Print

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

[Driver]

Does anyone know how many teams are going to get moved for the spring season - I went through most of the standings today and I could come up with some logical arguments - in some brackets it looks like 2 teams should go up and 1 or 2  drop but in others its not that clear - if a team has had lots of ties and few losses it seems to me that they are competivie in that league but all wins or all losses  that team probably needs to be moved - thoughts - comments -

[FutbolFanatic]

I have a related question.  When will the RCL regroup the U-11's just by divisions rather than tiers and divisions?  For the spring league, or when they become U-12's in the fall?

[benditlike13]

Don't really know how they'll decide which teams are promoted/relegated.  Last year the PDL regrouped the U-11's by divisions for the spring league.

[mhall]

I thought it was pretty much a done deal that the two bottoms and the two tops moved up or down!

[drarcher]

Can anyone fill in what the actual answer was for those of us new to the state and RCL. Thx

[kameharem]

there is no such thing as a done deal in youth soccer 

the last thing I read on this site some time ago said that the bottom team is moved down and the top team is moved up.  the second from the bottom of the upper division plays the second from the top of the lower division in a one game play off to decide which team stays or moves but like I said, nothing is a done deal and I'm sure they will have many discusions before it comes to actually moving teams. 

[mhall]

I have heard similar things.  The top team and bottom team typical move up or down and often the second teams move up/down.  But there is no guarantee for either sets of teams.  It can be decided in some circumstance that there is no movement.  It just depends.  Depends on what, I can't say whether there is true set criteria.

[drarcher]

That seems like a real loose way to do it. I will be very disappointed if my sons team doesn't move as this season was boring.

[ThiKuBC]

Promotion/Relegation in Ontario is being seriously challenged these days by the Technical Director (DoC equivalent) named Jason DeVos (who also works for CBC, and is former national team captain - so he's high profile).

What do you guys see as the positive or negatives of this system in Washington? Basically, he says "athletes are signed, but smaller technical players are ignored and so by age 14 or so the "best athletes" that were picked at ages 9-13 are basically washed-up, but also so are the technical players because they weren't being challenged." (paraphrase). We have a similar issue in BC. Not a promo/releg situation, but just the big fast kids getting picked over smaller technical ones so often - the issue being that "the big fast kids" are so athletic that they can appear to have soccer ability beyond what they actually do (ie, good coordination but lack work rate or "the need to learn because their athleticism gets them by").

Article: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opinion/2011/11/is-winning-really-developing-players.html

I don't think promo/releg has any place in youth sports - or at least not before u16 possibly. That doesn't mean I don't think strong teams should be moved up and weak ones down - but I don't think it should be "required". IE, some teams that dominate, say, tier 3, are simply ready or interested in moving up to tier 2 - and not because they just want to keep winning....they just might not have that mentality.....there are more reasons.

[drarcher]

Promotion/Relegation in Ontario is being seriously challenged these days by the Technical Director (DoC equivalent) named Jason DeVos (who also works for CBC, and is former national team captain - so he's high profile).

What do you guys see as the positive or negatives of this system in Washington? Basically, he says "athletes are signed, but smaller technical players are ignored and so by age 14 or so the "best athletes" that were picked at ages 9-13 are basically washed-up, but also so are the technical players because they weren't being challenged." (paraphrase). We have a similar issue in BC. Not a promo/releg situation, but just the big fast kids getting picked over smaller technical ones so often - the issue being that "the big fast kids" are so athletic that they can appear to have soccer ability beyond what they actually do (ie, good coordination but lack work rate or "the need to learn because their athleticism gets them by").

Article: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opinion/2011/11/is-winning-really-developing-players.html

I don't think promo/releg has any place in youth sports - or at least not before u16 possibly. That doesn't mean I don't think strong teams should be moved up and weak ones down - but I don't think it should be "required". IE, some teams that dominate, say, tier 3, are simply ready or interested in moving up to tier 2 - and not because they just want to keep winning....they just might not have that mentality.....there are more reasons.

What you're speaking of really has nothing to do with promotion/relegation. The NSCAA did had an article last year that extensively talked about this and some studies have suggested that the best way to "cure" this might be to go to 6 month age groups. The data suggests that the best players are in the top half of the age bracket because they matured quicker and as a result always saw more competition and better coaching.

