GDA “The pot calling the kettle black”

Good to know, thank you. We have been going back and forth about having our daughter go DA, we have been trying to get as much info as we can.

Was the decision to ban the players from returning made by the club or did it come from the Soccer Federation?

The Eagles are leaving the DA to be "All In" clubs for the ECNL. I'm glad a lot of the big clubs are making the choice to play in the organization that provides the best experience for their players.
http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague...soccer-club-is-all-in-for-the-2019-20-season/

GDA’s first year is a complete FAILURE for all reasons stated before ($$$, out of state league games, sub’g rules, No HS/PDP/ODP/iD2/Fun/school missed/etc…) and have NO idea how DOC’s could field quality teams with true age groups next year 14/15/16/17’s. Many quality club migrated back to ECNL for the better and really can’t find a reason for any DOC/Club to stay in GDA. Impossible to grow your club and maintain top talent; well played USSF; well played.

It's obvious you have two different leagues with two different emphasis. ECNL wants the best teams-and by best I mean most competitive clubs, and a high college turnout. GDA is more focused on "developing for national team". Now what's going to be interesting is if the GDA shuts out a majority of players because they're not playing in their league and ONLY picks from GDA, or mostly from the GDA which is moving in that direction. I think with the right DOC, a person can grow their club. The GDA was supposed to be a tier level, where the best players, regardless of age, were put in the oldest age group and they'd form teams at the lower levels according to age. This never happened as all (or it seems all) clubs kept their kids age pure.

I do agree that not allowing them to play high school is ridiculous because a) it takes away from the high school experience b) they don't have competition during the time off, and c) just seems too controlling-they're trying to model after the boys and look what they've done...TOP teams are migrating to GDA because of two things: 1) sub rule at the younger levels and 2) high school. I think this is where Mustang, Davis, MVLA ECNL have the advantage, especially here in the bay area (and across the nation). You're going to see more and more DA kids leave after their U16-17 years (after they've committed) so that they can enjoy what's left of high school. All the GDA clubs locally (LAMO, EQ, Thorns) banned players who played high school from further participation for this year. IT's a bad precedent to set cause people talk

Never agreed with GDA rules/philopsophy. Still don't. It's clear ECNL is winning the battle as top clubs go all in. Major damage control at US Soccer.

Heard a rumor - fall of Jr year able to commit and/or have any communication w/ a college. Nothing earlier; maybe a rumor but would not surprise me; It’s badly needed.

Rumors like that fly all the time. Recruiting for colleges is a prisoner's dilemma: If everyone were to wait until the junior year to recruit, then it would be fine. But as soon as one college starts recruiting earlier, all colleges want to recruit earlier.

I'll believe in reform like this when I see it. Not gonna happen.

I agree with much of what you write. I do think it is important to note that while there is little or no GDA programming during the winter, that is the high school season for only about 4 or 5 or 6 states (I have not looked in a while). It makes sense there is little or no programming b/c of the weather in most of the country but that's why I have said since GDA first announced the "no HS" policy (before GDA had even started its first season): unless/until USSF gives scheduling to the clubs, there will be no HS. ECNL allows the clubs to schedule and that makes sense b/c some states play HS in the fall, some in the spring and the smallest number in the winter. It is hard to have a national league that permits HS w/all scheduling being done by the national organization.

As for USSF drawing from GDA for its teams . . . I do not think they have a policy to exclude the ECNL (or other non-GDA) players but the GDA players are just scouted more so they will get more opportunities to be seen over multiple games. That is cutting off their nose to spite their face but w/everyone having a budget and recruiting/scouting coming out of limited funds, it is not surprising that the result is an ever-increasing GDA representation on the roster.

Maybe they should get rid of equivalency scholarships and go to 100% headcount scholarships. If a girls coach coach only had 15 total scholarships they could give out, you can believe they wouldn't be recruiting frosh/sophs ... unless the kid was off the charts. It would also have ripple effects across the youth sports industry.

I"m not sure they can. Soccer is not considered a "revenue generating" sport. The reason the women have more head count sports than the men is because of football having such a large number of people on it's roster and Title IX. You have assistant coaches making 30-40 grand a year and having to take part time jobs at Clubs (ECNL, DA, NPL) just to make ends meat. That's a straight fact. Remember, a coach could give 15 full scholarships if they wanted, but a lot of them double dip with academic and merit scholarships as well as the athletic scholarships.

I'm not sure it would have ripple effects and maybe it would be worse...Frosh/Soph's that commit are usually "top tier" athletes so not sure if that would change.

I would think that the USSF knows that the "better" overall players/teams are in ECNL, whether they want to believe it or not. It's true that they have more resources to scout at GDA practices, showcases, games, but big events like Phoenix, PDA, Texas, Florida are all HUGE showcases for ECNL and I would assume, have national team representation. I do agree that the representation is to spite ECNL and make their pathway (join our club/organization) to the national team much easier. I think it's stupid and the best players should participate..not dictated only by organization.

I understand that this is something that is going to be voted on this month.

They have been talking about that as the next phase in the changes they made last year (limiting access to coaches/facilities).

No communication even on campus till Fall Jr year. Change landscaping of recruiting for the better & club enrollments...don’t have to drink kool-aid flavor of the month at an early age of

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/clu...cation-campus-visits-for-division-i-recruits/

It is really interesting how this article frames it. The NCAA's own release is not entirely clear but I read it as allowing communication just after sophomore year - that seems to liberalize communication - BUT ALSO as PROHIBITING all other communication until that June 15 date. That is, coaches cannot communicate by phone (if the player calls) by text/email (by reading an email/text from a player and then responding to the player's coach). The only exception might be if a player attends a camp run by that school. If not the latter, the NCAA's own headline ("DI Council adopts rules to curb early recruiting") would make no sense (especially since it comes after the just prior changes to the rules on unofficial visits)

I"m glad I wasn't the only person scratching their head. The goal is to curb early recruiting by letting coaches initiate early communication and unofficial visits? Regardless...College coach will always talk to Club Coach/DOC and express interest. Player A can always go and tour the school at any age. And since verbalizing isn't a formal commitment on either side, I'm sure that a kid can commit at any age. Whats the point??? Is it me, or do you see this MOSTLY happening in non-head counting sports??

I think this will have a big impact - I think that most people will honor the rules and I think the recent admissions scandal will cause a chill in coaches who might have otherwise considered playing fast and loose (not that one has much to do with the other but I think, at least in the near term, the possibility of greater scrutiny will give people pause to consider if it is worth it).

I'm guessing that when we see the actual language, we will see a "black out" approach from 7th or 8th grade until June 15 after 10th grade and the number of verbals will drop. I am not against this as I think it will cause more of the elite players to be in a more mature position than they are when considering offers as 8th or 9th graders. When I see younger-than-juniors committing right now, I always think, "how could they commit w/o seeing the team, coaches, facilities up close?" since, unless they have had the insider's tour at camp, they can't do on campus unofficials until 11th grade. (seeing the players in and around the facilities and seeing the coaches with them provide hugely valuable information in my view)

You make a good point about the uncertainties of committing so early. I wonder how much the difficulty of just getting in to some schools drives the early decision making?