Emerald City FC: storied club now on the outside looking in

[sounderfan]

I have been wanting to post a story / recap / position on Seattle United - Emerald City issues for quite some time. The subject is so full of details, twists, turns and politics that I couldn't really get my head around it.

Today we talked with "Coach X," who was willing to give it a try, and sort out some of what has gone on in the last few years.

Coach X talks to us here:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2010m3d9-Emerald-City-FC-storied-club-now-on-the-outside-looking-in

Morally and ethically SYSA, which represents the interests of the entire soccer community within its boundaries, made the decision that the SU model would be better for all its kids.   ECFC leadership made the decision that their continued existence would be better for all the current ECFC kids.  Both may well be correct, It boils down to the case of the greatest good for the greatest number.  And SYSA won.

[Left Foot]

Thanks!

It would be good to hear the story behind wht ECFC and the the local select clubs couldn't "play nice."

" At the lowest level, part of this difference in philosophy is "We are bigger, better, have coaches with X,Y, Z licenses who are paid, can do more for the players and have our own soccer complexes,  So all the little teams and clubs should send their best players to us,"  versus "All you want to do is keep raping our teams and stealing our top players so that our teams and clubs can never reach the higher levels.  Then you look down on us."

I mean --- WTF -- this is the level of childlike debate that goes on? Very strange. If this sums it up, shame on the folks involved at both the select and premier levels in Seattle. And one could argue that it may not get better if the same folks -- even on the select side are involved.

Hope the argument is wrong...

[tripleplay]

Thanks!

It would be good to hear the story behind wht ECFC and the the local select clubs couldn't "play nice."

" At the lowest level, part of this difference in philosophy is "We are bigger, better, have coaches with X,Y, Z licenses who are paid, can do more for the players and have our own soccer complexes,  So all the little teams and clubs should send their best players to us,"  versus "All you want to do is keep raping our teams and stealing our top players so that our teams and clubs can never reach the higher levels.  Then you look down on us."

I mean --- WTF -- this is the level of childlike debate that goes on? Very strange. If this sums it up, shame on the folks involved at both the select and premier levels in Seattle. And one could argue that it may not get better if the same folks -- even on the select side are involved.

Hope the argument is wrong...

Actually it is the norm for there to be friction between select and premier clubs.

What sets Seattle apart is that SYSA consists of many, mostly small, rather ineffective rec clubs, which have been even less effective when they have strayed into select. ECFC (and Shoreline) was really the locus of Seattle’s soccer passion and I think instinctively did want to distance themselves from the rest of SYSA.

Problem was this. If you live in a $5 million house in Laurelhurst, you have status in the real world. If your kid plays soccer for “LVR”, you have zero status in the soccer world. Not acceptable. SU was created to solve that problem. Wipe out ECFC, put everyone in the same uniform, and just like that everyone gets to play for the “good” club.

[Feldercarb]

Thanks!

It would be good to hear the story behind wht ECFC and the the local select clubs couldn't "play nice."

" At the lowest level, part of this difference in philosophy is "We are bigger, better, have coaches with X,Y, Z licenses who are paid, can do more for the players and have our own soccer complexes,  So all the little teams and clubs should send their best players to us,"  versus "All you want to do is keep raping our teams and stealing our top players so that our teams and clubs can never reach the higher levels.  Then you look down on us."

I mean --- WTF -- this is the level of childlike debate that goes on? Very strange. If this sums it up, shame on the folks involved at both the select and premier levels in Seattle. And one could argue that it may not get better if the same folks -- even on the select side are involved.

Hope the argument is wrong...

Actually it is the norm for there to be friction between select and premier clubs.

What sets Seattle apart is that SYSA consists of many, mostly small, rather ineffective rec clubs, which have been even less effective when they have strayed into select. ECFC (and Shoreline) was really the locus of Seattle’s soccer passion and I think instinctively did want to distance themselves from the rest of SYSA.

Problem was this. If you live in a $5 million house in Laurelhurst, you have status in the real world. If your kid plays soccer for “LVR”, you have zero status in the soccer world. Not acceptable. SU was created to solve that problem. Wipe out ECFC, put everyone in the same uniform, and just like that everyone gets to play for the “good” club.

WOW!!! 
Really sad, especially the highlighted part.  Elitism personified.  Then in the next paragraph TP tries to blame elitism for ECFC's issues.

Good on Shoreline for realizing whats best.

