Maybe, it SHOULD be all about winning...

Socal-Soccer-Dad

Socal-Soccer-Dad

I know the saying: "it's about long term development and not about winning and losing right now". It's echoed by ALL the coaches.

But... long term development for WHAT? 99% of the kids won't play any soccer beyond HS. Some 50% will quit by age of 13 or something.

What are we developing for? Pro players???

MLS academies can be about "developing" if they're really trying to develop that ONE kid for their senior team. Even then, it's like ONE kid every once in a while. LAFC's had like what 6 kids total who made it as homegrown players. Galaxy I believe had about the same number. ACROSS ALL years in history of their academies.

Okay, some will play in college but it's such a small number. ECNL, MLS Next, NPL, whatever it is, it's basically all recreational at varying levels for vast majority of players.

So if that's the case, kids should just make memories of youth sports glory and win trophies and tournaments and league. It's certainly more fun to do that than losing because "coach wants to focus on development".

If your kid is so good that college and pro tracks are in the cards, then I guess focusing on development is better suited. I just don't think that's true for 99% of players. My kid certainly isn't and let's be honest, chances are your kid isn't either. :p

So I just don't know what we are "developing" for.
 
You definitely have a point. One way I interpret it - is if in the very youngest ages, if a coach (and the players they are guiding), focuses on winning to an excessive amount, rather than developing the players' skills progressively - it leads to poor incentives that will ultimately not help the player grow.

Easy example - you pick the biggest fastest kids, have them boot the ball as hard as they can, have the biggest/fastest kid beat the defense and put the ball in the net. Works great at age 6, you can run up the score 20-0 if desired. Similar cheap shortcuts to winning can be successful through much of the youngers.

Another example would be to play the same 9 top kids in a 9v9 match and give limited to no playtime to anybody else. It could/would lead to the team winning the most matches. But it wouldn't be helping anyone else on the team, and it's probably not great training for everyone to play 100% either.

Developing all the basic and necessary skills, building all of the game knowledge that helps a soccer player become more proficient, that should be probably be seen as the priority.

But by U15/U16, the trope "It's not at all about winning, it's development!" starts to wear a little thin. If the kids aren't trying to get better at soccer so they and their team can win more games, what's the point?
 
Another way to look at it is True Acadamies will tell you point blank if your kid is good enough to play professionally.

How much is that kind of honesty worth?

Its a tough call, sometimes the excitement of the moment colors your decision to continue driving every weekend to some field out in the middle of nowhere. It's not always a rational decision.
 
Not even for college scholarships…which nothing for boys.
I have said it before. Most of us are in this for the bragging rights, nothing more. A coach’s job is to put the best lineup out there every week. This is needs to be true for top teams of a club.
 
Socal-Soccer-Dad said:
I know the saying: "it's about long term development and not about winning and losing right now". It's echoed by ALL the coaches.

But... long term development for WHAT? 99% of the kids won't play any soccer beyond HS. Some 50% will quit by age of 13 or something.

What are we developing for? Pro players???

MLS academies can be about "developing" if they're really trying to develop that ONE kid for their senior team. Even then, it's like ONE kid every once in a while. LAFC's had like what 6 kids total who made it as homegrown players. Galaxy I believe had about the same number. ACROSS ALL years in history of their academies.

Okay, some will play in college but it's such a small number. ECNL, MLS Next, NPL, whatever it is, it's basically all recreational at varying levels for vast majority of players.

So if that's the case, kids should just make memories of youth sports glory and win trophies and tournaments and league. It's certainly more fun to do that than losing because "coach wants to focus on development".

If your kid is so good that college and pro tracks are in the cards, then I guess focusing on development is better suited. I just don't think that's true for 99% of players. My kid certainly isn't and let's be honest, chances are your kid isn't either. :p

So I just don't know what we are "developing" for.
Click to expand...
The problem is it’s all one system and that system can’t do everything well: find future pros, develop college players, please trophy chasers, be a place where kids hang out with friends and have fun. It’s why Europe is organized as a handful of people play academy, no one plays college, everyone else plays tiered rec. and as others have mentioned soccer in particular is subject to short cuts. you can have your soccer developmental, competitive or accessible; pick 2.

