- Thread starter
- #121
LFC
Active Member
- Aug 23, 2015
- 314
All the newly formed Newton clubs will be attempting to have Metro spots
BCSPL v Metro Soccer v DIV 1
- Thread starter LFC
- Start date
All the newly formed Newton clubs will be attempting to have Metro spots
Soccer-dad-NV
Member
- Oct 14, 2015
- 46
I heard a number of metro teams were not accepted by the MSL committee. Those teams appealed directly to BC Soccer and have now been accepted. I don't know which clubs or how many teams that will increase the numbers to.
easoccer
Established Member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 862
DAD says no. Run to MOM.
There doesnt seem to be any chain of command anymore. Just go straight to BC Soccer.
There doesnt seem to be any chain of command anymore. Just go straight to BC Soccer.
Well TBF BCSA should be the place with which to appeal to, and have the final say. That's very appropriate. The chain of command seems pretty clear to me actually. Club decides if they want MSL. Club applies to MSL for entry. Entry is denied or accepted. If denied and want to appeal go to BCSA. Seems pretty clear.
But, MSL should be turned into BCSPL2, have it go under slightly reduced standards compared to BCSPL. Oversight by BCSA to further support/develop the pathway. You can't have a pathway when only the top portion of the pathway is being controlled/supported. It makes no sense (although logistically it does - there's only so many hours in a day and so many volunteers). A simple 1 or 2-page document would do it. ie, 1 - MSL limited to 12 entries. 2 - MSL coaches must have ... (I think most/a lot already have this) 3 - training must include etc etc etc. Another document about conditions a club must satisfy to enter into MSL (club charter in full compliance - should also be the case for gold). Once MSL has been on the "BCSPL2" train for a while and everything is in order, bring Gold into that for BCSPL3 and limit those divisions to 8 teams, regionalize them, then have a cup competition like they do now - teams 1 and 2 from region A play teams 1 and 2 from region B so on and so forth in a 6 team cup. Same as they do now putting the top 6 in division A, middle 6 in division B etc. I say regionalize gold because some of these divisions have 15-18 teams and you don't play everyone, so the league winner maybe gets an unbalanced sched, or the runner up maybe played "all the best" or what have you. And you have teams that are over 1 hour drive apart in the same division yet you don't play the team that it is 20 minutes from you. It makes no sense.
Of if you don't want to tier the cups in Gold after the 8 team league, re-tier and re-form into another 8 team league this time without regionalization. So in the beginning of the year you are essentially playing your neighbours, (derbies every weekend! be great!) and you expand to play the teams that are a larger distance from you to mix-it up and possibly (almost certainly) balance the playing field.
That said, I'd be very interested to know who was denied. I hate to say it but it's probably not just the "bottom dwellers" that got denied, if my time in local soccer tells me anything. Although there are a lot of teams who, statistically speaking, have no business in MSL.
easoccer
Established Member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 862
Sorry. I just saying this as BC SOCCER seems to be heavily involved around these parts lately.
Carry on.
Carry on.
Soccer-dad-NV
Member
- Oct 14, 2015
- 46
I like a lot of your ideas. I agree that MSL would be beneficial if it was run as a 'reserve' team. Not sure if the current model would work though. The same cost issue could arise. I can't see anyone wanting to pay $5,000 to possibly play 30% of a metro match. Currently players on the training roster only in BCSPL also pay $100/ month.
I get that coaches are paid etc but there must be a way to get the cost down?..no?
As they should be. Ultimately they are responsible and presumably have the experts on staff to guide the districts/leagues the right way. I am not a BCSA-apologist, but this is the expectation I have of my provincial governing body.
Kids on "training roster" pay $100/month? Sorry but that's outrageous. That's just a cash grab, pure and simple. The players "insurance" does not cost $100/month, nor does the kit the kid has to wear at training cost that much. The coaches fees are already paid by the full-time members of the team. Wow. People actually pay this for the "privilege" of being on a training roster?
Why would it be $5k to be on a MSL team? BCSPL teams are roughly $2500 (not sure why anyone would pay that much to play 30% of a BCSPL game/season either but that's a different topic). If a kid isn't good enough to play 50% of a game they shouldn't be in the team in the first place. And if the coach says "he isn't good enough" I'd be asking why he picked the kid in the first place and would suggest the coach themselves isn't good enough, or they have ulterior motives. (please note behaviour/attendance/health issues will affect playing time IMO and that's not an issue if they lose time because of those things).