[Crash]

Don't know about the status thing, but I think one of the main reasons SU actually came about was to introduce consistency of teams offered at the select tier of play and to hopefully allow ascendancy/descendancy for players between select and premier levels.  Formerly, if a player/family wanted to play above rec and below premier and wanted to stay relatively local (practicewise), they had to get lucky that someone had created a team in their age in their club or a neighboring club.  Select level teams were not always available at all ages and in all areas of the city.  Not only that, but a few of the rec clubs were only set up to allow select teams to be created at the U-13+ ages by taking a high achieving rec team select.  If a local team wasn't available (hadn't happened), one either had to travel cross-town to find a select team or join a citywide ECFC team (assuming one could make it).  The exceptions to this would be Shoreline and Westside which were already more organized and had teams offered for pretty much every year.  When SYSA turned ECFC loose to create xtra teams (beyond A and B) they created additional citywide teams, but this didn't fill the gap.

With the regional teams proposed by SU, the idea is to make relatively local teams available for every age (U-11 to U-14).  Local (regional) teams might appeal to more multisport/multiactivity kids/families without the time to do the crosstown two-three times a week. 

Not to be overlooked is also the fact that many of the rec folks wanted select soccer off their plate... 

Now, whether SU is able to pull off the kumbaya between select and premier will be the real test.

[tripleplay]

Don't know about the status thing, but I think one of the main reasons SU actually came about was to introduce consistency of teams offered at the select tier of play and to hopefully allow ascendancy/descendancy for players between select and premier levels.  Formerly, if a player/family wanted to play above rec and below premier and wanted to stay relatively local (practicewise), they had to get lucky that someone had created a team in their age in their club or a neighboring club.  Select level teams were not always available at all ages and in all areas of the city.  Not only that, but a few of the rec clubs were only set up to allow select teams to be created at the U-13+ ages by taking a high achieving rec team select.  If a local team wasn't available (hadn't happened), one either had to travel cross-town to find a select team or join a citywide ECFC team (assuming one could make it).  The exceptions to this would be Shoreline and Westside which were already more organized and had teams offered for pretty much every year.  When SYSA turned ECFC loose to create xtra teams (beyond A and B) they created additional citywide teams, but this didn't fill the gap.

With the regional teams proposed by SU, the idea is to make relatively local teams available for every age (U-11 to U-14).  Local (regional) teams might appeal to more multisport/multiactivity kids/families without the time to do the crosstown two-three times a week. 

Not to be overlooked is also the fact that many of the rec folks wanted select soccer off their plate... 

Now, whether SU is able to pull off the kumbaya between select and premier will be the real test.

You're certainly correct about the select offerings being inconsistent. But those could have been improved without involving ECFC. Reason that wasn't done is that would have still left the program 2nd tier, and therefore unacceptable for the status-conscious parents of the not-super-athletic. Give ECFC more teams, then the select teams get even weaker, making the adult administrators unhappy. Take teams away from ECFC and kids will run off to other clubs' lower teams rather than play for a select club with no reputation. Wiping out ECFC was the only way to feed the egos.

BTW, I'd be very surprised if SU sticks to their regional plan. I suspect that in the end they will implement something close to the Crossfire formula (more "premier", fewer "select"). That's what the parents want.

[sounderfan]

If you are  / were an ECFC family and you'd like to share your thoughts with Seattle Soccer Examiner, publicly or anonymously, email me at: goalseattle@gmail.com

[goldengoal]

What a bunch of hogwash( not the report, but why SU did what they did). In the end, it will end up just the same, just different people in charge. You wait! These are just egos and maybe even some parents with a grduge. Once their kids are out of soccer, new people will come in and things will begin changing. I see it all the time. Same stuff, different day.

[Left Foot]

Silly question I know but.... why didn't they just expand ECFC and roll in a select option like Xfire did? Because folks at the smaller clubs wouldn't send their kids there? Why?

[Firedog]

What a bunch of hogwash( not the report, but why SU did what they did). In the end, it will end up just the same, just different people in charge. You wait! These are just egos and maybe even some parents with a grduge. Once their kids are out of soccer, new people will come in and things will begin changing. I see it all the time. Same stuff, different day.

I tend to agree (and I don't have a kid involved here).  If ECFC was despised by the "Select" clubs for taking the best players from select teams, isn't SU, through "seamless" player promotion going to do the same thing?  Maybe they will be nicer about it?  I also got the sense that some ECFC coaches had some animosity toward some "select" club coaches for keeping players that would have made ECFC teams more competitive.  A "clean slate" might make things better for awhile but, it seems like over time, the same tensions will be back.  While the desire to win is prevalent, some take player decisions impacting their potential success very personally.  This is not unique to Seattle Youth Soccer.

