Suckers


We just have too many crappy coaches collecting a pay check and clubs offering watered down extras trying to pass it off for the real deal. Clubs should need more then a tax ID to be formed.

Everyone keeps asking how to fix the problem but the systems been broken from the start. Soccer in the states needs to compleatly reboot at every level in order for change to heppen.
 

Bingo!

"instead of just griping about the problem, as I did Tuesday, let’s offer some solutions....
they’re not the only answers, and some are blissfully idealistic in a pay-to-play world where too many of the people getting paid are making too many of the decisions"

The author must have been reading this blog or something, we've touched on just all all these topics and I have in fact stated some of the exact things mentioned for several years for example:
"U.S. Soccer has a $100 million-plus surplus. Retrofitting outdoor basketball courts with futsal goals in disadvantaged neighborhoods to encourage free, open pickup games might not be a bad way to spend some of it"

Futsal
Futsal is the five-a-side Brazilian game played on a hard surface (a basketball court works fine) with a smaller, weighted ball that stays on the ground. There are no walls, like in the American bastardization of indoor soccer, so you just can’t kick it willy-nilly without it sailing out of bounds. Instead, it provides players many more meaningful touches on the ball in tighter spaces than an 11 vs. 11 outdoor game.

And it’s fun. One reason is the fast action and 8-7 scorelines. Another is that it’s usually played in the outdoor game’s offseason, without the pressure and expectations of club soccer. No one cares about wins or losses or league standings, and kids seem to more open to experimentation without fear of reprisal.

Christian Pulisic’s father thought highly enough of futsal for his son’s development that, when there were no leagues in the Detroit area, he started one himself. Just so Christian could play.
Iceland adopted a similar philosophy, building soccer “houses” around the country – domed fields open to kids at all hours, either for free play or more structured clubs. (You might have noticed that Iceland, population 334,000, qualified for the 2018 World Cup.)

Bio-banding
"Youth players are grouped not by chronological age, where those who hit puberty early or have birthdays in the months after the Jan. 1 cut-off can enjoy huge physical advantages, but by their “biological” age. A formula using your parents’ height determines the percentage of your expected adult size, and you play within those new divisions.

So kids who grow early might be grouped with older kids who have similar physiques and muscle mass. And late bloomers don’t get discouraged or wash out of the sport, instead playing with others of similar physical maturity.

It’s not an exact science but it allows smaller kids to develop their games at their own rate while not allowing the big, fast, strong kids to ignore necessary technical and tactical skills because they can dominate with their physical superiority.

U.S. Soccer, to its credit, held a small bio-banding tournament in April within its Development Academy. Let’s just hope it doesn’t kill the program, as it has with some other outside-the-box proposals, and instead expands it into the mainstream club system"

Winning
The Canadian province of Ontario did away with scores in all games through under-12. That might not fly here, but how about getting rid of standings and league championships? Keep standings privately so teams can be arranged in appropriate divisions the following season, but don’t let parents and coaches find them in a couple of clicks on the Internet.

And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of State Cups and other regional or national championships until, say, U-14.

Parents of club players in Southern California are familiar with the windswept, desert outpost of Lancaster. That’s because the city built a 35-field complex and rents it at cut rates to State Cup organizers in exchange for filling hotel rooms otherwise empty on weekends. It’s why San Diego teams regularly end up there, sometimes to play another San Diego team; it’s too far to drive back and forth, so you cough up $170 per night for a broken-down motel.

It’s a scam. Would our lives be any less fulfilling if we didn’t know who is the best under-9 girls team in the state?

Pick-up soccer
The United States is a soccer-playing nation, not a soccer nation. There’s a difference.
One idea: Mandate that all clubs affiliated with U.S. Soccer have at least one day per week of pick-up soccer. Players come like they would for practice, coaches group them into teams on small-sided fields, then get out of the way and let ’em play. No instruction, only imagination.

