Guarantee to play 50% and small rosters?

Ok everyone what are you thoughts on this one...if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50% and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club? Or wouldn't because of the name of the club? I recently came across this and was surprised about this http://aysounited.org/ It claims that the coaches will be licensed just like any club, will be competing in the same league just like other clubs(league TBD), pay referees just like all the clubs. Would you join or just simply not because of the organization. This is something that just started and is going to grow next year...so what's more important now? What are your thoughts.
 
I had heard about this. They hope to draw from surrounding AYSO Extra teams. The Inland Empire one hopes to have kids from Corona/Norco, Riverside, Jurupa, Temecula, Moreno Valley, etc. I've heard that the cost is more than what some of the local AYSO Extra coaches had hoped. One of the problems for AYSO and Extra is losing Extra complete teams to club as the kids get better. They are hoping some of the kids will now join this.
 
AYSO does a good job at providing programs & places for young kids to learn & play soccer at a very low cost locally.

Not sure for the SC area what "United" does beyond "Challenge"
https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2016&CLUB=940&Send+Form=Go!
349- 327- 108 mostly bronze w/ some silver is a decent showing

50% playing time doesn't seem like a big deal, when your player starts not a real concern. Who are they trying to appeal to? Non-starters?

Is there a need for more bronze or 3rd level competitive clubs by another name?

Maybe there is a niche somewhere so hope this works out; lower fees or something along those lines? Coaches get paid less, fields are cheaper or what else gives?
 
My only issue with is that you tend to get tears with one or two superstars and the rest of the kids that were perhaps great at the Extra level but get clobbered by clubs. So yes you get 50% playing time, with the one or two great kids doing all the scoring and the rest of the kids just doing a mediocre job and then creating frustration for the team. I'm not sure how a team that has mandatory 50% play for little Suzie that attends half the practices, doesn't really want to be there but her parents love soccer is supposed to compete with a team of fully committed girls who spend their time getting privates and playing futsal. I love the idea of opening up soccer to kids who may not otherwise play but labeling it as a competitive club is misleading to parents and players that otherwise might not know. I love the Extra programs, I think they're great but I hate this push to have everyone play club soccer.
 
I would not join the club or the team for my kids.

Makes playing time an entitlement and not earned.

Competition within the team for playing time only makes the players better.

If a player is playing less than 50% time on a team, he/she is on a wrong level team or some other issue.
 
I think there was thread about this already.
AYSO United will be a nationally branded club within AYSO. In So Cal, we already have Challenge in LA, Pacific Soccer Club in OC and Matrix in San Diego. These are all programs that follow AYSO philosophies.
I haven't seen the costs yet for AYSO United and from what I have heard, it won't be coming to OC until at least 2018. I know the cost for PSC is about $1,000 for the Fall Season, which includes 3 tournaments, State Cup and uniforms.
If you read my earlier post, you'll know that I am a current AYSO Extra coach of a Gu12 and Gu110 team. It's been a great program, but my Gu12's have sort of "outgrown" it and we'll be making a move once the fall season ends. I wish this wasn't the case, but players tend to move on around this age and the competition dwindles a bit. Not quite sure where we will wind up yet. Regardless of where we go, I'll likely still coach in some capacity, but I won't get paid.
I am a firm believer that in kids sports, the kids on the team should be playing in games for development. Especially if you have a team that requires tryouts. If a kid isn't good enough to get a decent amount of time on the field, don't pick them for your team (attendance and discipline issues are a different story and there should be no "guarantees" of anything if a kid is an issue).
A roster of 16 on a "B" team, where 4 kids get to play a few minutes a game is crap.
Just for fun I actually applied to be the Western Region DOC for AYSO United. Not because I'm qualified, but because I believe in the organization and it would be cool to make it a full time career (this corporate America gig is cool, but if someone can pay me enough to teach soccer to kids, then I'd jump in a heartbeat)
The current Challenge, Matrix and PSC teams will continue to exist in their current form until at least next Fall.
Coaches for these programs will need to have at least the same minimum license that any other Cal South coach will have. They aren't going to take beginner dad coach with a "big kick" philosophy and give them a coaching shirt. But, just like most clubs, it will really depend on who the coach is.
If there's a way to keep talented kids playing soccer with average/above average coaching at a lower cost, then I'm in favor.
With AYSO United coming up and squeezing B and C level teams and Development Academy offering fully funded programs for the uber-talented, I see this as a good thing for Youth Soccer.
And if you have a Flight 2 2004 team, hit me up for a friendly in November/December.
 
I am a current AYSO Extra coach of a Gu12 and Gu110 team.

Recruiting for a GU110 team must be brutal!

Timbuck, spending his nights trolling the nursing homes, looking for that gomer -- er, gamer -- who's got a step on the competition. Hell, can she even take a step? Don't bother yelling, coach. They can't hear you anyway! What has soccer come to? Gives a whole new meaning to end-of-practice gassers.

Go grannies!
 
Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good. I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches. They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.

Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene. These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer. I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them. They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.

The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.
 
Recruiting for a GU110 team must be brutal!

Timbuck, spending his nights trolling the nursing homes, looking for that gamer -- not gomer-- who's got a step on the competition. Hell, can she even take a step? Don't bother yelling, coach. They can't hear you anyway! What has soccer come to? Gives a whole new meaning to end-of-practice gassers.

