Why No Metro Players on BC Provincial Teams?

FB1 · Feb 12, 2016

I couldn't read all of the posts. So if I'm repeating anything, my apologies for being redundant...

But there's a lot of misinformed generalizations being posted here.

First of all, the idea that cost is a barrier to SPL is a red herring, or at the very least an unfair characterization when compared to elite levels of other youth sports. Yes, BCSPL is expensive - comparatively speaking to the traditional cost of soccer. But compare it to hockey, or even dance (those of you that have daughters in dance know my pain!), and it's still a bargain. The SPL version of hockey will run you $10,000 a year. SPL is not $2500 at every club - I know of at least one club charging less than $2,000. Even if you participate in any of these academies that's out there - where they charge you $200+ a month. It's in the same ballpark.

Also, most of the SPL franchises, if not all, have means of subsidization, either through their own means or working with the likes of Kidsport. It was mandated at the outset of BCSPL that cost should not be a prohibitive barrier.

Don't get me wrong. It's expensive compared to the average MSL program fee. And when my daughter was cut from SPL, I can't lie, the Scottish in me kicked in and was smiling at the money I was going to save!

As for the BC PTP programming, let me say two things on this. First, the provincial team is a complete waste of time and essentially just an excuse to keep BCSA staff employed. We have a professional club in this province that runs high-performance youth programming (Residency, Girls REX, etc.) and this is where the best players are. I'd rather see the PTP abolished, cut the BCSA technical budget by 90% and reallocate those funds to BCSPL (through supplementary programs for coach/player development, subsidies to lower costs, etc.).

But since that is not going to happen, I do agree that the PTP should be open to ALL players. The fact is not all of them are going to be in SPL - regardless as to what those reasons are or how justified they might be. Something as straight forward as a player from outside the major centres (central BC, north island, etc.). SPL is not an option for those kids unless they want to leave home. But as has been pointed out, the mechanisms are in place. There is a player recommendation form. A club TD (any club in the BCSA membership - so in other words, district members) can submit this to the BCSA technical staff who will then evaluate the player. They may then try to get the player involved in SPL, but the fact is the player is evaluated and if good enough is asked to join the program. In my district, this has happened a few times. In one case, I believe, the player did make it.

BCSPL is not perfect. But it's young still and we need to give it time. The good franchises are still developing their programs. Organizations such as Coastal and Coquitlam are doing really good things with overall player development.

The true caliber of the various divisions is a whole other argument. Briefly, having been involved in pretty much all the divisions (son played Division 2, daughter plays MSL, and I have coaches both MSL and SPL), I can tell you without reservation that Division 1-4 are recreational soccer. (Notice I didn't say non-competitive. All soccer is competitive.) There's nothing wrong with recreational soccer. The fact is that makes up 95% of the players in this country. What I have discovered is that I would suggest 1/2 of the players in MSL are also of the recreational mindset. The other half are focused on development - trying to get to the next level. But that's it. The fact is the majority of Division 1 teams wouldn't be competitive in MSL. And the majority of MSL teams wouldn't be competitive in SPL. The MSL teams that could compete consistently are the exception that proves the rule.

And there is nothing wrong with this. It's intended to be a pyramid. Not a square.

Phew. Lots of energy on a Friday night!

Tom Duley · Feb 12, 2016

FB1 said:
I couldn't read all of the posts. So if I'm repeating anything, my apologies for being redundant...

But there's a lot of misinformed generalizations being posted here.

First of all, the idea that cost is a barrier to SPL is a red herring, or at the very least an unfair characterization when compared to elite levels of other youth sports. Yes, BCSPL is expensive - comparatively speaking to the traditional cost of soccer. But compare it to hockey, or even dance (those of you that have daughters in dance know my pain!), and it's still a bargain. The SPL version of hockey will run you $10,000 a year. SPL is not $2500 at every club - I know of at least one club charging less than $2,000. Even if you participate in any of these academies that's out there - where they charge you $200+ a month. It's in the same ballpark.

