Obviously, everyone has their own perceptions and opinions, which makes for healthy discussion. My opinion is that there is a lot of questionable analysis and incomplete info here.
I was at both the West (January) and National (June) camps. There was a vibrant mix of kids selected to these camps. Some big/fast/strong/athletic types. Some kids whose strengths were technical skill and/or soccer IQ. If you look at things solely through one lens or the other, you are left wondering why some kids were selected and others weren’t. Some kids might appear to be “weaker” but might project well over the long term based on their style of play and how the game changes over the next few years (i.e. simply running past players isn’t as effective). Similarly, some kids were quite a but younger than others, and I know from discussions with the decision-makers that future growth spurts and projection. The process behind these selections seemed far more informed and thoughtful than one might expect from the outside.
Assuming that U14 teams who win more games should necessarily have more players chosen is very superficial analysis. Now, I agree that last year’s SD Surf team merited heavy representation, because the style with which this team played was helping to develop players who would do quite well later on when intelligent decision-making becomes more of a factor. (Frankly, I think the break-up of that team was crazy - those parents/players might not have realized what a great thing they had going.). But, some of the other teams/games cited in this thread simply aren’t and shouldn’t be that relevant to player selections. If players were selected based on their team’s scores, imagine the uproar about lazy scouting that might arise out of that.
Plus, some of the scores/results cited in this thread as a basis for comparing the relative strengths of teams are quite misleading. I watched some of those games, the context and flow of play tell a very different story than the score.
As far as the Jan camp, the Northwest team went 1-2 in scrimmages. However, that included a fairly convincing win over Norcal (based on accounts from players, parents were not allowed to watch that day), a close loss to LA in a bizarre game, and a dead even match vs SD/Southwest. Southwest had good players but also a cluster of 8-9 players who train and play together, that chemistry provided a huge advantage in team results during the camp, but isn’t that relevant to choosing the best players. In summary, in mist cases the scores are relatively meaningless (but fun for parents).
At the National camp in June, the west team had the worst record of the three (Central, East, West) teams. Does that mean that fewer West players should make the cut?
No.