Phoenix Showcase

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Not necessarily.....but again how would you calibrate the girls' development, creativity and soccer IQ IF they can not win against lesser developed teams?  How do you know the students have learned well if they can not pass a test?  [Wait a minute...scratch that....we don't really test students any more....everyone passes with As]

Having experienced a little bit of recruiting process, and looking from a novice standpoint, I know that winning puts a team in the radar.....and after that then comes a question on HOW does this team win?  And that is when individual players would or could be categorized on how each one plays, what is their roles in plays, creativity, soccer IQ, athleticism, etc.

Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Pele98 wrote:

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Not necessarily.....but again how would you calibrate the girls' development, creativity and soccer IQ IF they can not win against lesser developed teams?  How do you know the students have learned well if they can not pass a test?  [Wait a minute...scratch that....we don't really test students any more....everyone passes with As]

Having experienced a little bit of recruiting process, and looking from a novice standpoint, I know that winning puts a team in the radar.....and after that then comes a question on HOW does this team win?  And that is when individual players would or could be categorized on how each one plays, what is their roles in plays, creativity, soccer IQ, athleticism, etc.

Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Agree with your saying that there is an obvious benefit to playing on a top team that advances to the highest level and gets on d1 radars but it falls apart if the only way your team advances is due to having a dominate player that carries the team and gets that result pretty much by herself. Sound familiar?  IMO the discussion isn't which team is dominant or wins but which players are developing and playing the game at a level that interests coaches at a d1 level. Colleges do not recruit teams. They recruit players that fit their program.

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Not necessarily.....but again how would you calibrate the girls' development, creativity and soccer IQ IF they can not win against lesser developed teams?  How do you know the students have learned well if they can not pass a test?  [Wait a minute...scratch that....we don't really test students any more....everyone passes with As]

Having experienced a little bit of recruiting process, and looking from a novice standpoint, I know that winning puts a team in the radar.....and after that then comes a question on HOW does this team win?  And that is when individual players would or could be categorized on how each one plays, what is their roles in plays, creativity, soccer IQ, athleticism, etc.

Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Agree with your saying that there is an obvious benefit to playing on a top team that advances to the highest level and gets on d1 radars but it falls apart if the only way your team advances is due to having a dominate player that carries the team and gets that result pretty much by herself. Sound familiar?  IMO the discussion isn't which team is dominant or wins but which players are developing and playing the game at a level that interests coaches at a d1 level. Colleges do not recruit teams. They recruit players that fit their program.

Players don't exist in vacuum.........hence, most likely college coaches get to see those players, developed or not, within teams.  After all when they get recruited, individually of course, they go play for college TEAMS.

Which again comes back to the argument, if a teams wins, players get to be seen.  Tons of players from rec to top leagues are daily getting 'developed' in Pinnochio Soccer Labs. What separates them from others is what they do within their TEAMS and for their TEAMS.

As I stated above.....Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Well let's see, what do the College coaches think about winning vs developing players? Based on NTX beating Surf we would expect to see Surf kids being recruited by d3 colleges right? So the first list is the college commits from San Diego Surf, 2014-2016.

EVANSVILLE
IDAHO
USC
STANFORD
CONCORDIA (CA)
PITTSBURGH
SAN DIEGO
GONZAGA
ARIZONA
UC SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
COLUMBIA
COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
UCLA
PEPPERDINE
SAN DIEGO
WAKE FOREST
IOWA STATE
SAN JOSE STATE
PEPPERDINE
UC SANTA BARBARA
VIRGINIA TECH
SANTA CLARA
VIRGINIA TECH
ARIZONA
RUTGERS
Notre Dame

NTX CLUB FCDallas: 2014-2016
Lipscomb
NTX
UNLV

So if your DD wants to play D1 college which club would you choose? Call your club coach and tell him you want to commit to ND, Stanford, UCLA, Wake, USC, or Virg Tech. Wait for the laughter. You can compare their list to any of the ntx teams that beat them. I don't have the time to paste all the cal clubs vs the NTX clubs but you can do the footwork here:

https://sites.google.com/site/soccerrecruits/

Look at clubs like MLVA, PDA new jersey, So Cal Blues. I bet 3 out of 4 of our NTX teams could beat them in every game except the one on signing day. And if that's the result you are willing to accept then that's what we will continue to get.