[majorace]

I would love to see the magic formula determining the success of rec programs.

The point of rec (right or wrong in the world of soccer) is to provide a place where any player of any skill can play on a team in the fall and not have to worry about their interest or skill level being used in how they are placed on a team. It is more about community and introducing kids to the sport rather than hard core development. The majority of the organizations and teams are run by parents and volunteers who do a great job of running rec programs for SYSA in the fall.  If you went to any of the rec club meetings, I doubt you would hear them talk that much about select or premier.  That said, they aren’t completely in the dark on the subject, but their main business is running a fall season.

These clubs are the ones that voted 12-2 in favor of the SU plan, and I think that was an educated vote based on the plan presented, knowledge of the past from those that did house independent teams and seeing the desire in their own membership for a bridge to more development and competition. I sat through this process with one club and I watched as the board scrutinized multiple versions of the SU plan, provided feedback and then met with ECFC when they requested time to state their case.  SUs paper plan in the end was stronger than anything the ECFC leadership had to say. I suppose I should note that this pitch by ECFC was done a few weeks before the vote and that the club had heard nothing from them prior.  Quite frankly, they did not do a good job in making their case to this particular club. It was bumbling and incoherent while maintaining a sense of arrogance.  I will summarize….”30 years, we are soccer people they are not, not enough time”, repeat 30 times interlaced with irrelevant stories. We specifically asked the ECFC reps to point out the problems with the SU plan written by non-soccer people and they had nothing besides “not enough time so do don’t do it now”.  If ECFC members were counting on these reps to make the case, they were short changed and that sounds like it has been the case time and time again.

If SU develops more than 2 competitive teams at any age/gender, I doubt folks will complain.  I actually expect that they should be able to do so in time. The plan has the price of teams tied to the paid resources used to run the team, not to the crest on the jersey like others have done in the past. In theory, they can usher kids appropriately so they are playing and paying at a level that works for them while still forming high quality teams. That is no gimme and should be used as a metric of their success.  Building the relationships club wide and getting all the coaches of varying levels paid and unpaid to pull in the same direction will also be something to watch.

I just don't buy the "rich people" trying to get their kids into the right jersey bit. That is anecdotal at best since there is no doubt some parents doing goofy stuff at all levels. There are crazy parents from rec to premier. Again, most members of rec clubs do not worry much about anything beyond the fall season. Hopefully, as this moves forward, that will still exist, for those that are fine in that model,  while more efficient relationships are built to usher players and parents into select when and if they desire to make the move.

Bottom line for this thread and article and a point that has been echoed is that select/premier was not done well in Seattle for years. It wasn't all ECFC's fault. It wasn't all SYSA's fault. It was both and if I had to lay more blame on one than the other, I would choose SYSA. That is the organization that let it stagnate for so long. However, that same organization has now stepped up in a big way with the SU plan to address this and that deserves and has the support of its member clubs.

For those outside the loop that want more answers to "why?" just have a look at the SU plan from 7/2009. Put yourself in ECFCs shoes and ask, "Why can't we fit?". I thought the opportunity was there for the club and their players to fit right in at the top. You can now see how Westside and Shoreline have fallen into place.

http://www.seattleunited.com/doclib/OperatingPlan07-02-09.pdf

[tripleplay]

Silly question I know but.... why didn't they just expand ECFC and roll in a select option like Xfire did? Because folks at the smaller clubs wouldn't send their kids there? Why?

Because that would have given more power to ECFC and less to those in local clubs that did want to have select. Westside United was basically the trial run for SU, and they did make progress at establishing a program. But it never had, and never would have had, the allure of ECFC. It's just not a good era to be trying to build a select program, especially with the advent of the PDL which spells out in black and white who the winning clubs are. That said, Shoreline did have a reputation as a good program.

[goldengoal]

I would love to see the magic formula determining the success of rec programs.

The point of rec (right or wrong in the world of soccer) is to provide a place where any player of any skill can play on a team in the fall and not have to worry about their interest or skill level being used in how they are placed on a team. It is more about community and introducing kids to the sport rather than hard core development. The majority of the organizations and teams are run by parents and volunteers who do a great job of running rec programs for SYSA in the fall.  If you went to any of the rec club meetings, I doubt you would hear them talk that much about select or premier.  That said, they aren’t completely in the dark on the subject, but their main business is running a fall season.

