Are there too many teams in NorCal ?

[Instig8or]

Instig8or is seeing much sarcasm in many of the responses to this valid question. In our area too, we see an over-all degradation in the level of team ability on average in u12, u14 and u16 divisions. There are still the same 3-4 teams that compete at a high level, similar to the oft-bragged about SoCal elite teams, but the average level of play by the other teams seems to be deteriorating as the number of teams over-all seems to be on the increase.

Perhaps a rephrase of the original question targeting a different direction;

1) If your DD was playing in a showcase tournament, would you want her to play against the very best players around, or would you prefer she be the only player with talent?
--- The answer to this is pretty obvious, so move on to the next segment...

2) DD is younger, and playing in u14 - she is a talented player in her own right and the desire is to get better, not just go out and win every tournament and bring home another one of those little trophies that we all cherish so much. Again, do you want her to be the best player out there where her confidence shoots through the roof, or do you want her to be challenged and always having to work hard to stand out?

3) Second-to-Last; DD is a marginal player and is definitely having fun but based on any factors you wish to cite, she will never move to a higher level of play. She competes well in rec, enjoys the trophies and ribbons and wants her soccer-mom in the dugout to share the cheers. Does she play in a "lower" level of ball at rec or whatever the equivalent travel level is locally, or does she play on an "A" team (presuming she can make one) and rarely/never succeed?

4) Finally - same as #3 except Dad blames the coach for his daughter's lack of success and goes out to start his own "A" team, filled with those who hop teams after being cut or always playing on a marginal team the season prior and they seldom win unless playing at a "lower" level tournament. Is it right that this team competes against true "A" teams in whatever the high level organization is in a given area? Or should teams have to qualify to move from "B" level to "A" level, similar to mens SP...?

[as the world turns]

SoCal has alot of teams also (from what I see). Just as many as us if not more (rough guess)

Ya think?

[Joe]

.....she will never move to a higher level of play.

At what age do we cull the scrubs?

[SnocatzDad]

The way I see it (and once again..in no way am I any kind of expert)..everybody has the right to play. I also think they should play B tournaments till their ready to play "A" tournaments but if they want to get their butts kicked playing in tourneys they dont belong in..well who are we to tell them no

Because the true A teams did not sign up to play in a tourney full of B teams.

The way we handle this here is the better teams communicate where they are going so that they can guarantee a level of competition. We even go so far as to discuss where we are sending our #2 teams at an age level so they can match up. The weaker teams know where the stronger teams are going and avoid those tourney's like the plague. If it's a ASA NQ and 128 teams show up and only 32 are strong, that may add some fluff games but in the end (if your right about who belongs and who doesn't) you'll have to play the good teams and win to progress.

[Uncle Rico]

Trying to limit the teams or discourage marginal players will only hurt the overall level of play in your area. You need to encourage players to play travel so they can get better coaching and play more competitive games. I think there should be a ranking systems for teams, similar to soccar, with bronze, silver and gold levels. As a team wins tournaments, they move up to play silver teams, then move up to gold. This way the level of play is more balanced and competitive.

[454Malibu]

We are playing 16U now, so dealing with the whole showcase thing also. But, my take is that there are too many mediocre teams and things are watered way down. Most of the major orgainizations have multiple teams at most every age level. Then there are the smaller organizations and the "Daddy" ball groups forming teams also. This would not be so bad if there was a ranking system of some sort or if they built the teams to be one stronger, one less or one older, one younger. What I see too often is just two mediocre teams from the same organization. If you pooled the top 13-14 players, you would usually have one pretty good team. Again, just my opinion, but I don't know how to fix it!

[CrushersDad]

See it several times every season... DD doesn't get to play "X" position, parents go ballistic and leave the team. Same thing happens at team #2 and suddenly dad has formed his own team...

Each time a new team pops up, the talent level is watered down further. Really noticing it this season where many teams only have 1 and sometimes 2 marquee players (at best!) whereas in past seasons, teams carried 1-2 "developmental" players.

Is it just me or are there just too many marginal teams out there these days?

Like TNT this fall?

[dittoz]

I have heard rumors of disagreements btwn coaches that led to TNT's formation, but no matter how much we would all like to throw names out there, I refuse to name names.

Honestly, this is more a general observation than a specific one.

[CrushersDad]

Good point dittoz. My bad...

[happyfeet]

The Metro should limit the number of true "A" teams in the area, at the most 4-6. The 2 big organizations in the SJ Metro, and may 2-4 other teams. The way to gauge would be, only the teams who finish in the top 4 of the Metro will be allowed to register A the following season.