BCSPL v Metro Soccer v DIV 1

[LFC]

Clubs will prob be thinking about applying for Metro spots for next fall . Now would be an ideal time for BC Soccer to make changes to the set up by scrapping the MSL and merging it into the Divisions for next fall.

Looks like MSL will stay but makes perfect sense to scrap it and replace with Divisions to allow for flexible movement of teams and players -relegation/promotion etc.

 

[LFC]

PUFC/BC Tigers can't simply create metro teams. They have to apply and be accepted into the league. Surrey already has 3 metro clubs, can't see a 4th being approved but I guess stranger things have happened....

Does that mean any new club has to wait a couple of years before getting Metro spots or wait even longer before a spot becomes available if any club pulls a team out ?

 

[Admin]

Not completely true from my experience and from what I see. SPL is mainly about the winning. Coaches choose players who are for the most part big and strong. Some are also very skilled but others are not. And smaller, skilled players are often cut simply because they are not up to the task physically. I have seen this time and time again.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with?

 

[FB1]

Same U15 Metro team I referred to above just won their league title again for a second year in a row. And each and every one of these boys are for all intents and purposes is denied a crack at the provincial team while crappy bottom-level U15 SLP teams all get to send two boys each to the provincial tryouts. Excuse me if this comment is a little off topic but it does feed into the same comment make above by several others that Metro teams don't practice as much as SPL ones. This particular MSL team trains 4 days a week with at least one game a week, enters more tournaments that SPL teams do and takes off less time - and has a quality coach who motivates the boys to be their best. Add to this equation a phenomenal technical trainer. I speak from experience in saying that the ridiculous SPL fees do not always guarantee you this quality of coaching or a collective group of boys (or girls) of this calibre.

The technical director of this club can recommend any of these boys to the BCSA for consideration. And this club has utilized this method on the past. But if a kid is good enough to play in the provincial program then I question why he/she wouldn't be in the SPL. I agree cost has to be a consideration for any family; however, you mention this team trains four times a week, has a "technical trainer" (not sure what that is), and goes in tournaments. You don't get all that for the standard club fee. So the cash outlay to be part of this team isn't the "sticker price" - it's higher. And if it's a matter of affordability, most SPL clubs have subsidy programs.

I'm not an SPL coach (although I was). And my children don't play SPL (daughter is MSL, son was Div 2). And I will be the first to admit SPL is a work in progress. And there's more than a few coaches whose credentials and experience are suspect. But there's also a number of good SPL programs, and some very good coaches. The level of play continues to improve. I guess I just wonder why so many on the outside continue to cut it down?

 

[TKBC]

Same U15 Metro team I referred to above just won their league title again for a second year in a row. And each and every one of these boys are for all intents and purposes is denied a crack at the provincial team while crappy bottom-level U15 SLP teams all get to send two boys each to the provincial tryouts. Excuse me if this comment is a little off topic but it does feed into the same comment make above by several others that Metro teams don't practice as much as SPL ones. This particular MSL team trains 4 days a week with at least one game a week, enters more tournaments that SPL teams do and takes off less time - and has a quality coach who motivates the boys to be their best. Add to this equation a phenomenal technical trainer. I speak from experience in saying that the ridiculous SPL fees do not always guarantee you this quality of coaching or a collective group of boys (or girls) of this calibre.

Do not insult youth players, of any age, for being selected to PTP. Just because a player is on a "crappy bottom-level" SPL team doesn't mean that same SPL team doesn't have some strong PTP-level players.

I agree, the pathway for PTP is clearly BCSPL, and that's frustrating. There is a mechanism whereby a TD can recommend a metro player for assessment. So, talk to the TD, and get him/her to refer your players to PTP for assessment. I suspect they would be told at the assessment something like "good job, join BCSPL and we'll look at you more."

