Print

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

[EWSoccer64]

I was asked by a newer member of the Soccer Community in this state to post an explanation of what the soccer world was like before there was a PDL and it's successor, the RCL.

In the Old Days (About Five Years Ago), there was no PDL, no RCL, and USCS was just an outfit that made it easier to travel out of state (paperwork wise) to some tournaments.  There was a State wide Premier league where position was based upon the merit of the team, not upon the name of the club.  There were vibrant districts (seven of them) across the state that provided quality local play at various levels for select teams,  most often with multiple divisions within an age group.  There was even a league or two between Premier and Select that operated state wide to accomodate teams that wanted to play premier, were not able to qualify, and wanted the "strongest" possible play to prepare them to try to gain entry the following year.   (Some say that teams who participated in these leagues were just trying to justify their existance and their fees, and could not bear to be a run of the mill select team in the normal district leagues, but I feel that the WSYDL teams who were doing it for those reasons were a minority, although they did exist).
   How did one get into the Premier Leagues?   At U-14, there was a grand qualifying tournament.   Originally, it was unseeded, and everyone went to one location and played off.  The top 8 teams were placed into Premier Division 1, and the second 8 teams were placed into the Second Premier Division.   There was even a 3rd Premier division, where the next eight teams were placed.   The rest were returned to select (District).  At one point, if memory serves, there was more than 100 teams competing to qualify.  Some teams that could have qualiied at P-2 or P-3 chose not to try, because they did not want the state wide travel, the expenses of premier, and did not subscribe to the "premier code"  of trying to be the best possible soccer team, the most competitive they could possibly be, and to select players based upon that.   A reasonable decision, and neither party missed the other.
   The qualification tournament for Premier, called LPTs - League Placement Tournament - took place over one or two weekends, depending on the number of teams.  A team with one loss could still qualify in the highest division.
    After the U-14 year, The Premier leagues promoted the top two teams from the lower divisions and dropped down the bottom two from the higher division.  Sometimes, depending upon the most recent rules changes, the two teams going up and the two teams going down engaged in a 4 team tournament, with the top two teams going (or staying) up, and the bottom two going (or staying) down.
    The bottom two (and eventually 4) teams from Premier Division 3 (P-3) - were relegated out of Premier, and there was a tournament (called LPTs, too) where all the teams relegated out of Premier, and all the teams trying to gain access, played off against each other.  The top 2 (eventually 4) went into P-3.

  Originally, there was no U-13 premier.   But the clamor to "go down" eventually won out, and there was a U-13 Premier League.  However, the divisions were essentially un-seeded, (teams from the same club were placed in different divisions).  And all applicants were accepted.  On the boys side, there was normally 4 divisions, in theory equal.  The placement of the teams did seem to be random at U-13.