These clubs are the ones that voted 12-2 in favor of the SU plan, and I think that was an educated vote based on the plan presented, knowledge of the past from those that did house independent teams and seeing the desire in their own membership for a bridge to more development and competition. I sat through this process with one club and I watched as the board scrutinized multiple versions of the SU plan, provided feedback and then met with ECFC when they requested time to state their case.  SUs paper plan in the end was stronger than anything the ECFC leadership had to say. I suppose I should note that this pitch by ECFC was done a few weeks before the vote and that the club had heard nothing from them prior.  Quite frankly, they did not do a good job in making their case to this particular club. It was bumbling and incoherent while maintaining a sense of arrogance.  I will summarize….”30 years, we are soccer people they are not, not enough time”, repeat 30 times interlaced with irrelevant stories. We specifically asked the ECFC reps to point out the problems with the SU plan written by non-soccer people and they had nothing besides “not enough time so do don’t do it now”.  If ECFC members were counting on these reps to make the case, they were short changed and that sounds like it has been the case time and time again.

If SU develops more than 2 competitive teams at any age/gender, I doubt folks will complain.  I actually expect that they should be able to do so in time. The plan has the price of teams tied to the paid resources used to run the team, not to the crest on the jersey like others have done in the past. In theory, they can usher kids appropriately so they are playing and paying at a level that works for them while still forming high quality teams. That is no gimme and should be used as a metric of their success.  Building the relationships club wide and getting all the coaches of varying levels paid and unpaid to pull in the same direction will also be something to watch.

I just don't buy the "rich people" trying to get their kids into the right jersey bit. That is anecdotal at best since there is no doubt some parents doing goofy stuff at all levels. There are crazy parents from rec to premier. Again, most members of rec clubs do not worry much about anything beyond the fall season. Hopefully, as this moves forward, that will still exist, for those that are fine in that model,  while more efficient relationships are built to usher players and parents into select when and if they desire to make the move.

Bottom line for this thread and article and a point that has been echoed is that select/premier was not done well in Seattle for years. It wasn't all ECFC's fault. It wasn't all SYSA's fault. It was both and if I had to lay more blame on one than the other, I would choose SYSA. That is the organization that let it stagnate for so long. However, that same organization has now stepped up in a big way with the SU plan to address this and that deserves and has the support of its member clubs.

For those outside the loop that want more answers to "why?" just have a look at the SU plan from 7/2009. Put yourself in ECFCs shoes and ask, "Why can't we fit?". I thought the opportunity was there for the club and their players to fit right in at the top. You can now see how Westside and Shoreline have fallen into place.

http://www.seattleunited.com/doclib/OperatingPlan07-02-09.pdf

SU will be under the same demands to produce better teams and in order to do that you need to have paid coaches. This will drive costs up, which will increase the demand to win, which will eventually pressure those in charge of the SU program to do things differently than what was originally planned. Then they will feel like Bobby and his crew does, which is "we are soccer people, so let us run the soccer program here". Some do it better than others, but it will all end up the same in the end.

[tripleplay]

I would love to see the magic formula determining the success of rec programs.

One way would be to look at what percentage of kids play. Compared to its suburban neighbors, they don't do so well. Now I'm not faulting the volunteers since soccer's reputation for being a suburban sport probably comes from something. But I think you could say that Seattle's programs are friendly but don't sell the sport well and lack passion.  My Seattle relatives sound a bit like you - they idealize rec and hate the very idea of "select", let alone "premier", sports since it sounds "elitist" and "too serious" and inconsistent with the idea that "sports are for fun". Pointing out that kids actually have far more fun in select than rec doesn't faze them - it just doesn't compute in their world view of what kids are supposed to like!

[ballard]

Westside United was basically the trial run for SU, and they did make progress at establishing a program. But it never had, and never would have had, the allure of ECFC. It's just not a good era to be trying to build a select program, especially with the advent of the PDL which spells out in black and white who the winning clubs are.
[/quote]
Westside United was never the trial run for SU.  It was created to fulfill a need that ECFC couldn't or wouldn't fill.  It just ended being a model that the SU framers looked at and liked.  It had a member club base of that magical 4000 number.  In 5 yrs, if the operating plan continued to be followed would have been a serious problem form ECFC.  It already was a problem for ECFC.  But you are very right about the PDL tilting the playfield to the advantage of certain clubs. 

[EWSoccer64]

>>>But you are very right about the PDL tilting the playfield to the advantage of certain clubs. <<<

That was part of its inherit design, by design.

[ballard]

I would love to see the magic formula determining the success of rec programs.

