- Re: Okanagan and Victoria - there is merit to the discussion of including them in the league or removing them. On one hand they have good coaches and a history of good players. But should that lead to them being in a league and increasing cost significantly? Maybe not. But a compromise would have to be made to ensure those coaches and players have access to BCSPL assessment/competition if they were removed. You'd then have a league of 6 teams. That's not enough - 8 is perfect.
- If memory serves at the time Abbotsford won the franchise they had much more than 800 players. It was only right around the exact time the league started that other issues in Abby arose and lead to their program faltering. The club does appear to be getting back on the right track and this is great for BC Soccer and the Fraser Valley.
- Peace Arch United (boys) had some excellent teams before BCSPL - see their Super Y teams. Some very good team. I believe Coastal/Peace Arch had it's share of strong metro boys teams as well.
- u13 competition to create the u14 league? Huge mistake. You can't have promotion-relegation in in this country. It won't work for a myriad of reasons - particularly it will harm youth development and coaching development. But you'd then have a BCSPL with different clubs at every age/gender and oversight for the league would become almost impossible.
- SYL came before IPL. They were run concurrently for a while. IPL was designed for the tier 2 player to try and give them a development opportunity. It was a good idea but just didn't work out.
- We do NOT need to go back to the drawing board re: BCSPL. The theory behind it is sound. It just needs tweaking. Let's start with the cost. You'll get more talented players in the league and right there you'll start to fix a lot of the issues because the league would be what it's intended - the best with the best.
- I agree tho - if non-BCSPL teams want to play exhibitions against BCSPL teams then why not. Be inclusive. Maybe BCSPL finds some players they otherwise didn't know about! That said non-BCSPL teams can enter the premier cup.
Why No Metro Players on BC Provincial Teams?
CanadianSpur
Member
- Feb 11, 2016
- 84
Allowing 13 clubs to enter the league and then "relegating" 5 after the first season isn't desirable. That creates an environment where is all about winning and not about player development. This could also leave a region with no representation at a certain age group if the results don't go in their favour, creating a travel barrier for players in that area if they don't have a PL team. Also the infrastructure and continuity needed would suffer if clubs don't know if they will be in the program beyond the first year. The Island and Okanagan do need to be included to provide opportunities for all, not just for those that are located conveniently close to us. And yes the cost needs to be addressed.
Having a proper pyramid is important. Right now MSL is somewhat outside. MSL should be affiliated/aligned with the PL clubs in something like a reserve league where player movement to the senior team is encouraged and joint training sessions are held. This would allow greater visibility for more players in the pathway. Also the petty fiefdoms of local clubs need to take a good look at themselves and ask are they really doing what's best for the player or are they only worrying about their own egos. What's wrong with cooperation between clubs to support player development and create a player focused pathway. I see it all the time in our local clubs. each trying to complete with each other rather than pool their resources to create something better, much to the detriment of the player.
I don't get the love from some here for CCB. The constantly put team in levels where the players ability is out of synch with the league they are in. I recall them putting 5 or 6 teams in division one and all of them being at or near the bottom of the table. That can't be could for player development. To me they are about projecting the image of being a big club but should rather focus on being a quality club first.
And just for context, I no longer have a child in the system. Mine has long since moved on to the ranks of University soccer and even now that is coming to an end. I remain active in coach and on the board of a club for the love of the game and not to promote any specific agenda or to advance my child as some do. My greatest accomplishments in any year is having a player selected for a higher level team or seeing the player that I brough up from a lower level succeed and thrive.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
by district based I mean the regional districts, SMSA, DYSA, FVYSA, VYSA, BYSA, etc.. of course in some case they need to be merged to create a true HP teams, Richmond for example need to be merged with Vancouver see Fusion FC , North Van and Burnaby are merged see Mountain FC though both district could probably support a team. Which we pretty much are, what I am opposed to is rewarding the team to a club, it created all this we are better stuff, top level teams should have no allegiance to community clubs. Mountain,Fusion, Thomspon Okanaganand Vancouver Island best represent what i speak of, they are only PL franchises not a community club as well.
CanadianSpur
Member
- Feb 11, 2016
- 84
I don't really see the Clubs with BCSPL franchises taking a we are better than everyone approach but perhaps I am oblivious to this because I am part of one of those clubs. Do you have examples to illustrate this?
hahaha...you're on a roll!
Mike Mosher's dad was his promoter and it was his relationships that got him into the National program just as it got him into the UBC program, anyone that played with or against him knows that!
Admin
Administrator
- Feb 23, 2015
- 392
No.
Everyone knows that Mosher was a fitness freak and at the time, those in positions of power of the various National team programs valued fitness at a high premium.
In any event, Mosher has nothing to do with Metro players being left off of Provincial teams as it stands today so let's end this tangent of the discussion right there.
Thanks.