Also, most of the SPL franchises, if not all, have means of subsidization, either through their own means or working with the likes of Kidsport. It was mandated at the outset of BCSPL that cost should not be a prohibitive barrier.

Don't get me wrong. It's expensive compared to the average MSL program fee. And when my daughter was cut from SPL, I can't lie, the Scottish in me kicked in and was smiling at the money I was going to save!

As for the BC PTP programming, let me say two things on this. First, the provincial team is a complete waste of time and essentially just an excuse to keep BCSA staff employed. We have a professional club in this province that runs high-performance youth programming (Residency, Girls REX, etc.) and this is where the best players are. I'd rather see the PTP abolished, cut the BCSA technical budget by 90% and reallocate those funds to BCSPL (through supplementary programs for coach/player development, subsidies to lower costs, etc.).

But since that is not going to happen, I do agree that the PTP should be open to ALL players. The fact is not all of them are going to be in SPL - regardless as to what those reasons are or how justified they might be. Something as straight forward as a player from outside the major centres (central BC, north island, etc.). SPL is not an option for those kids unless they want to leave home. But as has been pointed out, the mechanisms are in place. There is a player recommendation form. A club TD (any club in the BCSA membership - so in other words, district members) can submit this to the BCSA technical staff who will then evaluate the player. They may then try to get the player involved in SPL, but the fact is the player is evaluated and if good enough is asked to join the program. In my district, this has happened a few times. In one case, I believe, the player did make it.

BCSPL is not perfect. But it's young still and we need to give it time. The good franchises are still developing their programs. Organizations such as Coastal and Coquitlam are doing really good things with overall player development.

The true caliber of the various divisions is a whole other argument. Briefly, having been involved in pretty much all the divisions (son played Division 2, daughter plays MSL, and I have coaches both MSL and SPL), I can tell you without reservation that Division 1-4 are recreational soccer. (Notice I didn't say non-competitive. All soccer is competitive.) There's nothing wrong with recreational soccer. The fact is that makes up 95% of the players in this country. What I have discovered is that I would suggest 1/2 of the players in MSL are also of the recreational mindset. The other half are focused on development - trying to get to the next level. But that's it. The fact is the majority of Division 1 teams wouldn't be competitive in MSL. And the majority of MSL teams wouldn't be competitive in SPL. The MSL teams that could compete consistently are the exception that proves the rule.

And there is nothing wrong with this. It's intended to be a pyramid. Not a square.

Phew. Lots of energy on a Friday night!

I do agree with what you've said for the most part but I disagree that div1 or div2 kids are recreational...at least not all.

I coached a boy for 2 years. I brought him from house to div2, then div 1 and he is now playing in MSL, soon ready to be in SPL. There are more I believe will make it through by the time they are 14.

My div1 team was asked to play an exhibition vs an MSL team earlier this year, we beat them quite handily.

The kids that are focused at div2 and higher are not doomed at U10-U14, if they are focused and receive good training, they can succeed and make SPL.

TKBC · Feb 13, 2016

4_the_kids said:
I think we all agree, coaching standards need to improve. Unfortunately the majority of coaches at U6-U10 are just volunteer parents, they coach so the kids can play but they are not coaches. The sad part is those years are so influential on technical development we need quality coaching at this age too. This is partly why i think clubs need quality programs/ academies and attendance should be strongly recommended and cost included in registration fees.Then you can use that to both ensure good technique is taught from day 1 and to help better train the coaches.

Agreed. I coached u13-u18 for years. Then took over a u11-12 program. Thought "this is great, I'll be able to give them the right foundation" because the kids u13-u18 were technically not up to standard.

U11-12 is too late. The proper coaching has to be u4-8. We put these massive resources into BCSPL, and it's mostly wasted. The BCSPL coach that says "I developed so and so" is dreaming. It's the coach (and the player themselves) that built that foundation u4-u8. That's where we need the resources and the coaching. Fix that, then put more energy into u9-12 and then again u13-18. They all need different things. But the things needed u13-18 can't be achieved if the things needed earlier aren't achieved. As a result you see BCSPL coaches teaching basic techniques...we are failing the kids.