Ps the highest tiers are all organized around college even at the olders hence the showcases and why kids would rather drive two hours to play for the worst mlsn team that will every game rather than to play for their local ea2 team which is still with 1 week to go advertising for “impact players”. For one mlsn team I remember parents driving from around Bakersfield to Ventura. You wanna fix it you HAVE to get college admissions out of the equation.
 
In Europe, kids begin getting paid at age 16 because the clubs are truly investing in an asset they intend to sell in the future. In the US, we pay to get "developed". The incentive isn't there to develop because at the end of the road, what is in it for the club? They focus on winning but disguise it as development so that the soccer club can continue to make a profit.
 
Grace T. said:
Ps the highest tiers are all organized around college even at the olders hence the showcases and why kids would rather drive two hours to play for the worst mlsn team that will every game rather than to play for their local ea2 team which is still with 1 week to go advertising for “impact players”. For one mlsn team I remember parents driving from around Bakersfield to Ventura. You wanna fix it you HAVE to get college admissions out of the equation.
Click to expand...
It still baffles me that some people don't connect the dots on how much youth soccer costs in order to get a scholarship. They are basically buying a $5,000 a year lottery ticket. If you want to play travel soccer and can afford it, go for it. But don't hinge your child's college future on it.
 
Socal-Soccer-Dad said:
I know the saying: "it's about long term development and not about winning and losing right now". It's echoed by ALL the coaches.

But... long term development for WHAT? 99% of the kids won't play any soccer beyond HS. Some 50% will quit by age of 13 or something.

What are we developing for? Pro players???

MLS academies can be about "developing" if they're really trying to develop that ONE kid for their senior team. Even then, it's like ONE kid every once in a while. LAFC's had like what 6 kids total who made it as homegrown players. Galaxy I believe had about the same number. ACROSS ALL years in history of their academies.

Okay, some will play in college but it's such a small number. ECNL, MLS Next, NPL, whatever it is, it's basically all recreational at varying levels for vast majority of players.

So if that's the case, kids should just make memories of youth sports glory and win trophies and tournaments and league. It's certainly more fun to do that than losing because "coach wants to focus on development".

If your kid is so good that college and pro tracks are in the cards, then I guess focusing on development is better suited. I just don't think that's true for 99% of players. My kid certainly isn't and let's be honest, chances are your kid isn't either. :p

So I just don't know what we are "developing" for.
Click to expand...
Great post. This truth hit me at the u13 age. I was told the world is watching and we MUST develop our best goats to compete against Spain & England because, well those players only play to win and then go Pro. The development part starts with grooming our top soccer players to play at Big U. For that to happen, the player has to have that dream as well. Then the player has to become a developed Unicorn with high SAT, high GPA and just be the very best child ever. That's what soccer is in America.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
It still baffles me that some people don't connect the dots on how much youth soccer costs in order to get a scholarship. They are basically buying a $5,000 a year lottery ticket. If you want to play travel soccer and can afford it, go for it. But don't hinge your child's college future on it.
Click to expand...
It's $20K a year for high level travel ball
 
Here's how I look at it, for whatever it's worth:

When I recap games with my kid (and I recap all of them, usually on the ride home), I focus on his performance: what he did well, what he could improve on, things I saw, things he saw, etc. I've told him consistently: I don't really care how the team performed; I only care how he performed. The team success is for him to enjoy with his teammates, as it comes; his job is just to do the best he can, though, and improve.

Winning is a side effect of ability, but it's dependent on a lot of factors. Teams can always "play down" and win more, but that's not good for getting better, and will limit personal improvement. I'd rather have my kid get better and the team lose, than the other way around, because that increases the chances of his team winning more later. He won't always be on the same teams (and playing the same opponents), but he'll always have the same ability.