SPL definitely can't guarantee quality. I do believe the majority of the best players are in SPL. But there are certainly plenty SPL-level players in MSL and div 1. Probably very few PTP level players in MSL and of course even less in Div 1 (if any). I agree, the fee's are a significant stumbling block. And for some, the distance to travel. Keep in mind, PTP is centralized. So even if some kids are good enough to make PTP, they then not only have to be able to play for it, but be able to attend the training. I can't wrap my head around how the PTP is being run - not even sure why we have PTP anymore now that we have Whitecaps academy.....

 

[TKBC]

Not completely true from my experience and from what I see. SPL is mainly about the winning. Coaches choose players who are for the most part big and strong. Some are also very skilled but others are not. And smaller, skilled players are often cut simply because they are not up to the task physically. I have seen this time and time again.

You'll find this at every level, unfortunately.

 

[TKBC]

The technical director of this club can recommend any of these boys to the BCSA for consideration. And this club has utilized this method on the past. But if a kid is good enough to play in the provincial program then I question why he/she wouldn't be in the SPL. I agree cost has to be a consideration for any family; however, you mention this team trains four times a week, has a "technical trainer" (not sure what that is), and goes in tournaments. You don't get all that for the standard club fee. So the cash outlay to be part of this team isn't the "sticker price" - it's higher. And if it's a matter of affordability, most SPL clubs have subsidy programs.

I'm not an SPL coach (although I was). And my children don't play SPL (daughter is MSL, son was Div 2). And I will be the first to admit SPL is a work in progress. And there's more than a few coaches whose credentials and experience are suspect. But there's also a number of good SPL programs, and some very good coaches. The level of play continues to improve. I guess I just wonder why so many on the outside continue to cut it down?

It's not just people "on the outside." I have spoke with plenty who have joined, and then left SPL - they were not complimentary. Have known plenty who joined and loved it of course too.

SPL is a band aid. This country will not truly progress until we deal with the ages below SPL's start of u12-13.

SPL talks about standards this and standards that. I don't buy it because I've seen plenty of games where the ball is treated like a ping-pong, and training that provides little to no tactical development. This isn't even necessarily the coaches fault - they do what they know, and not all the best coaches are in the league (lol, I am NOT referring to myself!). I truly believe it's the TD and leagues fault, as well as PTP coaches and Whitecaps. They have to be at training, and demand a standard of coaching to meet a certain technical and tactical level.

My point in that is if not all the best coaches are in the league, then why would all the best players be in the league? They won't be. Players will gravitate to good coaching, or if they can receive a good level of coaching at a much cheaper price, closer to home, why would they join SPL? Honestly, if I was in Surrey would I really pay all that extra money to play SPL when I can almost surely find a good coach within 30 minute drive from my home at MSL? Not a chance.

 

[4_the_kids]

The theory of SPL is correct. The best coaches should be coaching at the highest levels, unfortunately there is always politics at play, some coaches don't get opportunity , other deny it, even more think they are greater than any system and insist and building their own programs. All of this works against the process, the idea is to create a pathway that funnels players and coaches through to the top levels. Unfortunately there is so much misinformation out there, people with different opinions and perceptions that influence the parents that haven't taken the time to educate themselves and make their own fact based decision. Then you have the over bearing parents, and yes it is the majority of parents, all with the best intentions at play yet ruining it for the kids. If little Johnny doesn't make the team but really wants to then support him to keep practicing instead of complaining about lack of opportunities, broken systems, bad coaches etc...
There is nothing wrong with challenging a decision or system just make sure it is fact based not emotional based. I for one will challenge the whole talent identification process, from U10 select teams all the way to national team selections, Canada as a whole is very weak in this area, coaches, TD's need more/ better training on this topic. Right now if a kid isn't selected by U10 they are often lost in the system, despite the fact that most athletes don't develop until their mid teens...trying being 15 year old and outside the development system .....
Here is a great article on this topic

 

[TKBC]

I agree. I am also a big fan of the SPL model. 8 clubs providing top level services, streamlined, and standardized. When I was growing-up Metro was 6-8 teams in any given age and as such every weekend was a very good game. Then in my last year it went to 12-16 teams (can't recall how many) and so now you were basically only having a really good game every 2nd week or every 3 weeks depending on the schedule. MSL is now around 14-18 teams depending age, gender etc etc. Far too many, especially with the 8 team BCSPL. So I say having 8 teams in SPL standardized and centralized is brilliant.

