BCSPL, stacking teams and it's eventual self destruction?

[Pheuty]

If the BCSPL's object is to provide, a new level of elite soccer for youth and improved player development, will the practice of 'stacking' teams, in the end, lead to the destruction of the league and it's objectives?

I have heard, both here on TTP and in discussion with those that would know, that some BCSPL have several BCSPL teams that will have 10+ Provincial players on them. I know that provincial players are not the be all and end all... but when players from areas which have been granted a BCSPL team choose not to play at 'home' and congregate at one location is this good for the league and is it good for player development.

We will see one 'powerhouse' team that will walk through the league and the weakening of all other teams in that league.

I'm not accusing clubs of recruiting, as we know that players have the choice to go where ever they want... but I'm interested in hearing the comments and opinions of the TTP membership on whether or not they think in the end this will defeat the purpose of the league.

Thanks
Pheuty

 

[Regs]

This issue of "stacking"... where is it happening?

Girls only?

Older age groups?

 

[Dude]

...and what if it is?

The concept is "best vs. best", in all categories for the age and gender groups. If one club is doing a better job recruiting and funding their HPL team(s), so be it. It's open competition. What will happen is that other clubs will need to find a way to fill the competition gaps.

 

[cassis]

If the BCSPL's object is to provide, a new level of elite soccer for youth and improved player development, will the practice of 'stacking' teams, in the end, lead to the destruction of the league and it's objectives?

In my opinion, 'stacking' is too strong a word - it implies an active (and in this environment, ethically questionable) pursuit of or by players to join a single team with the primary interest of crushing other teams. I don't think the intent of the players is all that nefarious. In at least two of the cases I have heard about, it is about wanting to play for a particular coach or to play with a group of friends (who happen to also be in PTPs).

...but when players from areas which have been granted a BCSPL team choose not to play at 'home' and congregate at one location is this good for the league and is it good for player development.

And the alternative is? Rule 23? I would argue that in the long run it is good for player development since in order to be competitive, the clubs in the league will be forced to enhance sub-elite league development programs which leads to partnerships and a sort-of unofficial farm or minor league system. And although there is no guarantee that players developed in clubs' minor leagues will choose to play for their parent club, they will certainly feel more compelled to. Will this lead to the demise of one or more club? Perhaps; but there will be those waiting in the wings.

We will see one 'powerhouse' team that will walk through the league and the weakening of all other teams in that league.

At first...but then as the league develops, it may begin to see the value of partnering with so-called tier 2 clubs and eventually raise the overall caliber of player. I'm not suggesting that we go to a draft but there will be excellent players who will not make their first choice of team who will then be available to other teams. The greater the development, the faster parity or something like it will be reached.

I'm not accusing clubs of recruiting, as we know that players have the choice to go where ever they want... but I'm interested in hearing the comments and opinions of the TTP membership on whether or not they think in the end this will defeat the purpose of the league.

Thanks
Pheuty

Well I think clubs ARE recruiting, but I don't think of it as an accusation. If Rule 23 is gone, its gone. Absent a recruiting rule, clubs are free to sign players. That such a situation is unsustainable long term without appropriate development is a fair statement but I have a sneaking suspicion that the league will continue the march toward becoming business-focused in the long-term (a la junior hockey) with its attendant rules and regs. We'll see. In the meantime, I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

 

[bettermirror]

I agree with some of the comments here. "Stacking" implies active recruiting of players. I suggest it is something far less sinister. Or maybe I just have a hard time believing some coaches are that childish as to actually recruit in the name of wins. (delete league tables and see how often "recruiting" happens). What I suspect is a lot of kids get some sort of exposure to a coach they like or their friends like and congregate there, and maybe their "home" club has been "same old same old" for quite some time. For $2500 they've sought training elsewhere as a result - or maybe it is a personality conflict with their coach from the "home" club. One coaches "star" is another coaches "expendable" and vice-versa with players' opinions of coaches. Happens everywhere at every club with every coach.

But I also say, if one club or one coach is attracting the top talent the other clubs have to look at themselves and ask "what are they providing that we aren't?" In some cases, the answers won't be nice ones.