Some people did not like this situation -
Issues -
1)  U-13 Premier, being unseeded and untiered, did not benefit the best teams.
2)  Teams from the King County area had to travel to Bellingham, to Vancouver, and horrors, to Eastern Washington, if they were placed into divisions that had those teams.
3)  Teams from Eastern Washington  normally had only one, sometimes none - other Eastern Washington teams in their divisions.  That meant alot of travelling for them.
4)  Teams from the Big Clubs were in danger of not qualifying for Premier at all in the LPTs.   And yes, this did happen on rare occassion.  On several occasions, teams from the Big Clubs failed to qualify as P-1 teams, which lead to mockery.
5)  The expense of going to an LPT tournament for one, perhaps two weekends.  (This has been shown to be a ludicrous arguement from the Big Clubs given the normal expenses and time committments they require.).   Besides, it ignores the positive contributions that such a tournament can bring, and not just in team building.
6)  There were only 3 divisions, which limited the number of slots available for clubs to have "Premier" (high status) teams in.
7)  Some clubs engaged in a lot of chicanery at LPTs.   Kids who were going to play up to U-15 were placed on the rosters of the U-14 teams for LPTs, players who definitely not going to be playing with a team in the fall (regular season) were on the LPT rosters, etc. etc. etc.
  There were players who moved from one club to another after LPTs depending upon the placement of the various teams.
9)   For a while, the best venues for large scale tournaments were in Eastern Washington (Specifically the Tri-Cities with its 12 field complex, and the Spokane Valley at Plantes Ferry).  This meant that the U-14 and U-15 tournaments were normally held there, because they were the biggest, best soccer complexes available during the time frame of LPTs.   The older ages seemed to be normally up at Bellingham.   This irked many people, who feel most comfortable never leaving the Puget Sound Metro area (cue TP...)
10)  This program showed no respect towards clubs who had a history of teams ending up at the higher levels of Premier when older, it was simply merit based at the time of occurance.   (This arguement ignores the pattern of recruitment by bigger clubs.  See the abuse of the ODP program before it was turned over to the Sounders).
11)  A team at P-3, no matter how good it became, would have a two year climb to get to P-1 in the best case.  This could hurt recruitment of other players, it could hurt the retention of the top players (they might leave to a P-1 team), and it hurt the vanity of the DoCs of Big Clubs whose A teams were at P-3 or lower.
12) The LPT tournaments did not insure that the BEST EIGHT TEAMS were in P-1 at U-14.    This is valid, but also misleading.   It took two losses to be knocked out of P-1 at U-14.    Once a team lost a first game, they were placed in a loser's bracket.  Teams that did well at U-13 Premier were seeded.   So a second loss to a team would come against a team that had already lost a game.   And with 100 (or whatever) teams competing, the chances of a situation where you are the fourth best team, beaten by one of the top 3 in your first game, and then facing the loser of the other top 3 having played against each other in your second game, is absolutely minsicule.  Playing the lottery might give you better odds.  And even in such a situation, you would still have the chance to qualify as P-3 or P-2, potentially.
13)  With promotion and relegation, and new LPTs to enter P-3 every year, a team was only two years out of playing P-1 no matter where it finished.
14)  No matter how well a team proved itself in State Cup play, it had no impact on where it was it placed in the Premier Leagues for the next year, or if it was placed at all.  While I know of no situation where a non-premier team actually placed in the top 4 of the state championship cup, this is somewhat valid idea for improvement.   There was a team that won the Champions League in Europe in the last decade that did not qualify (via domestic league placement) to defend their title.   There is also the situation in England this year where a team won the FA Cup but was also relegated out of the Premiership.
15)  As I recall, there was a situation where the top club in the state failed to have it's boys A team qualify for any of the 3 Premier divisions in the last decade.  I may be wrong in the details, when I heard about it I did not investigate, just laughed.   And there are occassions when a team gets a favorable draw, and other coaches are smarter than its coach.   There was an instance where a 3Rivers girls team earned a P-1 placement via a favorable draw, and then lost every single game in  P-1.  It clearly did not belong, but a smart coach could have made sure that he did let his team get placed in over their head.


I am sure that there are many people who can chime in on the benefits and detriments of the old LPT system.  I have been trying to keep my personal opinions out of it, and present the facts as I remember them.    The advantages and detriments of the PDL/RCL is an entirely different subject.  If anyone wants to add or correct, please feel free.

[2 CENTS]

  I am sure that there are many people who can chime in on the benefits and detriments of the old LPT system.  I have been trying to keep my personal opinions out of it, and present the facts as I remember them.    The advantages and detriments of the PDL/RCL is an entirely different subject.  If anyone wants to add or correct, please feel free.
[/quote]

Nice write up. You could add that prices were considerably lower pre-PDL.

[EWSoccer64]

The entire issue of the "whys and wherefores" of the PDL and the RCL have been debated on several threads in the past.    The essential thrust of "higher quality because of the PDL/RCL clubs system of quality control" was pretty much disproven, by any rational standard.  The Higher costs were more fiercely debated than the issue of better quality from the PDL/RCL, as not even their most fervent supporters could make a decent case for that.    And of course, any club can adopt all the all the PDL/RCL internal standards, at their own will, at any time.   So the need to have restricted leagues was never proven at all.  Studies by members of WPS have shown that there has been no real "like vs like" advantage in the play fo the PDL/RCL.