The best coaches, should be with the best players. In a province this size there will always be someone who is left out or has to drive a long distance in that model (which is why I think PTP, if PTP even makes sense to still run, should become regionalized and we have 8-10 regional PTP programs but that's another discussion!).

For me, the most immediate things needing to be changed for SPL is the cost, followed by the PTP/whitecaps requirement, followed by coaching standard oversight. The coaches and their training techniques, and messages must be strictly monitored so they adhere to development-first theory, and of course above all quality of content. If coaches don't, or can't, comply due to whatever reason they should be replaced immediately. This would mean TD's have to take a hands-on interim coaching role for certain teams at times, but so be it.

Excellent post @4_the_kids - I agree 100%

 

[WTF]

What a joke - a club has the 4 top teams in U17 Silver but no Gold team. Tournament Standings

 

[easoccer]

What a joke - a club has the 4 top teams in U17 Silver but no Gold team. Tournament Standings

To be fair it doesnt look like their is a u17 gold division.

Edit. Sorry yes there is.

 

[TKBC]

What a joke - a club has the 4 top teams in U17 Silver but no Gold team. Tournament Standings

odd!

 

[Soccer_4_Kids]

To improve soccer in BC, I propose following Levels

1. BCPSL [Premier Soccer League] with 10 teams (8LM, 1 Island, 1 Interior)
2. BCYSL [Youth Soccer League] with 12 teams (10 BCPSL Clubs, 2 Non-BCPSL with Strong Gold teams)
3. BCGSL [Gold Soccer League] with 16 teams (10 BCPSL Clubs, 6 Non-BCPSL Clubs]
4. BCSSL [Silver Soccer League] with 16 teams (10 BCPSL Clubs, 6 Non-BCPSL Clubs]
5. BCRSL1 [Recreational Soccer League 1]
6. BCRSL2 [Recreational Soccer League 2]
7. BCRSL3 [Recreational Soccer League 3]
8. BCRSL4 [Recreational Soccer League 4]



Here BCPSL & BCYSL trained by paid coaches and feeds into National, Provincial and White-caps programs. Their fees subsidized by clubs to encourage players with talent to strive to play at that level without limitations of affordability. Could even talk to the government for gaming grants to cover some cost.


The Playing season starts at Mid-Feb to End of June and then top 4 teams in each level compete for the cup and Premier/Gold for their chance to represent the province. Winner and runner-up from gold automatically move to Youth, and Silver to Gold and so forth.

 

[TKBC]

Your model isn't a bad idea but won't work.

1. BCSPL - 8 franchises (closed system) - the issue with this is teams can have "off years" without any consequence. But if the league enforces training/coaching standards well enough the development of players shouldn't be harmed to a great extent even if they lose a lot in a given year.
2. MSL - 12 teams. season should change to match BCSPL. 11 Lower Mainland with 1 Okanagan. Clubs apply to enter, based on district entries.
3. Regional Division 1/Gold just as you have now, but cap each league to 8 teams - play each team in division x2 - same season as BCSPL/MSL. Must have coaching standards, but training standards can be lighter than MSL. 16 teams is not enough. Can easily get 26+ gold teams in District 4 and 5 combined.
4. Rec soccer - maintain winter sched, regional divisions. The drop off from Div 1 to Div 2 can be huge at times.

 

[Soccer_4_Kids]

1. BCSPL - 8 franchises (closed system) -- Need not have to be closed. Open entry for two more franchises. Also, make it mandatory to field teams in each age group for these 10 clubs at BCPSL and/or BCYSL levels. At BCPSL each team play twice against other teams, 18 Games and at BCYSL could be 22 games.