It is painfully obvious that the college coaches could care less what your winning record is IF you don't have the individual skills (tactical and technical). We still have some exceptional players (you know the ones) but the next 90% are not near the level of the average player in other areas. Again look at the final 8 teams in the NCAA, where did they play club (hint: not ntx)

Not exactly what the ECNL coaches continue to sell - regarding numbers.
I'm certain this list is far from conclusive - i.e. Would St Louis have that many? Could be given their club strength and proximity to large schools in MO, IL, KS, NE.

I always assumed Sting/Texans were sending dozens yearly - are they just not reflected here? I know they aren't going to top colleges as I've looked at rosters.

Ok, I'm not sure taking the top team in that age group and using multiple years and comparing them to a lessor team and using one year is exactly a fair representation but then no one ever said the Board would be fair.

Looking strictly at 2014 graduation year, according to this site (I have no idea if is accurate or if FCD even reported their people timely or accurately) but here is North Texas

Dallas Texans HOUSTON
Dallas Texans KENTUCKY
Dallas Texans RICE
Dallas Texans UALR
Dallas Texans ARMY
Dallas Texans HOUSTON
Dallas Texans CENTRAL ARKANSAS
Dallas Texans KANSAS
Dallas Texans
D'Feeters AUBURN
D'Feeters STEPHEN F. AUSTIN
D'Feeters OKLAHOMA
D'Feeters ABILENE CHRISTIAN
D'Feeters ARKANSAS
D'Feeters UTEP
D'Feeters FIU
D'Feeters OKLAHOMA STATE
D'Feeters HOUSTON
D'Feeters
FC Dallas UNLV
FC Dallas LIPSCOMB
FC Dallas
Sting Dallas LIPSCOMB
Sting Dallas TEXAS
Sting Dallas OKLAHOMA
Sting Dallas MERCER
Sting Dallas BAYLOR
Sting Dallas ARKANSAS
Sting Dallas TCU
Sting Dallas TEXAS STATE
Sting Dallas NOTRE DAME
Sting Dallas MEMPHIS
Sting Dallas MISSISSIPPI STATE
Sting Dallas TEXAS A&M
Sting Dallas
Sting Dallas TEXAS TECH
Sting Dallas ARKANSAS
Solar SC DALLAS BAPTIST
Solar SC TRINITY
Solar SC
Solar SC TEXAS STATE
Solar SC NORTH TEXAS
Solar SC ST. EDWARD'S
Solar SC ABILENE CHRISTIAN
Solar SC ARKANSAS
Solar SC
Solar SC NORTHEASTERN STATE
Solar SC TULSA
Solar SC NORTH TEXAS
Solar SC NORTH TEXAS
Solar SC ARKANSAS
Solar SC COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
Solar SC TEXAS STATE


I think with these schools as well as the Surf team listed below, you see some National D1 programs and then some more regional programs. If, historically, California has produced more talent than those regional programs may be stronger today. I do think that that separation has narrowed considerably with North Texas being one of the regions that is pushing California. Let's also remember that this is not D1 college football. A "scholarship" to a school is often measured in quarters and halves and is year to year. (12 scholarship limit per school for a team of 25-27)A "scholarship" to Notre Dame or North Carolina or Duke that pays a quarter or half still leaves someone having to foot the other half or three quarters. Thus, you see more girls playing regionally. Note the sudden emergence of A&M, Baylor or Texas Tech. Easier to foot the bill in a State School in Texas just as many of the California girls stay home and have stayed home.

I have also seen many of the California teams play VERY direct. Surprisingly so, in fact. Most of the top North Texas teams are not known for playing direct or simply being BFS any longer. While Tatu, Kioumars or Adrian may have some of those players incorporated, I doubt even the most hardened North Texas cynic can claim that those teams are not known for fast ball movement, smart players and possession. It's one thing to argue BFS in U10 or U11 when NT has some success. The argument starts to fail at U15, U16, U17 and U18.

I don't think its an argument, more of a discussion. If you have a dd that has played with a major club since 8 and she is a reasonable athlete and made every practice and every game yet she is not a college level player, Why? It shows that if you are fortunate to train with the coaches you mentioned then you have a much greater chance at success, in fact its your only chance in NTX. So development has more to do with which coach you have.... and if you are not taken in by one of these coaches before 14 your are pretty much left out?

