Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

8000 per association

6 (33.3%)

2900 per association

12 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: December 04, 2009, 08:17:36 PM

[2 CENTS]

District 1   Seattle Youth Soccer Association (SYSA)                 13,331
District 1   North County Youth Soccer Association (NCYSA)   8,763
District 2   Eastside Youth Soccer Association (EYSA)                   8,373
District 3   Tacoma-Pierce County Junior Soccer Association    8,331
District 2   Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association (LWYSA)   7,147
District 6   Spokane Youth Sports Association - Soccer (SYSAS)   5,772
District 5   Columbia Youth Soccer Federation (CYSF)                   5,473
District 2   Northshore Youth Soccer Association (NYSA)   4,978
District 4   Kitsap Peninsula Youth Soccer Association (KPYSA)   4,107
District 1   Whatcom County Youth Soccer Association (WCYSA)   3,752
District 3   Highline Soccer Association (HSA)                   3,408
District 1   Skagit Valley Youth Soccer Association (SkVYSA)   3,106
District 5   East County Youth Soccer Association (ECYSA)   2,915
District 2   Snoqualmie Valley Youth Soccer Association (SnVYSA)   2,826
District 6   Wenatchee Valley Youth Soccer Association (WVYSA)   2,737
District 6   Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association (SpVJSA)   2,556
District 3   Mount Rainier Soccer Association (MRSA)                   2,538
District 5   Cowlitz Youth Soccer Association (CYSA)                   2,495
District 3   Greater Renton Junior Soccer Association (GRJSA)   2,332
District 4   Northwest Sound Youth Soccer Association (NSYSA)   2,327
District 1   South Snohomish County Youth Soccer Association   2,236
District 6   Tri-Cities Youth Soccer Association (T-CYSA)   2,236
District 7   Thurston County Youth Soccer Association (TCYSA)   2,087
District 1   Snohomish Youth Soccer Association (SnYSA)   2,061
District 6   Yakima Youth Soccer Association (YYSA)                   2,055
District 7   Lewis County Youth Soccer Association (LCYSA)   1,962
District 3   Federal Way Soccer Association (FWSA)                   1,863
District 7   Deschutes Youth Soccer Association (DYSA)                   1,694
District 3   Kent Youth Soccer Association (KYSA)                   1,512
District 7   Foothills Youth Soccer Association (FYSA)                   1,459
District 3   Maple Valley Soccer Association (MpVSA)                   1,437
District 7   Grays Harbor Youth Soccer Association (GHYSA)   1,405
District 6   Columbia Basin Youth Soccer Association (CBYSA)   1,356
District 1   Whidbey Island Youth Soccer Association (WIYSA)   1,279
District 4   Olympic Youth Soccer Association (OYSA)                   1,156
District 3   Auburn Youth Soccer Association (AYSA)                   1,008
District 6   Lower Yakima Valley Youth Soccer Association      790
District 6   North Central Youth Soccer Association (NCenYSA)   765
District 3   Narrows Youth Soccer Association (NarYSA)                   723
District 6   Kittitas Valley Junior Soccer Association (KVJSA)   684
District 6   Pullman Youth Soccer Association(PYSA)   211
District 6   Walla Walla Youth Soccer Association (WWYSA)   206

[EWSoccer64]

Where is Walla Walla and the Blue Mountain Soccer Club?

What about Pullman, Lewiston/Clarkston, Colville and Newport?

[2 CENTS]

Where is Walla Walla and the Blue Mountain Soccer Club?

What about Pullman, Lewiston/Clarkston, Colville and Newport?

I added Pullman & Walla Walla, I don’t know the others.??

[EWSoccer64]

I don't see the "strategic plan" working for areas like Eastern Washington, the Olympic Peninsula, or the Columbia River Gorge.
Tell us Vancouver, do you want to have to be saddled with Government Camp, White Salmon and Goldendale in your "association".?

[lester]

I think the consolidation plan will lead to more community based clubs moving to AYSO for their rec teams and suggesting to their coaches that want more, they try going US Club.

Just my initial opinion.

[Doodlebug]

At the risk of agreeing with EW.....I can't see how this helps or supports folks in Eastern Washington.