 

[TKBC]

1. BCSPL - 8 franchises (closed system) -- Need not have to be closed. Open entry for two more franchises. Also, make it mandatory to field teams in each age group for these 10 clubs at BCPSL and/or BCYSL levels. At BCPSL each team play twice against other teams, 18 Games and at BCYSL could be 22 games.

if it's not closed it would be too difficult to ensure standards are being met.

 

[4_the_kids]

1. BCSPL - 8 franchises (closed system) -- Need not have to be closed. Open entry for two more franchises. Also, make it mandatory to field teams in each age group for these 10 clubs at BCPSL and/or BCYSL levels. At BCPSL each team play twice against other teams, 18 Games and at BCYSL could be 22 games.

What we need to be careful of is not watering down the system. As it already is the province struggles to maintain 8 franchises at the highest level, standard is often not met. There are too many Metro teams watering down that standard as well, people often sight the dominance of said Surrey team in Metro and use that has an example of being able to support further BCSPL franchises, the reality is those top teams should be the standard for Metro, BCSPL should be higher. Sorry @TKBC i disagree on the div /gold teams.Yes there currently is 16+ teams at this level but I don't think there should be, standard is to watered down. If the standard for Div 1 improves there could be a div 2 under the the ''high performance' stream, everything else is Recreational soccer,and that doesn't mean bad soccer, top tier of rec would still be good soccer, just less commitment , less serious.
My proposal:

High Performance Stream U13-U18 :

• National Youth Teams:
• Whitecaps / pro academies
• Provincial High performance

Tier 1: BCSPL - stays as a 8 team league - players only move in and out not franchises.
Tier 2: Currently Metro - Currently we have up to 14 teams but half in every age group have losing records, so its arguable there should be less teams. I will say 10-12 maybe less
Tier 3: Currently Div 1: Again almost half the teams have losing records, there needs to be a cap here, clubs need to be restricted on number of teams. I will say 10-12 a teams
Tier 4: Currently Div 2: This might be a stretch, but by capping the the other tiers there should be better talent here.I say capping this off at 12-16 teams...
No moving up and down as teams, these teams should SELECT TEAMS and rosters should change every year if proper evaluations are done. Clubs need to work together to support Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams... This stream is about player development not the team....

from here you go into the Recreational stream
Rec Tier 1
Rec Tier 2
Rec Tier 3
Rec Tier 4
in this stream you can have teams move up and down, say top 2 move up bottom 2 move down as these are not selected teams. There should be a bridge/pathway for Rec Tier 1 players to move up to High Performance Tier 4

For this to work the U6-U12 age groups need to change as well...
U6-U7 - in house , club academy and futsal should be part of the standard program offering, coaches are developed , no set teams,
U8-U9 - in house and perhaps district league - academy and Futsal part of program offering. No select teams, players equally spread out , coach development continues, Player can be separated in academy by level , academy teams to play in tournaments.
U10-U12 - The introduction of development teams, remove current divisional play. Have a 2-3 tier development league , rest rec/house. Academy for the development teams part of program. Development teams should change, players must earn and maintain their spot. Academy teams enter tournaments. These development teams should have staff coaches, or TD involvement, if not staff coach, coach should be of provincial B level and preferably no kid in the team. Each club can have 1 team per development tier, a second maybe granted depending on the size of the club... Rec. house player should have optional academy offering, should be looking for dedicated players who want to learn and work with them to help move them up. Rec players need development to, cant just forget about these players.

This is just a brief outline, lots more detail involved.

 

[TKBC]

Great post @4_the_kids !

I agree. 8 is the max we should have in BCSPL. Sometimes it's a stretch to have 8 bcspl-level teams (quote/unquote) but I think if they lowered the cost that would improve. There will always be strong players sticking to a lower level for a variety of reasons.

