Well done Admin! DA vs ECNL on the horizon?

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:I thought the ratio was supposed to be 1:1. And I thought Frontier was doing U13 and U16.

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

Is that in addition or in lieu of the U13/14?

Maybe I missed something in that webinar, but I didn't see anything about 1:1 ratio requirement, and that certainly isn't the case this year for the mixed age groups.

And yessir -- As I mentioned, Frontier will have U13s joining the U14s and those U16s that don't make the U16/17 group will be given the opportunity to play on the U16 pilot program team.  

Maybe there will be an age pure U13 pilot program team for those that aren't selected for the U13/14 group as well ... if that's the case, scheduling 7 matches in one day is gonna be a neat trick.

Is this an admission that U13 was not a success this year?

And the 1:1 ratio was what was pitched when GDA was announced.

Love this!  If you aren't joking here, it'd be more of an admission of absurdity wouldn't it FoReal?  I mean ... those kids are only a few months in aren't they?  Sheish.

And please tell us who "pitched" you the 1:1 ratio?  GDA?  GA?  Who?

Nobody pitched me anything. US Soccer pitched everyone this:

The use of combined age groups will require clubs to form teams with a balanced roster of players from two distinct birth years.

http://www.ussoccerda.com/USSoccer-to-Launch-Girls-Development-Academy-Fall-2017

You are so defensive of GDA that you can’t admit that U13 is too early for GDA. Those deserving of national attention played up and deservingly so. But U13 as a whole was unnecessary, which explains why, after a pilot year in the Frontier league, they aren’t going national with a U13 league. Most 7th graders aren’t ready. If they add a U13 division in Frontier in addition to U13/14, they’ve all but admitted their desire to destroy ECNL.

Quit defending GDA on its infancy.  Some ideas are just ill-conceived and should be abandoned.

Please explain how absurd my thoughts are. Thanks.

Sure FoReal --

The absurd part was your notion that anything I said here is an "admission that U13 was not a success this year" ... especially after just a few months and a dozen or so matches.  How (and why) could we call the U13 group a failure (or success for that matter) at this point?  Are the ECNL U13s a failure too?  Having a tough time with the logic here -- Lemme know if you can help us out.

And I'm sorry that I must not have been clear enough, but the GDA are adding U13s nationally next year.  

And yes ... It could easily be argued (and I don't necessarily disagree) that U13 is a bit young for the GDA level.  That is, if your argument was based on the fierce competitive atmosphere and taxing amount of travel that come with participation.  But couldn't the same be said for the ECNL?  I recall a few years ago in our pre ECNL meeting it was announced that they had plans to expand down to U11, and I sure you know that the DA boys have had U12 going for a couple years now, so ...

I realize it may seem that I am in bed with GDA because I'm forced to defend it due of all of the nonsense being spewed out there, but as I've mentioned many times, I support and respect all levels.  Rather than be so concerned with conspiracies (i.e. GDAs master plan and "desire to destroy ECNL"), how 'bout we shift focus to the more concrete things such as product.  Those of us that have kids participating in it don't seem to be doing any grumbling of any kind.  Funny how that works isn't it?

Bige - could you address ForReal's post above that you conveniently dodged:

US Soccer pitched everyone this:

The use of combined age groups will require clubs to form teams with a balanced roster of players from two distinct birth years.

What I find interesting is that you and Zuzi are the only real GDA cheerleaders on here.  Plenty of other GDA parents on this site, but none singing the praises of GDA like you and Zuzi.  I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that just because people  grumbling on this board can't be identified by you as a GDA parent (or a GDA parent with concerns isn't posting here), doesn't mean that all GDA parents are happy with the product as a whole.

Zizou wrote:Those pure age teams are the beginning of DA2. The younger players , good players, but the first year being the younger if good enough will make the DA team. Those that are on the fence will be placed on the DA2 team developing for the following year when the are the oldest in the division. DA teams will be mostly built with the older players within the age division. Of course you will see some of the top younger players make the team but to keep the pipeline rich with talent they will need the DA2 for more games and area for the younger players to play.

There is no such thing as DA2.

Sorry BigE, but u13 this year and next is only in Frontier Division. Nationally it is u13/14.

SickofStupidity wrote:Bige - could you address ForReal's post above that you conveniently dodged:

US Soccer pitched everyone this:

The use of combined age groups will require clubs to form teams with a balanced roster of players from two distinct birth years.

