# When does winning matter?



## SoccerGuru (May 20, 2020)

I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


We are Americans, winning is what we do.   Winning is the reasons that there are so many clubs and they can charge such ridiculous rates.  Every parent wants their kids to win no mater what they say about bot caring about results.  You find a club that is a perennial loser and you'll find a dying club.  Pro/College players don't come from losing teams. (They may start there) Losing teams don't play in important showcase or attract college coaches.  Win


----------



## futboldad1 (May 20, 2020)

If teams and our DDs are truly being "developed" they should definitely begin winning more games and harder games each year as they age...... You could argue it is at U16 and above as that's when recruiting gets serious...... but it can be sooner......


----------



## Overlap (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


it should always matter, it matters more as they grow and develop. It's the result of the player's understanding the game, working together as a team under the guidance of their coach. This also transcends to life, things aren't meant to be easy, you work hard, sometimes with a team, strive to do the best you can in whatever you do, the sooner they learn that winning is a lot more fun than losing, they learn not to give up, keep battling and do the best they can...that's my 2 cents for the day


----------



## Ellejustus (May 20, 2020)

That was my NUMBER ONE complaint with the GDA's first year.  No playoffs for 14 year olds!!!!  That was stupid and a big red flag for this dad. I was so depressed that year.  Winning is America everyone.  The first thing we fought for and won is our freedom.  We should all be free and that is what life is all about.  Winning comes in many shapes and forms as well.  For some, winning a spot on the team is awesome.  Some want to win a starting spot.  Some want to win it all and have that winning attitude.  Under 10, keep it more about fun.  11 and up start introducing them to the winning formula.  Not buying a spot, but winning a spot.  Very hard to do.  That's my 2 pennies worth   BTW Guru, I like you more and more.  You don;t have to like me but I just wanted to be honest with you.......


----------



## whatithink (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


Edwin Van Der Sar, ex Man Utd & Dutch GK, currently CEO of Ajax, a club renowned for developing talent, "At Ajax, we have a certain philosophy that is sometimes more important than winning - the development of players. " According to him, the only Ajax team that they care about winning is their top team. 

It is important that players play to win, not that they win. Its important to perform at a college showcase, not to win it. If your kid is playing to their potential and being developed into a better player by the coach/club, but not winning ... so what. The best players aren't always found on the teams that win the most.

IMO, doing your best matters, always competing matters, always turning up matters, always being happy with your performance matters, continually developing through effort/attitude etc. matters ... winning is way down the list. Winning as the priority means development (of players) is secondary. I pay coaches/clubs to develop my player - I don't pay to be on a winning team (not to say that's not desirable obv.).


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 20, 2020)

whatithink said:


> Edwin Van Der Sar, ex Man Utd & Dutch GK, currently CEO of Ajax, a club renowned for developing talent, "At Ajax, we have a certain philosophy that is sometimes more important than winning - the development of players. " According to him, the only Ajax team that they care about winning is their top team.
> 
> It is important that players play to win, not that they win. Its important to perform at a college showcase, not to win it. If your kid is playing to their potential and being developed into a better player by the coach/club, but not winning ... so what. The best players aren't always found on the teams that win the most.
> 
> IMO, doing your best matters, always competing matters, always turning up matters, always being happy with your performance matters, continually developing through effort/attitude etc. matters ... winning is way down the list. Winning as the priority means development (of players) is secondary. I pay coaches/clubs to develop my player - I don't pay to be on a winning team (not to say that's not desirable obv.).


The Dutch aren't winners like the Americans.  Maybe 300 years ago but certainly not today.  At the Ajax level you are dealing with nothing but winners, you are polishing a diamond not polishing a turd (U.S. pro soccer player).  European soccer is a different game altogether.  We are 50 years away from being what they have in Europe now. Europeans are not winners and really don't care about winning (generally), so they can sell development.  

From a business perspective, marketing a losing club as development is not going to attract much business, and lets not kid ourselves, youth soccer in America is all about business.  Winning sells and losing doesn't.

All those qualities that you list in the last paragraph are all highly desirable and honorable, but they are qualities of winners not loser.  Show me a kid exhibiting  those qualities and I'll show you a winner (both life and soccer).  The last sentence is self delusional, what losing club are you paying to develop your kid. Americans win , sometimes they loss but in the end we win.


----------



## dad4 (May 20, 2020)

There is a difference between what the kid does, and what the team does.

The kid is going to try to win this game, right now.

The team may not.  You might play a key player in a new position, give extra minutes to a bench player, or build from the back even with younger players.

All of these are things that hurt your chances of winning this game, but might help you win down the line.


----------



## espola (May 20, 2020)

Maybe 100 years?  MLS is the 5th-richest pro league in N North America.  The bright spot in this chart is average attendance, but the NBA and NHL play mostly indoors, where attendance is limited by the facility.



LeagueSportYear
foundedTeamsLast
expansionLast
contractionRevenue
US$ (bn)Average
attendance (2017)National Football LeagueAmerican football19203220021952$13.067,396Major League BaseballBaseball1903[o 1]3019981899$9.530,042National Basketball AssociationBasketball19463020041954$5.217,884National Hockey LeagueIce hockey1917312017[o 2]1978$3.717,422Major League SoccerSoccer1996262020[o 3]2014[o 4]$0.922,112Canadian Football LeagueCanadian football1958[o 5]920142006$0.224,644


----------



## espola (May 20, 2020)

Every player and team should strive to win, and learn to lose gracefully.  For the overwhelming proportion of youth players (from 4v4 through college) their last game is a loss.


----------



## Soccermaverick (May 20, 2020)

Before every game we read or watch this. My son is an American dam it.







Be seated.

Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.

You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would be killed in a major battle. Every man is scared in his first action. If he says he's not, he's a goddamn liar. But the real hero is the man who fights even though he's scared. Some men will get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour, and for some it takes days. But the real man never lets his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

All through your army career you men have bitched about what you call 'this chicken-shit drilling.' That is all for a purpose—to ensure instant obedience to orders and to create constant alertness. This must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a fuck for a man who is not always on his toes. But the drilling has made veterans of all you men. You are ready! A man has to be alert all the time if he expects to keep on breathing. If not, some German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit. There are four hundred neatly marked graves in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job—but they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before his officer did.

An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is bullshit. The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battle than they do about fucking. And we have the best team—we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards we're going up against.

All the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters. Every single man in the army plays a vital role. So don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells and turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? That cowardly bastard could say to himself, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' What if every man said that? Where in the hell would we be then? No, thank God, Americans don't say that. Every man does his job. Every man is important. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the quartermaster is needed to bring up the food and clothes for us because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last damn man in the mess hall, even the one who boils the water to keep us from getting the GI shits, has a job to do.

Each man must think not only of himself, but think of his buddy fighting alongside him. We don't want yellow cowards in the army. They should be killed off like flies. If not, they will go back home after the war, goddamn cowards, and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men.

One of the bravest men I saw in the African campaign was on a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were moving toward Tunis. I stopped and asked him what the hell he was doing up there. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, sir.' 'Isn't it a little unhealthy up there right now?' I asked. 'Yes sir, but this goddamn wire has got to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No sir, but you sure as hell do.' Now, there was a real soldier. A real man. A man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty appeared at the time.

And you should have seen the trucks on the road to Gabès. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they crawled along those son-of-a-bitch roads, never stopping, never deviating from their course with shells bursting all around them. Many of the men drove over 40 consecutive hours. We got through on good old American guts. These were not combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost.

Sure, we all want to go home. We want to get this war over with. But you can't win a war lying down. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the bastards who started it. We want to get the hell over there and clean the goddamn thing up, and then get at those purple-pissing Japs. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. So keep moving. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler.

When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually. The hell with that. My men don't dig foxholes. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket.

Some of you men are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty. War is a bloody business, a killing business. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them, spill their blood or they will spill yours. Shoot them in the guts. Rip open their belly. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt from your face and you realize that it's not dirt, it's the blood and gut of what was once your best friend, you'll know what to do.

