Maybe, it SHOULD be all about winning...

Scrub It Kook said:
Maybe it's the coach, not the players driving the results. Maybe it's both. But politics definitely is a factor. Coaches can be blind the halo effect they place on some players too, especially if the player is a 'yes-man/woman' so as not to jeopardize their spot on the team.
Click to expand...
Yes, perhaps, and there are the legion of stories about pay-for-play....
 
I often hear that to fix US youth soccer, there needs to be promotions and relegation out of these letter leagues. In other words, it needs to be all about winning. Isn’t it?

Development could be an excuse for “I don’t know how to manage my players to get the best out of them therefore I am rotating them through my lineup hoping something will stick” or “oops I have signed up too many players and now I am making them all share minutes so I don’t piss the parents off”.

We had a coach when my son was 7 who allowed his players to dribble and take on players. We didn’t pass to each other much. Parents used to get so frustrated. He used to say it’s easy to teach passing later but he can’t teach a kid to dribble when he is 13. 5 years later, many of his players are now scattered all around the top teams in the area. Some have learned to pass and some still haven’t learned, but they sure can all dribble.

Only time will tell if a coach is right or not. Sometimes we parents focus on the present and on what’s good for our kids at this time, you can have a good coach and you don’t know it. Then again this is pay to play, you have to do what makes you and your kid happy.
 
Jamisfoes said:
I often hear that to fix US youth soccer, there needs to be promotions and relegation out of these letter leagues. In other words, it needs to be all about winning. Isn’t it?

Development could be an excuse for “I don’t know how to manage my players to get the best out of them therefore I am rotating them through my lineup hoping something will stick” or “oops I have signed up too many players and now I am making them all share minutes so I don’t piss the parents off”.

We had a coach when my son was 7 who allowed his players to dribble and take on players. We didn’t pass to each other much. Parents used to get so frustrated. He used to say it’s easy to teach passing later but he can’t teach a kid to dribble when he is 13. 5 years later, many of his players are now scattered all around the top teams in the area. Some have learned to pass and some still haven’t learned, but they sure can all dribble.

Only time will tell if a coach is right or not. Sometimes we parents focus on the present and on what’s good for our kids at this time, you can have a good coach and you don’t know it. Then again this is pay to play, you have to do what makes you and your kid happy.
Click to expand...
Pro/rel only works as a meritocracy only if both players and the team are bound together (if you are promoted, you can't drop the players that brung you,,,,you can't leave for another club unless the club agrees to release you). I don't think many people would like that (they'd just form a league with different rules) since it puts too much weight on whatever your first choice of club is as a younger. Otherwise, from an economics point of view, its just two different ways of congregating talent.

The current system basically allows clubs let in through the velvet rope the power to build it...those outside the velvet rope can't attract the talent to build top teams...top players seek out and try out for the top flighted teams. A pro/rel system without binding clubs and player would just mean you are rewarding clubs and coaches who are able to build winning squads as youngers and then as they advance in the ranks recruit the best players who would congregate towards the top flight teams-- as in the old coast, some powerhouse clubs will be able to build across the board, but they'll also be some random scatterings. The externality with the former is that there might be some legal complications with the current system. The externality with the latter is that the skill set you are hiring for isn't coaches who can develop players, but coaches skilled in recruiting the parents of top players especially when they are youngers. With the latter, since winning a place in the top flight is vital, it encourages shortcuts such as booting the ball into a footrace, recruiting players near the age line taller/bigger, teaching poor shooting techniques such as boot the ball hard or over the keeper instead of placement, dribbling instead of a passing game, avoiding building from the back.

You can have your soccer developmental, competitive or accessible....you only get to pick 2 of those.
 
I certainly don't believe pro/rel is the answer that solves all of a league's problems - it causes quite a few just as described above. On balance, I believe that leagues that don't have pro/rel result in clubs/teams having no plausible incentive to keep from being perennially terrible. They can continue to make money, and stay in the league indefinitely - regardless of team/club performance. Balancing the incentives to win is always walking a fine line - strengthening the teams that are winning - while also attempting to strengthen the league inclusive of all teams.
 
Jamisfoes said:
We had a coach when my son was 7 who allowed his players to dribble and take on players. We didn’t pass to each other much. Parents used to get so frustrated. He used to say it’s easy to teach passing later but he can’t teach a kid to dribble when he is 13. 5 years later, many of his players are now scattered all around the top teams in the area. Some have learned to pass and some still haven’t learned, but they sure can all dribble.