And yes, I agree, the lower levels of a club will need some serious attention to develop those players to fill gaps, increase competition etc.

 

[Mr Base]

Bettermirror you know a good coach can turn any club or a team around. They can stack all they want. You as a coach must have a system of deffening to stop the strong clubs. If you watched yestrdays game Caps vs Dymamo you could see our coach was outsmarted in the last third. Dynamo played with three attackers and a fourth guy comming late on top of the cirkle. Caps coach deffended with three guys. He was allways one man short. Dynamo got in with two man attack on o a one defender. Coaching is a biggest reason why clubs win. Players are all the same. Mostley kids hold on to a ball far tolong.

 

[bettermirror]

Caps were not beaten by tactics Base. Caps were beaten by an extremely fit, and physical dominant Houston side while the Caps were left with just fielding a pretty much "B" side bar Demerit, Nolly, and Rochat and maybe Sanvezzo. The rest are not first choice.

Yes, a good coach can turn any team around given time. At youth level.

 

[Bronco]

The rest are not first choice.

Chumiento????

The Caps lost because they were shocking to a man. For the first time, they looked like an expansion team.

 

[Regs]

Starting Rochat in the middle of the park with Kalfan is most definitely a tactical error!

Kalfan should have never seen the park and Rochat is not suited for the middle.

Leaving Harris on for 90 is also highly questionable.

 

[Dude]

Chumiento????

The Caps lost because they were shocking to a man. For the first time, they looked like an expansion team.

Since we are totally on topic here...

Chumiento gave the ball away about 8 times only to have Huston on the counter and threatening. In fact, right before his jaw dropping brilliant assist, I was telling my television that our best player was our biggest liability on the park.

Rochat was bad in the middle...

Question: how does a rookie kid like Borvsky, who has no pro experience, warrant a start over Harmse?

Also, Nolly, fcuk me.

 

[Pheuty]

In my opinion, 'stacking' is too strong a word - it implies an active (and in this environment, ethically questionable) pursuit of or by players to join a single team with the primary interest of crushing other teams. I don't think the intent of the players is all that nefarious. In at least two of the cases I have heard about, it is about wanting to play for a particular coach or to play with a group of friends (who happen to also be in PTPs).


And the alternative is? Rule 23? I would argue that in the long run it is good for player development since in order to be competitive, the clubs in the league will be forced to enhance sub-elite league development programs which leads to partnerships and a sort-of unofficial farm or minor league system. And although there is no guarantee that players developed in clubs' minor leagues will choose to play for their parent club, they will certainly feel more compelled to. Will this lead to the demise of one or more club? Perhaps; but there will be those waiting in the wings.



At first...but then as the league develops, it may begin to see the value of partnering with so-called tier 2 clubs and eventually raise the overall caliber of player. I'm not suggesting that we go to a draft but there will be excellent players who will not make their first choice of team who will then be available to other teams. The greater the development, the faster parity or something like it will be reached.



Well I think clubs ARE recruiting, but I don't think of it as an accusation. If Rule 23 is gone, its gone. Absent a recruiting rule, clubs are free to sign players. That such a situation is unsustainable long term without appropriate development is a fair statement but I have a sneaking suspicion that the league will continue the march toward becoming business-focused in the long-term (a la junior hockey) with its attendant rules and regs. We'll see. In the meantime, I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

I would agree and didn't mean to imply that the stacking is intentional... I don't doubt that some clubs or coaches would recruit, but from my understanding this is happening more from a player's initiative. Who wouldn't want to play with their friends, especially if they are all provincial players. Not sure that they are drawn to a program because it is or will be better - but rather that it will be better because they are there.

Yes other clubs will be forced to be better... to offer better programming... but that will take time. Years... by then the league may have suffered a death blow.

Maybe the sky isn't falling on the league... I just worry that it might be falling on my son (and players at a vulnerable stage in their development) By the time the dust clears and what's-best-for-development league parameters are established he may have lost critical development time.

 

[RL RCD]

If the BCSPL's object is to provide, a new level of elite soccer for youth and improved player development, will the practice of 'stacking' teams, in the end, lead to the destruction of the league and it's objectives?