I think the state - or at least key people in leadership - have fallen under the spell of a consultant who doesn't know all that much about soccer and doesn't care about the players in the state. Too much focus on the west and its ugly, petty politics.

Let's face it - the dynamics and the demographics in this state are very different from east to west. One size may not fit all.

[tripleplay]

I think the consolidation plan will lead to more community based clubs moving to AYSO for their rec teams and suggesting to their coaches that want more, they try going US Club.

Just my initial opinion.

Why? Do you think that is good or bad?

[Futsal]

At the risk of agreeing with EW.....I can't see how this helps or supports folks in Eastern Washington.

I think the state - or at least key people in leadership - have fallen under the spell of a consultant who doesn't know all that much about soccer and doesn't care about the players in the state. Too much focus on the west and its ugly, petty politics.

Let's face it - the dynamics and the demographics in this state are very different from east to west. One size may not fit all.

I can see how reducing the number of Associations will reduce the number of communication points state has to work with.

But maybe because I have never been on the District board I might be confused.  When I was at the Association level dealing with District was for the IAL league and tournament applications.

Seeing how tournament applications are moving to online entry and approval, I see where District can be cut out.  But without a District is State now going to take over all IAL leagues?  Will we play only within our Association unless we play in the State League? 

Also, without Districts IDL's such as CYL and PDL go away.

[Hit_the_Heifer]

Also, without Districts IDL's such as CYL and PDL go away.

Maybe that is the goal 

Consulting firm at the heart of the "restructuring" of Seattle Youth Soccer Assoc (see, e.g., Seattle United plan) apparently has convinced WYS that it also knows what is best for the entire state.

It sure seems as if WYS can only exist in a state of flux.  Some stability (at least for a little while) sure would be nice.....

[mg444]

Beware the outside consultant.

[Soccer Wonk]

I think the cause-and-effect and who's-driving-what are different. Rather than an individual, point to the state board collectively.

As Futsal notes, there was an idea that the districts represent an extra layer that could be done away with, and their core function, which I believe was running select leagues for the most part, could be handled without the extra layer that they represent. (The new North Puget Sound League represents a model of how a tier-two league can operate without a district body; it's headquartered out of an association but spans multiple associations.)

Any consolidation effort is also supportive of the state's "Seamless Soccer Initiative" that was hatched out of the state board, and is the core current underlying most all of the changes.

All of this strategic direction was set prior to the consultant's hiring (per Doug A., when he met with the districts in late fall of 2008.) The consultant was hired to facilitate and drive the process. His core competency is with facilitating, and helping not-for-profits with proper governance. And I believe there was a feeling that the time for the latter has come, given how youth soccer has evolved and how much money is at stake.

Seattle Youth Soccer hatched their plan for Seattle United, which is quite reflective of the state's "Seamless Soccer Initiative", and then hired said consultant -- after he was already on-board with the state and the state's initiative was well underway.

[EWSoccer64]

Actually, I think of it more as a side-effect than as a goal.   WSYDL and CYL are already gone.   PDL is on its way out.    But I do believe that Districts have a value, and not just in coordinating Inter Association Leagues (IAL).  In terms of IAL, Districts really are valueable, as having individual clubs or associations run such things is too great an invitation for abuse.

The more checks and balances, the better.  It may slow down progress, but they help prevent tyranny, either of the majority or of the "in crowd".

Also, without Districts IDL's such as CYL and PDL go away.

Maybe that is the goal 

Consulting firm at the heart of the "restructuring" of Seattle Youth Soccer Assoc (see, e.g., Seattle United plan) apparently has convinced WYS that it also knows what is best for the entire state.

It sure seems as if WYS can only exist in a state of flux.  Some stability (at least for a little while) sure would be nice.....

[Sususudio]

Beware the outside consultant.

cheap shot - the guy did his job.  He's a professional.  This isn't a game for him.  You accuse him when their is a complete absence of motive.  He doesn't have kids in the system (like you do) and he isn't a coach or player. There is nothing to be gained. 

Everyone thinks the consolidation or removing barrier is a good idea until they find out its you that got consolidated.  Does anyone really care if a few CP and DOCs are moved out of the way?  The task is a difficult one and it isn't done yet.  He wasn't hired to make friends.