What I find interesting is that you and Zuzi are the only real GDA cheerleaders on here.  Plenty of other GDA parents on this site, but none singing the praises of GDA like you and Zuzi.  I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that just because people  grumbling on this board can't be identified by you as a GDA parent (or a GDA parent with concerns isn't posting here), doesn't mean that all GDA parents are happy with the product as a whole.

Sure SoS (although it's funny that you mention dodging ... gave me a lil' chuckle) --

What would you like me to say?  

While I wouldn't classify it as a "pitch", FoReal apparently copied + pasted a line that looks like it came from the USSDA site.  And ... ?  How is it applicable to the gist of either his of my argument in our little convo here?  The rosters clearly are not "balanced" this year ... Does this makes things worse for you and your kid?

Sure ... They leave most of the work to Zizou and I -- why wouldn't they?  Have you noticed I haven't been corrected by any of those "plenty of GDA parents on this site" you mentioned ... Do you find that interesting as well?  

And it'd be absurd to believe that all GDA parents (or all parents with kids participating on any platform for that matter) are happy, wouldn't it?  Who said that?  I say we drag him out back and kick the sh%t outta him!

05DD wrote:Sorry BigE, but u13 this year and next is only in Frontier Division. Nationally it is u13/14.

Sorry???

This is a joke, right?

05DD wrote:

Zizou wrote:Those pure age teams are the beginning of DA2. The younger players , good players, but the first year being the younger if good enough will make the DA team. Those that are on the fence will be placed on the DA2 team developing for the following year when the are the oldest in the division. DA teams will be mostly built with the older players within the age division. Of course you will see some of the top younger players make the team but to keep the pipeline rich with talent they will need the DA2 for more games and area for the younger players to play.

There is no such thing as DA2.

Okay, they have pulled the wool over your eyes. No they wont call it DA2 because it won’t appeal to those that don’t have a clue. Younger players will have a second team to develope on with the older players playing on the DA team. USSF has devised a good plan to keep parents like your self on board as you move through the system.

BigE and Zizou

Big Ern wrote:

05DD wrote:Sorry BigE, but u13 this year and next is only in Frontier Division. Nationally it is u13/14.

Sorry???

This is a joke, right?

What would be the joke? Have you read the webinar?
It clearly states u13/14 grouped together except for Frontier division. There's even talks on SoCal forum that Frontier division clubs are paying off US DA for being the only conference with u13 and u16 seperate.

Atlantic Division

5050Ball wrote:Atlantic Division

Correct. Plus Frontier Division

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:I thought the ratio was supposed to be 1:1. And I thought Frontier was doing U13 and U16.

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/mzlyw0ld7v1c0wkbojo8o7m5bfy54c69

Is that in addition or in lieu of the U13/14?

Maybe I missed something in that webinar, but I didn't see anything about 1:1 ratio requirement, and that certainly isn't the case this year for the mixed age groups.

And yessir -- As I mentioned, Frontier will have U13s joining the U14s and those U16s that don't make the U16/17 group will be given the opportunity to play on the U16 pilot program team.  

Maybe there will be an age pure U13 pilot program team for those that aren't selected for the U13/14 group as well ... if that's the case, scheduling 7 matches in one day is gonna be a neat trick.

Is this an admission that U13 was not a success this year?

And the 1:1 ratio was what was pitched when GDA was announced.

Love this!  If you aren't joking here, it'd be more of an admission of absurdity wouldn't it FoReal?  I mean ... those kids are only a few months in aren't they?  Sheish.

And please tell us who "pitched" you the 1:1 ratio?  GDA?  GA?  Who?

Nobody pitched me anything. US Soccer pitched everyone this:

The use of combined age groups will require clubs to form teams with a balanced roster of players from two distinct birth years.

http://www.ussoccerda.com/USSoccer-to-Launch-Girls-Development-Academy-Fall-2017

You are so defensive of GDA that you can’t admit that U13 is too early for GDA. Those deserving of national attention played up and deservingly so. But U13 as a whole was unnecessary, which explains why, after a pilot year in the Frontier league, they aren’t going national with a U13 league. Most 7th graders aren’t ready. If they add a U13 division in Frontier in addition to U13/14, they’ve all but admitted their desire to destroy ECNL.

Quit defending GDA on its infancy.  Some ideas are just ill-conceived and should be abandoned.

Please explain how absurd my thoughts are. Thanks.