I actually disagree that is the best "cure." I think the best cure is simple education and quality DOC's. DOC's who care about their long term program will know this and they will make sure that smaller 11 year olds are getting quality training because they might be the best 16 year old in the club eventually.

As for promotion/relegation, it is much needed in youth sports as it has a large impact on psychology of the players. If teams are getting blown out all the time they need to be relegated so that the kids do not lose interest in the sport. The opposite is true as well for kids who win all the time.

The problem with relegation/promotion is parents “need” to keep the kids informed of the process instead of just letting them play. I am not a “every kid gets a trophy” sort of person but at the same time does it matter if are kids know that they are division 3 or 2? Or is better for them to find success and challenge in whatever division they are in without the feeling of it is not good enough.

[ThiKuBC]

Y@DrArcher - I liked your response. But, you may wish to re-read my post. What I spoke about has everything to do with promo-releg. Because winning games receives a big incentive. The coaches at younger age groups select the most dominant athletes to aid in that, thus ignoring the smaller more technical players. In the name of getting wins and moving up the ladder. There are always exceptions of course.

Yes, the 6-month separation discussion has serious merit. I believe some clubs have started to adopt this approach around here...but I can't be sure. I am coaching an all-star team this weekend and of the 13 players on the team (8v8 team). 3 are born Oct or Nov. 2 are born in August. The other 8 are early-born....The players were chosen for me by 3 clubs coming together and the 3 different head coaches each choosing 3-5 players...so it wasn't a "tryout" process. So my question is - what about the little technical players....when do they get their chance to be seen? The all-stars are being scouted by the Whitecaps. I realize the Caps nor coaches of the teams have all the time in the world to accomodate everyone of course....

I personally would support separating into a Jan-June, July-Dec squad selection system and then adapting as necessary based on the variations in development.

Please also note I didn't say not to adjust what league the teams are in. In fact, I stated it is beneficial. My position is that just because a team is first or last shouldn't be the criteria for moving up or down. Maybe they are winning most games 1-0 or 2-1. Not exactly dominant...what if they are losing every game 3-4 or 1-3, or 0-1...not exactly getting smoked. Even if they are winning all those close games, who is to say they will be able to compete at a higher level? What then of the team that is losing close games - what if they go down a level and smoke everyone? It should be a team-by-team decision I think. It should be down to player and parent skill, mentality, committment, and desire. Maybe a team winning 3-0 most weeks is doing very well at tier 2 in regards to wins but really still won't stand a chance in the tier 1 and have no desire to actually committ to what is required to be competitive and "just want to play soccer." Can't be black-white I don't think....

Anyway, if you didn't read that article, I would encourage it.

And I also am not a "every kid needs a trophy" kind of guy.

[EWSoccer64]

I am actually more of a fan of a program where there are 2 year age groups, so that every year the older group get moved onto a higher age group.   13-14, 15-16, 17-18.  

Of course, such a system would make promotion/relegation much more iffy.  And it would not be advantageous in terms of national championships and regional play.   But what is the point of putting the cart before the horse?

[Fireguy21]

We were told that the 7th place team from the upper division will play a game against the 2nd place team in the division below for the promotion. I think this is great settle it on the field.

[EWSoccer64]

We were told that the 7th place team from the upper division will play a game against the 2nd place team in the division below for the promotion. I think this is great settle it on the field.

"We have met the enemey, and he is us"
Doesn't this sound more and more like the pre-PDL/RCL system that was so bad?   Or at least the people in charge of the PDL/RCL said it was so bad........

[gr8cgar]

Last I heard  is the Technical Director (DoC equivalent) of the teams involved get together and work out what the collective group think is best. There is no hard set rule that the top team moves up or bottom team moves down. They look at the whole age group involved. What happens in division 2 for example is impacted on what happens in division 1, 3 & 4.
Bottom line is that there is NO hard fast rule.

[tripleplay]

Because winning games receives a big incentive. The coaches at younger age groups select the most dominant athletes to aid in that, thus ignoring the smaller more technical players. In the name of getting wins and moving up the ladder.

This entire line of reasoning is based on two false and easily refutable premises. First, that at young ages, only size and speed matter. Second, that in the pros, only skill matters.