 

[lester]

Why? Do you think that is good or bad?

I liked WSYSA, but the new WYS is not a mutual "association" of clubs.  They dropped the meaning of 'association' and are a more penal oriented leadership group (operating with suspended By-Laws).
So, sadly, I think it is probably good.

I think AYSO has a better system for rec teams.  Their two year bracketing of age groups, keeps teams changing each year. One year you are the older kid, the next you are learning from the older kids.  Dads can't keep one group together year after year.  It naturally spans school grades.  Its a more true rec system, while still providing the developmental element of older teaches younger. Its just for fun.

SCal is pointed to often.   USYSA in SCal is about the same size as we have in Washington, +/-130,000. What's not pointed out is AYSO has a membership of 850,000 in SCal.  That's the difference maker.

US Club is has a more pure way of allowing select teams to assemble and succeed without all the red tape of politics; either just in your neighborhood or built to be nationally competitive.   Pay your $12 a kid and go do what you want.  It couldn't be simpler.

Again, just my opinion of the state of soccer in Washington.   I can do what I do within any system.

[lester]

... All of this strategic direction was set prior to the consultant's hiring (per Doug A., when he met with the districts in late fall of 2008.) The consultant was hired to facilitate and drive the process. His core competency is with facilitating, and helping not-for-profits with proper governance. And I believe there was a feeling that the time for the latter has come, given how youth soccer has evolved and how much money is at stake.

Seattle Youth Soccer hatched their plan for Seattle United, which is quite reflective of the state's "Seamless Soccer Initiative", and then hired said consultant -- after he was already on-board with the state and the state's initiative was well underway.

Well... except Doug had hired both Jan Glick and Varsity Sports while prez of  TPCJSA for the Pac Nat project and the 'Plan for Success' (also a seamless soccer plan circa 2004) years before he became president of WYS.   Just guessing here, but he might have suggested a consulting firm to SYSA.    Both businesses are on the State payroll now.

And both may be stand up companies with the kids best interest at heart, I don't know any of the individuals that run them.  I'm just saying, they aren't new to the politics or profitability of youth sports.   SYSA's strategic plan isn't new either.

[tripleplay]

Why? Do you think that is good or bad?

I liked WSYSA, but the new WYS is not a mutual "association" of clubs.  They dropped the meaning of 'association' and are a more penal oriented leadership group (operating with suspended By-Laws).
So, sadly, I think it is probably good.

I think AYSO has a better system for rec teams.  Their two year bracketing of age groups, keeps teams changing each year. One year you are the older kid, the next you are learning from the older kids.  Dads can't keep one group together year after year.  It naturally spans school grades.  Its a more true rec system, while still providing the developmental element of older teaches younger. Its just for fun.

SCal is pointed to often.   USYSA in SCal is about the same size as we have in Washington, +/-130,000. What's not pointed out is AYSO has a membership of 850,000 in SCal.  That's the difference maker.

US Club is has a more pure way of allowing select teams to assemble and succeed without all the red tape of politics; either just in your neighborhood or built to be nationally competitive.   Pay your $12 a kid and go do what you want.  It couldn't be simpler.

Again, just my opinion of the state of soccer in Washington.   I can do what I do within any system.

Thanks for your comments. Not sold on AYSO for rec. What is increasingly clear to me is that the comingling of rec and select, whether at the club or association level, creates a huge conflict of interest that hurts both groups. It might have made sense in a simpler era, but not now.

[Squash]

Why? Do you think that is good or bad?

I liked WSYSA, but the new WYS is not a mutual "association" of clubs.  They dropped the meaning of 'association' and are a more penal oriented leadership group (operating with suspended By-Laws).
So, sadly, I think it is probably good.

I think AYSO has a better system for rec teams.  Their two year bracketing of age groups, keeps teams changing each year. One year you are the older kid, the next you are learning from the older kids.  Dads can't keep one group together year after year.  It naturally spans school grades.  Its a more true rec system, while still providing the developmental element of older teaches younger. Its just for fun.