That said, am I going to coach a u4-u8 team this year? Nope. When I have my own kids I will!

TKBC · Feb 13, 2016

FB1 said:
I couldn't read all of the posts. So if I'm repeating anything, my apologies for being redundant...

But there's a lot of misinformed generalizations being posted here.

First of all, the idea that cost is a barrier to SPL is a red herring, or at the very least an unfair characterization when compared to elite levels of other youth sports. Yes, BCSPL is expensive - comparatively speaking to the traditional cost of soccer. But compare it to hockey, or even dance (those of you that have daughters in dance know my pain!), and it's still a bargain. The SPL version of hockey will run you $10,000 a year. SPL is not $2500 at every club - I know of at least one club charging less than $2,000. Even if you participate in any of these academies that's out there - where they charge you $200+ a month. It's in the same ballpark.

Also, most of the SPL franchises, if not all, have means of subsidization, either through their own means or working with the likes of Kidsport. It was mandated at the outset of BCSPL that cost should not be a prohibitive barrier.

Don't get me wrong. It's expensive compared to the average MSL program fee. And when my daughter was cut from SPL, I can't lie, the Scottish in me kicked in and was smiling at the money I was going to save!

As for the BC PTP programming, let me say two things on this. First, the provincial team is a complete waste of time and essentially just an excuse to keep BCSA staff employed. We have a professional club in this province that runs high-performance youth programming (Residency, Girls REX, etc.) and this is where the best players are. I'd rather see the PTP abolished, cut the BCSA technical budget by 90% and reallocate those funds to BCSPL (through supplementary programs for coach/player development, subsidies to lower costs, etc.).

But since that is not going to happen, I do agree that the PTP should be open to ALL players. The fact is not all of them are going to be in SPL - regardless as to what those reasons are or how justified they might be. Something as straight forward as a player from outside the major centres (central BC, north island, etc.). SPL is not an option for those kids unless they want to leave home. But as has been pointed out, the mechanisms are in place. There is a player recommendation form. A club TD (any club in the BCSA membership - so in other words, district members) can submit this to the BCSA technical staff who will then evaluate the player. They may then try to get the player involved in SPL, but the fact is the player is evaluated and if good enough is asked to join the program. In my district, this has happened a few times. In one case, I believe, the player did make it.

BCSPL is not perfect. But it's young still and we need to give it time. The good franchises are still developing their programs. Organizations such as Coastal and Coquitlam are doing really good things with overall player development.

The true caliber of the various divisions is a whole other argument. Briefly, having been involved in pretty much all the divisions (son played Division 2, daughter plays MSL, and I have coaches both MSL and SPL), I can tell you without reservation that Division 1-4 are recreational soccer. (Notice I didn't say non-competitive. All soccer is competitive.) There's nothing wrong with recreational soccer. The fact is that makes up 95% of the players in this country. What I have discovered is that I would suggest 1/2 of the players in MSL are also of the recreational mindset. The other half are focused on development - trying to get to the next level. But that's it. The fact is the majority of Division 1 teams wouldn't be competitive in MSL. And the majority of MSL teams wouldn't be competitive in SPL. The MSL teams that could compete consistently are the exception that proves the rule.

And there is nothing wrong with this. It's intended to be a pyramid. Not a square.

Phew. Lots of energy on a Friday night!

Allow me to debunk some of what you said.