From a simplicity viewpoint, wins and losses are much easier to track than individual soccer development. As far as a team goal, it is important to win at the U-17 and older age groups. In my opinion, at the younger age groups (under U-17), it is more important to develop the skill level of all players. From an individual soccer player's perspective it is more important to improve her skill level. These two items do not have to be mutually exclusive. That is, you can win and improve the skill level of the players. At U-9, our coach told our team that he was going to take a few years to develop the players and that winning would come later. He has developed the skill level of every player on the team. Some college coaches have complimented our team on its style of play, but it is just easier to say that we won or lost or tied.

If you believe that California develops better individual soccer players, it seems that the simple answer is to hire a coach from California or move there so your individual DD can improve as a soccer player.

It is unfair to compare North Texas to all of California or even all of Texas to California as the population of California is much greater. The wealth of an area also influences the development of soccer talent as select soccer is very expensive. Look at where the top teams in California and Texas are located, predominately the wealthy areas. In Texas, the primary areas for top select soccer teams (in my opinion) are DFW, Houston area and Austin.

What state produced the most double Hermann Trophy winners in the history of women's soccer?

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Not necessarily.....but again how would you calibrate the girls' development, creativity and soccer IQ IF they can not win against lesser developed teams?  How do you know the students have learned well if they can not pass a test?  [Wait a minute...scratch that....we don't really test students any more....everyone passes with As]

Having experienced a little bit of recruiting process, and looking from a novice standpoint, I know that winning puts a team in the radar.....and after that then comes a question on HOW does this team win?  And that is when individual players would or could be categorized on how each one plays, what is their roles in plays, creativity, soccer IQ, athleticism, etc.

Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Agree with your saying that there is an obvious benefit to playing on a top team that advances to the highest level and gets on d1 radars but it falls apart if the only way your team advances is due to having a dominate player that carries the team and gets that result pretty much by herself. Sound familiar?  IMO the discussion isn't which team is dominant or wins but which players are developing and playing the game at a level that interests coaches at a d1 level. Colleges do not recruit teams. They recruit players that fit their program.

Which team advanced to Nationals because of a single player? Ridiculous.

DrSoccer wrote:I don't think its an argument, more of a discussion. If you have a dd that has played with a major club since 8 and she is a reasonable athlete and made every practice and every game yet she is not a college level player, Why? It shows that if you are fortunate to train with the coaches you mentioned then you have a much greater chance at success, in fact its your only chance in NTX. So development has more to do with which coach you have.... and if you are not taken in by one of these coaches before 14 your are pretty much left out?

sounds like NTX soccer to me except for the last statement. anyone know anyone that's not played for major club and u14+ got into the loop(major club)?

keep22 wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:I don't think its an argument, more of a discussion. If you have a dd that has played with a major club since 8 and she is a reasonable athlete and made every practice and every game yet she is not a college level player, Why? It shows that if you are fortunate to train with the coaches you mentioned then you have a much greater chance at success, in fact its your only chance in NTX. So development has more to do with which coach you have.... and if you are not taken in by one of these coaches before 14 your are pretty much left out?

sounds like NTX soccer to me except for the last statement.  anyone know anyone that's not played for major club and u14+ got into the loop(major club)?

Yes, there are players who go to a major club  (top team in the club, which at U14+ is ECNL) at U15 who did not play for a major club previously.

Flatback4 wrote:From a simplicity viewpoint, wins and losses are much easier to track than individual soccer development.  As far as a team goal, it is important to win at the U-17 and older age groups.  In my opinion, at the younger age groups (under U-17), it is more important to develop the skill level of all players. From an individual soccer player's perspective it is more important to improve her skill level. These two items do not have to be mutually exclusive.  That is, you can win and improve the skill level of the players.  At U-9, our coach told our team that he was going to take a few years to develop the players and that winning would come later.  He has developed the skill level of every player on the team.  Some college coaches have complimented our team on its style of play, but it is just easier to say that we won or lost or tied.

If you believe that California develops better individual soccer players, it seems that the simple answer is to hire a coach from California or move there so your individual DD can improve as a soccer player.