I have heard, both here on TTP and in discussion with those that would know, that some BCSPL have several BCSPL teams that will have 10+ Provincial players on them. I know that provincial players are not the be all and end all... but when players from areas which have been granted a BCSPL team choose not to play at 'home' and congregate at one location is this good for the league and is it good for player development.

We will see one 'powerhouse' team that will walk through the league and the weakening of all other teams in that league.

I'm not accusing clubs of recruiting, as we know that players have the choice to go where ever they want... but I'm interested in hearing the comments and opinions of the TTP membership on whether or not they think in the end this will defeat the purpose of the league.

Thanks
Pheuty

BCSPL or HPL (however we call it) is a waste of time and money and that will be proven quickly.

Now with Whitecaps forming their own youth academy teams (read more at: Whitecaps FC to join United States Soccer Development Academy | Vancouver Whitecaps FC ) I have to ask: What is the purpose of BCSPL (HPL)?

A simple calendar change and a deletion of ridiculous "out-of-district" rule would do the job plus it would be less costly.

 

[Pheuty]

I'm not sure it is a waste of time - I think changes need to be made to be ever moving forward. Seriously, have you seen our world rankings?

I agree, perhaps whole sale changes were not necessary. I don't buy the argument about it being too costly. Yes, it is expensive, but I don't mind paying as long as I'm getting value for my dollars.

BCSPL isn't going to cost us parents much more than what we were paying before... at least not much. Last year I paid apx. $900 for Selects play, plus $1200 for Super Y (that's not including Florida costs)... and many of us also pay for academies etc...
The costs are pretty much the same.

 

[Regs]

From what I have heard, too many are claiming failure after 2 months rather than assessing things 2 years down the road.

 

[bettermirror]

I forgot about Chiumento...forgive me!

 

[Captain Shamrock]

If the BCSPL's object is to provide, a new level of elite soccer for youth and improved player development, will the practice of 'stacking' teams, in the end, lead to the destruction of the league and it's objectives?

I have heard, both here on TTP and in discussion with those that would know, that some BCSPL have several BCSPL teams that will have 10+ Provincial players on them. I know that provincial players are not the be all and end all... but when players from areas which have been granted a BCSPL team choose not to play at 'home' and congregate at one location is this good for the league and is it good for player development.

We will see one 'powerhouse' team that will walk through the league and the weakening of all other teams in that league.

I'm not accusing clubs of recruiting, as we know that players have the choice to go where ever they want... but I'm interested in hearing the comments and opinions of the TTP membership on whether or not they think in the end this will defeat the purpose of the league.

Thanks
Pheuty

Some 'franchises' are even allowing money to dictate which players and/or coaches go there...........WTF? Of course this is just hearsay........

 

[Captain Shamrock]

...and what if it is?

The concept is "best vs. best", in all categories for the age and gender groups. If one club is doing a better job recruiting and funding their HPL team(s), so be it. It's open competition. What will happen is that other clubs will need to find a way to fill the competition gaps.

Bollocks.......certain clubs have certain people in their 'franchise' which 'encourages' players to go there for one reason and one reason only...............figure it out.

 

[silver fox]

One suggestion I heard recently was that they should have started with the U-13, U-14, and U15 age groups, then with every passing year let it build up to U-18. If you only have one or two years left, is the BCPL going to develop you more than Metro/Selects? Not in my opinion. With the time of season change, higher cost, etc., teams are being pulled apart when they just had one or two years left together. And the fact is, almost all the players are NOT getting scholarships but are good enough to at least play Metro/Selects. On the girls side, Langley/Abby is not having a U-18 team, Surrey United had a low turnout for their U-18 team, and both their U-17 teams probably only have to cut a few kids to get down to 18. Maybe there's some truth to this suggestion!??

Thoughts........

SF

 

[Sir M]

I love reading the posts on the youth threads: superior spelling, agendas, analysis, and the occasional scolding for politically incorrect posts. Bigger words as well.

 

[Scottyshell]

Sure is better reading than stuff posted by sid or WAB on their sites

Cheers!