1. Canada hockey is dropping massively - not only in registration but playing standards. Canada will always develop the McDavid's. But look at our World Junior records. Struggling against Switzerland. Sweden and Finland blowing us away with their technical expertise. Dance and other sports are expensive - but those are niche sports. Kids that want them will join.

but, just because other sports charge a lot does not make it right. Kids are being kept out of all sports due to cost. Soccer does not need to simply follow that model because other sports charge a lot.
to summarize - it is your perspective that it's acceptable to out-price kids from playing the top level of the sport? In a game that our country is already in the wilderness or Third World you think it's acceptable to put up roadblocks to stop kids from playing.
That's great that teams can provide some financial assistance. Are those teams covering the cost of food, hotels, tournaments in USA etc etc as well?
Teams don't "work with kidsport." Parents apply for funding. Kidsport provides it or doesn't provide it.
If cost shouldn't be a prohibitive barrier - then drop the fee's down to the same or barely above MSL. Problem solved (for the most part)

2. Re: PTP - I agree. It is a waste of time in it's current format. Charge kids thousands for what purpose? I have proposed numerous times a regional PTP. I do understand the desire to essentially have an all-star program for BCSPL - makes sense. But it should be free. Whitecaps have the necessary elite programming. Excellent post re: this - thank you!

3, BCSPL does not need time. There's no reason whatsoever it shouldn't be hitting the ground running. The TD's are supposed experts and should be able to implement the required training methods as dictated by BCSA no problem. They then hire A License coaches to run those programs, and they also should have the requisite skills to apply the required training. No time is needed for the league to grow. Every program is always developing/improving. But the foundations have been dictated by BCSA and the LTPD theory is in place. The league should be thriving from a technical perspective. It's not. I suggest this is because we've neglected u4-8 but that's a different convo!

4. I agree many aspects of Div 1-4 is rec. Div 3-4 is house. It should be removed from the select ladder. Div 2 is rec, but you definitely get the odd team (usually the top 2 teams in any given div 2 league) that really want to compete and develop. Mid-table and bottom Div 1 are generally pretty relaxed about life, but will definitely have some serious players in them and talented players. The top 1/3 of div 1 is almost always comprised of teams and coaches that train to develop and win and progress. They all have MSL level players, and I would argue have 1-2 BCSPL level players. They are competitive teams. To call them rec is an insult. Each of those teams will definitely have some kids that are playing just for the love of the game - only train on training nights, etc etc. But, you'll find that at BCSPL level too. Kids that just happen to be good enough for a level such as BCSPL does not make them non-rec. You mentioned that many in MSL are rec. I agree.

Being "competitive" is a different mentality. Just because someone plays in a high level league or happens to be naturally good enough to play in a high level league doesn't make them automatically competitive players. There are plenty of kids with rec mentality in BCSPL, MSL, and of course the levels below that. The reason for this is not laziness. The reason for this is that this country doesn't know what competitive truly is. Adding Whitecaps has helped this. Adding a Canadian Premier League will also help this! (I think the CPL will also change the ladder mindset. There's no way these CPL teams will limit their player selections to just the local top tier youth leagues - they will sign whoever they can to improve their programs).

I don't think anyone suggests most MSL teams would compete in BCSPL. Some would, most wouldn't. Same goes for Div 1 teams in MSL. Not sure why you made that remark.

TKBC · Feb 13, 2016

Tom Duley said:
The kids that are focused at div2 and higher are not doomed at U10-U14, if they are focused and receive good training, they can succeed and make SPL.

I know a young man who played silver his entire life. He decided he was serious about the sport and began training daily (prob around age 16 but I am not sure). he played semi-pro this summer, is full-time on a local high level university team (not college). Plenty of competitive kids at lower levels.

easoccer · Feb 13, 2016

There are a lot of very good athletic kids that could be something if they had the desire, but they play in rec to be with their friends or a team/coach they are comforatable with.

Now, I coached my daughter from u5-u7. Even at that age we were doing all kinds of drills, passing, positioning, etc. We had a very good team and it was obvious on the field.

This year I thought that maybe my coaching of my daughter was holding her back so I registered her and left my team. Well, to say that at this age coaches are parents who are drafted is an understatement.

Yes, she has great friends, loves her coach and has a blast, but she is not learning the basics of soccer, but rather she is socializing. There is a lot of downtime and they are doing very basic things. Honestly she has fallen back.