 Go watch 6 year olds play. The kid who can control the ball will score at will. Doesn't matter how big he is. Then watch the EPL. All of those players are fast compared to the general population. Point is that soccer is a  balance of acquired skills and physical attributes at every age.

[ponyup101]

I support a hard and fast rule.  Maybe it doesn't fit every situation but anytime you leave these decisions up to people who are being paid based on the status of their teams you are not going to get what is best for the players or teams.  Certain DOC's are going to argue their team should remain Div. 1 because it makes them look beter even though they would be better served in Div. 2.

Yes I am cynical.  There is also a reason for it.

2 up 2 down.  6th place in Div.1  plays 3rd place div. 2.  Winner is up and loser is down.  That's my solution.   

[drarcher]

Y@DrArcher - I liked your response. But, you may wish to re-read my post. What I spoke about has everything to do with promo-releg. Because winning games receives a big incentive. The coaches at younger age groups select the most dominant athletes to aid in that, thus ignoring the smaller more technical players. In the name of getting wins and moving up the ladder. There are always exceptions of course.

I do not follow you 100% because my experience has been the more technical player wins regardless of size. Sure speed might come into play but smaller/bigger only comes into play if all other things are equal (in my experience). The problem I see is the slower more technical guys get left behind for the faster less technical guys simply put because most coaches realize they can't teach speed (not much anyways). This goes back to many problems with USA soccer such as our fullbacks not being able to control the ball and pass out of the back, our teams playing a kick and run game with through ball after through ball and really fast kids running on to them. The real problem is $$$ and the need to justify them with wins at the younger age groups as oppose to develop quality players. I never allow my fullbacks to just kick the ball, make a pass (sure we might give up a goal but I don't care about wins and losses I care about my fullback getting comfortable with the ball in the defensive third)

For the record, I believe smaller players at the younger ages usually turn out better than the larger players because they learn how to play without taking advantage of size so that when they do grow they can play physical and/or finesse.

Sorry, I missed the article the first time and will go read it now, I wanted to respond first as the thought was in my head (no telling where it will be after I read the article)

[tripleplay]

I support a hard and fast rule.  Maybe it doesn't fit every situation but anytime you leave these decisions up to people who are being paid based on the status of their teams you are not going to get what is best for the players or teams.  Certain DOC's are going to argue their team should remain Div. 1 because it makes them look beter even though they would be better served in Div. 2.

Yes I am cynical.  There is also a reason for it.

2 up 2 down.  6th place in Div.1  plays 3rd place div. 2.  Winner is up and loser is down.  That's my solution.  

What you frequently see is teams promoted to div1 doing poorly. Not because there is something wrong with the process but simply  because there is a gap between teams at the top and teams around 8 and 10. If we really cared about closer competition as teams got older we would relegate without promoting (except in standout cases), but politically that is never going to fly.

As far as EW's 2-year idea, that is the traditional way in Brazil. Basically you are trading off a development focus with a social focus. In gymnastics, for example, atheletes are grouped entirely by skill level so that a 5 year old and 10 year old will be on the same team. It's the right thing to do developmentally, but it is not as fun.

[EWSoccer64]

Because winning games receives a big incentive. The coaches at younger age groups select the most dominant athletes to aid in that, thus ignoring the smaller more technical players. In the name of getting wins and moving up the ladder.

This entire line of reasoning is based on two false and easily refutable premises. First, that at young ages, only size and speed matter. Second, that in the pros, only skill matters.

 Go watch 6 year olds play. The kid who can control the ball will score at will. Doesn't matter how big he is. Then watch the EPL. All of those players are fast compared to the general population. Point is that soccer is a  balance of acquired skills and physical attributes at every age.

TP is wrong again.   No one ever said that only size and speed matter.  But only a fool denies that they have a major impact on the effectiveness of a player at any age.   Given the low level of technical and tactical skills at the younger ages, physical attributes have a rather greater impact than at older ages.
And TP needs to broaden his experience in soccer.   A six year old who can easily outrun everyone else on the field normally scores more goals than the ones with the best control. 
Professional soccer?  Size and skill and speed are all attributes.   Currently the pendulum is swinging to have a greater emphasis on skill rather than speed and size.   But TP's statement is misleading because the debate is not whether pros are "faster than the general public" but if  SUPERIOR (to opponents) size and speed are important considerations.   Only a fool denies that they are, when properly used.