Everyone knows that Mosher was a fitness freak and at the time, those in positions of power of the various National team programs valued fitness at a high premium.
In any event, Mosher has nothing to do with Metro players being left off of Provincial teams as it stands today so let's end this tangent of the discussion right there.
Thanks.
we'll leave it right there, after this:
"those in positions of power of the various National team programs valued fitness at a high premium."
who were "those in power" and what were their relationships with "his" dad? I was part of the program, I saw it first hand!
fast forward to 2016 and we have a very similar situation, the relationships supersede the objective, which is why we got onto the topic in the first place, when the comment was made "BC Soccer is shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring the small but quality pool of talent playing at the youth Metro level."
BC Soccer has many good people but is dysfunctional, we make the same mistakes today as we did 30 years ago, its still about a select few, except the personnel has changed...I wish they'd qualify and certify the decision makers far better than they do.
I don't know Mike. Never seen him play etc etc. My remark was not re: Mike. It was, in fact, supporting what you were saying that the best should be selected etc. Someone suggested Mike "had qualities that every team needs" but I say - no, you select the best at that level unless there is an attitude/behaviour problem.
Relationships still help now LOL
Metro & Div 1 players should have the same opportunities to play Provincials as the $$$$ BCPL players.
Hope BC Soccer reads these forums as there,s some great discussions going on to improve things.
Hopefully we can get a couple of Discussion members onto the BC Soccer board to inject some new ideas.
It should of course be free.Yes, MSL and D1 players just as house players should all have same access to PTP. Problem is this....even if they make the PTP they haven't joined BCSPL because of cost, travel, the coach in the area, the kids on the local BCSPL team or a combo of those or any other reason. The next problem they face is PTP costs $$$! It should of course be free.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
I don't think the issue is Metro or div 1 players having access to PTP , the issue is if there are players at those levels good enough to make PTP then why are those players not playing BCSPL. The logic is that the best players play BCSPL which why the PTP go there for its players.
The various reason why people choose ,not to play BCSPL needs addressing. Cost cannot be a barrier.
As for previously unidentified talent , the process of going through a BCSPL team is right.
I feel there is an inherent distrust of the system, for whatever reasons ( past experiences, feeling like you were overlooked, old boys clubs) , this distrust is prohibiting this from working to its full capabilities.
@TKBC the idea of local centers of excellence or local PTP is a great idea,staffed centers, in local regions that get out and watch games, scout players hold invite only and open mini camps in advance of the main camp . The PTP pool should be double if not triple the requirement to field a team and there should be movement on and off the team based on current performance. These centers should also be working directly with CSA, MLS teams and colleges and Universities, in talent identification and controlling player development for the national team.
Like the current system or not, but when one makes the choice to not buy in or participate and play by the rules if you will.,they then need to accept that one possible consequence of that choice is to be overlooked or flagged with a poor attitude. Also is it the player making that choice or the parent? More and more it seems to be the parent making the choice and then crying when their kid is overlooked, shame .... let the kids decide and support them regardless of your personal beliefs or agendas. ( disclaimer: not playing in BCSPL if selected for any other reason than cost is a choice)
The various reason why people choose ,not to play BCSPL needs addressing. Cost cannot be a barrier.
As for previously unidentified talent , the process of going through a BCSPL team is right.
I feel there is an inherent distrust of the system, for whatever reasons ( past experiences, feeling like you were overlooked, old boys clubs) , this distrust is prohibiting this from working to its full capabilities.
@TKBC the idea of local centers of excellence or local PTP is a great idea,staffed centers, in local regions that get out and watch games, scout players hold invite only and open mini camps in advance of the main camp . The PTP pool should be double if not triple the requirement to field a team and there should be movement on and off the team based on current performance. These centers should also be working directly with CSA, MLS teams and colleges and Universities, in talent identification and controlling player development for the national team.
Like the current system or not, but when one makes the choice to not buy in or participate and play by the rules if you will.,they then need to accept that one possible consequence of that choice is to be overlooked or flagged with a poor attitude. Also is it the player making that choice or the parent? More and more it seems to be the parent making the choice and then crying when their kid is overlooked, shame .... let the kids decide and support them regardless of your personal beliefs or agendas. ( disclaimer: not playing in BCSPL if selected for any other reason than cost is a choice)
I don't think you'll find anyone agree in the theory that the best should be in BCSPL thus the PTP player selection comes from BCSPL. I agree the best should be with the best, and this includes coaches and refs. But, you are right. The barriers (generally it's cost) has to be removed or significantly mitigated. Geography can't really be dealt with. Victoria and Okanagan should be in the league - or at least very closely connected to the league if not in weekly competition. And with having 6 lower mainland teams some talented kids will have to drive. Having just 1 team on VI and 1 in the Okanagan means kids are driving 1-2 hours to get to training if they choose to join. That can't be fixed. But there are other issues that also need be resolved - coaching, communication, playing time, style of play etc etc. For example, why would I play for a BCSPL coach at a high cost, part time when I can play for a talented MSL coach and play almost every minute of every game at a much lower cost. It makes no sense.