Finding a great coach, who is more than just friendly, but skilled at teaching the game is very hard I'm afraid. But Also, I dont have illusions that my daugher will be a pro, so for now I'm ok with it. Activity is more important and learning to be around other kids as well.

FB1 · Feb 14, 2016

Just to clarify, when I term Div 1-4 "recreational" I am not intending to label all the players recreational. The fact is that it is part of the system, and yes, there are players who will work their way up from the lower levels to the top tiers. I had a boy on my son's Div 2 team at U13 who made MSL the following year, and SPL the year after that.

I don't use the term recreational in a derogatory sense. But for the vast majority of the kids in Div 1-4, and the even a large number in MSL, don't have the same goals as the majority of SPL kids. Basically, 95% of all players are looking to play their next game. They want to win games. They want to win trophies. They want to play with their mates. I define that as recreational. Maybe not the best term, but I can't think of another one.

Also, I totally agree that we invest heavily in U13-U18, but not enough in U8-U12. Some clubs are changing this. Two-stream development, age group head coaches, standardized curriculum. I think it's coming around. But we probably should have done this before starting SPL. SPL has been a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

As for U4-U8, I think the key here quite simply is to get as many kids introduced to the game, and give them the bug. Make them love soccer. Make them love having a ball at their feet all the time. No need to get too technical. Let's sink our claws into as many kids as we can before they get a chance to get hooked on other sports. The more kids at 7 years old who have posters of Messi on their wall rather than McDavid - all the better!

TKBC · Feb 14, 2016

FB1 said:
Also, I totally agree that we invest heavily in U13-U18, but not enough in U8-U12. Some clubs are changing this. Two-stream development, age group head coaches, standardized curriculum. I think it's coming around. But we probably should have done this before starting SPL. SPL has been a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

As for U4-U8, I think the key here quite simply is to get as many kids introduced to the game, and give them the bug. Make them love soccer. Make them love having a ball at their feet all the time. No need to get too technical. Let's sink our claws into as many kids as we can before they get a chance to get hooked on other sports. The more kids at 7 years old who have posters of Messi on their wall rather than McDavid - all the better!

I deleted it but your definition of SPL and MSL players is prob the same. Want to win their games, want to play with their mates. If that's your def of recreation you'll find that's the motivation for most SPL/MSL players too - I suggest we have maybe 5% of all players in this province at an absolute maximum that have pro as a goal and a small small small percentage of that 5% that have any idea what it takes to get to pro.

Yes, SPL was putting the cart before the horse, but if it is what is the push to create the u4-8, u8-12 programming, then great, no problem.

u4-8 is absolutely about getting kids to love the game. No argument. But you can teach kids the fundamentals and help them have fun. Research Tom Byer. Kids in Asia are doing amazing things technically - the prime example being the kid from Japan (I am pretty sure it's Japan) who is on Barcelona and apparently smashing Messi's youth records.

4_the_kids · Feb 15, 2016

TKBC said:
I deleted it but your definition of SPL and MSL players is prob the same. Want to win their games, want to play with their mates. If that's your def of recreation you'll find that's the motivation for most SPL/MSL players too - I suggest we have maybe 5% of all players in this province at an absolute maximum that have pro as a goal and a small small small percentage of that 5% that have any idea what it takes to get to pro.

Yes, SPL was putting the cart before the horse, but if it is what is the push to create the u4-8, u8-12 programming, then great, no problem.

u4-8 is absolutely about getting kids to love the game. No argument. But you can teach kids the fundamentals and help them have fun. Research Tom Byer. Kids in Asia are doing amazing things technically - the prime example being the kid from Japan (I am pretty sure it's Japan) who is on Barcelona and apparently smashing Messi's youth records.