The PDL/RCL has really been, and has been recognized to be by those who pay attention, a power and money grab by the same people who support, promote, invent and benefit from the new leagues that people are paying through the nose to support additional profiteering by the Big Club "Paid Professional Youth Soccer Careerists".

[kameharem]

    (Some say that teams who participated in these leagues were just trying to justify their existance and their fees, and could not bear to be a run of the mill select team in the normal district leagues, but I feel that the WSYDL teams who were doing it for those reasons were a minority, although they did exist).

       Some teams that could have qualiied ... did not subscribe to the "premier code"  of trying to be the best possible soccer team, the most competitive they could possibly be, and to select players based upon that.   
       
2)  Teams from the King County area had to travel to Bellingham, to Vancouver, and horrors, to Eastern Washington, if they were placed into divisions that had those teams.

4)    On several occasions, teams from the Big Clubs failed to qualify as P-1 teams, which lead to mockery.

5)  (This has been shown to be a ludicrous arguement from the Big Clubs given the normal expenses and time committments they require.)

7)  Some clubs engaged in a lot of chicanery at LPTs.   Kids who were going to play up to U-15 were placed on the rosters of the U-14 teams for LPTs, players who definitely not going to be playing with a team in the fall (regular season) were on the LPT rosters, etc. etc. etc.

9)   For a while, the best venues for large scale tournaments were in Eastern Washington ...This irked many people, who feel most comfortable never leaving the Puget Sound Metro area (cue TP...)

10)  (This arguement ignores the pattern of recruitment by bigger clubs.  See the abuse of the ODP program before it was turned over to the Sounders).

11)   This could hurt recruitment of other players, it could hurt the retention of the top players (they might leave to a P-1 team), and it hurt the vanity of the DoCs of Big Clubs whose A teams were at P-3 or lower.

15)    And there are occassions when a team gets a favorable draw, and other coaches are smarter than its coach.   There was an instance where a 3Rivers girls team earned a P-1 placement via a favorable draw, and then lost every single game in  P-1.  It clearly did not belong, but a smart coach could have made sure that he did let his team get placed in over their head.


  I have been trying to keep my personal opinions out of it, and present the facts as I remember them.   

I'm not trying dispute the facts, there are many that look accurate enough, but you have to admit that you have inserted opinions and spun this based on your personal hate for all big clubs in the Puget Sound area.

[SoccerFlicks]

I think smaller clubs had a better chance back then - there did not seem to be a place for the good ole boys to fully excell or take over the day to day business of games - a little club back then could have an explosive team make its way into P1 without dealing with the stupid crap that todays RCL "qualifiers" insist on. 

Between the two, only the LPTs actually allowed talent to shine and it did not matter where that talent came from.  That's the way youth soccer should be.

[tripleplay]

The rest of the story. For 6 or 7 age groups, from about U6 until around U11 or U12, there was no option but rec soccer.  You signed up for “soccer” and you got what you got – an individual’s own talent and ambition were no part of the equation. When you reached U11 or U12, you could try out for a premier or select club. If you did make one of those teams, where did you play? You had only one “choice”, your District league. No denying there were some definite positives: low cost, low travel, and if you were lucky enough to play in District 3, some strong competition. But there were lots of disadvantages. For example, if you were a top team in Bellevue you couldn’t play a top team 10 miles away in Seattle. Why not? Because they were in different districts with competing bureaucracies. More fundamentally, the teams playing in these leagues had no role in the governance of the leagues. In some cases, the people in charge of administering the leagues were hostile to the very idea of premier soccer and others were none too fond of select for that matter. Did top teams have a spring league to play in? Only if your district felt like providing it, usually not.