I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's balls. We're going to hold him by his balls and we're going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We're going to go through the enemy like shit through a tinhorn.

There will be some complaints that we're pushing our people too hard. I don't give a damn about such complaints. I believe that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing harder means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that. My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit either. I want men like the lieutenant in Libya who, with a Luger against his chest, swept aside the gun with his hand, jerked his helmet off with the other and busted the hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he picked up the gun and he killed another German. All this time the man had a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you!

Don't forget, you don't know I'm here at all. No word of that fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell they did with me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamned Germans. Some day, I want them to rise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl 'Ach! It's the goddamned Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again!'

Then there's one thing you men will be able to say when this war is over and you get back home. Thirty years from now when you're sitting by your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks, 'What did you do in the great World War Two?' You won't have to cough and say, 'Well, your granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say 'Son, your granddaddy rode with the great Third Army and a son-of-a-goddamned-bitch named George Patton!'


All right, you sons of bitches. You know how I feel. I'll be proud to lead you wonderful guys in battle anytime, anywhere. That's all.[23]


----------



## dad4 (May 20, 2020)

Soccermaverick said:


> Before every game we read or watch this. My son is an American dam it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can’t stand the Patton and Montgomery hagiography.   They were nothing without Turing and Blechley Park.  (“Pushing harder“ is a lot easier if you can push into the places you know are weak.)


----------



## Giesbock (May 20, 2020)

That is some jingoistic sh** that reflects a world view that is so small minded and out of touch with today’s reality.  His concept of winning a ground campaign across Germany in 1944 has nothing to do with winning in youth soccer.


----------



## bb150000 (May 20, 2020)

In some cases, in youth soccer, the team needs to win some in order to play in higher leagues or divisions.   This is where those "grey" areas kick in. Do I lock my players into the same positions, do I play kids more than others?

And HS Varisty Games...should be all about winning.


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 20, 2020)

Giesbock said:


> That is some jingoistic sh** that reflects a world view that is so small minded and out of touch with today’s reality.  His concept of winning a ground campaign across Germany in 1944 has nothing to do with winning in youth soccer.


Winning is winning


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 20, 2020)

The last 50 years of globalism has shown it to be a losing proposition.


----------



## espola (May 20, 2020)

Banana Hammock said:


> The last 50 years of globalism has shown it to be a losing proposition.


There are a lot of confusingly open references there.


----------



## timbuck (May 20, 2020)

Playing against the right level of competition is also an important factor.  Winning by sandbagging is weak sauce. I’d rather play a little out of depth and have a worse record than playing a bunch of weaker teams and win every game by 5 goals.


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 20, 2020)

timbuck said:


> Playing against the right level of competition is also an important factor.  Winning by sandbagging is weak sauce. I’d rather play a little out of depth and have a worse record than playing a bunch of weaker teams and wing every game by 5 goals.


Agreed, sandbagging is not winning!


----------



## pokergod (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


Like everything in life there is a balancing act.  Plus, if your not first you are last and second place is first place for losers.


----------



## Soccermaverick (May 20, 2020)

If you’re English and watch the premiere league 





 
WESTMORLAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmorland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmorland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made, 
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisburyand Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.


----------



## Giesbock (May 20, 2020)

I used to compete in the amateur category of 24 hour mountain bike races...as part of a 4 man team.  There was a dude named Tinker Juarez who raced solo. By sheer luck he would blow by me on every single lap... in my turn, I blew by some riders too.

On any given day, in pretty much any endeavor, there’s gonna be someone faster than you and someone slower.  I counted it as a win to be on the same course as Tinker. He was USA’s first Olympic mountain biker.


----------



## Soccermaverick (May 20, 2020)

If you play in the MLS and never been to Europe.








Ricky Bobby: Wait, Dad. Don’t you remember the time you told me “If you ain’t first, you’re last”?
Reese Bobby: Huh? What are you talking about, Son?
Ricky Bobby: That day at school.
Reese Bobby: Oh hell, Son, I was high that day. That doesn’t make any sense at all, you can be second, third, fourth… hell you can even be fifth.
Ricky Bobby: What? I’ve lived my whole life by that!


----------



## jpeter (May 20, 2020)

Depends on the person or player.  Is winning taught, learned or more natural for some?

Some are just crazy competitive with a built in drive for winning and they would go to great lengths to win even at young ages.

When does too much winning become a distraction?


----------



## Ellejustus (May 20, 2020)

Giesbock said:


> I used to compete in the amateur category of 24 hour mountain bike races...as part of a 4 man team.  There was a dude named Tinker Juarez who raced solo. By sheer luck he would blow by me on every single lap... in my turn, I blew by some riders too.
> 
> On any given day, in pretty much any endeavor, there’s gonna be someone faster than you and someone slower.  I counted it as a win to be on the same course as Tinker. He was USA’s first Olympic mountain biker.


That's called a personal win and that is awesome.  You probably know a buddy of mine from Laguna that is bad ass at 53.  Crazy dude comes flying down some mountain in Laguna Canyon almost every day.  Always moral victories for all of us.  Team winning is what I'm all about and so is my dd and that is how companies win and lose.  If cancer hits a team, game over.  Same thing with a company.  Win as a team and lose as a team but my team better try and win or I will get in your grill and get on your ass for not trying.  If our team tries 100% and we lose, I keep my head up and that's a "win" we all keep to ourselves.  The fact is we lost and were the losers!!!  Winning attitude is the only thing one can control!!!


----------



## whatithink (May 20, 2020)

Banana Hammock said:


> The Dutch aren't winners like the Americans.  Maybe 300 years ago but certainly not today.  At the Ajax level you are dealing with nothing but winners, you are polishing a diamond not polishing a turd (U.S. pro soccer player).  European soccer is a different game altogether.  We are 50 years away from being what they have in Europe now. Europeans are not winners and really don't care about winning (generally), so they can sell development.
> 
> From a business perspective, marketing a losing club as development is not going to attract much business, and lets not kid ourselves, youth soccer in America is all about business.  Winning sells and losing doesn't.
> 
> All those qualities that you list in the last paragraph are all highly desirable and honorable, but they are qualities of winners not loser.  Show me a kid exhibiting  those qualities and I'll show you a winner (both life and soccer).  The last sentence is self delusional, what losing club are you paying to develop your kid. Americans win , sometimes they loss but in the end we win.


We're talking about soccer. I'm pretty comfortable saying that the Dutch have accomplished more in soccer terms than the US. They have only started to get a womens program in place and in no time at all, relatively speaking, they have become European champions and lost in the World Cup final. It didn't take their women's program 50 years, or 20 years to get to that level of accomplishment.

Ajax is a great example of their development approach, but if you think they are not creating winners there, then you need to educate yourself. The Ajax academy is utterly brutal. While they do not care about their teams winning, every player's place is under pressure every day, not only from players in the academy, but also from players all over Holland, Europe and frankly, the world. Their goal is to create players and teams that will win both nationally and in Europe. They do not see winning at any other level as important.

My last sentence isn't delusional. Read about current USWNT players thoughts on "super" teams and how they weren't on those, but developed more, in their opinion, on lesser teams where they had to star & lead. Read about Pusilic and how he turned down "better" (read winning) teams because he was developing more on the existing one because he had to be a leader etc. I pay to have my players developed. They are not on "losing clubs" or losing teams for that matter. If they are not winning, I'm not going to be a whiny spoilt brat and throw my toys out of the pram, and more importantly, neither are they.


----------



## outside! (May 20, 2020)

Giesbock said:


> I used to compete in the amateur category of 24 hour mountain bike races...as part of a 4 man team.  There was a dude named Tinker Juarez who raced solo. By sheer luck he would blow by me on every single lap... in my turn, I blew by some riders too.
> 
> On any given day, in pretty much any endeavor, there’s gonna be someone faster than you and someone slower.  I counted it as a win to be on the same course as Tinker. He was USA’s first Olympic mountain biker.


Tinker is also a class act. I stood by an watched him lose the NORBA national title because he had a second flat and didn't have a tube and back then there was not outside assistance (and they still shouldn't in my opinion). While he was disappointed, he was still smiling and waving to the fans.