It is unfair to compare North Texas to all of California or even all of Texas to California as the population of California is much greater.  The wealth of an area also influences the development of soccer talent as select soccer is very expensive.  Look at where the top teams in California and Texas are located, predominately the wealthy areas.  In Texas, the primary areas for top select soccer teams (in my opinion) are DFW, Houston area and Austin.

What state produced the most double Hermann Trophy winners in the history of women's soccer?  

FB4, you nailed it..... 

For the time we have spent here arguing about the merits and de-merits of SoCal soccer, we could all have been at least halfway there by now.....and our dds would have been much closer to the soccer development mecca of the western hemisphere.

Packrabbit wrote:

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:

Pinnochio wrote:

Pele98 wrote:May be I am slow in a take here.

So, let me see if I get this clear.

You have on one hand a bunch of SoCal teams loaded with well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic girls but can not win against less developed, less creative, low soccer IQ and marginal athletic NTX teams?


In the U15 (98s) ECNL National Championship in Richmond, NTX had 3 teams in the final 8 (Sting, FCD, Texans) and SoCal had zero. The top team in SoCal conference, San Diego Surf, was eliminated by the 4th team in the Texas Conference in the National Playoffs.

It seems like the well developed, creative, high soccer IQ and athletic players can not seem to be able to play as a team.

Something doesn't add up here.

So winning trumps development, creativity and soccer IQ? This pretty much sums up the problem with the focus of NT soccer.

Not necessarily.....but again how would you calibrate the girls' development, creativity and soccer IQ IF they can not win against lesser developed teams?  How do you know the students have learned well if they can not pass a test?  [Wait a minute...scratch that....we don't really test students any more....everyone passes with As]

Having experienced a little bit of recruiting process, and looking from a novice standpoint, I know that winning puts a team in the radar.....and after that then comes a question on HOW does this team win?  And that is when individual players would or could be categorized on how each one plays, what is their roles in plays, creativity, soccer IQ, athleticism, etc.

Good players or teams will find a way to win, regardless of a situation.  IF they are not winning, at some point, you would start to question if they are really that good as claimed.

Agree with your saying that there is an obvious benefit to playing on a top team that advances to the highest level and gets on d1 radars but it falls apart if the only way your team advances is due to having a dominate player that carries the team and gets that result pretty much by herself. Sound familiar?  IMO the discussion isn't which team is dominant or wins but which players are developing and playing the game at a level that interests coaches at a d1 level. Colleges do not recruit teams. They recruit players that fit their program.

Which team advanced to Nationals because of a single player? Ridiculous.

Soccer is a team sport. At the level we are discussing, no single player wins games by herself. Forget nationals, you can't even win a high school championship with only one dominant player.

A team full of scrubs plus one great player does not win consistently and is easily neutralized by a good team beyond about u11.

If soccer were basketball, maybe one great player could singlehandedly win games....but it's why Ibra will be watching WC 2014 on tv like the rest of us, and Ronaldo will play. One plays on a better team.

And based on the clusters you often see of multiple players committing from same team, I'm not so sure colleges don't recruit teams.

The majority of commits stay close to home...regional schools. With the trend toward even greater ACC dominance, a case can be made neither SoCal nor Texas is the u.s. soccer mecca.

I think that's pretty much the angle I've been taking, If you have a team of 18 girls who have been playing soccer with a major club for 8 yrs and there is only 1 'dominant' player then something should be looked at. Or if you have 50 teams of girls the same age playing soccer for 8+ yrs and only the top 2-3 teams players are getting serious consideration for college soccer then what can be done to improve it?

The point is basically moot, something is wrong with the way our kids are learning soccer in NTX. Yes Our teams can WIN trophies, titles, national championships, but very few (15?) of our girls are highly sought after.We can discuss it all we want but the college coaches are the only judge that matters right? What do they think? After 8-11yrs with our clubs what are Bell, Petruc, Marci, Stone, etc.... telling us that our club coaches won't? That list of NTX 2014s that DDad posted looks pretty impressive right? Now Lets look at the whole picture...