Solidarity payments
'When Neymar was sold from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain last year, $10.2 million of his record $252 million transfer fee was sent to Brazilian club Santos, where he joined the youth academy at age 11. They are called solidarity payments, and they’re mandated by FIFA for all clubs that participated in a player’s development between ages 12 and 23.

Except in the United States, where they don’t exist.

That they don’t is a function of labor laws, antitrust laws and a seeming reluctance of entities like Major League Soccer and U.S. Soccer. But there are class-action lawsuits making their way through the courts, so we can hope.

What solidarity payments do is alter the focus of youth clubs, from developing teams to developing individuals. You don’t make any money for winning State Cup, but what happens if your players eventually go pro? Would clubs waste time on kids who help you win now because they matured early, or would they play the long game with patient skill development?

It also might flip the pay-to-play paradigm at some clubs (more with boys than girls). Clubs would be more prone to foot the development bill if they stand to profit down the road'

Coaching
U.S. Soccer has an extensive program to license coaches at various levels. It costs money.

What if it were free? That’s another thing Iceland did, paying for hundreds of coaches to go through the respected UEFA licensing program.

Suddenly, you’d flood the market with qualified and motivated coaches from a generation that played the game as youths, in college or beyond. Some, out of a love for the game and for kids, would form teams at cut rates in areas where folks don’t drive Ferraris. Market forces would do the rest. Why pay $2,000 a year when you can get quality coaching for a fraction of the price?

Curriculum
It’s one thing to have more licensed coaches. Their effectiveness, though, depends on what you teach them. U.S. Soccer’s national coaching curriculum has been modified over the decades, and it includes some excellent material.

But why not refine it further, with an eye toward not burning out kids before they’re teenagers and not mass-producing robots who view soccer practice like math class or piano lessons – something they do at a prescribed day and time because their parents want them to.

Also on it would be Tom Byer, an American who revolutionized youth development in Japan and recently had a pilot program in Seattle squelched by U.S. Soccer that introduces soccer at home before kids begin playing on teams. So would Todd Beane, an American who runs a respected youth academy in Barcelona and is a pioneer in teaching cognitive development over athleticism.

So would Brian Quinn, the former U.S. national-team player from Northern Ireland who currently is the head men’s coach at the University of San Diego. He has long advocated a two-track system of talent identification – one using the normal parameters, and a parallel track for smaller, late bloomers with supreme technical skills to see if a Leo Messi or Andres Iniesta emerges.

So would Toumi Abdelghani. This is a selfish choice, being my daughter’s coach. He’s a U.S. Soccer coaching instructor but, those who have played for him will tell you, is unlike any youth coach anyone has encountered.

His first priority is not training specific skills but empowering the mind, teaching kids ownership so their decisions on the field are theirs, not an adult screaming from the sidelines. Practices are primarily informal small-sided games with a daily concept introduced, where kids are encouraged – even ordered – to dribble and try moves without fear of failure while he quietly watches.

Two things happen: His players become comfortable on the ball, able to think and problem-solve for themselves. And they learn to love the sport. Practice ends, and they don’t grab their water bottle and bolt for the SUV. They ask to stay, to play longer.

Soccer the business becomes soccer the game again.
 
Bingo!

"instead of just griping about the problem, as I did Tuesday, let’s offer some solutions....
they’re not the only answers, and some are blissfully idealistic in a pay-to-play world where too many of the people getting paid are making too many of the decisions"

The author must have been reading this blog or something, we've touched on just all all these topics and I have in fact stated some of the exact things mentioned for several years for example:
"U.S. Soccer has a $100 million-plus surplus. Retrofitting outdoor basketball courts with futsal goals in disadvantaged neighborhoods to encourage free, open pickup games might not be a bad way to spend some of it"

Futsal
Futsal is the five-a-side Brazilian game played on a hard surface (a basketball court works fine) with a smaller, weighted ball that stays on the ground. There are no walls, like in the American bastardization of indoor soccer, so you just can’t kick it willy-nilly without it sailing out of bounds. Instead, it provides players many more meaningful touches on the ball in tighter spaces than an 11 vs. 11 outdoor game.