You may have blown by me in my only 24 hour race at Vail Lake. That was the course that convinced me to never race again. Why should I pay money to feel like crap on a climb? I can feel like crap on a climb for free any day of the week.


----------



## TangoCity (May 20, 2020)

Winning is always funner than losing, but it only 'matters' when playing is your profession.


----------



## Giesbock (May 20, 2020)

outside! said:


> Tinker is also a class act. I stood by an watched him lose the NORBA national title because he had a second flat and didn't have a tube and back then there was not outside assistance (and they still shouldn't in my opinion). While he was disappointed, he was still smiling and waving to the fans.
> 
> You may have blown by me in my only 24 hour race at Vail Lake. That was the course that convinced me to never race again. Why should I pay money to feel like crap on a climb? I can feel like crap on a climb for free any day of the week.


Yep, Vail Lake was one of them and I will not forget pushing my bike up a gnarly steep section in the middle of the night and here comes the man with titanium-spring legs, pumping through without slowing down!  Cool that you did that.  Felt like a win despite overall standings right?


----------



## MARsSPEED (May 20, 2020)

Ask Micheal Jordan or Tom Brady. They will tell you since they could pick up a ball. 

But you snowflakes go ahead and listen to those in charge of US soccer. It's worked out great for the men. RME. 

/End thread.


----------



## BIGD (May 20, 2020)

It's not whether it matters, it's whether its the only thing that matters.  Winning is just the end result of playing.  You play sports to PLAY, not just to win, or there would be a lot less people playing sports.  Winning is just the icing on the cake.  It's more fun to win but it's the playing the game and getting better at playing the game that provides the motivation to keep playing.   My player will always say the team would rather lose in a highly competitive match that win an easy match.   Its about PLAYING.    

The problem is that the adults have created systems that encourage winning to be the only thing that matters.  Mostly to generate money and nothing to do with the perpetuating the joy of sports and supporting our youth community.  So development suffers, participation suffers, joy is lost.


----------



## BIGD (May 20, 2020)

bb150000 said:


> In some cases, in youth soccer, the team needs to win some in order to play in higher leagues or divisions.


Made up systems created by adults to serve the adults.


----------



## Soccermaverick (May 20, 2020)

Winning Rocky Style






Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place, and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward; how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! I'm always gonna love you, no matter what. No matter what happens. You're my son and you're my blood. You're the best thing in my life. But until you start believing in yourself, you ain't gonna have a life.


----------



## youthsportsugh (May 20, 2020)

From the time scores are kept winning matters, but to what extent does it matter?  Winning 8-0 because you are bigger, faster, stronger as 13 year olds doesn't reflect the better team necessarily. 2 years later you win 3-0 because you are still a bit bigger, faster and stronger. 2 years after that the score is reversed 3-0 because the previously losing team was developing over those 4 years as well as still growing to be as big, as strong and as fast.  Did winning at 13 year olds matter sure it did, you might have still drawn other girls to the club to keep the winning going and money rolling in, but you weren't developing anything and finally the other Club caught up maturity wise and probably along the way added a couple of families who saw what was happening or heard what was happening and moved over.  Which team would you rather be a player on or a parent of? I know where my daughters stand on that.  I know there are always those families jumping from club to club at the promise of being the next big thing at the currently winning club, but for me that is chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbows because in the end there are way too many variables for guaranteess of winning in youth sports.  In the grand scheme of life sport is way more than winning unless you are getting paid and to that end winning only matters if it gets you paid -- Larry Brown!


----------



## Kicker4Life (May 20, 2020)

whatithink said:


> They have only started to get a womens program in place and in no time at all, relatively speaking, they have become European champions and lost in the World Cup final. It didn't take their women's program 50 years, or 20 years to get to that level of accomplishment.


Actually, the Orange Leeuwinnen played their first International Game (recognized by FIFA) on April 17th, 1971 and lost 4-0 to France.  So it actually took them 48 years to make it to 2nd place in the WC (2019) and 46 to become European Champions (2017).

I do agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## whatithink (May 20, 2020)

Kicker4Life said:


> Actually, the Orange Leeuwinnen played their first International Game (recognized by FIFA) on April 17th, 1971 and lost 4-0 to France.  So it actually took them 48 years to make it to 2nd place in the WC (2019) and 46 to become European Champions (2017).
> 
> I do agree with the rest of your post.


Fair enough, I get that, but I'm really referring to a coordinated approach, investment & associated infrastructure from the national FA. That didn't happen until the early 2000s, hence my less than 20 years inference.


----------



## dad4 (May 20, 2020)

BIGD said:


> Made up systems created by adults to serve the adults.  (describing needing to win to move up a division)


nonsense.  pro/rel is designed to make the game more fun.  mismatched games are boring.  close games are fun.  

If my kids team moves down a bracket, it just means the old bracket was the wrong place.  Every time it has happened for us, the new bracket has been more fun than the old one.

Same thing for moving up.  Every time they moved up, it was because the old games were mismatches, and the new bracket turned out to be more fun than the old one.

The only problems are when one of the parents feels insulted by the demotion.  That path leads to madness.  

If you trust the system and look forward to the new season, it’s pretty fun.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (May 20, 2020)

Everybody likes to win...but I'll take individual development over winning all day long.  Developing a winning mentality (ability to compete to the end, mental toughness, having an impact on a game) is a part of individual development, should be emphasized at an early age and is more important than the actual end result/scoreline.


----------



## dk_b (May 20, 2020)

I've always thought winning v development is a sliding scale that starts at whatever point the participants start keeping score.  Even at the highest levels, development never fully disappears and even at the lowest levels (if you are keeping score) results have some relevance (as mentioned before, learning how to win and lose w/grace can and should start at that level (I can remember when my son (now 21) was in preschool and we went to a seder; he found the afikomen but the other kids were PISSED; he would have been fine if he hadn't b/c we had been talking about winning and losing since forever - watching sports, playing games, etc. - while the other kids, I guess, had never "lost" and did not know how).

Often, development is more important than the result - say, a college exhibition game where you can get freshmen their first exposure or a minor league baseball game when you are moving a stud 20yo from 3B to 2B b/c the 3B at the big club is a perennial all-star.  But sometimes the result is more important - say, an elimination game in a teen-level national playoff or when a win means an NCAA bid or the start of the off-season.  But even in the elimination games, development matters and with the minor league baseball game (or college exhibition), the result still carries importance.  But whether it is 90-10 or 80-20 or 15-85, etc., depends on the circumstances.


----------



## Primetime (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


For the most part I feel Winning matters and is relevant from about U12-U14, basically first 2 years of 11v11.   Two big reasons.  First is In small sided games the years before that Kickball Reins supreme.  So while many coaches utilized the SS games to develop and get more touches in close space as it’s intended for, just as many utilize it to win games over those teams.   In short sided games a big boot can carry a whole team.   Mix that with a big kid to run em down and it’s a wrap at that age.   Hardly have to play real soccer at all.   Fast forward those same teams to 11v11 and it rarely translates.   So while winning at that age is great and all they end up being empty wins down the road.   Now on to The years following U14 ish teams should likely be playing mostly college showcases which the score becomes irrelevant as there’s no trophies to hand out.   Get to college and the winning matters again.


----------



## BIGD (May 20, 2020)

dad4 said:


> nonsense.  pro/rel is designed to make the game more fun.  mismatched games are boring.  close games are fun.
> 
> If my kids team moves down a bracket, it just means the old bracket was the wrong place.  Every time it has happened for us, the new bracket has been more fun than the old one.
> 
> ...


Totally agree if it’s used for what you describe, matching up appropriate level of play.  The OP used it as a ample when winning matters, implying that achieving promotion and not getting relegated is important.  Again, I think that’s just a result of playing and as you said if it’s meant to balance the competition I don’t have it problem with it.  I think most parents feel a lot more strongly about needing to make the top level and stay there than you do.