One way would be to look at what percentage of kids play. Compared to its suburban neighbors, they don't do so well. Now I'm not faulting the volunteers since soccer's reputation for being a suburban sport probably comes from something. But I think you could say that Seattle's programs are friendly but don't sell the sport well and lack passion.  My Seattle relatives sound a bit like you - they idealize rec and hate the very idea of "select", let alone "premier", sports since it sounds "elitist" and "too serious" and inconsistent with the idea that "sports are for fun". Pointing out that kids actually have far more fun in select than rec doesn't faze them - it just doesn't compute in their world view of what kids are supposed to like!

Or we could look at the available field space that is available to those rec clubs and the programs they offer instead of a % of the population enrolled. 3-5 rec teams practicing per hour on every field available. The rec clubs really cannot service more kids and deliver a worthwhile product.  One practice a week with professional trainers and other practices with the coaches.  A city tournament at the end of the rec season that 70% of the teams participate in.  A rec tournament that so many teams enjoy that they don't even bother trying playing in the President Cup.  I would love to hear what other rec clubs do that sells the soccer product better or with more passion.

[tripleplay]

Or we could look at the available field space that is available to those rec clubs and the programs they offer instead of a % of the population enrolled. 3-5 rec teams practicing per hour on every field available. The rec clubs really cannot service more kids and deliver a worthwhile product.  One practice a week with professional trainers and other practices with the coaches.  A city tournament at the end of the rec season that 70% of the teams participate in.  A rec tournament that so many teams enjoy that they don't even bother trying playing in the President Cup.  I would love to hear what other rec clubs do that sells the soccer product better or with more passion.

Hard to believe your last statement, since you already seem to know you are doing everything perfectly, and have a pat explanation of any shortcomings.

However, I think the way you phrased things is revealing. You want to “service” people with a “worthwhile product”. How exciting. If my kids play soccer, I don’t want them to like it; I want them to love it. I don’t want them to be passively processed through a system; I want them to do something they are passionate about. That’s where the seamless soccer politicians who have calculated how to “service” kids with the least amount of parental input and lowest cost are missing the boat. And it also explains the divide between ECFC and the rest of SYSA.   

[majorace]

I would love to see the magic formula determining the success of rec programs.

One way would be to look at what percentage of kids play. Compared to its suburban neighbors, they don't do so well. Now I'm not faulting the volunteers since soccer's reputation for being a suburban sport probably comes from something. But I think you could say that Seattle's programs are friendly but don't sell the sport well and lack passion.  My Seattle relatives sound a bit like you - they idealize rec and hate the very idea of "select", let alone "premier", sports since it sounds "elitist" and "too serious" and inconsistent with the idea that "sports are for fun". Pointing out that kids actually have far more fun in select than rec doesn't faze them - it just doesn't compute in their world view of what kids are supposed to like!

TP

To help you fine tune your intuition.....I have more experince in SYSA select/premier than I do with rec. That said, I have been more recently involved with rec and all that experience is what I base my comments on. Most parents and players that play rec are not tuned into select/premier. They represent the unmined territory in SYSA.  The bulk will be content to just continue on playing in the fall and no more. That is fine. There is a role for that. But maybe SU will be able to reach down into that player pool better than other SYSA select programs have in the past. We'll see.

Your comment that select players have more fun than rec players is just wrong. Players that play select/premier have fun and players that play rec have fun. Keeping soccer to those players who only take it seriously on your terms is just unwise. Personally, I liked being involved more with premier/select than I do rec, but the kids that play rec have fun and the parents in both worlds can be tremendous. Further, kids that need more than rec can offer are fairly easy to identify. SU just needs the eyes and ears of SYSA coaches to help rather than leave it up to a weekend of tryouts. That was missing in the past. Once identified, those players need to be given a path to get from point A to point Z. Sometimes this will happen early but take time. Sometimes this will happen right away. Still other times players may come on board late and I have seen first hand a number of players choose select/premier late who had the technical skills to get right into the fray even though they "only played rec".

Don't get me wrong, I am all for rec programs doing what they can to provide better training for players and coaches with the goal of raising soccer quality, but I don't expect them to have a select/premier mindset as a base way of thinking.

I don't expect a real formula to be drawn up for measuring rec programs. I just couldn't get past the continual citation that they were bad based on nothing of substance.

All players start as rec players and that is why you can't just ignore or have contempt for rec.

[Left Foot]

majorace <<All players start as rec players....>>

Not if the U-7 premier teams catch on they won't...