[drarcher]

@ThiKuBC - haha I read the article and it said what I was trying to say, just much better. I agree 100% with the article and that is the problem I see. Bigger kids are at a disadvantage because they rely too heavily on their physical ability as opposed to developing their technical skills. I am not sure that is 100% a coaching issue as I have never met a coach who tells a kid not to practice or work on getting better. I would be inclined to say that it is a parenting issue as they need to emphasize in their kids that talent is not enough and that they need to work hard. The kids that I know who have the best technical skills are those who go home after practice and work on them. The issue you and the article point to at the younger age groups is more a reflection on motivation. A smaller kid who can't beat a player athletically but wants to play is easier to advise on going home after practice and working on getting better. It is more difficult to explain to a 10-12 year old that is winning 1v1's (even 1v2's) why it is important to go home and practice. He is already winning and could be spending that time on a number of other activities he enjoys.

Both my wife and I played Div 1 sports in college and we explain to our kids that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master something and no matter how good we were both of us eventually ran into athletes better than us. As a parent I think it is my job to prepare my kids for that even if they excel at something right now because the practice they put in now will prepare them for when they do eventually meet up with that competition. This is a life lesson for everything, not just sports, that is why I think it is on the parents.

[tripleplay]

TP is wrong again.   No one ever said that only size and speed matter.  But only a fool denies that they have a major impact on the effectiveness of a player at any age.   Given the low level of technical and tactical skills at the younger ages, physical attributes have a rather greater impact than at older ages.
And TP needs to broaden his experience in soccer.   A six year old who can easily outrun everyone else on the field normally scores more goals than the ones with the best control. 
Professional soccer?  Size and skill and speed are all attributes.   Currently the pendulum is swinging to have a greater emphasis on skill rather than speed and size.   But TP's statement is misleading because the debate is not whether pros are "faster than the general public" but if  SUPERIOR (to opponents) size and speed are important considerations.   Only a fool denies that they are, when properly used.

As usual, EW misses the point. The only reason to mistrust "winning" as a measure is if things that win at younger ages don't also win later. But there has been zero evidence in support of that theory. Skill wins at most every age with speed and size being secondary factors. No one wants to admit that someone else's kids play better than our DK of course, which is why we hear so much about physical disadvantages (and bad refs, bad fields etc). These delusions are generally harmless except when folks like ThikuBC start wanting to base policy on them.

[EWSoccer64]

As usual, TP's twisting is getting way off the point.   It seems that in his ignorance about things soccer, he cannot understand the difference between UNDERSTANDING what is going on is NOT and ENDORSEMENT of what is going on.
To solve a problem, the first step is to identify it.

The problem - and it has been happening globally - is the early selection of kids by using athleticism as the higher standard rather than skill or the ability to learn skills.   Witness the bruhaha in France recently.   Witness the various nations that are now studying the way that Spain and Barcelona develope players rather than looking at the older models.

ThikUBC and others have identified the issue.   That is not, TP, an endorsement of what is happening.  Just like discussing mass murder in Africa is not an endorsement of that.

Until people like TP can even identify the issue, they cannot really have any sort of opinion on it, they just flounder around ignorantly.

[tripleplay]

The problem - and it has been happening globally - is the early selection of kids by using athleticism as the higher standard rather than skill or the ability to learn skills. 

There is zero evidence that is happening in any significant way anywhere, let alone in Washington. Personally, the only time I have seen a much lower skill team winning is when the higher skill team is playing up (I.e they are intentionally putting themselves in a situation to make winning HARDER, not easier.)

Guess we could have a debate over why this baseless argument gets repeated over and over. My guess is that it works well on parents of the averaged-sized, averaged-skilled DK, who can evaluate size but not skill.

[EWSoccer64]

TP, if you were more experienced in soccer, you would know that this has been happening.   Trying to talk soccer with you is like trying to explain colors to a blind man.

The problem - and it has been happening globally - is the early selection of kids by using athleticism as the higher standard rather than skill or the ability to learn skills. 