----------



## jpeter (May 20, 2020)

When big moments or opportunities are presented nice to come through or make that big play decision, goal, assist, tackle, clearance.  Something about being "clutch" that lasts.

60/40 for being the underdog or the favorite that everyone wants to beat so badly.  Each can be motivating in there own way. Sweeter to surprise, come back, from behind, with a rag tag crew or when you push all the way through as the "stacked" favorite all year despised?


----------



## LB Mom 78 (May 20, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I read a post with someone attacking another parent for wanting to win. I do agree that U12 anf below the focus shouldn't be all about winning. Development in this sport is very important but at a certain point the kiddos need to learn that results matter. If you don't get results you can don't keep your job, if you don't do well on enough tests, you don't get the grades that get you into your dream school. I know, there are other factors but stay with me here. At what age does winning matter? I have spoken to a few parents that say "I don't care about results" but then see them throwing hats and screaming on the sideline at their kid and saying negative things about other parents children. My thought was that if you teach them that winning matters too late, when it does matter, like college showcases, they won't have that will to win or a few of the other qualities colleges look for. Also, college will be tough for them as they may not understand that they can no longer make mistakes over and over because a coach's job is on the line and they will play the best players. I may be looking at this wrong so if someone can give me a different way to look, I am open to it. I just always wondered when does winning matter?


It depends on what the coach is trying to sell you at that moment. If you are coming off a winning season then winning matters. If you are coming off a bad season then Development is what is important.


----------



## pokergod (May 20, 2020)

MARsSPEED said:


> Ask Micheal Jordan or Tom Brady. They will tell you since they could pick up a ball.
> 
> But you snowflakes go ahead and listen to those in charge of US soccer. It's worked out great for the men. RME.
> 
> /End thread.


I also think it is interesting that at the younger level the coaches that lose every game are the ones that claim they are all about development and that same coach will claim that the ones that win all the time do not develop.  I have never understood how winning and development are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Grace T. (May 20, 2020)

pokergod said:


> I also think it is interesting that at the younger level the coaches that lose every game are the ones that claim they are all about development and that same coach will claim that the ones that win all the time do not develop.  I have never understood how winning and development are mutually exclusive.


They aren't but it's particularly a problem with soccer since due to the mechanics of the game there are some tactics at the younger ages that can help you to get you a victory but are detrimental to developing soccer skills...in particular:

-Recruitment of taller and older kids.  These kids will have a natural advantage early on because in a small sided game the fastest kids (rather than pass the ball and build an attack creativily) can just outrun opponents to score.  But if the kids aren't taught properly, by puberty some of the other kids will have surpassed them and they won't have the benefit of learning how to play creativity and look for the opening when outrunning your opponent no longer works.
-Boot the ball.  At the younger ages, kids find it dificult to maintain possession and learn how to pass.  So if you lose the ball in your own 1/3 there's a greater danger of being scored against than if you lose the ball in the opponent's 3rd.  So rather than build from the back by connecting passes, some coaches will just boot the ball up.
-Goalkicks.  The buildup line was put in place to prevent this but most teams after its removed still have the big legged defender boot the ball rather than have the keeper learn the long game or connect via the short game.  This keeps the ball from being intercepted in the defensive 3rd but deprives the keeper from learning how to distribute and stops the defenders from learning how to take the initial touch.
-Shooting.  At the younger ages, most kids are taught to shoot it high and preferably over the keeper's head.  But once the keeper grows into the larger goal, particularly if the keeper is tall, it's going to be harder to score those shots.  By contrast, kids will not have learned to shoot a powerful shot on the ground which in the pro game is where a higher percentage of goals are made (as opposed to balls which can tipped over bar of shot into the zone of control of the keeper).  But when they are younger, inexperienced keepers can block the lower shot with their feet.
-Throw Ins.  "Down the line" as opposed to a backward conversion.  Again for fear of losing the ball closer to the goal.
-Playing the ball backwards.  Again for fear of losing the ball closer to the goal rather than learn building from the back.  How many coaches yell "don't play it back" or tell their kids not to play it to the keeper.  It's largely a fear of the kids making a mistake, but that's how they are going to learn.
-Reliance on the fast player.  How many teams, particularly at the beginning, rely on 1 or 2 players to carry the team scoring and run most play through them?  The fast player is scoring by outrunning the defenders.  The fast player isn't learning the benefits of ball handling, passing or creative play, and the supporting players aren't learning how to carry the offense.
-The physical game.  Teams that rely on shoving and pushing to win the ball.  It works on the younger levels, particularly since many refs are eager to "let them play", but once the kids learn how to pass at the older levels, it becomes much more difficult to gain an advantage this way.

At the younger ages, coaches that play all their players and try to teach their kids proper technique will be at a disadvantage against other coaches that are prepared to take some developmental short cuts.  It's just a reality.  It doesn't meaning winning and development are exclusive, but winning is a temptation that causes coaches to go astray from the ideals of development.


----------



## MARsSPEED (May 21, 2020)

MARsSPEED said:


> Ask Micheal Jordan or Tom Brady. They will tell you since they could pick up a ball.
> 
> But you snowflakes go ahead and listen to those in charge of US soccer. It's worked out great for the men. RME.
> 
> /End thread.


Wanted to expand on this...three athletes during my generation stick out. Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, and Tiger Woods. All three of them talk about competition from an early age. There is nothing wrong with it and players should be told to win from an early age along with development. It’s a moral I raise my DD with. She did something amazing when she was 9 years old because of this attitude and I will never forget.

Anyway, since I am a stat nerd, if any of you watched “The Last Dance” the video below (just 10 minutes of your life) will show you just how great MJ was. Again, MJ wanted to beat his brother since he was 3 years old.

Numbers tell a truth that you rarely see.


----------



## kickingandscreaming (May 21, 2020)

SoccerGuru said:


> I just always wondered when does winning matter?


When the parents on the other side are annoying. The more annoying they are, the more it matters.


----------



## Somberland Til I Die (May 22, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> They aren't but it's particularly a problem with soccer since due to the mechanics of the game there are some tactics at the younger ages that can help you to get you a victory but are detrimental to developing soccer skills...in particular:
> 
> -Recruitment of taller and older kids.  These kids will have a natural advantage early on because in a small sided game the fastest kids (rather than pass the ball and build an attack creativily) can just outrun opponents to score.  But if the kids aren't taught properly, by puberty some of the other kids will have surpassed them and they won't have the benefit of learning how to play creativity and look for the opening when outrunning your opponent no longer works.
> -Boot the ball.  At the younger ages, kids find it dificult to maintain possession and learn how to pass.  So if you lose the ball in your own 1/3 there's a greater danger of being scored against than if you lose the ball in the opponent's 3rd.  So rather than build from the back by connecting passes, some coaches will just boot the ball up.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (May 22, 2020)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Everybody likes to win...but I'll take individual development over winning all day long.  Developing a winning mentality (ability to compete to the end, mental toughness, having an impact on a game) is a part of individual development, should be emphasized at an early age and is more important than the actual end result/scoreline.


Agreed. I always told my kids, I don’t care if the team wins but you played poorly. To me it’s about preparation and effort. Winning is fun but as a player, you have to contribute. Eve a bench player who gives his heart out, will become a better person than those that have talent but lack commitment.

winning is great for sports but most of our kids are going to enter the workforce where effort, passion, interpersonal skills are more important.

Heck look at Woods and Jordan.   Best players for their sports but shitty human beings.