In 2014 TCU is committed to - 3 cal girls, 2 colo, 1 ntx? Why would Bell/Hig want 3 cal girls with all the great girls around here? What about Petruc. at SMU? What does that coach think? Surely he has scouted the talent in his backyard. SMU 2014- 3 Cal, slammers, slammers, san juan spirit, Stx, Stx? He has 7 NTX players on the team that went 3-5-1 in the AAC hardly a top 5 league. Surely Baylor would be loading up on NTX girls, right? BAYLOR 2014- Cal, Cal, Cal, NTX, Kansas. Damn how many Cal girls are there? Tech 2014 Cal, Cal, STX, NTX

So for 2014 TCU,SMU,TECH,Baylor = 11 Cal, 3 NTX. Keep in mind the top 100 Cal girls go to ucla, Stanford, USC, Santa Clara, San Diego, Pepperdine, etc.... so the locals are picking up the leftovers from cal, not the top.

It seems like the locals are telling us that they would rather give the #100 girl from cal a 100% scholarship than the #20 player from here. Didn't someone tell them that our #4 team from NTX beat the #1 team from Cali? I mean Tech is taking 1 girl from FRAM (cali), and Camarillo those teams would be D2 or D3 here, what is Stone thinking? Or what are these coaches really telling us?

DrSoccer wrote:The point is basically moot, something is wrong with the way our kids are learning soccer in NTX. Yes Our teams can WIN trophies, titles, national championships, but very few (15?) of our girls are highly sought after.We can discuss it all we want but the college coaches are the only judge that matters right? What do they think? After 8-11yrs with our clubs what are Bell, Petruc, Marci, Stone, etc.... telling us that our club coaches won't? That list of NTX 2014s that DDad posted looks pretty impressive right? Now Lets look at the whole picture...

In 2014 TCU is committed to - 3 cal girls, 2 colo, 1 ntx? Why would Bell/Hig want 3 cal girls with all the great girls around here? What about Petruc.  at SMU? What does that coach think? Surely he has scouted the talent in his backyard. SMU 2014- 3 Cal,  slammers, slammers, san juan spirit, Stx, Stx? He has 7 NTX players on the team that went 3-5-1 in the AAC hardly a top 5 league. Surely Baylor would be loading up on NTX girls, right? BAYLOR 2014- Cal, Cal, Cal, NTX, Kansas. Damn how many Cal girls are there? Tech 2014 Cal, Cal, STX, NTX

So for 2014 TCU,SMU,TECH,Baylor = 11 Cal, 3 NTX. Keep in mind the top 100 Cal girls go to ucla, Stanford, USC, Santa Clara, San Diego, Pepperdine, etc.... so the locals are picking up the leftovers from cal, not the top.

It seems like the locals are telling us that they would rather give the #100 girl from cal a 100% scholarship than the #20 player from here.  Didn't someone tell them that our #4 team from NTX beat the #1 team from Cali?  I mean Tech is taking 1 girl from FRAM (cali), and Camarillo those teams would be D2 or D3 here, what is Stone thinking? Or what are these coaches really telling us?

You make a compelling argument that players from Cal are better than players from Texas.  I blame it on the FBR:D 

Did cali export as many recruits into TX regional schools prior to ECNL?  I think the commit lists show the coaches will find the talent wherever it happens to be.

There is an imbalance of cali sending 17 girls into tx schools for classes 2014/2015, vs only 1 stx (ahfc) going into cali those same years (pepperdine).

Look at the soccer being played by the groups graduating now and compare it to the soccer being taught and played by the some of the 01s, 02s, 03s, definetly 04s, 05s, 06s currently. I would argue the soccer being taught and played by the younger ones will be what turns the tide.

I have footage of a lovely local 06 squad stringing together passes, not one or tow, but normally in excess of 8 pass sequences. probing the box, dropping the ball, switching the field, probing the box, playing wide, crossing pass, ending with a goal.

I sat thru SMU games this season. Didnt see that once....

RunsLikeWind wrote:  I blame it on the FBR:D 

Considering the '01's that have just entered 7th grade are the first age group ever ranked with FBR, your argument is compelling...

Borussia wrote:Look at the soccer being played by the groups graduating now and compare it to the soccer being taught and played by the some of the 01s, 02s, 03s, definetly 04s, 05s, 06s currently.  I would argue the soccer being taught and played by the younger ones will be what turns the tide.  

I have footage of a lovely local 06 squad stringing together passes, not one or tow, but normally in excess of 8 pass sequences.  probing the box, dropping the ball, switching the field, probing the box, playing wide, crossing pass, ending with a goal.  

I sat thru SMU games this season.  Didnt see that once....

Hmmm... FBR started with the '01's... Hmmm... Maybe it is all my fault after all...   