Most experts agree that key soccer development occurs between ages 5-15, i.e. U6-U15. Washington’s traditional system of ignoring 50-80% of this development window created an untenable situation. You had clubs offering (for significant $$) to train your kid to get better and aspiring to compete nationally. But these clubs were at the mercy of unaccountable district officials and unpredictable association politics, driven by an agenda totally unconcerned with high level play. Although the solution that was hit upon was not my personal favorite, none can deny that Washington has substantially increased the quantity and quality of soccer for 4 or 5 important age groups.

[EWSoccer64]

. When you reached U11 or U12, you could try out for a premier or select club. If you did make one of those teams, where did you play? You had only one “choice”, your District league. No denying there were some definite positives: low cost, low travel, and if you were lucky enough to play in District 3, some strong competition. But there were lots of disadvantages. For example, if you were a top team in Bellevue you couldn’t play a top team 10 miles away in Seattle. Why not? Because they were in different districts with competing bureaucracies. More fundamentally, the teams playing in these leagues had no role in the governance of the leagues. In some cases, the people in charge of administering the leagues were hostile to the very idea of premier soccer and others were none too fond of select for that matter. Did top teams have a spring league to play in? Only if your district felt like providing it, usually not.

Teams had no say in the PDL nor do they in the RCL.   Clubs due.  Who has say in Districts?  Associations.   Associations vary in who they allow to vote, but most commonly Coaches do, as representatives of their teams.  Who votes in Club elections?   Most commonly it is coaches, some few allow parents to vote.  Some allow referees.  Most allow members of their boards to vote.  All Clubs are represented on the Association Boards.    It seems that this is not a sufficient level of control by teams (coaches) for TP, he wants a committee of all the teams involved in a set of leagues to run things, a committee of the whole.   160 voices to argue about everything.  That is not structure, that is anarchy. 
District Leagues normally focus on select, the charge that members of the District Boards were "none too fond of select" is ludicrous.  And if there were any such members who were hostile to premier, they were a small minority.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>The rest of the story. For 6 or 7 age groups, from about U6 until around U11 or U12, there was no option but rec soccer.  You signed up for “soccer” and you got what you got – an individual’s own talent and ambition were no part of the equation. ...............

Most experts agree that key soccer development occurs between ages 5-15, i.e. U6-U15. Washington’s traditional system of ignoring 50-80% of this development window created an untenable situation. You had clubs offering (for significant $$) to train your kid to get better and aspiring to compete nationally. But these clubs were at the mercy of unaccountable district officials and unpredictable association politics, driven by an agenda totally unconcerned with high level play. Although the solution that was hit upon was not my personal favorite, none can deny that Washington has substantially increased the quantity and quality of soccer for 4 or 5 important age groups.<<<<<

And now you have "Premier" soccer at "premier" prices down to U-10.  In some USCS operations, it goes even younger.    The cost/benefit ratio is really only a matter of opinion at this point, as there have not been a suffient number of years and age groups to form any statistical data.    TP's dream of high priced, exclusionary premier teams for toddlers is totally against the USSF doctrine.  Which is formed by real experts, not the local DoC that TP worships.

[tripleplay]

Not in the mood for a protracted debate. Only pointing out that your understanding of what has taken place is significantly in error. The big change (going beyond your hate-the-winning-clubs prejudice) is that Washington, like most of the world and the more successful soccer states, now has more serious soccer options at U10-U14 when kids need them to improve. I see it as a step forward.

[ThiKuBC]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

The vigor with which this thread-starter writes suggests to me they just feel they as a coach, or their child was "shafted" by "politics" somehow.

[tripleplay]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

Actually that's one of many questions, and not the most important imo. People can want to improve at soccer for many reasons having nothing to do with becoming a pro. The basic question is if someone wants to learn and someone wants to teach, why is age an acceptable rationale for preventing it? However, in answer to your question CalSouth dominates American pro player production and is third per capita behind a few small states. They have very strong clubs and start the club system young.

[vms]

The internicine ways of the power elite forever changed the landscape of WA soccer 5 or so years ago with the Academy and PDL. There is no going back.
Make sure your kid gets the best soccer education they can at whichever level suits them best. Politics are politics...if you are not on the inside, good luck!