And it’s fun. One reason is the fast action and 8-7 scorelines. Another is that it’s usually played in the outdoor game’s offseason, without the pressure and expectations of club soccer. No one cares about wins or losses or league standings, and kids seem to more open to experimentation without fear of reprisal.

Christian Pulisic’s father thought highly enough of futsal for his son’s development that, when there were no leagues in the Detroit area, he started one himself. Just so Christian could play.
Iceland adopted a similar philosophy, building soccer “houses” around the country – domed fields open to kids at all hours, either for free play or more structured clubs. (You might have noticed that Iceland, population 334,000, qualified for the 2018 World Cup.)

Bio-banding
"Youth players are grouped not by chronological age, where those who hit puberty early or have birthdays in the months after the Jan. 1 cut-off can enjoy huge physical advantages, but by their “biological” age. A formula using your parents’ height determines the percentage of your expected adult size, and you play within those new divisions.

So kids who grow early might be grouped with older kids who have similar physiques and muscle mass. And late bloomers don’t get discouraged or wash out of the sport, instead playing with others of similar physical maturity.

It’s not an exact science but it allows smaller kids to develop their games at their own rate while not allowing the big, fast, strong kids to ignore necessary technical and tactical skills because they can dominate with their physical superiority.

U.S. Soccer, to its credit, held a small bio-banding tournament in April within its Development Academy. Let’s just hope it doesn’t kill the program, as it has with some other outside-the-box proposals, and instead expands it into the mainstream club system"

Winning
The Canadian province of Ontario did away with scores in all games through under-12. That might not fly here, but how about getting rid of standings and league championships? Keep standings privately so teams can be arranged in appropriate divisions the following season, but don’t let parents and coaches find them in a couple of clicks on the Internet.

And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of State Cups and other regional or national championships until, say, U-14.

Parents of club players in Southern California are familiar with the windswept, desert outpost of Lancaster. That’s because the city built a 35-field complex and rents it at cut rates to State Cup organizers in exchange for filling hotel rooms otherwise empty on weekends. It’s why San Diego teams regularly end up there, sometimes to play another San Diego team; it’s too far to drive back and forth, so you cough up $170 per night for a broken-down motel.

It’s a scam. Would our lives be any less fulfilling if we didn’t know who is the best under-9 girls team in the state?

Pick-up soccer
The United States is a soccer-playing nation, not a soccer nation. There’s a difference.
One idea: Mandate that all clubs affiliated with U.S. Soccer have at least one day per week of pick-up soccer. Players come like they would for practice, coaches group them into teams on small-sided fields, then get out of the way and let ’em play. No instruction, only imagination.

Solidarity payments
'When Neymar was sold from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain last year, $10.2 million of his record $252 million transfer fee was sent to Brazilian club Santos, where he joined the youth academy at age 11. They are called solidarity payments, and they’re mandated by FIFA for all clubs that participated in a player’s development between ages 12 and 23.

Except in the United States, where they don’t exist.

That they don’t is a function of labor laws, antitrust laws and a seeming reluctance of entities like Major League Soccer and U.S. Soccer. But there are class-action lawsuits making their way through the courts, so we can hope.

What solidarity payments do is alter the focus of youth clubs, from developing teams to developing individuals. You don’t make any money for winning State Cup, but what happens if your players eventually go pro? Would clubs waste time on kids who help you win now because they matured early, or would they play the long game with patient skill development?

It also might flip the pay-to-play paradigm at some clubs (more with boys than girls). Clubs would be more prone to foot the development bill if they stand to profit down the road'

Coaching
U.S. Soccer has an extensive program to license coaches at various levels. It costs money.

What if it were free? That’s another thing Iceland did, paying for hundreds of coaches to go through the respected UEFA licensing program.