In my suggestion re: making MSL a BCSPL2 league I don't believe costs would increase - the league would be run in the same fashion. Standards would be increased, which may require coaches to get trained/increased honorarium which may increase costs. Not sure. But most MSL coaches have the provincial or pre-B license anyway don't they already? I'd suggest at least for the next 5-10 years that would be sufficient certification for MSL until everyone "catches up" then you increase the standard to CSA B for example.
easoccer
Established Member
- Aug 27, 2015
- 862
There was a discussion just the other day about BC Soccer forcing the South Fraser District and that they preferred BC Soccer to step back. I'm just trying to facilitate discussion and really don't care either way.
I am amazed, since the MSL is supposed to be the clubs priority, that they would deny teams, that is unless those teams are making the exclusions of other clubs teams possible.
Regardless there needs to be some kind of committee in place to ensure that from top to bottom each group is competitive as possible. I know some people around here dont believe in tiering, but I feel that tieiring should be ongoing through out the season from d4 all the way up to MSL, and to some extent BCSPL.
If you are too strong you move up, too week you move down, if you improve or decline, they take another look.
Leave all the politics out.
I am amazed, since the MSL is supposed to be the clubs priority, that they would deny teams, that is unless those teams are making the exclusions of other clubs teams possible.
Regardless there needs to be some kind of committee in place to ensure that from top to bottom each group is competitive as possible. I know some people around here dont believe in tiering, but I feel that tieiring should be ongoing through out the season from d4 all the way up to MSL, and to some extent BCSPL.
If you are too strong you move up, too week you move down, if you improve or decline, they take another look.
Leave all the politics out.
I don't think BCSA can force a South Fraser District. I've been wrong many times in life though. I don't think that is the solution to Surrey's issues anyway.
Yes, I agree tiering. I do believe in BCSPL being a closed system - at least for the foreseeable future. It still needs to stabilize and have 8 teams in every age, both genders, and the competitive balance needs to be resolved. There will always be a first and last, but the discrepancy between first and last should be smaller than it all too often is.
I agree though that MSL/div 1 all the way to D4 needs to be tiered/adjusted. Which is why I suggest 8 team divisions (regionalized), then do re-tiering after that for another 8 team division (opened up to bigger geographical groups that bring together likely more balanced divisions). Then cup games and the season is done. You have district cup and league cup. The league cup right now is tiered, and that's the right choice. I am very pleased with the change they made to league cups when previously bottom teams had no chance in cup, now every team has a chance.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
Good ideas here worth further discussion.
High Performance Stream = BCSPL 1, 2 and 3 .no more Metro or Div1 as it is today. 80+ more teams under the BCSPL umbrella would surely help reduce the admin costs... All remaining divisional teams go to the recreational stream ( still high skill level, competition at he highest divs just less commitment requirements)
Currently the bottom end of Metro and Div 1 are not to the standard they should be. .
More clubs in Newton will not equal more Metro teams or more DIv 1 teams its still the same player pool it has always been just spread out among more clubs...
Thanks. Feel free to steal the idea.
BCSPL streamlined the old MSL that was bloated. Problem is MSL is still bloated, dropping the standard of Div 1 and 2. Reduce teams in MSL, increases standard in MSL and Div 1, and Div 2. Increases competition. Aids player development. Put in coaching standards etc and just maybe we start having a more cohesive pathway that eventually creates a better Whitecaps academy, better PTP, better national team, and one day a better Canadian Prem League (at least the BC teams that are in it!). I dream, I know.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
I think under this idea we could add some more provincial cups to keep to competition high and fun:Thanks. Feel free to steal the idea.
BCSPL streamlined the old MSL that was bloated. Problem is MSL is still bloated, dropping the standard of Div 1 and 2. Reduce teams in MSL, increases standard in MSL and Div 1, and Div 2. Increases competition. Aids player development. Put in coaching standards etc and just maybe we start having a more cohesive pathway that eventually creates a better Whitecaps academy, better PTP, better national team, and one day a better Canadian Prem League (at least the BC teams that are in it!). I dream, I know.
BCSPL 1 = Premier Provincial Cup
BCSPL 2 = Provincial A Cup
BCSPL 3 = Provincial B Cup
Then under the new recreational stream :
Rec Div 1 = Provincial C Cup...