I agree MSL should be 12 teams max. As it is run there has to be a district rep. So if you think of Coastal Cup entry you must have a rep from Fraser Valley, Alouette, Surrey, Tri-Cities, Burnaby, Richmond (this shouldn't be a separate district!), Delta/White Rock, North Vancouver, and Vancouver (West/UBC isn't separate is it?). Van Island has VIPL so no entry required. Okanagan can't enter unless the season switches to match BCSPL (which it should). So that's 9 entries. Surrey by default of having such a large population should be granted the 10th spot. How you determine teams 11 and 12, I don't know. Vancouver could argue they deserve a 2nd spot, so that's team 11. Coquitlam clubs have such a strong soccer model I would think Tri-Cities probably "deserve" the 12th spot??

Limiting Division 1 to divisions of 12 is fair, I think. 12 teams in District 4, 12 in District 5. In this case, you just have every club basically put forward a team as it is now. I would suggest you'd have to limit a clubs entry to 2 in any given division. I've often noticed clubs like Van United, North Shore, CCB, SFC enter 2+ teams - clubs like that with a lot of registrations would be annoyed at first, but the standard of their teams would go up as a result.

You can't justify limiting entries by saying "half of them have losing records." This is the case in every league in the world. So your metric for this decision has to come from somewhere else.

If MSL and Div 1 are more limited in entries, then yes Div 2 would be automatically stronger. But probably still only about 8 "div 2 level teams would happen" so that div might actually become the smallest of the competitive divisions. I say that's fine. Or you can make multiple Div 2 leagues similar to the English pyramid of regionalization.

Then yes, anything below Div 1 or possibly Div 2 has to be changed to rec. That Division 3 and 4 are currently labeled as "select" is ridiculous.

Good ideas u6-12. Each district may run them a bit differently. I agree though to remove the league model at these ages. This should turn into a jamboree format - I suggest jamborees every 2nd weekend. 30 minute games. 3 or 4 games in 1 day (probably just 3 is best. teams can arrange friendlies during the off week, enter tournaments, take a break that weekend, or even have a mini-league in which they have a "league" game (probably limited to within it's own district). I know a few clubs that already allow free movement of players. But it's club-by-club I think....

 

[4_the_kids]

Great post @4_the_kids !
You can't justify limiting entries by saying "half of them have losing records." This is the case in every league in the world. So your metric for this decision has to come from somewhere else.

Hmm, I understand there will always be bottom teams. I tried to step outside the traditional thinking removing views skewed by my experience and through watching professional leagues. I concluded this is youth soccer it needs a different view, the goal is to improve the talent at the top end and make each tier better .With that I concluded the bottom teams in each division seem over matched or misplaced. The division they are in would be stronger without them and the lower division likely stronger with them. Then when looking at the records it supported this idea,take District 5 U13 Div1, the bottom 5 teams have a combined record of 10-4-42 with an average goal differential of -20 or -2 goals per game. Whereas the top 5 teams have a combined record of 43-6-8 and an average GD of + 21. In this case I think those numbers speak pretty clearly...without those bottom team to feast on the division becomes more competitive...
One last thought is the difference between each tier shouldn't be huge, top teams in one tier will be competitive against bottom to middle teams of higher tier. We could still use the first 6-8 weeks to reallocate teams as needed.

 

[TKBC]

That u13 d1 looks really unbalanced. I imagine that is typically the case at u13 as teams and clubs have a tough time sometimes figuring out what level to put these teams at - d1 or d2. I agree, the bottom 5 don't appear competitive. Teams just above those bottom 5 would probably only get 1 or 2 wins over the course of the season against the teams above them as well - but then the question is "are they competitive even if they are losing?" I have seen teams finish bottom or very near bottom that are extremely competitive (my own team finished 2nd last last year - but that's because of a massive rash of injuries in the first 3 months of the season. When we got everyone back we won every game and won a few cups, and had a nice coastal cup run. My point is we can't go just by goal difference or win-loss. There can be mitigating factors).

I think the solution for u13 D1 is to have many divisons, regionalize them, and keep them to maybe 5-6 teams at first. Play each team in your region/division once. Then you can reasonably tier them. with the other 5-6 team divisions into an D1A and D1B (or maybe even a D1C) that is no longer "regionalized". You'll then have district cups, league cups, and clubs will have a much clearer idea of where their team should be placed in u14.