SimpleCoach D3 Soccer YouTube Channel

[SimpleCoach]

So, pulled the trigger on an episode of Injured Time on some of my best theories about the game.  Hope you enjoy.

Injured Time, Episode 4 - My Top 11 Theories About the Game

[Ejay]

So, pulled the trigger on an episode of Injured Time on some of my best theories about the game.  Hope you enjoy.

Injured Time, Episode 4 - My Top 11 Theories About the Game

"Player Development, a made up term."  Remind me again of the name of the club you write checks to for Simple Player ;-).

Haven't watched the entire video yet, but definitely some good conversational material.

[SimpleCoach]

So, pulled the trigger on an episode of Injured Time on some of my best theories about the game.  Hope you enjoy.

Injured Time, Episode 4 - My Top 11 Theories About the Game

"Player Development, a made up term."  Remind me again of the name of the club you write checks to for Simple Player ;-).

Haven't watched the entire video yet, but definitely some good conversational material.

Oh, believe me, I know.  I know it all $3500 times......  But if you notice.... the badge is up there.

Just wait.  Will outline this one if I can ever get the Pay to Play episode off the ground.... in detail .... largely to the dollar.  For "development" and "trusting the process".

SC.

[Newenglander]

Good discussion as usual - only comment is it seems like a long or flip throw in the final third is very similar to the dreaded corner kick to me.

[jknezek]

Good discussion as usual - only comment is it seems like a long or flip throw in the final third is very similar to the dreaded corner kick to me.

I agree. If you have someone who can throw to the back post area from anywhere near the 18, it's very much a corner kick situation, except I think the ball comes in softer on a higher arc. Slightly easier to defend, but also easier to get a clean head on it.

I don't like when teams only use long throws in that situation, too much of a 50/50 to lose possession in that area of the field, but I think if you mix it up with the same thrower you can catch defenders sleeping easier than you can with a corner since corners are an overly practiced situation.

[Newenglander]

Good discussion as usual - only comment is it seems like a long or flip throw in the final third is very similar to the dreaded corner kick to me.

I agree. If you have someone who can throw to the back post area from anywhere near the 18, it's very much a corner kick situation, except I think the ball comes in softer on a higher arc. Slightly easier to defend, but also easier to get a clean head on it.

I don't like when teams only use long throws in that situation, too much of a 50/50 to lose possession in that area of the field, but I think if you mix it up with the same thrower you can catch defenders sleeping easier than you can with a corner since corners are an overly practiced situation.

Yes - was trying to understand SC's rationale as one of the hot takes is he doesn't like corner kicks but approves of the long throw to the box.

[westroadsf]

Agree, teams with a long thrower fall prey to being too predictable and too reliant on it. Match slows down while long thrower gathers ball, himself/herself, etc., lets defenses organize/setup. I never understand why teams don't switch it up more by letting the long thrower go short/quick (like a short corner) which forces defenses to make more hard decisions.

[SimpleCoach]

Agree, teams with a long thrower fall prey to being too predictable and too reliant on it. Match slows down while long thrower gathers ball, himself/herself, etc., lets defenses organize/setup. I never understand why teams don't switch it up more by letting the long thrower go short/quick (like a short corner) which forces defenses to make more hard decisions.

Money.  Big difference to me between a throw and a corner is the angle and speed of the ball.  But it's also more effective when used situationally.  Not regularly.

SC.

[Kuiper]

A couple of quick notes about a fun episode of Injured Time.

1.  Player development

I agree with you that it is generally just a meaningless buzzword.  Clubs usually insist it means "we play a style of play that is not conducive to winning now, but will reap rewards in the long run."  More often, it is code for "we generally don't cut players even after a losing season; they're all invited back year-after-year," although that can also mean "we don't really have the ambition to actively recruit to replace a paying family who doesn't cause trouble, but we would gladly take a better player who walks through the door and sit the long-time player on the bench."  I do think players can learn technical/tactical/mental/physical things from every coach and club they are with over the years.  It doesn't only happen on their own or because of natural ability.  It's just not true, though, that some clubs have a magic formula for developing a player that is better than what other clubs do.  At most, there are clubs that are true clubs and offer additional training nights for all players that focus on some technical or tactical things while other clubs are just a collection of teams where if you don't get it from your coach it won't be provided.

2.  US Soccer Blueprint

I think your point here is that US Soccer doesn't have one and ties into your views that (1) it would better to apply a federalism approach where each state experimented with its own approach and (2) every team should be required to compete in their State Cup and then advance to a regional competition etc.