Why would I pay 2500 at the very small chance at getting into PTP or Whitecaps (PTP of course then asks for more money), and yet again a very very small chance at getting NCAA scholarship (don't kid yourself, those schols are given to Whitecaps players not BCSPL players generally), or getting a 1-2000 scholarship to play CIS (the math doesn't add up there does it!?). But, if BCSPL was, say 1000 dollars or 750 dollars you would be getting way more of the talented players in the league. This would mean spending less on hotels, training kits, and coaches. And that's fine. The good coaches will be attracted to coaching the best players so if they are paid less that won't really drop the quality of coaching.
Second, many are not playing because why pay that much to be a substitute or to lose every week in some cases.
Why would I pay 2500 at the very small chance at getting into PTP or Whitecaps (PTP of course then asks for more money), and yet again a very very small chance at getting NCAA scholarship (don't kid yourself, those schols are given to Whitecaps players not BCSPL players generally), or getting a 1-2000 scholarship to play CIS (the math doesn't add up there does it!?). But, if BCSPL was, say 1000 dollars or 750 dollars you would be getting way more of the talented players in the league. This would mean spending less on hotels, training kits, and coaches. And that's fine. The good coaches will be attracted to coaching the best players so if they are paid less that won't really drop the quality of coaching.
Second, many are not playing because why pay that much to be a substitute or to lose every week in some cases.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
I fully agree the cost barrier needs to be removed.
In my opinion, there's a greater issue than just cost when it comes to the overall goal and objective in this sport, It starts with the infrastructure, setting the curriculum and providing an opportunity to all, so that the objective and goal to develop the kids is always front and centre.
Look at your own clubs, I'm pretty certain that there have been many kids labelled, overlooked or in some cases, we've afforded too much opportunity to some because of personal relationships...I've seen it at my club and other clubs as well.
From the age of U10 to U16, there will be many changes with several kids. Some will flourish, others will fall off but the one sad part in all this is that some kids do not have the money to join an academy but they do have the will, the desire, the aptitude and work rate to be a very good player while on the other hand other kids that do not have those qualities, but are bigger, stronger, faster and maybe even better technically...but they only have those advantages for a few years. It is the system that fails many of the kids who love the game and have the potential but just never get the chance, because, in my opinion, many coaches lack the experience/intuition/balls to develop...DEVELOP...that is key here!
I watch several coaches choose players based on their natural physicality, they are not necessarily the right choice if we qualify this using a soccer mentality. Those kids that get left behind, especially at crucial ages of U11/U12/U13 lose out. I have had the unfortunate task to coach the majority of my kids that have little to no basic skills training. Its really quite astonishing how a kid can play at a div 1 or div 2 level and have no clue how to use the inside of his foot, how to chest, how to head, how to strike the ball.
I think we have to consider taking our soccer much like we have with hockey. we should include 'compete" into the sport, we should demand basic skills training every single practice, we should ensure the coaches have played at a decent level and can "demonstrate" techniques properly...and most of all, we should ensure that any kid who demonstrates the will, the aptitude, the passion/desire to improve and develop..never gets lost, especially not because of crappy coaches or politics.
Look at your own clubs, I'm pretty certain that there have been many kids labelled, overlooked or in some cases, we've afforded too much opportunity to some because of personal relationships...I've seen it at my club and other clubs as well.
From the age of U10 to U16, there will be many changes with several kids. Some will flourish, others will fall off but the one sad part in all this is that some kids do not have the money to join an academy but they do have the will, the desire, the aptitude and work rate to be a very good player while on the other hand other kids that do not have those qualities, but are bigger, stronger, faster and maybe even better technically...but they only have those advantages for a few years. It is the system that fails many of the kids who love the game and have the potential but just never get the chance, because, in my opinion, many coaches lack the experience/intuition/balls to develop...DEVELOP...that is key here!
I watch several coaches choose players based on their natural physicality, they are not necessarily the right choice if we qualify this using a soccer mentality. Those kids that get left behind, especially at crucial ages of U11/U12/U13 lose out. I have had the unfortunate task to coach the majority of my kids that have little to no basic skills training. Its really quite astonishing how a kid can play at a div 1 or div 2 level and have no clue how to use the inside of his foot, how to chest, how to head, how to strike the ball.