Sure FoReal --

The absurd part was your notion that anything I said here is an "admission that U13 was not a success this year" ... especially after just a few months and a dozen or so matches.  How (and why) could we call the U13 group a failure (or success for that matter) at this point?  Are the ECNL U13s a failure too?  Having a tough time with the logic here -- Lemme know if you can help us out.

And I'm sorry that I must not have been clear enough, but the GDA are adding U13s nationally next year.  

And yes ... It could easily be argued (and I don't necessarily disagree) that U13 is a bit young for the GDA level.  That is, if your argument was based on the fierce competitive atmosphere and taxing amount of travel that come with participation.  But couldn't the same be said for the ECNL?  I recall a few years ago in our pre ECNL meeting it was announced that they had plans to expand down to U11, and I sure you know that the DA boys have had U12 going for a couple years now, so ...

I realize it may seem that I am in bed with GDA because I'm forced to defend it due of all of the nonsense being spewed out there, but as I've mentioned many times, I support and respect all levels.  Rather than be so concerned with conspiracies (i.e. GDAs master plan and "desire to destroy ECNL"), how 'bout we shift focus to the more concrete things such as product.  Those of us that have kids participating in it don't seem to be doing any grumbling of any kind.  Funny how that works isn't it?

It’s not all about you, Big E. I wasn’t suggesting you made an admission. I’m asking whether USSF is admitting that the Frontier U13 pilot didn’t prove a U13 group should exist nationally?  

And I’m not concerned with conspiracies. USSF clearly stated that dual age brackets were to be balanced. They abandoned that. On a national level, that means very few U13s will be on GDA rosters next year.

In the same paragraph it also states:

The players in the Girls' Development Academy clubs will play exclusively within the Academy program and will not play in any outside competition, such as ODP or high school.

appears they have abandoned that as well

The Pilot programs were not required to adhere to the training regimen nor the restrictions. I imagine it will be the same next year.

Pilot/DA2/whatever you call it, it's a smart attempt to park players away from ECNL. Will it work? Who knows?

SickofStupidity wrote:

BigE and Zizou

I thought you were sick of the stupidity?

... I don't even know the dude.

(although ... this is funny as hell)

05DD wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

05DD wrote:Sorry BigE, but u13 this year and next is only in Frontier Division. Nationally it is u13/14.

Sorry???

This is a joke, right?

What would be the joke? Have you read the webinar?
It clearly states u13/14 grouped together except for Frontier division. There's even talks on SoCal forum that Frontier division clubs are paying off US DA for being the only conference with u13 and u16 seperate.

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

Yes -- I watched the webinar.  So yes -- We know that the U13s will be grouped with U14s next year nationally (as I mentioned earlier in this thread).

Thanks bud  

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

ForReal wrote:

Big Ern wrote:

Maybe I missed something in that webinar, but I didn't see anything about 1:1 ratio requirement, and that certainly isn't the case this year for the mixed age groups.

And yessir -- As I mentioned, Frontier will have U13s joining the U14s and those U16s that don't make the U16/17 group will be given the opportunity to play on the U16 pilot program team.  

Maybe there will be an age pure U13 pilot program team for those that aren't selected for the U13/14 group as well ... if that's the case, scheduling 7 matches in one day is gonna be a neat trick.

Is this an admission that U13 was not a success this year?

And the 1:1 ratio was what was pitched when GDA was announced.

Love this!  If you aren't joking here, it'd be more of an admission of absurdity wouldn't it FoReal?  I mean ... those kids are only a few months in aren't they?  Sheish.

And please tell us who "pitched" you the 1:1 ratio?  GDA?  GA?  Who?

Nobody pitched me anything. US Soccer pitched everyone this:

The use of combined age groups will require clubs to form teams with a balanced roster of players from two distinct birth years.

http://www.ussoccerda.com/USSoccer-to-Launch-Girls-Development-Academy-Fall-2017

You are so defensive of GDA that you can’t admit that U13 is too early for GDA. Those deserving of national attention played up and deservingly so. But U13 as a whole was unnecessary, which explains why, after a pilot year in the Frontier league, they aren’t going national with a U13 league. Most 7th graders aren’t ready. If they add a U13 division in Frontier in addition to U13/14, they’ve all but admitted their desire to destroy ECNL.

Quit defending GDA on its infancy.  Some ideas are just ill-conceived and should be abandoned.

Please explain how absurd my thoughts are. Thanks.