----------



## RedNevilles (May 22, 2020)

Winning matters! But winning is different to whoever you are and whatever your “win” is.
For young players the win should be doing something that may be out of their comfort zone. Something that takes them over an edge and helps them grow. That is not to say they shouldn’t want to win the actual game too. The ultimate aim and desire within the top players will be to win every single game.
As players get a little older the teamwork and base that has been built should start to turn into positive results (wins) in games if the first area was met. However, the challenge is managing the players and parents to see the longer goal to get to that stage and not just jump ship.
The parents aim should be that of what the poster said above. How their individual child is developing. Helping to share the same message as the coach and seeing your child compete as hard as they can. The disconnect here comes when a parent believes all other team mates are not competing as hard as their child or when a parent thinks the game result is the be all and end all.
The coaches aim thru the ages should be focused on developing the players at the youngest age groups, instilling a good technical base, a love for the ball and challenging each player while still expecting high standards in effort. As they get a little older change that focus to the team development and how they can all work together then the older ages U15+ how can the players make the small changes to get the results in close games.
Here is the disconnect:
1. Parents are paying a lot of money therefore may not want to invest in more than a year at a time and that stunts development. If there isn’t that immediate win this may not be seen as a satisfactory “return on investment”
2. Coaches may not have support of the club and directors, therefore if a parent complains as the team is not winning they may be taken off the team. In order to not be taken off the team the coach turns on their own ideals and finds a way to win, as mentioned in previous posts. 
3. Lack of direction from a club. What are they trying to achieve and how are they trying to get there? Is there a clear objective for a player to develop and do they have the right people in place. You will see this by the clubs who can show you what their coaches are teaching year on year and also how long coaches stay on teams or within a certain age band. If they chop and change every year they do not trust their own system or their coaches. Are all the coaches teaching the same thing in each age group or are they left to their own devices? If they do not have a clear outline you are not joining a club but rather a coach and you better hope you have them for long enough or they are definitely the right “fit” for your kid.
Overall when does winning matter? From what I have seen from a lot of clubs *all the time* would be the answer. The Ajax analysis is different as they do not make any money until the players are professional whereas here you make money on 6 year olds. Do I agree this should be the way? No. Will it change? No


----------



## Ellejustus (May 22, 2020)




----------



## Ellejustus (May 22, 2020)




----------



## SoccerFan6 (May 22, 2020)

Great conversation and great points by everyone.  The word development is being thrown around a lot.  There are a lot of different kinds of development.  Are we talking about developing character traits and mental traits (ie. work ethic, competitive spirit, never give up attitude) or are we talking about technical skills development.  One could argue that trying to win (and win a lot) from the younger ages can develop the character traits, whereas a "development" focused team will develop the technical skills.  Since 99.9% of our kids will not be professional soccer players, don't we have our kids in sports to build character and have fun?  I'm also sure that the kids who play on the winningest teams at the younger ages (here in OC its Strikers for boys and Blues for girls) will look back on all the trophies with fond memories for years to come.

I think we're trying to have fun and develop character.  Winning can do both.  Yes, you can learn a lot from losing too, but even the best teams lose - and those losses tend to be more heartbreaking for the players which turn into even more teachable moments.

By the way as I'm typing this I'm realizing it seems like I'm saying these two things are mutually exclusive.  You can have a bad team that doesn't develop technical/tactical skills and a good team who does.  I've had kids be a part of both and if you can get on the latter it is obviously the best of both worlds.


----------



## SoccerGuru (May 22, 2020)

Some great posts. I asked this because my DD was watching a little bit of last dance and mentioned that MJ was pretty good. I had to inform her that she has no idea just how dominant this guy was and compared it to soccer. I told her you know how there is an argument of who is the best Ronaldinho, Messi, Ronaldo, etc? I explained to her, in basketball there is no argument. MJ is hands down THE BEST to ever play. She then asked an awesome question, How can I be like MJ or what I heard "how can I be like Mike?". That is what brought me to ask this question so thank you to all of you for giving me a lot of input to tell her. I was debating if telling her winning matters would change her mindset or if I should approach it a different way. A lot of your input was great and I now know how to explain it to her.


----------



## Ellejustus (May 22, 2020)

SoccerFan6 said:


> Great conversation and great points by everyone.  The word development is being thrown around a lot.  There are a lot of different kinds of development.  Are we talking about developing character traits and mental traits (ie. work ethic, competitive spirit, never give up attitude) or are we talking about technical skills development.  One could argue that trying to win (and win a lot) from the younger ages can develop the character traits, whereas a "development" focused team will develop the technical skills.  Since 99.9% of our kids will not be professional soccer players, don't we have our kids in sports to build character and have fun?  I'm also sure that the kids who play on the winningest teams at the younger ages (here in OC its Strikers for boys and Blues for girls) will look back on all the trophies with fond memories for years to come.
> 
> I think we're trying to have fun and develop character.  Winning can do both.  Yes, you can learn a lot from losing too, but even the best teams lose - and those losses tend to be more heartbreaking for the players which turn into even more teachable moments.
> 
> By the way as I'm typing this I'm realizing it seems like I'm saying these two things are mutually exclusive.  You can have a bad team that doesn't develop technical/tactical skills and a good team who does.  I've had kids be a part of both and if you can get on the latter it is obviously the best of both worlds.


Great stuff.  I think each kid is different as is each club sells something different  For example, Blues sells winning and to be the best of the best.  To be the best, you have to win at the highest levels in any sport.  Sports kings are the winners.  Trying to win is the key.  My dd loves to win as a team. Getting to 1000 juggles is not winning for her, but it is for others who lose with their teams.  My biggest rant was team soccer became an individual get out of my way sport.  Soccer is a team sport first


----------



## Giesbock (May 22, 2020)

Ellejustus said:


> View attachment 7287


Nice picture but it’s a two dimensional glimpse of a man who built character. Winning trophies was the byproduct of the character he built in his players.


----------



## Ellejustus (May 22, 2020)

Giesbock said:


> Nice picture but it’s a two dimensional glimpse of a man who built character. Winning trophies was the byproduct of the character he built in his players.


You cant have one without the other.  You can't just be about winning and cheat or just be about development without the winning.


----------



## blam (May 22, 2020)

In my high school, we used to display the class ranking in a bulletin board outside the main office. Students can check their class rankings and compare against their peers. It helped to breed a very competitive environment academically. 

I don't know why schools don't rank their students in public anymore. Now, its all about development and learning.


----------



## Banana Hammock (May 22, 2020)

blam said:


> In my high school, we used to display the class ranking in a bulletin board outside the main office. Students can check their class rankings and compare against their peers. It helped to breed a very competitive environment academically.
> 
> I don't know why schools don't rank their students in public anymore. Now, its all about development and learning.


to many snowflakes. (or losers)


----------



## espola (May 22, 2020)

blam said:


> In my high school, we used to display the class ranking in a bulletin board outside the main office. Students can check their class rankings and compare against their peers. It helped to breed a very competitive environment academically.
> 
> I don't know why schools don't rank their students in public anymore. Now, its all about development and learning.


Unless you are at the bottom.

"GIVE UP!!!"


----------



## dad4 (May 22, 2020)

Banana Hammock said:


> to many snowflakes. (or losers)


In keeping with public grades, I’ll post your score here.

-5 sentence fragment.
-5 used “to” in place of “too”.
-5 used parentheses when S&W requires a comma.
-5 missing capitalization.

Grade: 30/50. 60%. D-

Maybe you can work with Blam on your next group project.  He only missed a single apostrophe, and got an A-.

Kindest regards, 
The Grammar Police


----------



## Ellejustus (May 22, 2020)

blam said:


> In my high school, we used to display the class ranking in a bulletin board outside the main office. Students can check their class rankings and compare against their peers. It helped to breed a very competitive environment academically.
> 
> I don't know why schools don't rank their students in public anymore. Now, its all about development and learning.


Ya, when I went to school I was in the dumb dumb class with my boy Parsons back in 3rd grade.  We got put there because we ranked too low on some tests scores.  I also couldn;t speak so I was last in my class all the way to the end....lol.  Seriously, I was called dumb dumb by schoolmates and teachers.  I was not developed very well in school by my teacher coaches.  Sports coaches loved me and they always tried to get my teachers to move me along because I was a smart kid, I just coulnt talk.  Tough times back then


----------



## espola (May 22, 2020)

dad4 said:


> In keeping with public grades, I’ll post your score here.
> 
> -5 sentence fragment.
> -5 used “to” in place of “too”.
> ...


Even my cellphone wouldn't have missed some of those.