Suddenly, you’d flood the market with qualified and motivated coaches from a generation that played the game as youths, in college or beyond. Some, out of a love for the game and for kids, would form teams at cut rates in areas where folks don’t drive Ferraris. Market forces would do the rest. Why pay $2,000 a year when you can get quality coaching for a fraction of the price?

Curriculum
It’s one thing to have more licensed coaches. Their effectiveness, though, depends on what you teach them. U.S. Soccer’s national coaching curriculum has been modified over the decades, and it includes some excellent material.

But why not refine it further, with an eye toward not burning out kids before they’re teenagers and not mass-producing robots who view soccer practice like math class or piano lessons – something they do at a prescribed day and time because their parents want them to.

Also on it would be Tom Byer, an American who revolutionized youth development in Japan and recently had a pilot program in Seattle squelched by U.S. Soccer that introduces soccer at home before kids begin playing on teams. So would Todd Beane, an American who runs a respected youth academy in Barcelona and is a pioneer in teaching cognitive development over athleticism.

So would Brian Quinn, the former U.S. national-team player from Northern Ireland who currently is the head men’s coach at the University of San Diego. He has long advocated a two-track system of talent identification – one using the normal parameters, and a parallel track for smaller, late bloomers with supreme technical skills to see if a Leo Messi or Andres Iniesta emerges.

So would Toumi Abdelghani. This is a selfish choice, being my daughter’s coach. He’s a U.S. Soccer coaching instructor but, those who have played for him will tell you, is unlike any youth coach anyone has encountered.

His first priority is not training specific skills but empowering the mind, teaching kids ownership so their decisions on the field are theirs, not an adult screaming from the sidelines. Practices are primarily informal small-sided games with a daily concept introduced, where kids are encouraged – even ordered – to dribble and try moves without fear of failure while he quietly watches.

Two things happen: His players become comfortable on the ball, able to think and problem-solve for themselves. And they learn to love the sport. Practice ends, and they don’t grab their water bottle and bolt for the SUV. They ask to stay, to play longer.

Soccer the business becomes soccer the game again.
Dude! Great post.
 
Classic:

Parents of club players in Southern California are familiar with the windswept, desert outpost of Lancaster. That’s because the city built a 35-field complex and rents it at cut rates to State Cup organizers in exchange for filling hotel rooms otherwise empty on weekends. It’s why San Diego teams regularly end up there, sometimes to play another San Diego team; it’s too far to drive back and forth, so you cough up $170 per night for a broken-down motel.

It’s a scam. Would our lives be any less fulfilling if we didn’t know who is the best under-9 girls team in the state?
 
The author must have been reading this blog or something, we've touched on just all all these topics and I have in fact stated some of the exact things mentioned for several years
Ha! You took the words right out of my mouth. That last part of his article sounds a lot like folks here I know well.
 
"You don’t make any money for winning State Cup.."


That's the only part I disagree with. If a club has a team win SC then that gives them a marketing advantage over other clubs that in turn can bring in more players/money.
 
Why can't we all put the kids first?
https://www.fcengland.com/news_article/show/942435

This is from a blog poster #Fcengland

"Youth soccer; perhaps we should rename it. Youth soccer
for the benefit of adults. Yes, that’s much better. Looking at the youth soccer landscape, you’d have to say we rarely put the kids first when making decisions about changes to the structure and organization of the game. Let’s look at some of the issues here in SoCal and across the US in general to explore why that is the case.

Travel time
Here in SoCal there are multiple leagues competing for teams spread across a large geographic area. Because of this fractured setup, teams often end up travelling long distances (4+ hours round trips) for a single game. Sometimes, that includes kids as young as 8 years old. Really? We have to put kids of that age in a car for 2 hours (sometimes at 6am) to get a competitive game against other 8 year olds? Absolute madness.