That said, I'm also not on the "high end" track, driving several hours every weekend to chase a dream of playing beyond HS. If my kid can leverage some sports ability (soccer or otherwise) to get a leg up for college, that's great, but we're certainly at the "also enjoy your time playing, and don't let it become miserable" level of competition. I just want the teams to be close in ability, the kids to have fun, and maybe get a little better each game. There are benefits to sports participation beyond winning, and some winning (and losing) will come naturally if you're playing competitive teams... and that's how it should be.

That's my 2c, anyway.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
Click to expand...
Wow, this guy is spot on. My dd was benched by a cheater who took money from parents to make sure their dd stood out in his recommendations for top Big U schools. Yup, benched after leading her teams to a Natty, Far West Regional, two Surf Cup championships and so many other medals. The asshat asked my baby at 14, "where do you want to go to college." My kid said she wasn't so sure about going to college and dude said and I fucking quote, "then why are you here then?" Next game, the bench to learn her lesson.
 
Scrub It Kook said:
It still baffles me that some people don't connect the dots on how much youth soccer costs in order to get a scholarship. They are basically buying a $5,000 a year lottery ticket. If you want to play travel soccer and can afford it, go for it. But don't hinge your child's college future on it.
Click to expand...
It’s not just scholarship (though that’s where the economics start) but admissions. To understand you have to understand why college admissions are distorted and how it trickled down through the system. It’s why it’s impossible for even a Hispanic stem kid from Los Angeles with a 1580 on his sat, 4th ranked in his (public) school, and a 4.6 straight a gpa gets bounced from ucla. There’s enormous pressure up at the top of the chain because many admissions at the top school are reserved. The big one isn’t even Dei though despite the scotus ruling it’s still apparent it’s happening at least to some degree. The big one is foreign admits, most specifically from China and India: colleges are willing to take the cash they get which is usually higher for out of country tuition. Then there’s dei, geographic diversity (you are better off applying to ucla from eureka or Chicago (more out of state tuition) than Los Angeles), legacies, donors and athlete admits. Athletic admits gets kids looks into the top tier (Harvard for instance doesn’t give out athletic scholarships). Because there are fewer non reserved spots then to go around, the people who would have taken those spots are pushed down into the second tier, so you rinse and repeat as pressure trickles down the system.

The economics of this then work out that you have a mass of players chasing those college slots but now among many high schools you can’t play varsity unless you do letter league soccer. Recall the thread by the ayso rec kid ranting that his coach wouldn’t even look at him because he’s not letter league

So even if YOUR kid doesn’t want to go for a scholarship, the fact that there are others fighting for one has downstream secondary effects on anyone who is inside the system, all the way down to the u12 rec ayso player who decides this is his last year because he’s not good enough to play club and all his friends make fun of him for playing ayso ( my son once got into a fistfight because the club kids were calling his then best friend “hey ayso” on the summer camp playground).

You wanna fix it you’ve got to take college off the system. It’s the BIG thing which is different in both the us and Canada from the rest of the world. There are other problems such as the restrictions on transfer payments or our lack of b and c leagues, but that’s the big one in the us and affecting not just soccer but all sports. It’s also why kids are obsessed in high school with other things like idiot student councils that don’t do anything, math Olympics, dance or building fake charities.
 
Socal-Soccer-Dad said:
I know the saying: "it's about long term development and not about winning and losing right now". It's echoed by ALL the coaches.

But... long term development for WHAT? 99% of the kids won't play any soccer beyond HS. Some 50% will quit by age of 13 or something.

What are we developing for? Pro players???

MLS academies can be about "developing" if they're really trying to develop that ONE kid for their senior team. Even then, it's like ONE kid every once in a while. LAFC's had like what 6 kids total who made it as homegrown players. Galaxy I believe had about the same number. ACROSS ALL years in history of their academies.

Okay, some will play in college but it's such a small number. ECNL, MLS Next, NPL, whatever it is, it's basically all recreational at varying levels for vast majority of players.