Rec Div 2 -3 maybe a Provincial D Cup? Currently no provincial cup for these divisions..
Also While I believe the BCSPL 1 should remain at 8 teams, I do think BCSPL 2 and 3 could expand to 12 teams though that might just complicate things as far a club partnerships and the like are concerned. I'm skeptical we would get buy in from non BCSPL franchises that would loose a Metro team , such as CCB ,Surrey FC, some of the tri cities teams etc...
I still think BCSPL should be district based, and each franchise is controlled by the district through collaboration of the district members. ( I know that is a pipe dream)
As an example: ( this is for the coastal region)
District run High Performance Stream for U13-U18
Each Club would run its own U8-U12 development program , and U6-U18 recreational program
Each club would feed the district high performance program...
District High Performance board would be made of 2 members from each district club.
Clear Charter and enforcement from BC Soccer to help prevent to power struggles
Player based, neutralize the power of the adults so it has to be about the players.
BC Soccer holds districts accountable for program offerings and quality , districts hold member clubs accountable for program offerings and quality. If you don't meet the minimum standards you risk losing membership status.
Interior would need a different approach, geography is an issue. I am not sure the solution other than I believe the Whitecaps have a Kootenay academy, Okanagan Academy and and Northern/Central Academy out of Prince George, so that could be a guideline ...
The Island would also need a different solution.
The Lower mainland has 9 districts of which there are 6 BCSPL franchises. Currently Richmond and Vancouver form Fusion, North Shore and Burnaby form Mountain, Alouette is geographically challenged might be feeding either of Fraser Valley and Tri-Cities ( Coquitlam).
Some districts would have to partner for a BCSPL 1 pathway, most districts without a BCSPL franchise could support a BCSPL 2 and/or 3 team...
I agree also that BCSPL should be just 8 teams.
In "my" model BCSPL 2 (currently MSL) would be 12, as I've said, same as you. BCSPL 3, I think should be divisions of 8 - you'd probably have 3 divisions of 8 in District 5 and another 3 divisions of 8 in District 4. The reason being if MSL goes down to 12 and that's kept a hard number some clubs and their players would trickle down to BCSPL 3. I think the current gold needs to pair down to division of 7 or 8, regionalize/localize them, then split to larger regions after those first 7-8 games. Then go into the cups. But for whatever reason they want these huge divisions with 15+ teams when you maybe see 2/3 of your league. Why it is this way is totally beyond me.
District-based BCSPL makes sense except Surrey United and CMF are clearly offering a high quality product as it so forcing them to become SMSA SC and Tri-Cities SC would not really be "fair"? Though I can understand the reasoning - but if they became district based I don't think you'd have too much argument with it being their staff that simply moved over to that new "club". All the others are essentially district-based already, no?
I agree BCSA has to ensure standards are met - thus the club charter is something I support. But it only is meaningful if it has teeth and BCSA actually enforce compliance.
I agree Okanagan and Victoria need their own model that works for them as they are certainly unique from Lower Mainland.
In "my" model the BCSPL 2 would be the "reserve" team for the current BCSPL 1 franchises (ie, Fraser Valley Select). So you have 6 from Lower Mainland. You then receive applications from another 6 to join - some clubs would be locks essentially to round out BCSPL 2 that can clearly offer strong MSL programs. This would then trickle down to BCSPL3 and make that div stronger, making the entire pathway stronger, making the pathway itself much more clearly defined. Thus feeding into Whitecaps, PTP, and national team in a better fashion.
You could then have your "A" cup and make it something of a provincial tournament - maybe MSL winner, VIPL winner, Okanagan winner, and a wild card or a "northern/eastern" winner. B cup remains as is with leagues, district cups, coastal cup, and then provincial tourney.
I think along with this you would have to change the playing calendar for BCSPL 2 and 3 to match that of BCSPL 1 - and that could pose a challenge for fields.
Maybe, there simply is no will to have this done.
In "my" model BCSPL 2 (currently MSL) would be 12, as I've said, same as you. BCSPL 3, I think should be divisions of 8 - you'd probably have 3 divisions of 8 in District 5 and another 3 divisions of 8 in District 4. The reason being if MSL goes down to 12 and that's kept a hard number some clubs and their players would trickle down to BCSPL 3. I think the current gold needs to pair down to division of 7 or 8, regionalize/localize them, then split to larger regions after those first 7-8 games. Then go into the cups. But for whatever reason they want these huge divisions with 15+ teams when you maybe see 2/3 of your league. Why it is this way is totally beyond me.