The competing leagues could and should be combined, whether by Cal South or US Soccer directives. They can all still make money (because that’s generally why they do it) in the same way as companies and shareholders still make money when they merge. The geographical issues would be largely removed if leagues combined. Look at the number of soccer clubs in SoCal; there is no need whatsoever to travel any more than an hour for a game of youth soccer, even for higher level teams. For the majority of areas, you could structure leagues and brackets so that travel time for many of the games would likely be 30 minutes or less. Everyone wins by the way; players, clubs, parents, referees. Nobody loses.

The argument that there are not enough players or teams of a similar standard within a short driving distance is completely false, especially for the younger ages. Sure, for the older age groups, the top 5% of players perhaps have the need to travel longer distances to play against teams of a similar level but for the other 95%, it is completely unecessary. Why don’t we just put the kids first and reorganize things so they don’t have to travel so much? We’re adults. We’re intelligent. We’re capable of sending rockets into space and performing medical miracles; if we really want to, we can reorganize the geography of kids’ soccer games with our eyes closed.

Playing time

Playing time is a big issue for player development. To improve, you cannot just practice; you also need to play in games. Many clubs have players sitting on the bench for games without seeing a minute of playing time and we all know that isn’t the best way to develop every kid we serve. Everyone in club soccer recognizes that playing time is largely merit-based but there is something to be said for having all players get some playing time in every single game. If a player is on a roster, providing the club and coach have done their jobs properly (and haven’t simply added players purely because they are paying $’s), that player should be capable of playing at the level the team is operating.

Sitting kids for entire games is about nothing else but winning (and we all know how much coaches here love to win, regardless of the cost). If coaches are able to put their winning ego’s aside and place the development of players first by giving everyone time on the field, our kids will be better served overall. Interestingly, the general standard of players would also be higher (due to more playing time and development) and this would foster a higher level of play for everyone, which we would all agree is probably a good thing.

Most clubs mock AYSO’s ‘everyone plays’ approach but there is something to be said for it. Belgium adopted something similar many years ago (after failing badly at the top level they launched Project 2000) and they seem to be doing very well in terms of producing world class players, both on the male and female side. Having everyone get playing time is a big part of their approach to youth development and you’d have to say their approach seems to be working rather better than the current US setup.

Tournaments

Tournaments have been structured for maximum financial income and maximum games for a long time. Some teams can play up to four or five games in two days. Is this the best way to allow our kids enough rest to play at 100% and avoid injuries? We already know the answer to that but we continue to do it because “that’s just the way it is with tournaments.”

If we put players first, we would have them play only one game per day, likely longer than the current format which has shortened games in general. Of course, this wouldn’t work for the current tournament organizational and financial structure. However, tournament organizers would have no problem finding a way around that; they are clever people and know how to make money!

If we truly want to put our kids first, we should change the structure and approach of all tournaments. It would need everyone to pull in the same direction and change at the same time to work but as with the leagues merger, it’s easily possible for intelligent people like us.

Why on earth can’t we, as adults, get together and put the kids first with all decisions we make regarding youth soccer? Why can’t we put our ego’s aside and do things that will benefit all of our kids?

It’s time to put the kids first. They’ve been second for too long"
 
How can pay-to-play be the culprit yet none of the solutions in the article addresses pay to play?

The article has some good points...I think the author hit the nail on the head with "The United States is a soccer-playing nation, not a soccer nation. There’s a difference." I also like the idea of solidarity payments and making coaching licensing more accessible/cheaper.

I also think AYSO is part of the solution to elevating US soccer. US soccer should partner with AYSO to bring in better coaching which would help in retaining players/extending interest in soccer for a longer time at the younger ages.
 
AYSO actually has really good coaching education. And for the most part -it’s free.

The problem is that 1/3 of their coaches want to learn and will apply what they learn. 1/3 think they know what they are doing (even if their only exposure to soccer is watching a few World Cup games every 4 years). And 1/3 have no interest in coaching and are only out there because if they don’t coach, the their kid and a handful of others won’t be able to play.
 
Last edited:
AYSO actually has really good coaching education. And for the most part -it’s free.