SCal is pointed to often.   USYSA in SCal is about the same size as we have in Washington, +/-130,000. What's not pointed out is AYSO has a membership of 850,000 in SCal.  That's the difference maker.

US Club is has a more pure way of allowing select teams to assemble and succeed without all the red tape of politics; either just in your neighborhood or built to be nationally competitive.   Pay your $12 a kid and go do what you want.  It couldn't be simpler.

Again, just my opinion of the state of soccer in Washington.   I can do what I do within any system.

Thanks for your comments. Not sold on AYSO for rec. What is increasingly clear to me is that the comingling of rec and select, whether at the club or association level, creates a huge conflict of interest that hurts both groups. It might have made sense in a simpler era, but not now.

And you base your feelings on? Without rec you would not have select, so it's hard for me to understand where you pull your thoughts from.

[tripleplay]

Why? Do you think that is good or bad?

I liked WSYSA, but the new WYS is not a mutual "association" of clubs.  They dropped the meaning of 'association' and are a more penal oriented leadership group (operating with suspended By-Laws).
So, sadly, I think it is probably good.

I think AYSO has a better system for rec teams.  Their two year bracketing of age groups, keeps teams changing each year. One year you are the older kid, the next you are learning from the older kids.  Dads can't keep one group together year after year.  It naturally spans school grades.  Its a more true rec system, while still providing the developmental element of older teaches younger. Its just for fun.

SCal is pointed to often.   USYSA in SCal is about the same size as we have in Washington, +/-130,000. What's not pointed out is AYSO has a membership of 850,000 in SCal.  That's the difference maker.

US Club is has a more pure way of allowing select teams to assemble and succeed without all the red tape of politics; either just in your neighborhood or built to be nationally competitive.   Pay your $12 a kid and go do what you want.  It couldn't be simpler.

Again, just my opinion of the state of soccer in Washington.   I can do what I do within any system.

Thanks for your comments. Not sold on AYSO for rec. What is increasingly clear to me is that the comingling of rec and select, whether at the club or association level, creates a huge conflict of interest that hurts both groups. It might have made sense in a simpler era, but not now.

And you base your feelings on? Without rec you would not have select, so it's hard for me to understand where you pull your thoughts from.

Increasingly, when rec and select are run by the same entity there are conflicts of interest that get resolved without the best interests of the players being considered. Others might be able to comment better, but I believe that the AYSO rec in California is independent of the select programs. What we have in Washington are lots of rec players, but few rec advocates, and that hurts rec. Rec gets its "revenge" because they get to vote on select issues, and can screw things up for the select players. But that's just a lose-lose situtation because it doesn't really help the rec players, either. There are several things about AYSO that I don't like, but I do like that they are run independently of the select programs.


 

[Doodlebug]

lester said: "Well... except Doug had hired both Jan Glick and Varsity Sports while prez of  TPCJSA for the Pac Nat project and the 'Plan for Success' (also a seamless soccer plan circa 2004) years before he became president of WYS.   Just guessing here, but he might have suggested a consulting firm to SYSA.    Both businesses are on the State payroll now.

And both may be stand up companies with the kids best interest at heart, I don't know any of the individuals that run them."

I've had interactions with both companies in the past, and I agree with mg444. As I said before, it appears that the state - whether it is an individual at the top or the entire governing board - have fallen under the spell of a consultant with motives I do not trust. The role of consultant is as an expert on something (and often is engaged to push a specific agenda or result as defined by the client), but the role of a facilitator is objective and neutral. Can't be both at the same time without compromising something.

[mg444]

Right on Doodlebug.  The role of a facilitator is to be neutral and not take sides.  From my view, Jan Glick and friends appeared to meet the goals of a preconceived agenda.  The most damning evidence is the lack of openess in the so-called "stakeholders" meetings.  The stakeholders were hand-picked and guaranteed to come to the kind of conclusion the Seattle United folks were looking for.  I am tired of people saying ECFC was represented.  The only ECFC people invited to partake in the stakeholders meetings were the ones who were already on board for SU.  If Jan Glick was neutral and professional, he would have done a random sampling and invited stakeholders (parents, players, and coaches) to wide open meetings--or at the very leasted requested representation from each team.  That was absolutely not done.  And don't tell me there wasn't time...where's the fire and what's the rush?  Had SU given this effort time and attention, then the end result would be legitimate--whatever that turned out to be.  I would accept the whole SU concept if the process had been legitimate--but it was not.

