mention, one of these things is not like the other. The other 3 get a college education in case sports doesn't work out. 2. MLS.. you need to drop one of these $ ... $65k/year is what most kids who can code make on their first job.. without a degree. It's definitely not 'pro athlete' money.
3. MLS... you play DA.. unless your club doesn't have DA or you live in an underserved area, so you play.. RPL? NPL? NL? ECNL? HS? The other three sports are everywhere, currently in the US - quality soccer is mostly in the major metropolitan areas.. and best where there's some money.
1. All 4 can have college in it's path but college soccer is viewed as bad while the other have college as their farm systems to the pros. With that stated though, kids bail as soon as they're considered ready for the pros. 2. Make that $54k for MLS. I find it hard to believe that MLS can't afford to pay it's players better than that. Those guys are really in it for the game. 3. Even if DA isn't everywhere, it's the minimum standard. That's not to say that there aren't quality kids in the other leagues.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Jun 25, 2018 11:42:41 GMT -5
They can't pay better because nobody watches on TV; and there aren't commercials every two (or even ten) minutes.
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccer on Jun 25, 2018 12:31:46 GMT -5
A few additions/corrections/comments.
1. Of the 4 you mention, one of these things is not like the other. The other 3 get a college education in case sports doesn't work out. 2. MLS.. you need to drop one of these $ ... $65k/year is what most kids who can code make on their first job.. without a degree. It's definitely not 'pro athlete' money.
3. MLS... you play DA.. unless your club doesn't have DA or you live in an underserved area, so you play.. RPL? NPL? NL? ECNL? HS? The other three sports are everywhere, currently in the US - quality soccer is mostly in the major metropolitan areas.. and best where there's some money.
1. All 4 can have college in it's path but college soccer is viewed as bad while the other have college as their farm systems to the pros. With that stated though, kids bail as soon as they're considered ready for the pros. 2. Make that $54k for MLS. I find it hard to believe that MLS can't afford to pay it's players better than that. Those guys are really in it for the game. 3. Even if DA isn't everywhere, it's the minimum standard. That's not to say that there aren't quality kids in the other leagues. Players make the MLS that did not play DA, so I don't understand how DA is the minimum standard? I'd say it is the Federation's preferred path.
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccer on Jun 25, 2018 12:42:25 GMT -5
Disagree that the pathway is more defined in other sports. MLS is the only one of those leagues with a direct path from the youth leagues into the pros. All of the others force you to either be subjected to a draft, and/or play for free under the guise of "earning a higher education". And again, that's ignoring all of the opportunities to play soccer abroad, which largely do not exist in those other sports (other than basketball, which you still have to go through college 99% of the time. And the money overseas is tiny compared to the NBA, which was your original point). NFL - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. NBA - play AAU, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play pro, make $$$$. MLB - play youth, play HS, get Div 1 scholarship, play Div 1, get drafted, play minors, make $$, make majors, make $$$$. MLS - play youth, play DA, get homegrown, play USL, make MLS first team, make $$. So maybe "defined" isn't the right argument but rather the other sports have proven that there is really a way to the top. Soccer can talk it's path but I don't think that there's consistent proof that MLS stands behind that path. MLS would rather get an over the hill famous player or younger south of the border guy than letting the us developed kid play. And if there argument is that the us kid isn't good enough than I would say change the system so that that's no longer an issue. Here are two points that should be considered. - The MLS is a young league in a sport with a long history, competing against leagues that have a long, rich tradition. Can we say the same for the NFL, NBA or MLB? I don't think you can if you take the NBA/ABA and NFL/USFL mergers, and unless I am mistaken certainly not with any league outside of the US. - The over the hill famous player still plays at or above the league level 9 out of 10 times. So if two players of equal talent and ones is famous and will sell tickets/merchandise, you wouldn't take that player over the other? - The MLS would not rather the younger south of the border guy sign/play over a US developed kid play. Teams generally have two goals. Generate revenue (above point) and find that best team. If a US developed player was equal to the south of the border kid, and all else was equal of course the league would want the US kid. The league gives incentives (homegrown contracts, international player limits) for this reason. US soccer and the MLS have been getting killed for a year now about how closely aligned they are for the exact opposite of the point you are making.
|
|