Sure FoReal --

The absurd part was your notion that anything I said here is an "admission that U13 was not a success this year" ... especially after just a few months and a dozen or so matches.  How (and why) could we call the U13 group a failure (or success for that matter) at this point?  Are the ECNL U13s a failure too?  Having a tough time with the logic here -- Lemme know if you can help us out.

And I'm sorry that I must not have been clear enough, but the GDA are adding U13s nationally next year.  

And yes ... It could easily be argued (and I don't necessarily disagree) that U13 is a bit young for the GDA level.  That is, if your argument was based on the fierce competitive atmosphere and taxing amount of travel that come with participation.  But couldn't the same be said for the ECNL?  I recall a few years ago in our pre ECNL meeting it was announced that they had plans to expand down to U11, and I sure you know that the DA boys have had U12 going for a couple years now, so ...

I realize it may seem that I am in bed with GDA because I'm forced to defend it due of all of the nonsense being spewed out there, but as I've mentioned many times, I support and respect all levels.  Rather than be so concerned with conspiracies (i.e. GDAs master plan and "desire to destroy ECNL"), how 'bout we shift focus to the more concrete things such as product.  Those of us that have kids participating in it don't seem to be doing any grumbling of any kind.  Funny how that works isn't it?

It’s not all about you, Big E. I wasn’t suggesting you made an admission. I’m asking whether USSF is admitting that the Frontier U13 pilot didn’t prove a U13 group should exist nationally?  

And I’m not concerned with conspiracies. USSF clearly stated that dual age brackets were to be balanced. They abandoned that. On a national level, that means very few U13s will be on GDA rosters next year.

Ohhh ... gotcha.  My answer is I don't have the first damn clue.  Maybe he was an early riser and liked to pack in the morning.  And maybe he didn't have any friends.  I'm an educated man but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of the USSDA brass.

It seems you do believe that the aim of the USSDA is to destroy the ECNL ... wouldn't that be the very definition of a conspiracy?  

And yes ... very few '06s will be rostered on the U13/14 sides nationally.  Which would be a good thing based on your previously stated contention wouldn't it?

SickofStupidity wrote:In the same paragraph it also states:

The players in the Girls' Development Academy clubs will play exclusively within the Academy program and will not play in any outside competition, such as ODP or high school.

appears they have abandoned that as well

... and ???

Regardless, the USSDA has since put this choice in the hands of each member club.  The clubs doing it right are enforcing this ^ in their U16/17 and U15 groups -- U18/19 group have been lax so far because most have already committed so I wouldn't be surprised if some are playing HS ball.  The U14 + U13 groups are MS aged and I believe all of the GDA clubs in NTX are allowing participation in other activities (albeit likely detrimental to the roster status of those that choose to do so).

Lotsa moving parts given that the program is just a few months in, which should be expected.  Really kinda silly to rip it at this point (especially if you're standing on the outside looking in and are hating just for spite), isn't it?

Wasn't a rip, merely a statement of fact.

Maybe you shouldn't be so overly sensitive and defensive about every fact posted about GDA on this forum.

And ...

Maybe you shouldn't post baseless criticism without any relevance to your contention that 'GDA is bad and whatever my kid is doing is good' - Especially given you have zero experience with it ...

K?

... Sensitive : )

SickofStupidity wrote:In the same paragraph it also states:

The players in the Girls' Development Academy clubs will play exclusively within the Academy program and will not play in any outside competition, such as ODP or high school.

appears they have abandoned that as well

baseless - without foundation in fact

criticism - the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes


Hey 'lil buddy, I understand your feelings might be hurt, but even you pardner are smart enough to wrap your little noggin around the FACT that while the above statement is posted on the GDA site, it isn't being enforced.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So dry those crocodile tears and don't be so overly sensitive to think that every statement of fact about GDA is a criticism.

K?

My DD recieved an e-mail last week that if a DA player touches a high school field her position with the team would be terminated. This following three or four players being terminated from the team. Yeah, I would say their pretty serious about enforcing the no high school play.

Zizou is your 30 year old is still in HS?

Seems to me that no one is correctly explaining the DA policy towards HS play.

As I understand it, the DA rule is that you can not SIMULTANEOUSLY participate in DA and HS.  So in order to play HS, you have to take a leave of absence from DA, meaning you can not attend DA practices, or play in DA matches while you are participating in HS season.

Furthermore, the decision is up to each individual club as to whether they will allow or guarantee that any player taking a leave of absence can return to DA after HS season is completed.  