[EWSoccer64]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

The vigor with which this thread-starter writes suggests to me they just feel they as a coach, or their child was "shafted" by "politics" somehow.

Actually, neither.
One of my boys made ODP, but decided that the expense and commitment was too much.   Another went to college on a soccer scholarship.  Not only did I not want to coach ODP or the like, I prefer not coaching at the Premier/State/RCL level, although I have done so on occassion when requested to by whomever was the DoC.
I have certainly seen various abuses, but not to my kids.

ThickBC, sometimes there are people who stand up for what they believe is right simply because they believe it is right.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....
<<<<

Not enough data from the PDL/RCL years.   However, the study that was done and reported on this site showed that the PDL/RCL DECREASED the average number of regional champions produced by Washington state.   

[EWSoccer64]

You still have to point out a single error that I made in the precis I wrote to start this thread.

Not in the mood for a protracted debate. Only pointing out that your understanding of what has taken place is significantly in error. The big change (going beyond your hate-the-winning-clubs prejudice) is that Washington, like most of the world and the more successful soccer states, now has more serious soccer options at U10-U14 when kids need them to improve. I see it as a step forward.

[tripleplay]

You still have to point out a single error that I made in the precis I wrote to start this thread.

Error was not understanding what the real change was (increased quantity and quality of soccer for many age groups).

Some of your facts were (surprisingly) accurate, but still irrelevant.

[EWSoccer64]

Nice of you to admit, after being called upon it, that you can find no error in my writing.  You believe that I am in error for not drinking your kool aid.

Pray tell how there was increased quality and quantity of soccer because of the PDL?   After we dispell that myth, we can move on to your others.

You still have to point out a single error that I made in the precis I wrote to start this thread.

Error was not understanding what the real change was (increased quantity and quality of soccer for many age groups).

Some of your facts were (surprisingly) accurate, but still irrelevant.

[vms]

>>>>The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....
<<<<

Not enough data from the PDL/RCL years.   However, the study that was done and reported on this site showed that the PDL/RCL DECREASED the average number of regional champions produced by Washington state.   

An
Your last statement begs the question as to the quality of play and players...some years talent is simply better . That probably is NOT a function of PDL. I will go out on a limb and say the old BU91 group may have been one of the strongest years in WA.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....
<<<<

Not enough data from the PDL/RCL years.   However, the study that was done and reported on this site showed that the PDL/RCL DECREASED the average number of regional champions produced by Washington state.   

An
Your last statement begs the question as to the quality of play and players...some years talent is simply better . That probably is NOT a function of PDL. I will go out on a limb and say the old BU91 group may have been one of the strongest years in WA.

The sample size was sufficient to not be overly swayed by one age group.   And the BU91s only won a single region 4 title, if I recall correctly.

[Firedog]

The last statement may be true enough EW but, the rest is revisionist history.  You ignored the sample size and the lack of statistical merit when it was presented and discussed previously.  If nothing else, you're consistent.

[EWSoccer64]

The last statement may be true enough EW but, the rest is revisionist history.  You ignored the sample size and the lack of statistical merit when it was presented and discussed previously.  If nothing else, you're consistent.

Actually, as I stated at the time, I openly admitted that the data for the PDL was just based upon its total history to date.   That it was the best available data, that is all.
Obviously, the more time that the PDL/RCL exists, the more data will be accumulated.

As I recall - I may be wrong - the data presented for pre-PDL was for a decade.  Certainly that is long enough for you.

[Firedog]

The more, the better.  How many age groups compete at Regionals?  How many PDL age groups have competed for each year of PDL existence?  We don't have a decade of data.  Besides, this (Regional Championships) as a promised measure of improvement to be derived from the aggregation of talent was the failure you seemed intent to fixate on.  For me, arguing against a system that seeks to have the best players come together to further their development goes against reason. I don't care so much how many or few regional championships are won. I want to know that the best players are training and playing with each other to be stretched and realize their potential.

