Boys DA rumors

So is it safe to say that U13 is not going away anytime soon since new clubs and some existing clubs received U13 for this year. It would seem odd (but not certainly not out of the realm of possibility coming from USSF) to give a team U13 one year and take it away the next leaving them just one age group at U14.
 
Kante said:
Carl, muchas gracias.

Here's the adds that affect SoCal.
View attachment 4132
Click to expand...

That's puts the rumors to rest, not much change but good for TFA in getting U15.

Real Salt Lake AZ & Del Sol out of AZ for the West conf gets them into some new markets.

Galaxy SD getting u16/17 was a bit of surprise but good for them. Besides Murrieta Surf with the u14 add all the other afflicate teams like OC Surf even through they we're already advertising u15 apparently didn't get in or additional teams.
 
watfly said:
So is it safe to say that U13 is not going away anytime soon since new clubs and some existing clubs received U13 for this year. It would seem odd (but not certainly not out of the realm of possibility coming from USSF) to give a team U13 one year and take it away the next leaving them just one age group at U14.
Click to expand...

Well Rebels seems to out after having just U12 this past season.

Chula Vista only has U13 this next season so unless da continues with U13 or they get additional teams they could be out also like the rebels.

At some point if U16/17 gets split could see u13 being phased out but for now that could just be a carry over rumor.

In any case if u14 players from Santa Barbara, Legends, OC Surf or others want to continue with DA guess they have to look to other clubs. Same could be said for some U12 players and those that aged out with other clubs
 
Fusion accomplished the goal of pulling from the under tapped local area this year. Why shocking to give the team another year and add one age group?
 
Because this has been for a long time Santa Barbara territory and Eagles tried for years to get the boys DA status. Fusion got the DA status about a year ago and this year expanded to two new age groups while for an example TFA got only one age group and Premier only u14...
 
I understood SB had done poorly in attracting the Camarillo/Oxnard/Ventura talent and USS wanted to develop that. Eagles were deemed not the right vehicle to do that. Can’t say why TFA did/did not get additional years. And yes, this was the first year for Fusion.
 
I honestly do not have info or evidence of SB poor performance, i do know that they won national titles and produced numerous collegiate players, some ynt players. Eagles used Sampson and argued that they had successful DA girls side...what i heard is that money and politics played a role with Fusion, how true is that i dont know, but thats what soccer people in conejo and ventura areas are talking.
 
Did not mean to imply SB was poor in general. Just been told that they had not made the inroads to those areas that USS wanted.
 
Zvezdas said:
LA Premier only for u14...
Click to expand...
Premier only applied for U14. They're just moving the current U13 up (and the current U12 to U13). They don't have a current U14 DA-level team to move up to U15. They also have ECNL which is going to spread the resources pretty thin up there... I suspect Premier will get U15 next year and then stop at the 3 age groups.
 
Darbfig said:
so, if I'm reading the threads correctly some of the B08 "DA" teams will have their own league to play in and others will play in the SCDSl for next year (2019-2020)? When you talk to the different coaches at the DA clubs they kind of beat around the bush with their answers...
Click to expand...
This is the way I understand it
 
Any updates to the rumors of splitting Boys U16/17 DA?

The lead guy for one prominent DA club was telling parents this summer that it was a done deal for next season (2020-21), although that seems a bit premature to make such a definitive statement.
 
Husky13 said:
Any updates to the rumors of splitting Boys U16/17 DA?

The lead guy for one prominent DA club was telling parents this summer that it was a done deal for next season (2020-21), although that seems a bit premature to make such a definitive statement.
Click to expand...

It’s been a “done deal” for 3 years straight now. But anytime someone at US soccer talks they want the mixed group and don’t want to split it. They want the attrition. It’s part of the weeding out process. Not saying it’s right just that’s how I’ve heard it justified. Maybe this is the year but that’s been said every year I’ve been around it.
 
full90 said:
It’s been a “done deal” for 3 years straight now. But anytime someone at US soccer talks they want the mixed group and don’t want to split it. They want the attrition. It’s part of the weeding out process. Not saying it’s right just that’s how I’ve heard it justified. Maybe this is the year but that’s been said every year I’ve been around it.
Click to expand...
Part of US soccer’s problem is their approach. They do not understand basic learning theory.
Ages should be split because learning or development is not usually obtained in an uphill slope- which US Soccer seems to assume hence the “weeding out” explanation.
It has has been shown that most learning takes place in more of a stair-step pattern. A long flat period followed by a steep (vertical) increase in knowledge/development.
They should split the ages to account for the long “seemingly flat” period where athletes are assimilating information and learning to apply it. Then, the athlete will make huge “steep” increases in their development. Then flat, then vertical increases in development....
If try-out time is during their flat phase their out. Not a great system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top