Both of these alternatives, while arguably sensible from a soccer policy perspective, are problematic for a reason that few diehard soccer fans -- and virtually no Eurosnobs -- seem to understand or accept:  US Soccer generally, and youth soccer in particular, including youth soccer organizing bodies, are all businesses (even if they are organized as non-profit organizations) and they, like clubs, are subject to antitrust laws.  There is an antitrust exception for the US Olympic Committee and its delegated governing bodies, including US Soccer, in its capacity as the selection body for national teams and the Olympics under what is now called the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.  The only precedent on how much power that gives US Soccer held that it didn't apply to pro sports.  I think it's likely it also doesn't apply to youth sports except in limited circumstances (like player safety under the Safe Sport Act and other obligations undertaken as a voluntary trade association).  It probably doesn't extend to deciding that US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and MLS Next have to require that their teams participate in a common State Cup.  Indeed, we're already seeing state cups disintegrate in some states because the system we grew up with was one where there was only US Youth Soccer Ass'n and its delegated representative in each state organized a single state cup.  US Club Soccer even has some rival state governing bodies now, which makes the state-level experimentation more difficult.  Lawsuits against US Soccer currently in the courts could further reduce its power to provide any national direction and would likely limit state governing bodies as well.

In Europe and elsewhere, what distinguishes their leagues and youth system from an antitrust (competition) law perspective is that legislatures/courts have accorded sport special status and have generally provided some wiggle room with competition law.  It's not complete, which is why the limit on club control over player movement went away in the mid-1990s, and it is under attack (e.g., the lawsuits against restrictions on participants in the European Super League, a competitor to UEFA's Champions League).  The solidarity and training compensation payments that fund most of youth development systems around the world probably violate competition law as well, but they haven't been challenged to this point.

That's a more depressing take than people may want to hear, but it does suggest that if there are solutions to youth development, it is going to have to come from market demand rather than top down mandates. 

There are at least two legal and structural changes that could radically alter the market and are at least theoretically plausible:

1.  The breakdown of college soccer at the D1 level because of the breakaway of football and basketball from the NCAA.  If the money leaves the NCAA because football and basketball separate, that could reduce funding for the NCAA and imperil funding for postseason tournaments and that would reduce money colleges bring in an use to subsidize sports like soccer.  In theory, a lot of colleges could resort to a DIII or even club sports model where players foot the cost with their tuition.  That could reduce the draw of college soccer significantly, even from its currently weakened state, for those looking for scholarship money.

2.  If the recent Supreme Court case on admissions and the subsequent investigation of legacy admissions causes a re-examination of athletics recruiting as well (for political or legal reasons), that could take away the draw of college soccer for those using it as a springboard for admission to elite academic colleges.

If both events occur, my guess is pay for play becomes a lot less viable for a lot of parents.  There will still be players vying for elite status to see if they could make a pro men's or women's academy, but without the college hook, the business model for a lot of the rest of youth soccer breaks down.  That would naturally reduce the pressure for competing governing bodies and leagues, as well as for some of the national travel.

[SimpleCoach]

A couple of quick notes about a fun episode of Injured Time.

1.  Player development

I agree with you that it is generally just a meaningless buzzword.  Clubs usually insist it means "we play a style of play that is not conducive to winning now, but will reap rewards in the long run."  More often, it is code for "we generally don't cut players even after a losing season; they're all invited back year-after-year," although that can also mean "we don't really have the ambition to actively recruit to replace a paying family who doesn't cause trouble, but we would gladly take a better player who walks through the door and sit the long-time player on the bench."  I do think players can learn technical/tactical/mental/physical things from every coach and club they are with over the years.  It doesn't only happen on their own or because of natural ability.  It's just not true, though, that some clubs have a magic formula for developing a player that is better than what other clubs do.  At most, there are clubs that are true clubs and offer additional training nights for all players that focus on some technical or tactical things while other clubs are just a collection of teams where if you don't get it from your coach it won't be provided.

2.  US Soccer Blueprint

I think your point here is that US Soccer doesn't have one and ties into your views that (1) it would better to apply a federalism approach where each state experimented with its own approach and (2) every team should be required to compete in their State Cup and then advance to a regional competition etc.