[tripleplay]

The more, the better.  How many age groups compete at Regionals?  How many PDL age groups have competed for each year of PDL existence?  We don't have a decade of data.  Besides, this (Regional Championships) as a promised measure of improvement to be derived from the aggregation of talent was the failure you seemed intent to fixate on.  For me, arguing against a system that seeks to have the best players come together to further their development goes against reason. I don't care so much how many or few regional championships are won. I want to know that the best players are training and playing with each other to be stretched and realize their potential.

One major flaw in the prior "analysis" is that it doesn't take note of the format change in the tournament. Once FWRL teams were included, the tournament got much stronger. Given that WA has a recent regional winner (B95) and a different FWRL winner (B94), these coming after the prior analysis I believe, the claim that the league changes have hurt WA competitiveness is dubious to say the least.

The only real way to compare would be to look at head-to-head results as a function of year. My guess is you won't see the likes of an EW64 carry out that analysis for obvious reasons.

[EWSoccer64]

Actually, the use of success in Regionals was a measure that was used by the DoCs to try to justify the creation of the PDL.  It is eminently practical and fair to use the criteria used by the proponents of the PDL.   If that criteria and data turns out to be embarressing to them, they should have not used it.
And obviously, the more information the better.   It is hard to use more information than all there is available.......
And I agree the best players should come together - And know we have the Sounders Academy to do that, and the regional centers to help identify that talent. 

The more, the better.  How many age groups compete at Regionals?  How many PDL age groups have competed for each year of PDL existence?  We don't have a decade of data.  Besides, this (Regional Championships) as a promised measure of improvement to be derived from the aggregation of talent was the failure you seemed intent to fixate on.  For me, arguing against a system that seeks to have the best players come together to further their development goes against reason. I don't care so much how many or few regional championships are won. I want to know that the best players are training and playing with each other to be stretched and realize their potential.

[Bathos]

If it isn't an indelicate question, who exactly are the "big clubs" mentioned?

[ThiKuBC]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

The vigor with which this thread-starter writes suggests to me they just feel they as a coach, or their child was "shafted" by "politics" somehow.

Actually, neither.
One of my boys made ODP, but decided that the expense and commitment was too much.   Another went to college on a soccer scholarship.  Not only did I not want to coach ODP or the like, I prefer not coaching at the Premier/State/RCL level, although I have done so on occassion when requested to by whomever was the DoC.
I have certainly seen various abuses, but not to my kids.

ThickBC, sometimes there are people who stand up for what they believe is right simply because they believe it is right.

No need to get so defensive. Name calling? You've always been above that. I had perceived anyway. Give yer head a shake!

I had neglected to add "how many university kids" - but even more than that I suppose there needs to be a comparison of percentages as enrollment may have increased or decreased in boys and girls or one or the other.

What would be beneficial is to make such a post pointing out now what you believe the solutions to your concerns would be, ??

[EWSoccer64]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

The vigor with which this thread-starter writes suggests to me they just feel they as a coach, or their child was "shafted" by "politics" somehow.

Actually, neither.
One of my boys made ODP, but decided that the expense and commitment was too much.   Another went to college on a soccer scholarship.  Not only did I not want to coach ODP or the like, I prefer not coaching at the Premier/State/RCL level, although I have done so on occassion when requested to by whomever was the DoC.
I have certainly seen various abuses, but not to my kids.

ThickBC, sometimes there are people who stand up for what they believe is right simply because they believe it is right.

No need to get so defensive. Name calling? You've always been above that. I had perceived anyway. Give yer head a shake!

I had neglected to add "how many university kids" - but even more than that I suppose there needs to be a comparison of percentages as enrollment may have increased or decreased in boys and girls or one or the other.

What would be beneficial is to make such a post pointing out now what you believe the solutions to your concerns would be, ??

You question my motivation and brings my kids into the situation, and then try to chide me for mr for name calling?   Rather thick of you, one might say.