I think its a matter of defining what an Elite player is and what a recreational player. Beyond that it is a matter of dealing with what we have. We argue that 95% of all players in this province are recreational at best, but that wont help develop more players, its sort suggest any pathway , development program is just a waste of time . As has been discussed we need two defined streams, we sort of do but the high performance stream needs to be extended to Metro and div 1. Is our standard high enough, no its not. it needs to improve but that doesn't mean lower divisions such as div 1 are not more than recreational, these kids have good attitudes for the most part they just need better training to help increase there confidence. Coastal FC considers all Div 1 and Div 2 teams as rep teams, I am not so convinced on Div 2 above U13 as being rep but its important that these team,s receive quality programs and coaches as well.

We keep trying to fix the top end when its the bottom end that need fixing first, as @ TKBC said it starts at U4-U8 when everyone is a recreational player , improve rec soccer we will improve rep soccer and so on. And the fact is something like less than 1% of all kids playing soccer in the world go on to pro soccer. You don't create those player by simply creating a higher level league.,

TKBC · Feb 15, 2016

4_the_kids said:
I think its a matter of defining what an Elite player is and what a recreational player. Beyond that it is a matter of dealing with what we have. We argue that 95% of all players in this province are recreational at best, but that wont help develop more players, its sort suggest any pathway , development program is just a waste of time . As has been discussed we need two defined streams, we sort of do but the high performance stream needs to be extended to Metro and div 1. Is our standard high enough, no its not. it needs to improve but that doesn't mean lower divisions such as div 1 are not more than recreational, these kids have good attitudes for the most part they just need better training to help increase there confidence. Coastal FC considers all Div 1 and Div 2 teams as rep teams, I am not so convinced on Div 2 above U13 as being rep but its important that these team,s receive quality programs and coaches as well.

We keep trying to fix the top end when its the bottom end that need fixing first, as @ TKBC said it starts at U4-U8 when everyone is a recreational player , improve rec soccer we will improve rep soccer and so on. And the fact is something like less than 1% of all kids playing soccer in the world go on to pro soccer. You don't create those player by simply creating a higher level league.,

Defining elite in this province is easy. The only elite program and elite players we have are on the Whitecaps. No one else is elite. Period, full stop. There might be coaches of that ilk not in Whitecaps, there might be even the odd player of that ilk not on Whitecaps. But they would be the extreme exception. And, if there were a player that good in Gold or Metro the word would get out and he or she would be snapped up by the Caps. Anyone that good in BCSPL the Caps would know about and unless there is a behaviour problems the Caps would invite them to join their program.

Development of players is NEVER a waste of time. I argue that more than 95% of our players are rec in truth. A very very very small percentage of player in this province has an understanding of what it takes to become elite/pro. Some of these that do have this understanding won't have the requisite technical/athletic ability to ever achieve that goal.

High Performance is a good word to use though - BCSPL should satisfy that phrase, some MSL, and some coaches/teams in Div 1 would also. Every team considers Div 1 and Div 2 all the way down to 4 as "rep." I agree, Div 2-4 is rec. There will be the odd coach or player that is competitive and trying to improve, but they'll find their way into Gold and MSL, even BCSPL at some point.

I agree - BCSPL will not fix soccer in this province. It will keep people in a job, and just as Jason DeVos and Craig Forrest have said, some will get to the national team and pro team despite the system not because of it. We won't really get anywhere until we fixu u4-8, u8-12, and then of course also have a Canadian League that bridges the u18 age group with the u23 age group (which is roughly when players are getting into MLS and national teams - age 20-22).

Tom Duley · Feb 15, 2016

To overlook kids with potential at U12 - U16 (playing Div1 and in some cases Div2 at U13) would be a serious oversight and irresponsible. There are some kids that mature a bit later, they begin to take more of an interest and their overall compete level increases.

Also, not every player has to be skilled but must definitely master the basic skills (stopping the ball, chesting, heading, passing, dribbling, crossing...). There are incredibly valuable players at many clubs throughout the entire globe that play at the highest level but are role players, you cannot attempt to build only based on skill/talent, once a player has a great foundation of skills, there are many other abilities/qualities that determine effectiveness.