Both of these alternatives, while arguably sensible from a soccer policy perspective, are problematic for a reason that few diehard soccer fans -- and virtually no Eurosnobs -- seem to understand or accept:  US Soccer generally, and youth soccer in particular, including youth soccer organizing bodies, are all businesses (even if they are organized as non-profit organizations) and they, like clubs, are subject to antitrust laws.  There is an antitrust exception for the US Olympic Committee and its delegated governing bodies, including US Soccer, in its capacity as the selection body for national teams and the Olympics under what is now called the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.  The only precedent on how much power that gives US Soccer held that it didn't apply to pro sports.  I think it's likely it also doesn't apply to youth sports except in limited circumstances (like player safety under the Safe Sport Act and other obligations undertaken as a voluntary trade association).  It probably doesn't extend to deciding that US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and MLS Next have to require that their teams participate in a common State Cup.  Indeed, we're already seeing state cups disintegrate in some states because the system we grew up with was one where there was only US Youth Soccer Ass'n and its delegated representative in each state organized a single state cup.  US Club Soccer even has some rival state governing bodies now, which makes the state-level experimentation more difficult.  Lawsuits against US Soccer currently in the courts could further reduce its power to provide any national direction and would likely limit state governing bodies as well.

In Europe and elsewhere, what distinguishes their leagues and youth system from an antitrust (competition) law perspective is that legislatures/courts have accorded sport special status and have generally provided some wiggle room with competition law.  It's not complete, which is why the limit on club control over player movement went away in the mid-1990s, and it is under attack (e.g., the lawsuits against restrictions on participants in the European Super League, a competitor to UEFA's Champions League).  The solidarity and training compensation payments that fund most of youth development systems around the world probably violate competition law as well, but they haven't been challenged to this point.

That's a more depressing take than people may want to hear, but it does suggest that if there are solutions to youth development, it is going to have to come from market demand rather than top down mandates. 

There are at least two legal and structural changes that could radically alter the market and are at least theoretically plausible:

1.  The breakdown of college soccer at the D1 level because of the breakaway of football and basketball from the NCAA.  If the money leaves the NCAA because football and basketball separate, that could reduce funding for the NCAA and imperil funding for postseason tournaments and that would reduce money colleges bring in an use to subsidize sports like soccer.  In theory, a lot of colleges could resort to a DIII or even club sports model where players foot the cost with their tuition.  That could reduce the draw of college soccer significantly, even from its currently weakened state, for those looking for scholarship money.

2.  If the recent Supreme Court case on admissions and the subsequent investigation of legacy admissions causes a re-examination of athletics recruiting as well (for political or legal reasons), that could take away the draw of college soccer for those using it as a springboard for admission to elite academic colleges.

If both events occur, my guess is pay for play becomes a lot less viable for a lot of parents.  There will still be players vying for elite status to see if they could make a pro men's or women's academy, but without the college hook, the business model for a lot of the rest of youth soccer breaks down.  That would naturally reduce the pressure for competing governing bodies and leagues, as well as for some of the national travel.

What?  Nothing on the College/University Bookstore Industrial Complex?  That was some of my best work.

SC.

[SimpleCoach]

Here is a Mount Union alum doing great stuff at UW Platteville. Enjoyed this one a lot.... ton's of Mount Union love going on this week... and next!

Jesse Tinney, Head Men's Coach at UW Platteville

[Kuiper]

A couple of quick notes about a fun episode of Injured Time.

1.  Player development

I agree with you that it is generally just a meaningless buzzword.  Clubs usually insist it means "we play a style of play that is not conducive to winning now, but will reap rewards in the long run."  More often, it is code for "we generally don't cut players even after a losing season; they're all invited back year-after-year," although that can also mean "we don't really have the ambition to actively recruit to replace a paying family who doesn't cause trouble, but we would gladly take a better player who walks through the door and sit the long-time player on the bench."  I do think players can learn technical/tactical/mental/physical things from every coach and club they are with over the years.  It doesn't only happen on their own or because of natural ability.  It's just not true, though, that some clubs have a magic formula for developing a player that is better than what other clubs do.  At most, there are clubs that are true clubs and offer additional training nights for all players that focus on some technical or tactical things while other clubs are just a collection of teams where if you don't get it from your coach it won't be provided.

2.  US Soccer Blueprint

I think your point here is that US Soccer doesn't have one and ties into your views that (1) it would better to apply a federalism approach where each state experimented with its own approach and (2) every team should be required to compete in their State Cup and then advance to a regional competition etc.