So if that's the case, kids should just make memories of youth sports glory and win trophies and tournaments and league. It's certainly more fun to do that than losing because "coach wants to focus on development".

If your kid is so good that college and pro tracks are in the cards, then I guess focusing on development is better suited. I just don't think that's true for 99% of players. My kid certainly isn't and let's be honest, chances are your kid isn't either. :p

So I just don't know what we are "developing" for.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong. However, the problem is clubs rely on the development and pathway narrative to sucker parents. So you're never going to get the industry to change to acknowledge that its just about winning. It's critical to the Clubs' business plans to pretend its about development. The reality is that youth soccer is a dead end sport (more so for boys). Just enjoy the ride, because there is no payoff.

Side tangent on development. I walk past a park nearly everyday with 3-4 young soccer teams practicing. The kids usually are "queued" up in a line waiting for their turn for the one ball in play, while a dozen other balls are sitting idle on the sideline. We don't fundamentally understand soccer and never will.

Scrub It Kook said:
Click to expand...

This is not wrong either. I've been saying saying this for years, although I was a little lower, saying 95% is rec.
 
Grace T. said:
You wanna fix it you’ve got to take college off the system. It’s the BIG thing which is different in both the us and Canada from the rest of the world. There are other problems such as the restrictions on transfer payments or our lack of b and c leagues, but that’s the big one in the us and affecting not just soccer but all sports. It’s also why kids are obsessed in high school with other things like idiot student councils that don’t do anything, math Olympics, dance or building fake charities.
Click to expand...
Yes, this, re athletic admits and preference. It's not necessarily about being a D1 college level athlete (or pro, or any other 0.01% criteria dream). Rather, it's about building a college admissions "resume" with various activities, almost all of which are complete garbage, but are required to show that students are "rounded". Athletics is one of those, and even if there's no scholarship potential, participation in sports might help get a student admitted to a school which would otherwise deny them. For that, you don't need to be a star; you just need to be good enough to make the team(s).

I've used my kid as an example before, but I don't have any ambition for him to play D1/etc., soccer or anything else. However, I do hope that his participation in sports at the HS varsity level helps him with admissions generally (along with Math Olympiad, etc.). That's where I'm at, and probably where the majority of parents are at, with respect to HS sports participation.
 
sigmabody said:
Yes, this, re athletic admits and preference. It's not necessarily about being a D1 college level athlete (or pro, or any other 0.01% criteria dream). Rather, it's about building a college admissions "resume" with various activities, almost all of which are complete garbage, but are required to show that students are "rounded". Athletics is one of those, and even if there's no scholarship potential, participation in sports might help get a student admitted to a school which would otherwise deny them. For that, you don't need to be a star; you just need to be good enough to make the team(s).

I've used my kid as an example before, but I don't have any ambition for him to play D1/etc., soccer or anything else. However, I do hope that his participation in sports at the HS varsity level helps him with admissions generally (along with Math Olympiad, etc.). That's where I'm at, and probably where the majority of parents are at, with respect to HS sports participation.
Click to expand...
My son was told straight up by a football coach at a very selective academic university that he would 100% get my son into the school if he applied. My son has great grades (solid SAT, but not high enough to submit), I would put his odds of getting into that school at less than 50% without the coaches involvement.
 
watfly said:
Side tangent on development. I walk past a park nearly everyday with 3-4 young soccer teams practicing. The kids usually are "queued" up in a line waiting for their turn for the one ball in play, while a dozen other balls are sitting idle on the sideline. We don't fundamentally understand soccer and never will.
Click to expand...
This 100%. We are fundamentally not a football culture, we are a culture of athletes.
 
watfly said:
My son was told straight up by a football coach at a very selective academic university that he would 100% get my son into the school if he applied. My son has great grades (solid SAT, but not high enough to submit), I would put his odds of getting into that school at less than 50% without the coaches involvement.
Click to expand...
I know a guy offering the same thing. His last name was Singer. Only cost a couple hundred grand.

This is why everyone hates college recruiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top