I would imagine that any club that allows it's DA players to take leave of absences, and then can not field a team, or a competitive team, for DA matches played during HS season, would not be looked upon in a good light by USSF, possibly risking their DA status. I would imagine that would serve as a bit of a deterrent to clubs from granting LOA's carte blanche, as well as providing guarantees for return to DA to players that do take LOA's.  

It would also appear from Zizou's last post that any player caught trying to play HS on the sly will be dealt with rather harshly.

With that said, I would bet that clubs can work around this to a degree by using their "Pilot" or "DA2" teams from the off-year age groups.  For example, if the club has a U16/U17 DA team that is mostly made up of '01 birth years, and a U16 "Pilot" team that is made up mostly of '02 birth years (see Solar and FCD), the club could backfill U16/U17 DA slots vacated by '01's taking LOA's, with some hungry '02's from the U16 Pilot team that have decided that a shot at playing DA is worth not playing HS.

Since the U16 teams are not officially DA, they are not at the mercy of the DA scheduling, and the clubs could probably work the scheduling of those teams around HS season, much like ECNL Texas Conference does today.

DeltaTauChi wrote:Seems to me that no one is correctly explaining the DA policy towards HS play.

As I understand it, the DA rule is that you can not SIMULTANEOUSLY participate in DA and HS.  So in order to play HS, you have to take a leave of absence from DA, meaning you can not attend DA practices, or play in DA matches while you are participating in HS season.

Furthermore, the decision is up to each individual club as to whether they will allow or guarantee that any player taking a leave of absence can return to DA after HS season is completed.  

I would imagine that any club that allows it's DA players to take leave of absences, and then can not field a team, or a competitive team, for DA matches played during HS season, would not be looked upon in a good light by USSF, possibly risking their DA status. I would imagine that would serve as a bit of a deterrent to clubs from granting LOA's carte blanche, as well as providing guarantees for return to DA to players that do take LOA's.  

It would also appear from Zizou's last post that any player caught trying to play HS on the sly will be dealt with rather harshly.

With that said, I would bet that clubs can work around this to a degree by using their "Pilot" or "DA2" teams from the off-year age groups.  For example, if the club has a U16/U17 DA team that is mostly made up of '01 birth years, and a U16 "Pilot" team that is made up mostly of '02 birth years (see Solar and FCD), the club could backfill U16/U17 DA slots vacated by '01's taking LOA's, with some hungry '02's from the U16 Pilot team that have decided that a shot at playing DA is worth not playing HS.

Since the U16 teams are not officially DA, they are not at the mercy of the DA scheduling, and the clubs could probably work the scheduling of those teams around HS season, much like ECNL Texas Conference does today.

Is that you Bige? Foxy likes your new look.

DeltaTauChi wrote:Seems to me that no one is correctly explaining the DA policy towards HS play.

As I understand it, the DA rule is that you can not SIMULTANEOUSLY participate in DA and HS.  So in order to play HS, you have to take a leave of absence from DA, meaning you can not attend DA practices, or play in DA matches while you are participating in HS season.

Furthermore, the decision is up to each individual club as to whether they will allow or guarantee that any player taking a leave of absence can return to DA after HS season is completed.  

I would imagine that any club that allows it's DA players to take leave of absences, and then can not field a team, or a competitive team, for DA matches played during HS season, would not be looked upon in a good light by USSF, possibly risking their DA status. I would imagine that would serve as a bit of a deterrent to clubs from granting LOA's carte blanche, as well as providing guarantees for return to DA to players that do take LOA's.  

It would also appear from Zizou's last post that any player caught trying to play HS on the sly will be dealt with rather harshly.

With that said, I would bet that clubs can work around this to a degree by using their "Pilot" or "DA2" teams from the off-year age groups.  For example, if the club has a U16/U17 DA team that is mostly made up of '01 birth years, and a U16 "Pilot" team that is made up mostly of '02 birth years (see Solar and FCD), the club could backfill U16/U17 DA slots vacated by '01's taking LOA's, with some hungry '02's from the U16 Pilot team that have decided that a shot at playing DA is worth not playing HS.

Since the U16 teams are not officially DA, they are not at the mercy of the DA scheduling, and the clubs could probably work the scheduling of those teams around HS season, much like ECNL Texas Conference does today.

I am someone that works with multiple DA clubs around the state, and the Pilot teams are not free to schedule matches whenever they want or to work around things. U13 or U16 Pilot... the only thing that keeps a pilot team from playing when the rest of the clubs age groups are playing is if their opponent does not field a pilot team in that age group.

Just stating facts.