I think we have to consider taking our soccer much like we have with hockey. we should include 'compete" into the sport, we should demand basic skills training every single practice, we should ensure the coaches have played at a decent level and can "demonstrate" techniques properly...and most of all, we should ensure that any kid who demonstrates the will, the aptitude, the passion/desire to improve and develop..never gets lost, especially not because of crappy coaches or politics.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
Agreed, especially about U10-U16 and in Surrey its starting even earlier at U8, we need to create a system were it is accepted that kids will move up and down during these ages for a variety of reasons, mental, physical , peers etc... and it is ok if a kid drops a level, if he or she has the passion to work hard they will find away to move up again. Two clearly identified and aligned streams . High performance with three tiers and community/rec with 3-4 tiers with fluid movement among the tiers. And yes its about development not winning,i mean really what do you win in youth soccer especially at U11 or U12 ? You mentioned how many kids dont know how to use the inside of their foot. All the lazy players that use the outside out of laziness not because its the best choice . But more astonishing is how little two footed players we have.
I don't think playing at a certain level guarantees a good coach, there are many coaches who haven't played at high levels that are excellent and many ex players that are jokes. I do think the coaching courses should be teaching coaches how to teach proper technique , especially the active starts, fundamentals, learning to train and active for life courses, this is currently missing in the content.
1000% agree
rich
Active Member
- Aug 20, 2015
- 291
I'm one of those who never played at a high level. Rec or Div 2 level through my youth. (dodging sabre tooth tigers on gravel pitches heading leather balls the whole while...)
The coaching certification (Learn to Train, Soccer 4 Life, etc) is not worth the weekend it takes to get it. I've learned more from observing other coaches training sessions, and roundtables scribbling on the back of napkins. Add to that, I've seen some absolutely horrendous "professional" coaches at MSL and PL levels, while at the same time 2 of the best coaches I've come across are volunteers. The certification pathway HAS to be revamped for sure.
When it comes to selecting players, I would rather take the kid who loves the game, over the athlete, or over the really skilled kid who does soccer because his buddies do, but really, he's a hockey guy. I want the kids who may not be the best, but love it, will be at every practice, and in their spare time take a ball to the park and kick it around with their pals. Love working with those kids...makes the whole thing worth while.
The coaching certification (Learn to Train, Soccer 4 Life, etc) is not worth the weekend it takes to get it. I've learned more from observing other coaches training sessions, and roundtables scribbling on the back of napkins. Add to that, I've seen some absolutely horrendous "professional" coaches at MSL and PL levels, while at the same time 2 of the best coaches I've come across are volunteers. The certification pathway HAS to be revamped for sure.
When it comes to selecting players, I would rather take the kid who loves the game, over the athlete, or over the really skilled kid who does soccer because his buddies do, but really, he's a hockey guy. I want the kids who may not be the best, but love it, will be at every practice, and in their spare time take a ball to the park and kick it around with their pals. Love working with those kids...makes the whole thing worth while.
When we coach at any level, we have to be able to know how to demonstrate the basic skills, that is the entire foundation of soccer and if kids don't learn those basic skills, the game becomes more frustrating to them as they get older...then they lose interest.
I'm not sure what "pro" level coach you've seen to be terrible, it must be their behaviour because I can guarantee you...you will never be a pro unless you know the basics, which should be simple to demonstrate.
The difference between someone that can vs cannot demonstrate is everything. There is also the experience...to know where to play your players, to teach them the importance of defending and attack...to explain to them that a defender is equally as important as is a mid-field and forward. Teach the culture... one for all, all for one. teach them that hard work is required/essential/necessity, not something we can omit when we feel like it. There are many elements to this game, you cannot team them if you've never experienced them...right?
rich
Active Member
- Aug 20, 2015
- 291
Sorry, this is what happens when I do this from work...I don't complete my thoughts.
Of course, if you can't demonstrate a wall pass, how to strike through the ball with your laces, blah blah blah...then you either shouldn't coach, or you should have assistants that can.
By "terrible" I mean that they may know their stuff, but are not teachers, or should not be working with children. Period. I don't care where you played, or who you played with, if children come away from your sessions crying...then you are a terrible coach. I've seen volunteer coaches with pro or semi-pro playing experience that I would gladly send my own children to rather than "pro" coaches.
You do not need to have played the game at a high level to teach culture, or that defence is important, or hat success comes from hard work, not only in soccer, but school, personal relationships, and life.
Of course, if you can't demonstrate a wall pass, how to strike through the ball with your laces, blah blah blah...then you either shouldn't coach, or you should have assistants that can.
By "terrible" I mean that they may know their stuff, but are not teachers, or should not be working with children. Period. I don't care where you played, or who you played with, if children come away from your sessions crying...then you are a terrible coach. I've seen volunteer coaches with pro or semi-pro playing experience that I would gladly send my own children to rather than "pro" coaches.
You do not need to have played the game at a high level to teach culture, or that defence is important, or hat success comes from hard work, not only in soccer, but school, personal relationships, and life.
...then we agree!
I too think some people shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to coach kids, some coaches have BIG ego's and berate and belittle kids, there is no place for that in the game.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
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.