Both of these alternatives, while arguably sensible from a soccer policy perspective, are problematic for a reason that few diehard soccer fans -- and virtually no Eurosnobs -- seem to understand or accept:  US Soccer generally, and youth soccer in particular, including youth soccer organizing bodies, are all businesses (even if they are organized as non-profit organizations) and they, like clubs, are subject to antitrust laws.  There is an antitrust exception for the US Olympic Committee and its delegated governing bodies, including US Soccer, in its capacity as the selection body for national teams and the Olympics under what is now called the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.  The only precedent on how much power that gives US Soccer held that it didn't apply to pro sports.  I think it's likely it also doesn't apply to youth sports except in limited circumstances (like player safety under the Safe Sport Act and other obligations undertaken as a voluntary trade association).  It probably doesn't extend to deciding that US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and MLS Next have to require that their teams participate in a common State Cup.  Indeed, we're already seeing state cups disintegrate in some states because the system we grew up with was one where there was only US Youth Soccer Ass'n and its delegated representative in each state organized a single state cup.  US Club Soccer even has some rival state governing bodies now, which makes the state-level experimentation more difficult.  Lawsuits against US Soccer currently in the courts could further reduce its power to provide any national direction and would likely limit state governing bodies as well.

In Europe and elsewhere, what distinguishes their leagues and youth system from an antitrust (competition) law perspective is that legislatures/courts have accorded sport special status and have generally provided some wiggle room with competition law.  It's not complete, which is why the limit on club control over player movement went away in the mid-1990s, and it is under attack (e.g., the lawsuits against restrictions on participants in the European Super League, a competitor to UEFA's Champions League).  The solidarity and training compensation payments that fund most of youth development systems around the world probably violate competition law as well, but they haven't been challenged to this point.

That's a more depressing take than people may want to hear, but it does suggest that if there are solutions to youth development, it is going to have to come from market demand rather than top down mandates. 

There are at least two legal and structural changes that could radically alter the market and are at least theoretically plausible:

1.  The breakdown of college soccer at the D1 level because of the breakaway of football and basketball from the NCAA.  If the money leaves the NCAA because football and basketball separate, that could reduce funding for the NCAA and imperil funding for postseason tournaments and that would reduce money colleges bring in an use to subsidize sports like soccer.  In theory, a lot of colleges could resort to a DIII or even club sports model where players foot the cost with their tuition.  That could reduce the draw of college soccer significantly, even from its currently weakened state, for those looking for scholarship money.

2.  If the recent Supreme Court case on admissions and the subsequent investigation of legacy admissions causes a re-examination of athletics recruiting as well (for political or legal reasons), that could take away the draw of college soccer for those using it as a springboard for admission to elite academic colleges.

If both events occur, my guess is pay for play becomes a lot less viable for a lot of parents.  There will still be players vying for elite status to see if they could make a pro men's or women's academy, but without the college hook, the business model for a lot of the rest of youth soccer breaks down.  That would naturally reduce the pressure for competing governing bodies and leagues, as well as for some of the national travel.

What?  Nothing on the College/University Bookstore Industrial Complex?  That was some of my best work.

SC.

I'm in solidarity with you on that one, but Jackie was giving you the evil eye.  You didn't mention anything about the fact that none of the hats fit her!

[westroadsf]

(In reference to SC's latest injury time) Ah, yes, the over used word in youth soccer "development." I'd also throw in a few more  personal favorites "pathway," "path to pro," "system" and of course "academy."  I think clubs would be better served by replacing "development" with "culture." Youth clubs and coaches that can inspire a positive culture (on and off the pitch) that can build confidence, accountability and a love of the game among its players can be a powerful thing. I think sometimes clubs say development to mean they hold more trainings, have higher level coaches, etc. Thats a bit of an illusion. The reality is that the key development that might occur at the youth level is going to be from inspiring them to be intrinsically motivated to want to get better (on their own), training, working out and, dare I say it, playing unstructured pickup games. (things done outside of formal coach led trainings). If you ask me, the quickest sign to tell if a kid has what it takes to play beyond high school (at any level) is what kind of work they do outside of their MLS Next A licensed coach trainings. If that answer is not much, then that should tell you a lot.

[Hopkins92]

Hey SC, I dropped this in another thread but wanted to put it here to be more direct:

I'd very curious to hear from a Landmark coach about the effect of going Pay Wall this fall. My conjecture is that it's not all that popular as it limits the ability of recruits (and their parents) to check out their team and get a feel for style of play and whatnot.

[Coach Jeff]

Hey SC, I dropped this in another thread but wanted to put it here to be more direct:

I'd very curious to hear from a Landmark coach about the effect of going Pay Wall this fall. My conjecture is that it's not all that popular as it limits the ability of recruits (and their parents) to check out their team and get a feel for style of play and whatnot.

I spoke to One of the Landmark coaches and he definitely was not for pay to view...it was a Conference decision...