The problem is that 1/3 of their coaches want to learn and will apply what they learn. 1/3 think they know what they are doing (even if tbeir only exposure to soccer is watching a few World Cup games every 4 years). And 1/3 have no interest in coaching and are only out there because if they don’t coach, the their kid and a handful of others won’t be able to play.
I think the slice of coaches who want to learn and apply what they learn is much larger...maybe 2/3 to 3/4. The problem is that the majority of these coaches are coming in with little to no soccer experience. AYSO (or US Soccer) should pay to have a coaching technical director for all of the younger age divisions to help them run practices and to serve as a resource when coaches have questions.
 
I think the slice of coaches who want to learn and apply what they learn is much larger...maybe 2/3 to 3/4. The problem is that the majority of these coaches are coming in with little to no soccer experience. AYSO (or US Soccer) should pay to have a coaching technical director for all of the younger age divisions to help them run practices and to serve as a resource when coaches have questions.
Many of the regions use UK Soccer or a similar option. Problem is that when a coach has one of these people run a session for them, they see it as a chance to zone out or take the night off.
 
I think the slice of coaches who want to learn and apply what they learn is much larger...maybe 2/3 to 3/4. The problem is that the majority of these coaches are coming in with little to no soccer experience. AYSO (or US Soccer) should pay to have a coaching technical director for all of the younger age divisions to help them run practices and to serve as a resource when coaches have questions.
Love this idea. I coached two teams for my daughter, was very new to soccer and never played. Took all the classes, learned to referee, and also had my daughter playing Club(as a keeper but she still wanted to play the field at this time) and had a chance to watch club practices. Daughter would lead practice, help with all the drills, teach footwork, help the keepers while I'd stay out of the way (just kidding but having someone on a team that can demonstrate a coaches intent is huge). 4 of the girls I coached are now in club and every kid learned some and had a fun.

I'd see some coaches around me talking to their kids for 30 minutes, others having them stand in lines for drills. Having a technical director walking around, observing, and helping with these practices would be huge. Even just 5 minutes to each team on any given night. AYSO 37 in Corona had players from the UK teach on Friday's and I'd always push the kids to attend, even showing up and scheduling a practice with them. I knew my limitations, and was always trying to get others to help.
 
Maybe I'm a sucker...

To me "pay-to-play" is not the problem but a symptom of American sports' culture and the difference in soccer culture as compared to what we see in other countries. I'll admit that "pay-to-play" in club soccer is a unique business model. The clubs want all the benefits of being for-profit without having the hassles of having customers or providing customer service. I personally don't care what a DOC makes as long as I believe we're receiving value for our money. We've left a club because we didn't believe that was the case...in part because the kids were 4th in priority behind club, team and coach combined with the fact that the club (ie DOC) was full of crap.

Based on my very rough calculation, we spend $12 an hour or less for club fees, that doesn't include travel, cleats etc. Still I think that's a pretty good deal for my son to learn a skill, hangout with friends, be challenged, get some discipline etc. I get to watch my son compete and to socialize with some great parents from all backgrounds. For me that's a win-win. Is club soccer perfect, nope, far from it...the lack of communication can drive you crazy, but overall its a net positive. Personally, the following don't bother me at all:

-Travel (listening to 10-11 year olds' conversations for an hour is priceless)
-Parking fees
-Unpaved tourney parking lots
-Parent politics (in fact, I find it somewhat entertaining)
-Opposing parent behavior (of course, unless it is directed at the kids)
-Kids on our team that are scholarshipped (more power to them)
-Coaches per diem
-Coaches in track suits
-The DOC's car
-The smell at Oceanside

I also couldn't care less about "pathways" to national teams or college scholarships (I reserve the right to at least partially care about scholarships in a few years). I'll I really expect for my money is competent and well prepared coaches, administrators, and refs along with decent pitches and competitive opponents. Anything on top of that is a bonus.
 