[EWSoccer64]

Err, 3Play, you claim that the rec lacks influence and then claim that it uses its influence to harm select (meaning, to you, Premier/PDL) players.
What a load of tripe.   Your arguement contradicts itself, and the basic premise is wrong.   


3Play<<<Increasingly, when rec and select are run by the same entity there are conflicts of interest that get resolved without the best interests of the players being considered. Others might be able to comment better, but I believe that the AYSO rec in California is independent of the select programs. What we have in Washington are lots of rec players, but few rec advocates, and that hurts rec. Rec gets its "revenge" because they get to vote on select issues, and can screw things up for the select players. But that's just a lose-lose situtation because it doesn't really help the rec players, either. There are several things about AYSO that I don't like, but I do like that they are run independently of the select programs<<<

[EWSoccer64]

Err, mg44, there is a list available of the people who were at all the meetings.......

Right on Doodlebug.  The role of a facilitator is to be neutral and not take sides.  From my view, Jan Glick and friends appeared to meet the goals of a preconceived agenda.  The most damning evidence is the lack of openess in the so-called "stakeholders" meetings.  The stakeholders were hand-picked and guaranteed to come to the kind of conclusion the Seattle United folks were looking for.  I am tired of people saying ECFC was represented.  The only ECFC people invited to partake in the stakeholders meetings were the ones who were already on board for SU.  If Jan Glick was neutral and professional, he would have done a random sampling and invited stakeholders (parents, players, and coaches) to wide open meetings--or at the very leasted requested representation from each team.  That was absolutely not done.  And don't tell me there wasn't time...where's the fire and what's the rush?  Had SU given this effort time and attention, then the end result would be legitimate--whatever that turned out to be.  I would accept the whole SU concept if the process had been legitimate--but it was not.

[tripleplay]

Err, 3Play, you claim that the rec lacks influence and then claim that it uses its influence to harm select (meaning, to you, Premier/PDL) players.
What a load of tripe.   Your arguement contradicts itself, and the basic premise is wrong.   


3Play<<<Increasingly, when rec and select are run by the same entity there are conflicts of interest that get resolved without the best interests of the players being considered. Others might be able to comment better, but I believe that the AYSO rec in California is independent of the select programs. What we have in Washington are lots of rec players, but few rec advocates, and that hurts rec. Rec gets its "revenge" because they get to vote on select issues, and can screw things up for the select players. But that's just a lose-lose situtation because it doesn't really help the rec players, either. There are several things about AYSO that I don't like, but I do like that they are run independently of the select programs<<<

I said "select". I meant "select". That is more than Premier/PDL.

What happens in the real world at many clubs that have both rec and select is that the focus is on select. This hurts rec. But the same clubs are often hostile to the "select only" (aka premier, often PDL clubs). What's wrong is the rec/select clubs leveraging their rec component, when they really don't care about rec. What's even stupider is that the these clubs are in the same "associations" as the select-only clubs, when they have little in common.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>I said "select". I meant "select". That is more than Premier/PDL.<<<

OK 3Play, I believe you.   

[Doodlebug]

So, it looks like rec needs more attention and support - I agree. I also agree with the basic premise of mg444 that an open/representative process is an important component to developing buy in and support of a new plan or way of organizing soccer. Without it, people may not support even the best of good ideas.

So, what should the state do to create an open-enough process so that the ultimate new organizational structure in the state better supports rec soccer, doesn't increase the challenges that players face in Eastern Washington, and begins to decrease the difficulties and conflicts that have plagued rec vs select/premier programs in the past? In other words, what can be done?

[mg444]

EWSoccer64
I am well aware of the list.  My point is, again, that if SYSA --or WYSA--wants to make sweeping changes in reorganization, they need a completely open and inclusive process. In the case of the SU process, it is debatable that was done. 