Soccer culture has to be developed in order for us to be successful. #1, most parents have no clue what it means to be an effective soccer player, they see their own child as flawless, they have ridiculous expectations of what position and for what team their kid should be playing. I'm amazed at how many people see their kid and tell their kid they are 'the best" or "a great player", it's embarrassing and shameful, it also leaves their kids with the impression they got screwed out of making a team because their parent told them they deserved to be there. I'm really shocked with the amount of people that are so darn unrealistic, many have little to no experience but somehow are the experts!

4_the_kids · Feb 15, 2016

Tom Duley said:
To overlook kids with potential at U12 - U16 (playing Div1 and in some cases Div2 at U13) would be a serious oversight and irresponsible. There are some kids that mature a bit later, they begin to take more of an interest and their overall compete level increases.

Also, not every player has to be skilled but must definitely master the basic skills (stopping the ball, chesting, heading, passing, dribbling, crossing...). There are incredibly valuable players at many clubs throughout the entire globe that play at the highest level but are role players, you cannot attempt to build only based on skill/talent, once a player has a great foundation of skills, there are many other abilities/qualities that determine effectiveness.

Soccer culture has to be developed in order for us to be successful. #1, most parents have no clue what it means to be an effective soccer player, they see their own child as flawless, they have ridiculous expectations of what position and for what team their kid should be playing. I'm amazed at how many people see their kid and tell their kid they are 'the best" or "a great player", it's embarrassing and shameful, it also leaves their kids with the impression they got screwed out of making a team because their parent told them they deserved to be there. I'm really shocked with the amount of people that are so darn unrealistic, many have little to no experience but somehow are the experts!

NO kid at any level should be overlooked, and yes kids develop at different rates, a technically skilled kids who is small or a bit heavy and self conscience may lack the confidence to play with higher levels, then all of a sudden the kid grows 6 inches over a summer and is a physical beast, or a kid with the right attitude finds the right coach etc..
having defined streams is to provide a pathway that works together and in synergy.
My pathway looks like this:
For U4-U9 - one stream, introduce academies to identify skilled players for U8 and U9, play academy teams in tournaments for better challenges for top players otherwise talent should be distributed equally to create balanced teams within the in house environment. Emphasis on coach development
U10-U12 - House and development, player movement from house to development and backwards should be easy, fluid and transparent ( not held up by player transfer forms etc, development teams need to be controlled by the clubs with coach input). up to 3 tiers in the development stream , preferably a max of two teams per tier depending on size of club. Continued emphasis on coach development - development coaches should possess a Provincial B at min.
U13-U18 to introduction of high performance stream and recreational/ house stream ( will call grassroots)
GR = grassroots - HP = high performance
GR4 --> GR3 --> GR2 --GR1 ---// --->( HP3---> HP2 ---> HP1 ) ---> Provincial HP ----> Pro academy ( Whitecaps) -----> National Team

There should be player movement within the grassroots as well as HP , players at each level pushing for spots at the next level...
Coaching standards should be for GR4-GR3 - soccer for life at a min and increase the standard every few years, GR1-2 should be C license at min if that happens, HP 3 should be Provincial B , HP 2 - national B - HP 1 National A ,
that is based off of current offering which needs to be improved.

easoccer · Feb 15, 2016

Requiring a provincial b would eliminate most coaches from developement.

TKBC · Feb 15, 2016

easoccer said:
Requiring a provincial b would eliminate most coaches from developement.

Agreed, but look at Iceland, Belgium, Spain, Germany etc....having licensing demands on coaches has paid off for them ten-fold. If you coaches and clubs were required to have certain standards you would see more coaches getting certified.

That said, what's the certification worth if there isn't any oversight to how coaches are doing things afterward. Not much.

easoccer · Feb 15, 2016

I see enough club coaches standing around at practice chatting with each other. Maybe rather than requiring b-level they could require the club coaches to run 1 practice per week and a game per month to monitor the coach and the players developement. Plus the club could run training sessions for coaches.

easoccer · Feb 15, 2016

Also at u8 a lot of coaches are undecided as to how long their child may play. And what if the coaches child gets demoted? A b level is a lot of work.