----------



## Copa9 (May 22, 2020)

pokergod said:


> Like everything in life there is a balancing act.  Plus, if your not first you are last and second place is first place for losers.


Unless you play in Southern California!  Our so called "weaker" teams can beat a lot of top teams in other states.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (May 22, 2020)

espola said:


> Every player and team should strive to win, and learn to lose gracefully.


Like you did in 2016.
You dick,


----------



## Giesbock (May 22, 2020)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Like you did in 2016.
> You dick,


You know sheriff, this discussion has been thoughtful and devoid of degrading comments- until you showed up and added zero value.  Maybe retur to your Covid / Conspiracy echo chamber.  Please?


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

RedNevilles said:


> 3. Lack of direction from a club. What are they trying to achieve and how are they trying to get there? Is there a clear objective for a player to develop and do they have the right people in place. You will see this by the clubs who can show you what their coaches are teaching year on year and also how long coaches stay on teams or within a certain age band. If they chop and change every year they do not trust their own system or their coaches. Are all the coaches teaching the same thing in each age group or are they left to their own devices? If they do not have a clear outline you are not joining a club but rather a coach and you better hope you have them for long enough or they are definitely the right “fit” for your kid.
> Overall when does winning matter? From what I have seen from a lot of clubs *all the time* would be the answer. The Ajax analysis is different as they do not make any money until the players are professional whereas here you make money on 6 year olds. Do I agree this should be the way? No. Will it change? No


The problem with the clubs is the brackets.  Pretty much all teams way back at U9 start bronze.  But the clubs, for advertising, to recruit top talent, to recruit top coaches, and to make room for other teams down the ladder in later years and eventually to have elite teams (DA/ENCL/Gold), have to push those U9 teams to win since only a handful in the bracket will receive promotion every year.  The parents view the brackets not only as status symbols, but also a means of college recruitment due to the reality that the kids at the top teams play the top showcases and get seen by recruiters.

The brackets were originally intended just to keep teams from blowing each other out 20-0.  But they've become gateways, and that puts an enormous pressure on the clubs and coaches to win.    So what you get among some teams is they move up, they use their winning to recruit top talent, they dump the marginal talent (rather than continue to develop long term and dance with the ones that brought them), they move up, rinse repeat and can be enormously successful (in wins at least) this way.  My son's former team won state cup this year.  I counted only about 7 of the original players with the team.


----------



## dad4 (May 22, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> The problem with the clubs is the brackets.  Pretty much all teams way back at U9 start bronze.  But the clubs, for advertising, to recruit top talent, to recruit top coaches, and to make room for other teams down the ladder in later years and eventually to have elite teams (DA/ENCL/Gold), have to push those U9 teams to win since only a handful in the bracket will receive promotion every year.  The parents view the brackets not only as status symbols, but also a means of college recruitment due to the reality that the kids at the top teams play the top showcases and get seen by recruiters.
> 
> The brackets were originally intended just to keep teams from blowing each other out 20-0.  But they've become gateways, and that puts an enormous pressure on the clubs and coaches to win.    So what you get among some teams is they move up, they use their winning to recruit top talent, they dump the marginal talent (rather than continue to develop long term and dance with the ones that brought them), they move up, rinse repeat and can be enormously successful (in wins at least) this way.  My son's former team won state cup this year.  I counted only about 7 of the original players with the team.


What do you suggest?  

You need some kind of system if you want to avoid 20-0 games.


----------



## messy (May 22, 2020)

The issue is wayyyy too many clubs and club teams. It should all go away.
The elite should be identified and play at youth soccer academies and the rest should be in simple rec leagues. 
Everybody should try to win. That’s the point of the game.
But if you are a youth soccer academy, you may well not take one kid who may give you more “wins” today in favor of a real prospect who is developing.


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

dad4 said:


> What do you suggest?
> 
> You need some kind of system if you want to avoid 20-0 games.


Agree.  I've been wracking my brains on this for over a year but aren't there yet.  At one point I leaned to a self-sorting model, but we'd have no bronze teams (I do think the pyramid is too heavy on the bottom).  Ideally getting to a place where players (not the teams) are ranked.  But the closest to that is the AYSO United/Extras tryout model which itself is very flawed (favoring older kids/early bloomers v. late calendars, favoring strikers over CB/GKs) and impossible unless all teams are under the same org.  In the UK kids are sorted in a mixed team/level hybrid but it's got it's own problems.  Not sure how to fix it.  It's not easy....if it were it would be fixed already.


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

messy said:


> The issue is wayyyy too many clubs and club teams. It should all go away.
> The elite should be identified and play at youth soccer academies and the rest should be in simple rec leagues.
> Everybody should try to win. That’s the point of the game.
> But if you are a youth soccer academy, you may well not take one kid who may give you more “wins” today in favor of a real prospect who is developing.


This is the UK model.  The elite play academy, everyone else plays rec.  One big problem is the girls (they aren't part of the new MLS league and are short changed in England too).  If everyone plays rec, you'd have to tier it like in the UK.  One of the reasons AYSO failed was because they had the future pro playing with the handicapped kids.  Kids though were smart and learned if you give it to the weaker players, they are going to lose the ball.  As a result, the pro wasn't developing (because no one could connect a pass to him) and the handicapped kid wasn't having a good time (because nobody passed the ball).  The other reason is college sports distorts youth sports: it's not just a friendly game for fun as some people are gunning for college admissions and for scholarships.


----------



## dad4 (May 22, 2020)

One question is how you persuade your rec organizations to part with their top players.

Some club teams run their own rec feeder programs.  That transition works pretty well, but it comes at the expense of attention to the rec program. They don’t have AYSO’s team balancing, for example.

AYSO pays attention to rec, possibly at the expense of player promotion.   In my region, the select coaches viewed comp as the enemy.  They wanted to win select games, and that means keeping the top kids within AYSO.  So no help with identifying players who should move up.

Ultimately, I think rec would be more fun if the top rec kids were quietly nudged into bronze/united.  I don’t know how you sell AYSO coaches on the concept.


----------



## EOTL (May 22, 2020)

messy said:


> The issue is wayyyy too many clubs and club teams. It should all go away.
> The elite should be identified and play at youth soccer academies and the rest should be in simple rec leagues.
> Everybody should try to win. That’s the point of the game.
> But if you are a youth soccer academy, you may well not take one kid who may give you more “wins” today in favor of a real prospect who is developing.


Nope. There are exactly the right amount of clubs and teams in the US. I know that because the free market tells us that. The free market had decided that creating a great MNT is a stupid endeavor compared to other things that provide more value to society at large, and that is that. The free market has also decided that creating a great WNT is also a stupid endeavor, but a great WNT happens to be the fortuitous byproduct of the market’s determination that elite girls youth soccer is a great idea for colleges and kids who can leverage soccer to better their college opportunities.

If people need to move so their kids can play at one of these youth soccer academies, that is the dumbest idea ever, as has already been proven to be the case in the U.S.  Leave the moving for the sake of your kid’s sports endeavors to the even dumber gymnastics and figure skating parents. It has never worked and will never work in the US for soccer.