District-based BCSPL makes sense except Surrey United and CMF are clearly offering a high quality product as it so forcing them to become SMSA SC and Tri-Cities SC would not really be "fair"? Though I can understand the reasoning - but if they became district based I don't think you'd have too much argument with it being their staff that simply moved over to that new "club". All the others are essentially district-based already, no?
I agree BCSA has to ensure standards are met - thus the club charter is something I support. But it only is meaningful if it has teeth and BCSA actually enforce compliance.
I agree Okanagan and Victoria need their own model that works for them as they are certainly unique from Lower Mainland.
In "my" model the BCSPL 2 would be the "reserve" team for the current BCSPL 1 franchises (ie, Fraser Valley Select). So you have 6 from Lower Mainland. You then receive applications from another 6 to join - some clubs would be locks essentially to round out BCSPL 2 that can clearly offer strong MSL programs. This would then trickle down to BCSPL3 and make that div stronger, making the entire pathway stronger, making the pathway itself much more clearly defined. Thus feeding into Whitecaps, PTP, and national team in a better fashion.
You could then have your "A" cup and make it something of a provincial tournament - maybe MSL winner, VIPL winner, Okanagan winner, and a wild card or a "northern/eastern" winner. B cup remains as is with leagues, district cups, coastal cup, and then provincial tourney.
I think along with this you would have to change the playing calendar for BCSPL 2 and 3 to match that of BCSPL 1 - and that could pose a challenge for fields.
Maybe, there simply is no will to have this done.
Soccer-dad-NV
Member
- Oct 14, 2015
- 46
I really like this structure model.
It really makes it a clear pathway. Players should be able to move up/down seamlessly. At leadt below BCSPL I guess. If BCSPL clubs had a reserve or BCSPL 2 team, player movement would be easier accessed between the two.
Also if BCSPL teams had reserves that "pathway" that is so trumpeted by BCSA would also be much clearer.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
As @Soccer-dad-NV mentioned, players need to be able to move up and down seamlessly and at all levels of play. We need to break down barriers so clubs work together for player development and not compete for it. As an example One Metro program considers it self successful because it is constantly feeding players to BCSPL and not to just to the local BCSPL but other franchises as well. Another considers themselves successful by their records and Provincial cups.
One is about player development the other while still developing players is result/ ego focused. All Metro teams should be supporting and helping their top players move up regardless of the impact on the team results.... much like all BCSPL should be pushing and supporting their top players to move on to the Whitecaps ...
One is about player development the other while still developing players is result/ ego focused. All Metro teams should be supporting and helping their top players move up regardless of the impact on the team results.... much like all BCSPL should be pushing and supporting their top players to move on to the Whitecaps ...
socceroo
Member
- Sep 21, 2015
- 68
BCSPL vs METRO
This weekend BCSPL teams are playing Semis and it appears 2 Metro teams challenged the premier cup.
Based on the league standing these are 2 top metro team who rightfully beleived through their Club Technical program that they are capable challengers and can compete at BCSPL level.
the results:
Provincial Premier Cup - Preliminary Challenge Round
Division Score Home Away Score Date Time Field
U14 Boys 3 Fusion FC vs CCB Elite 0 June 15 6:00pm Richmond High
U16 Boys 4 Coquitlam Metro-Ford SC vs Surrey FC Pegasus 0 June 14 8:00pm Coquitlam Town Centre East
So both Metro Teams got knocked out in their first game and decisively.
What does this mean?
BCSPL teams are a class above contrary to what we have been thinking?
Your thoughts?
This weekend BCSPL teams are playing Semis and it appears 2 Metro teams challenged the premier cup.
Based on the league standing these are 2 top metro team who rightfully beleived through their Club Technical program that they are capable challengers and can compete at BCSPL level.
the results:
Provincial Premier Cup - Preliminary Challenge Round
Division Score Home Away Score Date Time Field
U14 Boys 3 Fusion FC vs CCB Elite 0 June 15 6:00pm Richmond High
U16 Boys 4 Coquitlam Metro-Ford SC vs Surrey FC Pegasus 0 June 14 8:00pm Coquitlam Town Centre East
So both Metro Teams got knocked out in their first game and decisively.
What does this mean?
BCSPL teams are a class above contrary to what we have been thinking?
Your thoughts?