With all that has been said, our teams expanding their play and competing against the other regions will ultimately be the main reason for increased recruiting  and national team call ups of our local players. Increased exposure of our local players will begin to open the eyes of those who are evaluating them.

Borussia wrote:Look at the soccer being played by the groups graduating now and compare it to the soccer being taught and played by the some of the 01s, 02s, 03s, definetly 04s, 05s, 06s currently.  I would argue the soccer being taught and played by the younger ones will be what turns the tide.  

I have footage of a lovely local 06 squad stringing together passes, not one or tow, but normally in excess of 8 pass sequences.  probing the box, dropping the ball, switching the field, probing the box, playing wide, crossing pass, ending with a goal.  

I sat thru SMU games this season.  Didnt see that once....

No offense, but everyone that has a kid at any certain age group thinks their kids are the ones that are playing the best kind of soccer. You will get many to agree with your sentiment because the 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 and 06 parents are the most vocal on this board and would like to believe their kids are different and playing better than the older kids. Truth is, we won't know until they get older.

It is much easier to have kids play better looking soccer at 04 or 06 than it is when they get to be 14 or 15. The game is faster, kids are better and there is less difference in coordination and speed once they get older. A top 06 team can look great if they gather the most coordinated and fastests kids in the age group and teach them a few passes.

Lets wait until 2020 before we claim the younger ones are any better than the older ones now in college or in the U14-U18 age groups.

Im not saying anyone is better. The odds are that most of them wont even be playing soccer in a few years.

What I am saying is the style being taught, the tactical awareness being developed, is DIFFERENT. Different from years past. That is just my opinion.

Newsflash, each year is better than the last (overall, not team-specific) and each year, the development changes ever so slightly. I think our younger academies started around '96 and have been told there was a very evident change for the better in terms of overall play a few years later when these teams went select.

If the concern is that local girls don't get recruited to the top programs - the key is to ask all the coaches doing the recruiting. Given everyone lives in Texas, I'll bet the answer will not be welcome as it will be the equivalent of 'your mother is ugly'. Who is to say that a bias against Texas soccer is true or not?

If our top players were to indeed move to LA, perhaps they'd do better, or, perhaps they'd wash out - there is no true way to know. It's pretty obvious, across the board, that WNT and major colleges aren't exactly riding on the NTX train.

My kids have never really played on longball teams, so, we tend to do well against the top teams nationally, however, the depth of those teams in terms of skill were superior from what I'd witnessed. The speed and ballskills were good top to bottom. I haven't seen many teams within NTX that have had that situation.

I have noticed the Cali teams on the boys side are waaaaaay better than NTX and the girls side, we can hang with them for the most part, but, I'd still give them the nod 9 out of 10 times.

Don't think the younger Cali teams aren't improving either - they also have coaches and overzealous parents - their arguments are probably not enough kids going to big schools and WNT camps as well.

The "better players were on the losing team" theory is simply ridiculous, regardless of the empirical data. That theory cannot be applied to any other sport, business, battlefield or even in nature, but its somehow applicable in NTX soccer?  It comes down to competition, or in NTX's past case, a lack of it. Better competition usually makes a better product.  

The scholarship process for girls graduating today started back in U-15, so it shouldn't be surprising that players' teams, that started winning recently, aren't getting recognized.  These coaches are giving out substantial financial commitments, and it would make sense to go with the player that you have known and followed for 2 or 3 years, as opposed to a recently "discovered" player.

While theres been a lot written here about "watered down" competition the past 4 or 5 years, I see the same past 4-5 years as NTX soccer beginning the process of becoming competitive. I think everyone would agree that there is much more choice for "higher level" girls soccer today than 5 years ago. NTX soccer wasn't getting better because clubs back then, didn't have to get better at retaining coaches and players. The past 5 year proliferation of more soccer clubs and teams has expanded the coaching and player populations. Clubs have to take care of their best coaches; coaches have to develop better players to win; players have to keep improving to keep their spots.

Those S.Cal teams have been playing tough local competition for a lot of years and been reaping the deserved rewards; NTX has just started to face better, expanded local competition in the past 5 years and we are starting to see the results. Those S. Cal fans can comfort themselves with the scholarship story today, but winning matches can't be explained away and will (eventually) be recognized.