[tripleplay]

majorace-

Actually I agree with much of what you say. For the record,

1.   I don’t have contempt for rec. How could I if I want a higher percentage of people to participate in it?
2.   I don’t deny that there could be some theoretical advantages to having one club, but they strike me as far fetched. I continue to believe that the real advantage is that making everyone wear the same uniform will boost the egos of administrators and parents who feel left behind in the current system.
3.   As far as my statement that people have more fun in select than in rec, I have empirical evidence. I ask kids after their first year of select which was more fun, this year or their previous year. The answer is always select, whether you are talking about the best kids in the state on Premier A with a pro coach or the kids who are one step above rec on Select B with a dad coach. How could that not be significant information?

[ballard]

Or we could look at the available field space that is available to those rec clubs and the programs they offer instead of a % of the population enrolled. 3-5 rec teams practicing per hour on every field available. The rec clubs really cannot service more kids and deliver a worthwhile product.  One practice a week with professional trainers and other practices with the coaches.  A city tournament at the end of the rec season that 70% of the teams participate in.  A rec tournament that so many teams enjoy that they don't even bother trying playing in the President Cup.  I would love to hear what other rec clubs do that sells the soccer product better or with more passion.

Hard to believe your last statement, since you already seem to know you are doing everything perfectly, and have a pat explanation of any shortcomings.

However, I think the way you phrased things is revealing. You want to “service” people with a “worthwhile product”. How exciting. If my kids play soccer, I don’t want them to like it; I want them to love it. I don’t want them to be passively processed through a system; I want them to do something they are passionate about. That’s where the seamless soccer politicians who have calculated how to “service” kids with the least amount of parental input and lowest cost are missing the boat. And it also explains the divide between ECFC and the rest of SYSA.   

No I really would love to hear what other rec clubs do.  It is easy to find out what select premier clubs do.  Not to many people chatter about ways to make rec a more fun experience.  I think my choice of words may tell you more about my occupation than anything but not about the rec club volunteers.  Sorry that was a stumbling block.  What I wanted to say was the rec clubs have as many kids as they have fields to handle without it becoming unfun for kids.  

[metz123]

And I ask all the kids that return to rec from Premier and Select every year where they had more fun and they all say rec. BFD. Ask all the kids at the end of basketball season what their favorite sport is and they will say basketball. Ask the kids at the end of a Sponge bob episode what their favorite cartoon is, guess what they'll answer? Ask a kid coming out from a movie theater what the best movie they ever saw was?

Empirical evidence....hardly....it's basic adolescent behavior....kids have the attention span of gnats...whatever they did 5 minutes ago, that wasn't unpleasant, is the best ever.

[majorace]

3.   As far as my statement that people have more fun in select than in rec, I have empirical evidence. I ask kids after their first year of select which was more fun, this year or their previous year. The answer is always select, whether you are talking about the best kids in the state on Premier A with a pro coach or the kids who are one step above rec on Select B with a dad coach. How could that not be significant information?

TP

Metz kind of beat me to the punch but......

Your info is not significant. It is merely stating the obvious that kids that choose to go select were probably needing more than rec offers. That does not mean that rec is not fun for the butterfly chaser or newbie or the star baseball player that needs a fall sport. You said kids have more fun playing select than they do rec but that does not apply to all. Some kids have fun playing rec. Your observations should have you conclude that most select kids enjoy select over rec and that is all. SYSA select needs to stay in touch with rec better than has been done in the past because the butterfly chasers, newbies and baseball stars may grow up, develop, have a change of heart down the road and meet your passion test that makes them worthy to play select soccer. Of course, if this is after U8 they are ruined with no hope of ever being competitive, right? Ha ha.

I am sorry I took your comments about rec clubs being ineffective and less fun as contempt. My mistake?

[tripleplay]

And I ask all the kids that return to rec from Premier and Select every year where they had more fun and they all say rec. BFD. Ask all the kids at the end of basketball season what their favorite sport is and they will say basketball. Ask the kids at the end of a Sponge bob episode what their favorite cartoon is, guess what they'll answer? Ask a kid coming out from a movie theater what the best movie they ever saw was?

Empirical evidence....hardly....it's basic adolescent behavior....kids have the attention span of gnats...whatever they did 5 minutes ago, that wasn't unpleasant, is the best ever.

LOL. I grant you have identified an error source, but I don't think it negates the data. And, for the record, I have asked a smaller number of people going the other way (back to rec teams that they ended up enjoying) and got the same answer. And I believe you might be talking about older age rec. For all practical purposes that isn't much different from Select because kids are choosing their team and tier. it's completely different from rec at U7 where completely dissimilar people are mixed together and given a baseline program.