And, as Doodlebug pointed out, even if SU is the best thing to ever happen, the SU plan is a dramatic overhaul--for more clubs than just ECFC.  It remains to be seen if SU will get the buy in and cooperation required to make this dramatic shift go forward successfully.  Maybe it will work out in the end--soccer players and their families age out of the system and the new families coming in won't know the difference.

[but sir?]

The state is "full steam ahead" with their consolidation plans, without looking at other options.
For one, districts DO serve some function - cross club/association scheduling, boundry disputes, provide representation to the state.  The state's proposal for local reps (at least in Vancouver area and presumably EW) causes the constituents to put faith in a non-elected official.  In Vancouver that makes at least one association nervous.  At least with the District you have a chance at a neutral party via elections.  For another, the state can still streamline communications  and governance by communicating to the Associations at the same time as the Distircts.  That all being said, the movement to cosnolidate some of the smaller clubs into larger ones does have some merit from an efficiency point of view.
I find Jan and Friends are pretty reasonable as far as conultants go.  Hey, they work for Doug, not the constituents like any other consultant.  While they tweak their views with input from the constituents, it is the president that owns their contract.
One general bitch about the new scheme of WYS - everything is a committee with over and undersight.  The PDL remerger is a great example.  I find their ability to implement change still too slow for even relatively simple things.  Just look at the HS girls schedule for this season - it is still mucked up. 

[tripleplay]

EWSoccer64
I am well aware of the list.  My point is, again, that if SYSA --or WYSA--wants to make sweeping changes in reorganization, they need a completely open and inclusive process. In the case of the SU process, it is debatable that was done. 

And, as Doodlebug pointed out, even if SU is the best thing to ever happen, the SU plan is a dramatic overhaul--for more clubs than just ECFC.  It remains to be seen if SU will get the buy in and cooperation required to make this dramatic shift go forward successfully.  Maybe it will work out in the end--soccer players and their families age out of the system and the new families coming in won't know the difference.

How does Seattle City FC fit into this? They have a lot of teams for a new club.

[EWSoccer64]

We have been over this before.
ECFC - despite their bleating to the contrary - was represented and the club was in the loop during the entire process.   If the Club Leadership did not encourage members to participate, if it did not take the process seriously, that is a damning failure on the part of the club leadership, not of the SYSA.   

As for the other clubs involved, it was their opinions and buy in that proved to be so important in the process, according to my information. 

EWSoccer64
I am well aware of the list.  My point is, again, that if SYSA --or WYSA--wants to make sweeping changes in reorganization, they need a completely open and inclusive process. In the case of the SU process, it is debatable that was done. 

And, as Doodlebug pointed out, even if SU is the best thing to ever happen, the SU plan is a dramatic overhaul--for more clubs than just ECFC.  It remains to be seen if SU will get the buy in and cooperation required to make this dramatic shift go forward successfully.  Maybe it will work out in the end--soccer players and their families age out of the system and the new families coming in won't know the difference.

[EWSoccer64]

We certainly find the District useful over on our side of the mountains.    And yes, like Vancouver, Eastern Washington is supposed to get a full time State Rep.    Not really sure what the benefit of having one actually located over here will be, since things are so spread out.   but sir raises some good points.

The state is "full steam ahead" with their consolidation plans, without looking at other options.
For one, districts DO serve some function - cross club/association scheduling, boundry disputes, provide representation to the state.  The state's proposal for local reps (at least in Vancouver area and presumably EW) causes the constituents to put faith in a non-elected official.  In Vancouver that makes at least one association nervous.  At least with the District you have a chance at a neutral party via elections.  For another, the state can still streamline communications  and governance by communicating to the Associations at the same time as the Distircts.  That all being said, the movement to cosnolidate some of the smaller clubs into larger ones does have some merit from an efficiency point of view.
I find Jan and Friends are pretty reasonable as far as conultants go.  Hey, they work for Doug, not the constituents like any other consultant.  While they tweak their views with input from the constituents, it is the president that owns their contract.
One general bitch about the new scheme of WYS - everything is a committee with over and undersight.  The PDL remerger is a great example.  I find their ability to implement change still too slow for even relatively simple things.  Just look at the HS girls schedule for this season - it is still mucked up.