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

[


EOTL said:


> Nope. There are exactly the right amount of clubs and teams in the US. I know that because the free market tells us that. The free market had decided that creating a great MNT is a stupid endeavor compared to other things that provide more value to society at large, and that is that. The free market has also decided that creating a great WNT is also a stupid endeavor, but a great WNT happens to be the fortuitous byproduct of the market’s determination that elite girls youth soccer is a great idea for colleges and kids who can leverage soccer to better their college opportunities.
> 
> If people need to move so their kids can play at one of these youth soccer academies, that is the dumbest idea ever, as has already been proven to be the case in the U.S.  Leave the moving for the sake of your kid’s sports endeavors to the even dumber gymnastics and figure skating parents. It has never worked and will never work in the US for soccer.


a. The USWNT is only a byproduct of our system because their isn't a robust pro market for women elsewhere in Europe/Latin America/Asia.  It's why the academy model for women struggles in the rest of the world, but even so, some parts fof the world are catching up.
b. The free market for male players is distorted because unlike other countries our clubs are limited in their ability to get transfer fees and solidarity payments.  This limits the amount of resources they are willing to put into players.  Also, our pro players are restricted into entry into more lucrative markets due to immigration restrictions (and a European club is unlikely to use their waivers on an American without dual citizenship unless they can't get what that player brings at home).
c. The free market for male players domestically is also restricted because of the join ownership structure of the MLS.  It basically levels out the salary at a low number for supporting players, making soccer an unattractive market for athletic players in comparison to basketball or gridiron football.  It prevents a sugar daddy from swooping into a club and throwing a bunch of money at players for the prestige of winning instead of the profit.  The LA Galaxy, for example, would if free too have dropped quite a bit of cash to crush LAFC in its infancy but couldn't due to various salary limitations imposed by the league, notwithstanding that AEG is corporation looking at the bottom line.
d. college athletic is also distorting the model for pay to play in pursuit of scholarships and admissions


----------



## EOTL (May 22, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> [
> 
> 
> a. The USWNT is only a byproduct of our system because their isn't a robust pro market for women elsewhere in Europe/Latin America/Asia.  It's why the academy model for women struggles in the rest of the world, but even so, some parts fof the world are catching up.
> ...


a. No. The WNT has put more distance between itself and the rest of the world than at any time in history. The WNT has lost one game in more than 3 years, and that was a pre WC friendly against France that they sandbagged for obvious reasons.

b. No. The free market is what it is. All this nonsense about solidarity payments and transfer fees is anti-free market. It does not work here. I know that because it does not exist here. Solidarity payments and transfer fees would only make a bad situation worse. I don’t have the time or inclination to explain why that is yet again. 

c. Wrong. The MLS system is the free market system at its best. It is the only way to build maintain a financially sustainable domestic league here. Trying to do it your way has been tried and failed repeatedly because it does not work here with a free market. If soccer here was such a great idea for sugar daddies to create a league and just buy teams and waste millions, it would have happened. But the reality is that no one does that. Only Russian oligarchs and middle eastern princes can, and the premier league presents a much better option for that kind of vanity. Even there, there are a lot of limitations on how much they can throw away for fun. Creating a soccer league pinned on the hopes that enough (let alone any) foreign sugar daddies will just fund teams without regard to losing millions is literally the worst and stupidest business model I’ve ever heard of. Much worse than GDA even.
d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.  There is only “distortion” when people start doing stupid things that try to disrupt the free market and make no financial sense. Like GDA making clubs and even USSF engage in operations that are guaranteed to lose money. Like creating a league that only works if Russian oligarchs are willing to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## espola (May 22, 2020)

EOTL said:


> a. No. The WNT has put more distance between itself and the rest of the world than at any time in history. The WNT has lost one game in more than 3 years, and that was a pre WC friendly against France that they sandbagged for obvious reasons.
> 
> b. No. The free market is what it is. All this nonsense about solidarity payments and transfer fees is anti-free market. It does not work here. I know that because it does not exist here. Solidarity payments and transfer fees would only make a bad situation worse. I don’t have the time or inclination to explain why that is yet again.
> 
> ...


Does anyone else notice he sudden reversal in philosophy and economic theory between items b and c?


----------



## messy (May 22, 2020)

espola said:


> Does anyone else notice he sudden reversal in philosophy and economic theory between items b and c?


Yes. He seems to prefer the “free market” which leaves us as a mediocre soccer nation with a mediocre league (MLS) to the free market which results in the best teams and best leagues that win and make more money.
It is somewhat confusing.


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

EOTL said:


> d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.  There is only “distortion” when people start doing stupid things that try to disrupt the free market and make no financial sense. Like GDA making clubs and even USSF engage in operations that are guaranteed to lose money. Like creating a league that only works if Russian oligarchs are willing to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars.


I'm sure Mark Cuban, the Buss family and Robert Kraft would take exception to your characterization that all sports oligarchs are Russians and Middle Eastern princes.

You leave so much to choose from<<<sigh>>>, but I think most obviously here's a primer on college athletics and the lack of a free market.  So, the United States is (almost) the only country in the world where university programs offer robust college athletics.  Now, some might argue that the reason this is so is because international governments hand out free tuition for students and so wouldn't want to spend it on luxuries like sports, and therefore is antifree market.  But that ignores that even in some private universities (like Oxford and Cambridge), the same course wasn't really followed in athletics which remained, even before mass government funding went into effect on the Continent, a largely amateur affair.  It certainly has something to do with it, but it's not the entire story.  And indeed, in the United States there is a robust market for college sports for gridiron football and basketball, but not the other sports, and certainly do not to justify the spend by colleges on those other sports which are not profit making centers.  Moreover, it doesn't explain, even if you write away scholarships, why the colleges would consider athletics (other than football and basketball) in their admission decisions.

And so we get to it...the reason why the pull of college soccer exists, particularly for the girls, is because of government intervention.  First, because of the government grant and student loan programs (at subsidized interest rates), the government has created a large supply of cash in which to finance amenities (everything from college spas to the latest computer centers).  So colleges, rather than compete on price, compete on what ancillary programs they can offer students.  It's why tuition prices keep rising at the rate they are rising.  Second, because of the scholarship limitations imposed by Title IX, colleges are required to funnel some of that money into women's athletics and soccer (with its larger teams than gynmnastics or figure skating) makes a good target for that money.  Third, because of the discrimination and affirmative action debates of the 70s and 80s, and because of government pressure towards principles of diversity and equality, schools have moved away in admissions from a strict testing-admissions based process (which BTW is the way they do it in Europe) and have settled on a more holistic approach...sports becomes a way they can cook the admissions numbers (which is also BTW which you got the Lori Laughlin admission scandal....it's a way to bend the admission rules put in place via government policies whether to favor the rich, minorities, or just interesting kids that make a great fit for the sports program).  There are others, but government intervention has created market distortions, because otherwise colleges would likely only have large football and baskbetball programs and intramural for everything else.  There are others, such as the government visa program which has created a large influx of foreign born students competing into the admission pool, but those are the big ones.

These artificial government interventions, in turn, have created a market for club pay-to-play soccer, which is geared largely towards creating college athletes instead of professional athletes.  If soccer wasn't considered in admissions, and soccer scholarships were not offered, it is very doubtful that so many people would be willing to pay the fees some clubs are demanding.  And indeed, players considering a professional career would have a more stark choice: give up soccer and go to college, or go directly into the MLS or Europe.

Your economic philosophy is really hard to pin down.  On the one hand you rail against oligarchs, but then you support a closed ended crony capitalist cartel like the MLS (which is really just a giant classic pyramid scheme when it comes down to it....).  Your claim to free markets is almost Trumpian, but some of what you spout would make you equally at home with Robert Reich or some of the other hardline technocratic pro-management left.  But the short answer is in a truly free market, pay to play doesn't exist...and we can see it both on the university and professional level in one country: the UK which doesn't have club soccer (which is ironic considering how otherwise government controlled some other sectors are in the UK).


----------



## dad4 (May 22, 2020)

For fixing the lower levels, I am hoping AYSO does more to expand into bronze/copper.

For low level comp, an extension of AYSO makes sense.  Bronze/copper of play isn't much different from select.  The select coaches I've met are about as good as bronze/copper coaches.

We just need to get out of the pay to play mindset and back to trying to organize fair, fun games.


----------



## Grace T. (May 22, 2020)

dad4 said:


> For fixing the lower levels, I am hoping AYSO does more to expand into bronze/copper.
> 
> For low level comp, an extension of AYSO makes sense.  Bronze/copper of play isn't much different from select.  The select coaches I've met are about as good as bronze/copper coaches.


I'm not sure this is really true.  I'm sure there are great select teams out there, but when my son was starting out the extras/select teams they faced couldn't really keep up.  United is a different story, but it's also contributed to the thining of Extras and select teams by picking off the cream of the talent.