There is zero evidence that is happening in any significant way anywhere, let alone in Washington. Personally, the only time I have seen a much lower skill team winning is when the higher skill team is playing up (I.e they are intentionally putting themselves in a situation to make winning HARDER, not easier.)

Guess we could have a debate over why this baseless argument gets repeated over and over. My guess is that it works well on parents of the averaged-sized, averaged-skilled DK, who can evaluate size but not skill.

[lastplanet]

If feel like I see this a lot at the select U11-13 level: physically smaller teams with sharp passing and good ball control who get beaten by a team with much poorer ball control skills but they have fast runners with a strong shot.  Granted the top teams seem have it all: size, speed and great skills (and if they have little guys, their skills are a notch above).  But I don't think that a focus on winning = less focus on skills.  Higher skills definitely seem correlated with winning.  So there's a big incentive to work on skills.  What I see more is something a little different; focus on winning means taking fewer risks in games.  In games this means more lopsided play time with the "starters" getting disproportionately more and taking less risks in positioning players (i.e. playing kids in their strong positions).   This difference between this and skill-work though is that skill-work pretty quickly leads to more winning while taking risks by putting players in less familiar positions or playing the non-starters leads immediately leads to more losing. There is no doubt in my mind that this lopsided playtime and limited positioning affects the development of young players (U14 and below).   I've seen lots examples of young defenders who struggle to play forward due to lack of game experience and conversely forwards who struggle to play defense for the same reason.  Ug, and goalkeepers at U11-U13.  It just stuns me that many coaches will play only 1 or 2 GKs at the young levels (U10-12).

[FutbolFanatic]

Getting back to promotion/relegation, my preference is that there be a set rule.  If a team moving up proves to be above their level, what's the big deal?  Assuming this is proven on the field, they move back down again.  Meanwhile, they get to compete with a different set of teams and learn what it takes to play at the higher level.  Hopefully they also learn some lessons about losing with dignity.  Not the end of the world, in my opinion.  But I'd rather see it determined on the field rather than by politics.

[anyudes]

Getting back to promotion/relegation, my preference is that there be a set rule.  If a team moving up proves to be above their level, what's the big deal?  Assuming this is proven on the field, they move back down again.  Meanwhile, they get to compete with a different set of teams and learn what it takes to play at the higher level.  Hopefully they also learn some lessons about losing with dignity.  Not the end of the world, in my opinion.  But I'd rather see it determined on the field rather than by politics.

So you support a "one off" match for promotion/relegation over someone @ WYS sitting at a desk & arbitrarily making a decision??

If we could get that as a hard & fast rule, I would be a supporter of hard & fast rules!

[ThiKuBC]

@TP....if you say so, chief.

@the rest...some good chatter. I like the idea of a bit of a playoff game - but I don't think that can be "hard and fast" either....Again, just because a team is bottom of the table doesn't mean they should be relegated. If they are losing by close scores, then, leave em where they are. Especially if they are losing but also scoring goals themselves. Likewise, if a team is first but squeaking by with 1 goal wins and draws, then leave them where they are....

[drarcher]

@TP....if you say so, chief.

@the rest...some good chatter. I like the idea of a bit of a playoff game - but I don't think that can be "hard and fast" either....Again, just because a team is bottom of the table doesn't mean they should be relegated. If they are losing by close scores, then, leave em where they are. Especially if they are losing but also scoring goals themselves. Likewise, if a team is first but squeaking by with 1 goal wins and draws, then leave them where they are....

The problem is they have already set a rule of how many teams will be at each level. Under your plan what do you do with a bottom team who lost many games but always by 1 goal while there is a top team in the division below who won all their games by 6 or 8 goals.

For example: Look at the RCL U13B this season. In Division 4 the top two teams each have one loss and have scored 38 and 49 goals while giving up 3 and 2 goals respectively.  The bottom team in Division 3 clearly should go down as they have no wins and have been outscored 51-12. The second from bottom team has only 3 wins but they have only been outscored be a margin of 21 to 18 (pretty close). So should this team stay in Division 3 while one of those other teams stay at division 4 and beats everyone for another season by 5 or 6 goals? Or should that team go down and prove it self at division 4 while the two teams in division 4 try their hand at Division 3?

IMO you should have a hard rule that the bottom 2 teams relegate and the top 2 teams promote.