And majorace, this data is important because it is not just the Premier A kids who are happy to be there, but also the Select B kids who would be playing rec if the club hadn't cajoled someone into coaching. If your theory were right we'd find lots of people saying "I should have stayed in rec" but personally I've never heard of any. In contrast, I hear quite frequently from people regretting that they stayed in rec too long. And I'm not bringing this up to condemn rec. I'm bringing it up because I think rec would be more fun if it adopted select-like elements. That doesn't mean cutting off the butterfly chasers, but maybe it does mean matching them up with an exceptionally patient coach. My point is that I think everyone is worthy to play select soccer.

[Crash]

Problem was this. If you live in a $5 million house in Laurelhurst, you have status in the real world. If your kid plays soccer for “LVR”, you have zero status in the soccer world. Not acceptable. SU was created to solve that problem. Wipe out ECFC, put everyone in the same uniform, and just like that everyone gets to play for the “good” club.

Would like to hear Metz's (or other's) take on this...does this phenomenon hold true with xfire select?

[LOL]

The problem with rec. is this, kids want to play with their friends in 1st grade.  Some are lucky if Mom or Dad actually know the game of soccer, the rest get stuck for their rec. life playing with a parent, who although well intentioned, has   no coaching or soccer background.   While the kids are spending their entire practice playing red light/ green light or scrimmaging, the kids who got lucky and are on a team with a person who knows how to coach and knows the game, those kids are actually learning how to play soccer.  Flash forward 2 yrs.  and the kids who have an aptitude for the game become frustrated and are not developing.   But guess what, they can’t go play for the other team because that would mean people were stacking teams at U9.  SYSA clubs do whatever they can to prevent kids from moving for a better team.  All teams are suppose to be equal, we are not keeping score (except the kids) and everyone gets a trophy for showing up.  The sneaky parents find a way to manipulate the system, sign up to be the “assistant manager” and maybe the club will let you transfer.   
For as much as people may despise ECFC they actually didn’t stand a chance in Seattle.  SYSA has looked at the competition not only being Crossfire (where frustrated rec. parents go to have their kids play)  but also those very rec. teams they have neglected.  Now the team that was coached by a parent who knew the game wants to stay together and not split up at U11 to play for ECFC.  Even though it is obvious some of those kids should move on and some should stay with rec.  It becomes a battle over U11 players and the rec. or select teams are looked upon as “hoarding” talent.   
The NEW solution for Seattle United is to:
•   Break up teams at the younger ages on an annual basis so there is no loyalty to a team or coach (This is something they eventually plan on implementing).   
•   Indy teams cannot play select until U14.  U-11-U14 kids will all try out so SU can cherry pick the top kids.  Before with ECFC indy teams could form and play select at U11.  A constant battle to gain top players. 
•   SU will approve all select coaches .
To be honest  a lot of people I know want their kids playing at a “higher level” but they also want the winter off to ski and  summers off to relax.  Parents care more about what uniform their kids are wearing than the kids.   Basically they want it all ways. 
It is really too bad SU and ECFC could not work something out.    No matter what your thoughts are on Bobby and Emerald City it really was a hostile takeover.  After ECFC joins US Club they will no longer have the state telling them  when they can hold try outs and  at what age they can develop teams.  Parents frustrated with the rec. system will gravitate towards ECFC so they can get a head start with their kids.  Why waste precious time with the Mom who is reading soccer out of a book.  No need to cross the pond to Xfire (who are already having 7 year olds try out to play US Club soccer).    ECFC will take over and all the hard work the people at Seattle United put in will be for naught.   As someone put it, here comes the Wild, Wild West.  If you don’t think it will happen then you are naïve.  Bobby and his mates are going to be on a mission.  And what will this accomplish?  Weaker and weaker teams playing premier level soccer in SYSA.   Way to go everyone.

[tripleplay]