Go grannies!
Awesome. Dammit. I actually proofread this a few times before I posted it. Wonder if we can get Depends to sponsor us?
 
Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good. I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches. They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.

Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene. These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer. I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them. They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.

The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.

Because this doesn't happen at any club, right?
There are horrible coaches at every club around town. And some really good ones too.
 
Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good. I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches. They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.

Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene. These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer. I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them. They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.

The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.

There is some truth to all this. However, I've seen horrible coaches in club environments and I've seen fantastic coaches in the Extra program. Passing an "E" license evaluation means very little in and of itself. I hope the AYSO program succeeds, because I think it will put some back pressure on the club system that IMHO favors the balance of the club over the player in so many ways that is not healthy.
 
Depends upon what you want. I like competitive teams and clubs. AYSO Challenge averages 1.45 points per game, and Pacific averages 1.35. Both a just under the average, but definitely respectable. Both are primarily bronze-level programs, peppered with a few silver teams, and almost no silver elites or above. So if you are looking at the highest level of play, these programs would not be for you.
 
Depends upon what you want. I like competitive teams and clubs. AYSO Challenge averages 1.45 points per game, and Pacific averages 1.35. Both a just under the average, but definitely respectable. Both are primarily bronze-level programs, peppered with a few silver teams, and almost no silver elites or above. So if you are looking at the highest level of play, these programs would not be for you.
What do you mean by "1.45 points per game", etc?
 
Adding to what @Soccer43 is writing, I've seen several regional Extra and All-Star teams move to club in recent years because teams want to stay together, etc. What I've seen is the top players and families actually stay with the coach (who is competitive him/herself) and then new players are recruited to fill out the roster and replace the weaker players after the first year. The "best" players have already left AYSO. Guessing this will happen with @timbuck, and that is ok - girls will be better off in an environment they already thrive in. :)
 
if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50% and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club?

If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?
 
I'm pretty sir that Development Academy also mandates 50% playing time across their 10 month season.
(Someone fact check me on this. I did a quick search and couldn't find the article I thought I read. )
 
If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?

After your child has been playing a few years, it gets easier to assess their skill level relative to flights and nearby clubs. But for the first couple of years, it may not necessarily be obvious. I don't think the average U8 or U9 parent is scouting dozens of U-Little games before picking a club to try out at. Most parents rely on the clubs to accurately place (or refuse) a spot on a team for their child.

In the past, most competitive/travel team coaches had a single team per age group and only selected players that could meet the level. But now with many clubs their try-out process is just about filling out a quota of roster spots. The try-out process has become so rudimentary (endless big scrimmages) that many players are poorly placed. And often times clubs ask parents to sign contracts and pay huge club fees before even the first practice, so parents have no idea really how their kid measures up to the rest of the team.

Also to complicate things further, even if you know for sure that your kid is a "Silver" level player, on one Flight 2 team he might be a starter but on another Flight 2 team, he could be a bench warmer. A lot depends on the coach. I remember 5-6 years ago with my son, during the try-out season we tried out at 4 different clubs. Two clubs wanted my son on their bronze teams. One of the bigger clubs wanted my son on their strong Silver team. And another club recommended that my son play in their Rec league and forget competitive. My son had good technique and vision for his age, but he also was very small. Some coaches saw a pip-squeak rec/bronze player, others saw a potential impact playmaker. For a normal parent who may not have much knowledge of soccer, how would they know who's right?

I'm not going to get into the poor talent identification ability of many US youth coaches. That's another topic. But coaches and clubs get it wrong many times. So I definitely think at least in the Silver/Bronze levels, clubs should have a minimum 50% playing time policy for youngers. If a coach feels a player isn't capable of playing at lease half a game, then they shouldn't pick them in the first place period. Having 3-4 ten year-olds sitting on the bench playing less than 40% is just lazy coaching. If parents are paying $1500-2500 in club fees, expensive training kits, and a half-dozen tournaments, then they are entitled to a minimum of development for their child.

Save the short sub rotations for the Gold levels and olders. And even with guaranteed 50% playing time, the kids can still earn starting spots and 60-100% playing time with good performances and focus in training. Having guaranteed 50% playing time alone doesn't turn soccer into an entitlement program. But it may ease the trend of clubs essentially swindling naive uLittle parents to fund elite programs. If Silver/Bronze teams are going to fund elite teams, then parents should at least get their money's worth. And local Silver/Bronze teams should be jumping at the chance to offer full development of their entire rosters instead of mimicking the big clubs short sub rotations.
 
Based off the feedback it seems that there should be clause for the AYSO United...if the players does not commit as much as they should they should play less and not be rewarded that minimum playing time. Also selecting well experience coaches not newbies would help as well. Hopefully whoever are the Director of Coaches for each area does a good job in selecting good coaches...also pricing something I didn't touch base. I agree that is something they should be making more affordable. Great job everyone on feedbacks, so it looks like AYSO United has its work cutout.
 
If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?
Personally I am not because there done with soccer but my nieces are presently playing for a Academy team. I just like to read peoples opinion on this subject, do parents like the idea of 50% guarantee vs. someone that looks for the big club whether their child less then 50% and are in a big club. Also on the AYSO Challenge seems to be volunteered base, so it may make sense why they cant get passed a silver elite level. Would coaches that are getting paid now by AYSO attract good coaches? Would the director know how to select the write coaches only time will tell.
 
Back
Top