4_the_kids · Feb 16, 2016

easoccer said:
Also at u8 a lot of coaches are undecided as to how long their child may play. And what if the coaches child gets demoted? A b level is a lot of work.

my point is to increase the coaching standard. And those coaches who are not sure what their kid is going to do are not the coaches we should be relying on to coach development teams. Ideally neutral coaches would be best for development teams, like club coaches with no kid on the team ... My idea is developing coaches U6-U9 looking for the ones who are committed enough to take on a c and b license to be coaching development teams.
There are too many rec level coaches coaching top teams because of their kid playing there etc.. Ideally paid club coaches for all development and high performance teams. Only issue as @TKBC said what good is a certification if we don't ensure the coaches maintain a standard as we don't do on going evaluation on them.
I just ran the listed coaches from District 5 U11 through the database as of Dec 2015. These U11 teams are all the top developments teams for the respective clubs... 28 teams in total
4 have Provincial B
2 has Pre B
6 has soccer for life
5 has learn to train
2 fundeamentals
1 Active start
8 not listed in database

So of 28 teams only 17 have coaches with at least the min requirement for the age group, the other 11 have coaches who do not have the courses for that age group . call me crazy but that is a huge problem in coaching standards and that is just a small sample ..... on the flip the number 1 U12 teams for SU, CFC , CBC ,PUFC, LU, GAC, CMF all have at min PRE B ... SO i don't think it is that unattainable to have all development coaches at this level....

easoccer · Feb 16, 2016

I agree with you. That type of certification would be desirable.

But people with that amount of effort and certification are most likely club or career coaches. Development needs those kind of coaches along with div 1 and up.

The issue is most coches seem to be parents who are put on the spot because no one else is available. I know thats how I started.

TKBC · Feb 16, 2016

4_the_kids said:
my point is to increase the coaching standard. And those coaches who are not sure what their kid is going to do are not the coaches we should be relying on to coach development teams. Ideally neutral coaches would be best for development teams, like club coaches with no kid on the team ... My idea is developing coaches U6-U9 looking for the ones who are committed enough to take on a c and b license to be coaching development teams.
There are too many rec level coaches coaching top teams because of their kid playing there etc.. Ideally paid club coaches for all development and high performance teams. Only issue as @TKBC said what good is a certification if we don't ensure the coaches maintain a standard as we don't do on going evaluation on them.
I just ran the listed coaches from District 5 U11 through the database as of Dec 2015. These U11 teams are all the top developments teams for the respective clubs... 28 teams in total
4 have Provincial B
2 has Pre B
6 has soccer for life
5 has learn to train
2 fundeamentals
1 Active start
8 not listed in database

So of 28 teams only 17 have coaches with at least the min requirement for the age group, the other 11 have coaches who do not have the courses for that age group . call me crazy but that is a huge problem in coaching standards and that is just a small sample ..... on the flip the number 1 U12 teams for SU, CFC , CBC ,PUFC, LU, GAC, CMF all have at min PRE B ... SO i don't think it is that unattainable to have all development coaches at this level....

wow that's great research.

I wonder how many of those 11 are registered to complete the required minimum course.

4_the_kids · Feb 16, 2016

TKBC said:
wow that's great research.

I wonder how many of those 11 are registered to complete the required minimum course.

I would assume most if not all if they plan on continuing to coach as next year you have to have the min for the age group to coach, how BC Soccer is going to enforce that I am not so sure... Even still select or development coaches shouldn't just have the min qualification, and I fall in the group of min qualifications. Pre B or the new C if that happens and the Provincial B need to be more accessible and club coaches or TD ( assuming they have the facilitator course) should be mentors for those inspiring to get them...

Why No Metro Players on BC Provincial Teams?

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Active Member

Established Member

Member

Active Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Active Member

Established Member

Established Member

Active Member