The problem with rec. is this, kids want to play with their friends in 1st grade.  Some are lucky if Mom or Dad actually know the game of soccer, the rest get stuck for their rec. life playing with a parent, who although well intentioned, has   no coaching or soccer background.   While the kids are spending their entire practice playing red light/ green light or scrimmaging, the kids who got lucky and are on a team with a person who knows how to coach and knows the game, those kids are actually learning how to play soccer.  Flash forward 2 yrs.  and the kids who have an aptitude for the game become frustrated and are not developing.   But guess what, they can’t go play for the other team because that would mean people were stacking teams at U9.  SYSA clubs do whatever they can to prevent kids from moving for a better team.  All teams are suppose to be equal, we are not keeping score (except the kids) and everyone gets a trophy for showing up.  The sneaky parents find a way to manipulate the system, sign up to be the “assistant manager” and maybe the club will let you transfer.   
For as much as people may despise ECFC they actually didn’t stand a chance in Seattle.  SYSA has looked at the competition not only being Crossfire (where frustrated rec. parents go to have their kids play)  but also those very rec. teams they have neglected.  Now the team that was coached by a parent who knew the game wants to stay together and not split up at U11 to play for ECFC.  Even though it is obvious some of those kids should move on and some should stay with rec.  It becomes a battle over U11 players and the rec. or select teams are looked upon as “hoarding” talent.   
The NEW solution for Seattle United is to:
•   Break up teams at the younger ages on an annual basis so there is no loyalty to a team or coach (This is something they eventually plan on implementing).   
•   Indy teams cannot play select until U14.  U-11-U14 kids will all try out so SU can cherry pick the top kids.  Before with ECFC indy teams could form and play select at U11.  A constant battle to gain top players. 
•   SU will approve all select coaches .
To be honest  a lot of people I know want their kids playing at a “higher level” but they also want the winter off to ski and  summers off to relax.  Parents care more about what uniform their kids are wearing than the kids.   Basically they want it all ways. 
It is really too bad SU and ECFC could not work something out.    No matter what your thoughts are on Bobby and Emerald City it really was a hostile takeover.  After ECFC joins US Club they will no longer have the state telling them  when they can hold try outs and  at what age they can develop teams.  Parents frustrated with the rec. system will gravitate towards ECFC so they can get a head start with their kids.  Why waste precious time with the Mom who is reading soccer out of a book.  No need to cross the pond to Xfire (who are already having 7 year olds try out to play US Club soccer).    ECFC will take over and all the hard work the people at Seattle United put in will be for naught.   As someone put it, here comes the Wild, Wild West.  If you don’t think it will happen then you are naïve.  Bobby and his mates are going to be on a mission.  And what will this accomplish?  Weaker and weaker teams playing premier level soccer in SYSA.   Way to go everyone.

Someone who knows what he is talking about. In fairness, many of these self-destructive rec policies that you detail are not unique to SYSA. You’ll find them in many Associations. If WYS gets its way they will be mandatory for all.

It’s a good thing that our experts tell us that little kids can’t learn! Just think of what might happen if our important soccer administrators wasted their valuable time on 5 year olds???

[sounderfan]

Well, this INTERVIEW is now past 40 comments:

http://www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2010m3d9-Emerald-City-FC-storied-club-now-on-the-outside-looking-in#comments

We all get what an INTERVIEW is, right? That's when someone asks the questions (me) and someone else (Coach X) gives responses, observations, opinions.

 

[metz123]

Problem was this. If you live in a $5 million house in Laurelhurst, you have status in the real world. If your kid plays soccer for “LVR”, you have zero status in the soccer world. Not acceptable. SU was created to solve that problem. Wipe out ECFC, put everyone in the same uniform, and just like that everyone gets to play for the “good” club.

Would like to hear Metz's (or other's) take on this...does this phenomenon hold true with xfire select?

Um....What's the question? Does xfire select get players because the parents want to associate with the Xfire name and see johnny ringo parade around in his xfire gear? Not many, pretty much anyone can make an Xfire premier team at some level and get the gear to go with it, so there's no need to go to xfire select if all you care about is the uniform. As with many premier clubs, they are willing to offer coaching and teams to most anyone that wants to pay for it. They offer a service, a certain number of people want that service. It's hardly an exclusive club. I imagine the same will hold true for SU's premier club.

One of the illusions of Premier is the tryout system that is partially sold to the parents as a barrier to entry. You cross the barrier and you are in an exclusive group, sort of like a fraternity or secret society. It's just not true for most clubs. The tryout system is really used to group like talent together, which is itself a valid goal. It's not exclusionary though, as many clubs offer positions on some team to every kid that "tries out".

If xfire select decided to change their name and brand to something like LWYSA Select with a new logo and colors, would some current parents/players be upset at the loss of "status" moving away from the Xfire brand? Undoubtedly, yes. Many in the Xfire select program have a lot of pride in the Xfire name. Would it cause an exodus of players/parents to Xfire Premier for that reason? I doubt it. Most of the Xfire select members bought into the program more than the name. Let's just say that the majority in select would prefer Xfire Select to remain under the Xfire brand instead of rebranding. Xfire premier folks may feel completely opposite.