The problem with the approach you suggest is that AYSO is under its own umbrella, insisting on its own philosophy and licensing, and so it's very hard to incorporate into the pyramid structure (which is why its started to tier itself).  The other problem of course is an incentives one...the select coaches are in it for love of the game and personal glory, so there really isn't an incentive to do much more by the way of coach training.  The club coaches are paid so there's some accountability there.  Indeed, one of the problems United has identified is "accountability", in their words, of volunteer coaches....whether having some of them a little too focused on winning v development, or behavioral issues, or failure to take the required training.   In Socal, this had led to United trainer's taking a more centralized one-club approach and taking away some independence from the local club DOCs.


----------



## dad4 (May 22, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> I'm not sure this is really true.  I'm sure there are great select teams out there, but when my son was starting out the extras/select teams they faced couldn't really keep up.  United is a different story, but it's also contributed to the thining of Extras and select teams by picking off the cream of the talent.
> 
> The problem with the approach you suggest is that AYSO is under its own umbrella, insisting on its own philosophy and licensing, and so it's very hard to incorporate into the pyramid structure (which is why its started to tier itself).  The other problem of course is an incentives one...the select coaches are in it for love of the game and personal glory, so there really isn't an incentive to do much more by the way of coach training.  The club coaches are paid so there's some accountability there.  Indeed, one of the problems United has identified is "accountability", in their words, of volunteer coaches....whether having some of them a little too focused on winning v development, or behavioral issues, or failure to take the required training.   In Socal, this had led to United trainer's taking a more centralized one-club approach and taking away some independence from the local club DOCs.


You are right that united is more what I am thinking.   
United plays in the bronze tournaments by us.  They do just fine.  Last one I reffed, they came in 3rd and 4th out of 8.

Philosophy is a huge barrier.  Why have united if everyone is equal?  Some regions won't even touch it.

Did centralizing united coach training help, or is it too early to tell?


----------



## Yak (May 23, 2020)

d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.  
[/QUOTE]
Investment in womens' college soccer is driven by Title IX, not by free market forces.  It is more like welfare than capitalism.


----------



## Dos Equis (May 23, 2020)

Grace T. said:


> I'm sure Mark Cuban, the Buss family and Robert Kraft would take exception to your characterization that all sports oligarchs are Russians and Middle Eastern princes.


In addition to Kraft, better American examples would be the Kroenke Family and Malcom Glazer (or Lamar hunt in his prime).  The first two actually play in that league of Russian Oligarchs, and do it well.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

espola said:


> Does anyone else notice he sudden reversal in philosophy and economic theory between items b and c?


Sure. MLS exists in its current form because that is the only way that a free market allows for a sustainable league in the US. Solidarity payments don’t work because they do not make financial sense. They also artificially restrict mobility of labor. There is no inconsistency. The market has determined that a pro soccer league can only work here if it is structured the way it is. The market has also determined that solidarity payments and transfer fees don’t work because they restrict the flow of labor.

it is so weird. I’m arguing what actually exists in a free market, while you are arguing that fantasyland is what works in a free market. To prove that I am right and you are wrong, all I need to point out what is actually happening.

Where the dumb people get lost is in their thinking that MLS distorts “the market” because they can’t see that “the market” is not soccer. The “market” is pro sports. MLS is competing with MLB, NFL, etc.  The MLS structure is the only system that allows a pro soccer league to compete in a sustainable manner with other pro sports leagues for consumer dollars.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

Yak said:


> d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.
> 
> Investment in womens' college soccer is driven by Title IX, not by free market forces.  It is more like welfare than capitalism.


I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.

Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.

The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

EOTL said:


> I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.
> 
> Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.
> 
> The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.


I should also add that calling Title IX more like welfare than capitalism is a pretty ridiculous and offensive thing to say. You think equal opportunity is “welfare”?  You think capitalism is a legitimate excuse to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc?


----------



## espola (May 23, 2020)

EOTL said:


> I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.
> 
> Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.
> 
> The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.


Monopolies are not prohibited.  Using a monopoly position to unfairly compete in the open market or to take advantage of consumers is prohibited.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

Dos Equis said:


> In addition to Kraft, better American examples would be the Kroenke Family and Malcom Glazer (or Lamar hunt in his prime).  The first two actually play in that league of Russian Oligarchs, and do it well.


Except none of them lose money.  Yes, they lose money in the short term while their investment in ownership skyrockets. But only a Russian oligarch is willing and able to throw money into a sports team without regard to whether they will benefit financially in the end. And it is the latter that @Grace T. is using as her business model. Plus, have you ever seen even a Russian oligarch throw away hundreds of millions to essentially create a sports league without regard to long term appreciation, rather than buy into one that already exists?

Glazer is also the worst possible example for you. He bought ManU by burdening the club with massive debt, and any debt for the first time since 1931. This allowed him to burden the club while at the same time minimizing his risk and allowing him to pull money out of the club for his own benefit. He essentially mortgaged ManU to maximize his personal profit from it.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

espola said:


> Monopolies are not prohibited.  Using a monopoly position to unfairly compete in the open market or to take advantage of consumers is prohibited.


Just as using racism and misogyny are also unfair and anathema to a free market.


----------



## EOTL (May 23, 2020)

EOTL said:


> Just as using racism and misogyny are also unfair and anathema to a free market.


And what do you think adding millions of new consumers (women) to the market has done for college revenues?


----------



## pokergod (May 23, 2020)

espola said:


> Monopolies are not prohibited.  Using a monopoly position to unfairly compete in the open market or to take advantage of consumers is prohibited.


Totally.  Tell that to OPEC, google and the UFC.


----------



## Yak (May 23, 2020)

EOTL said:


> I should also add that calling Title IX more like welfare than capitalism is a pretty ridiculous and offensive thing to say. You think equal opportunity is “welfare”?  You think capitalism is a legitimate excuse to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc?


Not at all.  It is quite right that women and men compete on equal terms in academic and professional life, but that is not the case with sports, so it's a special case.  

I don't even object to how Title IX supports womens' soccer.  Just think it's silly to pretend that it's free enterprise at work.


----------



## Yak (May 23, 2020)

pokergod said:


> Totally.  Tell that to OPEC, google and the UFC.


or Southern California Gas


----------



## dad4 (May 23, 2020)

EOTL said:


> Sure. MLS exists in its current form because that is the only way that a free market allows for a sustainable league in the US. Solidarity payments don’t work because they do not make financial sense. They also artificially restrict mobility of labor. There is no inconsistency. The market has determined that a pro soccer league can only work here if it is structured the way it is. The market has also determined that solidarity payments and transfer fees don’t work because they restrict the flow of labor.
> 
> it is so weird. I’m arguing what actually exists in a free market, while you are arguing that fantasyland is what works in a free market. To prove that I am right and you are wrong, all I need to point out what is actually happening.
> 
> Where the dumb people get lost is in their thinking that MLS distorts “the market” because they can’t see that “the market” is not soccer. The “market” is pro sports. MLS is competing with MLB, NFL, etc.  The MLS structure is the only system that allows a pro soccer league to compete in a sustainable manner with other pro sports leagues for consumer dollars.


Pfffft.  The free market has nothing to do with solidarity payments existing or not existing.

In Europe, such payments have the support of the legal system and are legally enforceable.  Over there, they get paid.

In the US, solidarity payments do not have the support of the legal system and are not legally enforceable.  Here, they do not get paid.

The difference is the legal system, not the “free market.“


----------



## espola (May 23, 2020)

Yak said:


> or Southern California Gas


Utilities (where monopolies make practical sense) are tightly regulated, although some still figure out ways to cheat the public.


----------



## Frank (May 23, 2020)

To me it is 13-16 years old. If you are not winning at this point you are not getting into the big tournaments that get scouted for by colleges which is most important at 17-18  Winning At 17-18 is less important As the most important part is being there to be seen because the college coaches don’t care if your team wins when they recruit.


----------



## pokergod (May 23, 2020)

espola said:


> Utilities (where monopolies make practical sense) are tightly regulated, although some still figure out ways to cheat the public.


"tightly regulated". By govt employees trying to get jobs with the very company/industry they are regulating.  See Bernie Madoff and wall st. circa 2008.


----------