Only time will tell if a coach is right or not. Sometimes we parents focus on the present and on what’s good for our kids at this time, you can have a good coach and you don’t know it. Then again this is pay to play, you have to do what makes you and your kid happy.
Click to expand...
This is so true (in the general sense) that it kinda stings.

Things I've heard coaches say, in club: do not dribble, short passes is the only methodology which wins at the high level, defense is important, we are all about player development, no teams get special preference within the club.

What I've seen in practice: the best players are the ones who dribble more, short passes doesn't win (because passing isn't perfect, and more passes creates more risk, particularly at lower levels), good offense is what is celebrated (at all levels), the club is focused on their fixed methodology focus areas (not what is necessarily best for their players), and the top level teams absolutely get preference (to fields, scrimmages, etc.). The most skilled and greedy kids on the ball (dribbling, etc.) are usually the ones who are most celebrated, and the most elevated (within the club or externally). Solid defense and safe lateral passing might win games (debatable), but it's not flashy, and it won't get you noticed. Conversely, the best way to get on top teams and be celebrated (at least at a youth level) seems to be: be really good at dribbling, hog the ball, and try to score. And be more physical mature earlier, of course (as that compensates for a lot of missing skill).

I guess parents need to just find what works for them and their kids.
 
Jamisfoes said:
I often hear that to fix US youth soccer, there needs to be promotions and relegation out of these letter leagues. In other words, it needs to be all about winning. Isn’t it?

Development could be an excuse for “I don’t know how to manage my players to get the best out of them therefore I am rotating them through my lineup hoping something will stick” or “oops I have signed up too many players and now I am making them all share minutes so I don’t piss the parents off”.

We had a coach when my son was 7 who allowed his players to dribble and take on players. We didn’t pass to each other much. Parents used to get so frustrated. He used to say it’s easy to teach passing later but he can’t teach a kid to dribble when he is 13. 5 years later, many of his players are now scattered all around the top teams in the area. Some have learned to pass and some still haven’t learned, but they sure can all dribble.

Only time will tell if a coach is right or not. Sometimes we parents focus on the present and on what’s good for our kids at this time, you can have a good coach and you don’t know it. Then again this is pay to play, you have to do what makes you and your kid happy.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, so based on that theory junior should never clean his room because he'll learn it later in life- got it... Too many Pep wannabees:Do_O
 
Scrub It Kook said:
Click to expand...
lol I get what he's trying to say...

but when MLS academies sign homegrown players to professional contracts, that's not recreational..

you can criticize that it's peanuts compared to European soccer clubs... or the NFL or the NBA... you can say that...
you can also say that these MLS teams would rather buy players from Europe or South America on the cheap than spend a decade actually developing a kid on their academy to use on their senior team...

you can say all that.

but you can't call the the entire MLS as rec... what's competitive then by his definition? NOTHING IN THE WORLD?? Only 4 Premier League club's academies + Real Madrid + Barca + a few others? everything else is rec? C'mon...
 
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...

This is it 100%. I have an older kid in a diff sport. So we talk to HS age parents a lot who's going through it now or have just gone through it.

So if you're top athlete in that sport 1) you can get a scholarship BUT most aren't at that level so the next option is 2) you can use it to go to college. And if you're good academically, then you can use it to go to a very good D3 school (yes no money but they find you "aid" based on "need"). And the benefit of that is, while all their friends are applying to 10 schools and waiting anxiously for an acceptance letter, a kid who has a coach walk his or her admissions application to the office as a recruited athlete has an answer and is usually done as an early decision / early action and is done by early Dec senior year in HS.

3) if you aren't great academically and you aren't a top recruit in that sport but still pretty decent, then you can go to a D2 school or D3 school that isn't so difficult academically but you can still go and get in and if it's somewhere you wanna go then hey it did something for ya.
 
Grace T. said:
The big one isn’t even Dei though despite the scotus ruling it’s still apparent it’s happening at least to some degree.
Click to expand...
Oh "to some degree" is an understatement. When you make it "color blind" but you add short essay question sections where they can identify their race/gender/other factors, that's not "color blind". This isn't a politics forum so I'll stop there. I'll just have to tell my children they're the wrong color so it's harder for them to get into college.

Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about these elite institutions oh I don't know... actually tap into their gazillion dollar endowment and get deserving American kids in and not worry about oh man that kid's not gonna pay full tuition because it's not an international student?
How about not focus on "geographic diversity" but diversity of thought?
How about not make it impossible for a local kid who is great from attending your local university like UCLA...

Sorry, I'll stop. This topic gets me going...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top