Strongly disagree. Why the hell are you trying to shame coaches/ clubs if you have no idea about the team situation? To nominate a player to All JO, a team has to finish in the top 12. OK, so let us consider two hypothetical scenarios:
A) Say a 12U team finished 12th, losing all games on the last two days. The only meaningful game that the team won was a play-in game on Day 2 against an opponent that finished 16th. That team has a good goalie, a strong center, and a speedy driver, all of whom played well enough but did not do miracles on Days 2-4. Why should a coach more or less randomly select one of the three?
B) Say a team did something like that (selecting one good player practically at random) and the team atmosphere went down next Fall because of crazy parents. Would I want to repeat it next summer?
There is a little upshot in 12U-14U all JO lists- it would not help with college recruitment, but can potentially (in some cases) harm the team atmosphere.
It is reasonable to suggest that coaches/ club administrators can either decide on a case by case basis or implement a more sweeping policy.
Iâm having trouble following you on your reply. Iâm all for coaches being able to nominate their players. However, a team being able to get all their starters on 1st and 2nd Team is over the top. I could see getting the MVP, a combination of 3 other players on 1st or 2nd Team and then HM if worthy by the coaches decision. Having your whole starting line-up make JO AA is over the top for meâit devalues it. In a perfect world we would have media (unbiased) having votes as well.
It is a clear formula that does not take into account talent only results of the team.
1st place gets 3 first team including one MVP, 2 second teamers and no HMâs
2nd place gets 2 first team, 2 second team.
3rd place gets 2 first team, 1 second team
4th place gets 1 first team and 1 second team.
5-12 each get one Honorable Mention.
To Jfrans point, I would bet in most cases that the HM from those 5-12 are better, more talented players than most of the second team players, even some of the first team players. Heck there are probably some kids on the 5-12 teams that the coach just picked his favorite player not the one who had the best JOâs
Minor nitpick before getting to the substance of your argument. All teams finishing in the top 15 spots receive nomination allocations.
From 7.2(a) on page 25 of the most recent Conduct of Champions.
Decisions on who makes the A team, how to divide up playing time, and nominations for accolades all have potential ramifications but they are decisions that need to be made by the coaches and by the club. Outsourcing All American nominations makes no more sense than outsourcing the positions on the depth chart. If the head coach isnât up to making those kinds of decisions and handling the egos of those involved then the coach isnât up to the job because that is the job.
As for the value of making a 12u or 14u JO All American list, it is huge. It is documented recognition of being among the best at a thing in the country. It is exactly the sort of thing admissions councilors look for when making decisions on college applications. A coach who could do that for a player and didnât due to cowering at the thought of being uncomfortable standing by the flag they planted doesnât have my sympathy.
Changing allotments is a proposal I can respect. It has been done before and I am not opposed to further tweaks so long as the framework is published and teams know going in what they have to do to get an allotment.
As for getting the entire starting lineup on the All American list, that has been done and I agree that it is not good for the list. I believe the rules have been changed, but in 2008 SOCAL put all 7 starting players in their 5 allotments by doubling up two lines.
âAs for the value of making a 12u or 14u JO All American list, it is huge. It is documented recognition of being among the best at a thing in the country. It is exactly the sort of thing admissions councilors look for when making decisions on college applications.â
I have nothing to add
Thinking about what a college admissions office will do based on a kidâs performance 6 years earlier is ⌠well, I am out of words. If I kid is a good player, they will get enough all-league, all-section etc. recognition during their hs years. Moreover, what a kid achieves in hs is more reflective of the kidâs potential and determination.
Hard to blame the clubs that decide to opt-out of publicly stack ranking their players to avoid upsetting players and parents. Reasonable people can disagree on the value of AA however there is at least some perceived value to the players. Teams nominating all or none of their players suggest the current approach is not working. Relying on teams to self-nominate with fixed allocation spots pushes the difficult decisions away from the tournament organizers and puts them squarely on the clubs.
If the goal is to recognize the best players at JOs and have this award mean something, input needs to come from more than a playerâs coach. Ideally this would be knowledgeable and independent evaluators, but even an approach where coaches nominate players from the opposing team in the platinum division would be an improvement over the status quo. This would arguably make the award more meaningful and certainly allow clubs to avoid deciding which of their children they love most.
Still, it is not easy to significantly improve the current system. Norcal/Socal coaches do not necessarily know well Socal/Norcal players etc. It is probably OK to reduce a bit the number of allocations for the medalists, ask for other coachesâ input, etc. If the current system is kept intact, so be it- I do not see a big problem with it. But it is not very wise to try to shame coaches/clubs that do not appreciate the current system because somebody thinks that their kiddo will not get a leg up in admissions office six years later
Another question⌠how many JO MVPs that became olympians (at least recently)?
At least for menâs, donât think our top guys like Hannes, Max, Hooper, Bowen, Hallock, or Weinberg ever were⌠just interesting how people keep developing
As much as Natalie Arata deserves that recognition, and Kate Bambury too, 2019 was the last year USAWP formally recognized that award in the 10u age group.
As far as I can tell, there has been only one 3-time MVP.
James Rozolis-Hill 2014 10u MPV (Vanguard)
James Rozolis-Hill 2016 12u MPV (Vanguard)
James Rozolis-Hill 2018 14u MPV (Vanguard)
Rozolis-Hill also had 4 other appearances on the list for a total of seven. Of those seven, six were First Team and one was Second Team.
For those who donât believe colleges pay attention to what is done before High School, I would like to present the Bio on Harvard Athletics for James Rozolis-Hill which lists off every one of those national-level accolades going all the way back to his appearing on the list as a 9-year old.
Makes perfect sense and would be the best way to get the best results. The top 10 teams usually know each other fairly well, and are often scouted to the point that they know who the other teams best players are and who they need to gameplan for so if there is a way to get their opinions of the other team and their players that would be best.
However JOâs is hectic and coaches are busy trying to talk to their team post game, trying to figure out when and where they are playing next, and even trying to keep 12 kids moving in the right direction. My point is, if it was mandated my guess is most coaches would do it, but they would be distracted and be in a hurry to get it done.
USAWP would need to step in to make this happen, anyone know anyone over there?