And playing college is not a useful metric.  Besides the expanding (womens soccer) and contracting (mens soccer) college scenes, the quality of college programs varies so widely  (as do their recurits) that it is rather useless.  Playing college ball is more a metric of desire than ability.   If it were narrowed down, say to only D-1 schools, it would be better but still not very accurate.

[soccerpride]

So where does one go to review how this is measured? I actually get all points of view, and find this to be an extremely interesting topic...having said that I also would like to believe (in the perfect world) someone, somewhere in our state is measuring all of these variables, to determine how we are doing overall. And if this is not being done, then maybe this is something we as supporters of the sport can help introduce? I think it would help on a going forward basis, and alleviate to some extent the arguments we sometimes have over what/who is better?!?! But then again, I am just a supporter, who enjoys the sport and really do not have an educated idea of where to even begin!!! Or if this is something already in place?! LOl! 

[EWSoccer64]

As far as is known, neither the PDL/RCL nor the WSYSA ever kept track of the measurable statistics and collated them.   A couple of posters here did so, and posted them on a couple of threads.   Perhaps Brat can provide details.
But really, the first regional won by a PDL/RCL team was this year, wasn't it?  And in an age group that did not used to have reginals?
And pre-PDL it was about 1 regional title per year, so the difference is pretty obvious, even to the diehard PDL defenders.
That is why this metric, one chosen by the PDL supporters themselves, is now anathema to PDL defenders.

Other metrics, such as numbers of players placed in the regional ODP pools, number of players going onto to play for D-1 schools, is actually more nebulous because of external factors.  One of the most interesting arguements is that if we did not have PDL, we would be falling further behind California, etc. 

So where does one go to review how this is measured? I actually get all points of view, and find this to be an extremely interesting topic...having said that I also would like to believe (in the perfect world) someone, somewhere in our state is measuring all of these variables, to determine how we are doing overall. And if this is not being done, then maybe this is something we as supporters of the sport can help introduce? I think it would help on a going forward basis, and alleviate to some extent the arguments we sometimes have over what/who is better?!?! But then again, I am just a supporter, who enjoys the sport and really do not have an educated idea of where to even begin!!! Or if this is something already in place?! LOl! 

[ThiKuBC]

The question is how many national team/professional players were developed pre-PDL/RCL compared to now that RCL is running. Not a perfect comparison but gives you an idea....

The vigor with which this thread-starter writes suggests to me they just feel they as a coach, or their child was "shafted" by "politics" somehow.

Actually, neither.
One of my boys made ODP, but decided that the expense and commitment was too much.   Another went to college on a soccer scholarship.  Not only did I not want to coach ODP or the like, I prefer not coaching at the Premier/State/RCL level, although I have done so on occassion when requested to by whomever was the DoC.
I have certainly seen various abuses, but not to my kids.

ThickBC, sometimes there are people who stand up for what they believe is right simply because they believe it is right.

No need to get so defensive. Name calling? You've always been above that. I had perceived anyway. Give yer head a shake!

I had neglected to add "how many university kids" - but even more than that I suppose there needs to be a comparison of percentages as enrollment may have increased or decreased in boys and girls or one or the other.

What would be beneficial is to make such a post pointing out now what you believe the solutions to your concerns would be, ??

You question my motivation and brings my kids into the situation, and then try to chide me for mr for name calling?   Rather thick of you, one might say.

And playing college is not a useful metric.  Besides the expanding (womens soccer) and contracting (mens soccer) college scenes, the quality of college programs varies so widely  (as do their recurits) that it is rather useless.  Playing college ball is more a metric of desire than ability.   If it were narrowed down, say to only D-1 schools, it would be better but still not very accurate.

I didn't call your kid into anything. I mentioned the author's belief the kid might be shafted. I didn't say anything about the kid nor the kid's perceptions. But, you are awfully sensitive about this particular discussion. Odd as you seem to be very level otherwise. Why so passionate?

You are correct re: the notes you made about university play.