How can pay-to-play be the culprit yet none of the solutions in the article addresses pay to play?

The article has some good points...I think the author hit the nail on the head with "The United States is a soccer-playing nation, not a soccer nation. There’s a difference." I also like the idea of solidarity payments and making coaching licensing more accessible/cheaper.

I also think AYSO is part of the solution to elevating US soccer. US soccer should partner with AYSO to bring in better coaching which would help in retaining players/extending interest in soccer for a longer time at the younger ages.

Part of the problem with making that happen is that AYSO and US Soccer and both glued to their respective philosophy. A large part of both the coach training in the organizations is drilling the philosophy into them and having the coaches learn the respective pyramids. From the other thread, and the attitude of US Soccer to the NSCAA training, it seems a large part of what's going on with these orgs is just a turf war.
 
Hey Azz, nice to see you throw a turd in a punch bowl, like you used to..... Hope everyone is doing well (how's M?). aka mkg3.

I was just walking around the OC Great Park earlier this week while my younger kid was practicing there. As I walked, there were Pats, Slammers, GPS (aka RealVin's FC United), WCFC (oops OC Surf), LAGOC, Strikers Irvine clubs all with multiple fields each and 2~4 teams per field.

Lots of U12 and under teams with parents sitting around the field (and coaching their kids mumbling...). The thing of it is, the vast majority of the practices are the same and the players are middle of the road - just average. Did not see a single standout player (boy or girl) as I walked.

In fact I was appalled to see one group of girls (not picking on girls, it just happened to be so - could have easily been boys too) that could not make a successful pass to each other standing still 10 yards apart from each other. The ball simply were kicked off target. As soon as they started to move while passing, the ball often found its way to another team's practice. These must been U14 or so girls with (won't mention club) some Elite/Academy/DPL type of branding on their shirts. The sad thing is the coach tried to correct it on the spot and the mistakes/sloppiness continued without any improvement.

The point is this is to say that its a clear sign of better economy and parents are led to believe their kid is good enough to play at the so called "high level". We've created so many leagues/options (i.e., younger DAs, ECNL, DPL, Discovery Bracket, Premier, Flight 1, Gold) each with low teens of teams in each so that every club can have a green river flowing through them. Note that the clubs are simply reacting to the supply and demands of thirsty parents who want their kid playing at the "high levels".

Who am I to criticize any parent for trying to do the best. We all do it. But, look at these teams. Each with full roster (which means the top players start and the bench players don't play much - only enough to keep the parents off the coaches backs), and since they are playing other average teams in a "high tier", they'll have an average season. The result is that everyone is not happy but not upset - again middle of the road. In other words, status quo.

I think most parents intuitively understand this but when it comes to their own child, we throw all rational thinking out the door and seek so called "the best" of our kids.....from parents perspective. So the fact that my kid was at one of these clubs practices make me a sucker too.

We pay $3k~4k/yr, which works out to roughly $300~$400/month, or $10~$15/day. So for a price of 2~3 Starbuck coffees or toll fee on the expressway, our kids play in "pay-to-play" system. Its actually just fine. It works and keeps youth sports cottage industry going and going.... And keeps kids constructively engaged in a physical and mental activities. Its healthy, as long as the kid is enjoying and liking it.

What's not fine is how we go about finding the right players for the Youth National Team. The fundamental formulas being used today is flawed. We have so many teams and players spread out that how can we find the so called YNT talent pool? You all agree that there are potentially great players sprinkled all over the place. They are not all found in DA teams.

We focus so much on finding whats good or right that we often forget that its just as, if not more, important to identify what is NOT good or right. In mathematics, there is a method to identify false positives so that one can quickly discriminate those out and narrow down to the right set of pools to try to find the target.

It really isn't the culture, or having pickup games or not, or that because only the well off pay to play. We're just looking at the wrong places and suffering from misplaced emphasis.

So just remember, a sucker is born every minute, and that if I had a dollar for every time,...
 
Back
Top