Youth broken system

[Surfref]

N'Golo Kante was not the finished product you see today so who knows if he would even still be playing if he was in the US.

We have a lot of Latin unsanctioned leagues so there are places in Socal but don't think its like that in the rest of the US. AYSO has seen a drop off in numbers
https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...finds-big-drop-in-soccer-participation-i.html

Interesting read. My daughter and I were talking about soccer coaches the other day while driving home after an afternoon of refereeing. She is a club coach (2nd year), referee, and college player. To summarize her thoughts as a coach, she thinks that club coaches do not receive enough training and are over paid. She was shocked to learn that coaches do not have to attend a designated number of hours of mandatory structured (USSF approved) annual training like referees. The club where she coaches does hold bi-monthly all-coach meetings that include some type of coach training. She has a couple friends/college players that also coach club and both of them receive no training from their clubs.

It really surprised me that she said most coaches are overpaid. She makes $400 a month (works out to about $17 an hour) and coaches G8 and G14 teams. She also does privates ($35 for an one hour plus) and has 3 players that she works with 4 times a month and another 5 that she works with 1-3 times a month. She usually makes $500 to $600 a month from privates. She thinks that what she makes is sufficient especially for a second year coach who is attending college fulltime. One of her friends, who my daughter thinks is way over paid, is making $800 a month (works out to $50 an hour) for a G12 team plus charges the two G12 players she does privates with as a pair for $80 an hour, and she just got her coaching license this past winter. My daughter did say that her friend has tons of pressure from the club to win, while my daughters club wants her to develop the skills and love of the game for the G8's and with the G14 to make sure they are enjoying the game and learning advanced tactics. I agree with my daughter that coaches who only coach a couple teams should not (didn't want a Trump slip) be making enough to use their club coaching salary as their sole means of income and be making enough to afford a $50K+ car and $500K+ house. If you club soccer were to lower some of these crazy high coaching salaries, maybe clubs could lower their fees a little and be more affordable.

 

[Grace T.]

AYSO is telling families, "If your kid is Rec Level Good, then (s)he should be playing Club. And, hey, we have that now."

They should be doing the opposite: "If your kid is Rec Level Good, then get them off that Flight 3 team, get them out of Club, and have them play in AYSO."

Yes, but in fairness to them they aren't just marketing United to Rec players....they are marketing it to club parents as well and having some apparent success. Also because United can recruit from a very large talent pool (club/Extras/allstars/core), some teams are having quite a bit of success, though I take the point it will be difficult for many teams to break into the highest levels given how they are structured.

If we were seriously about restructuring AYSO a few things would have to happen, and the parties are too invested too realistically have it occur:

1. AYSO would have to fully submit to the US Soccer umbrella. They haven't wanted to do that, preferring to keep their own philosophy and leadership structure.
2. Pay or play would have to be outlawed and there would be no club soccer outside of fully funded academy programs. As a result there would probably be fewer of them than there already are DA teams in the U.S.
3. AYSO would then be free to reorg into various levels. Other than the basic 1 level, teams would sort based on coach selection and recruitment. Naturally, the better coaches would sort into the higher level teams....compensation would be minimal, but increasing as you move up in level....the incentive for the coaches in addition would be bragging rights for their levels. Of course, level 1 would still be the old AYSO parents that never played soccer (at least til the next generation grows up). All Stars/United/Extras also go away. You couldn't recruit outside your region (with progressively higher levels having bigger regions). At a certain level, you couldn't recruit your own kid. The existing AYSO region chapter autonomy would go away as well. Everyone would have some sort of service requirement placed on them to play, sort of like now for AYSO but more restrictive and severe.
4. The everyone plays, no competition purists would need to cave. Part of the motivation of the coaches to do this is personal glory....to win. The possessionists also wouldn't be happy....you'd see a lot of kick ball, particularly in the early ages.

In other words, we'd get the current English system: volunteer based with minimal compensation, very restricted and limited academy system, graduated tiers, lot's of kickball (perhaps more than we even have now) at the younger ages. But it would solve the income problem (too much talent too poor or unable to travel to afford club), the participation issue (there are enough levels for everyone, depending on their level of commitment), the randomized problem (that AYSO is like a box of chocolates...you never know what coach you are going to get, unless it's you) and the high school problem (outside of the academies, largely funded by the MLS, recruitment would have to fall back on high school). It would maintain a professional track (the academies) as well as allow room for late bloomers to advance up the level chain and be spotted by professional clubs. The ones who would be unhappy of course would be the paid coaches and parents hoping to develop their kids for college athletics...in other words most of us on this board.

 

[Messi>CR7]

It really surprised me that she said most coaches are overpaid. She makes $400 a month (works out to about $17 an hour) and coaches G8 and G14 teams. She also does privates ($35 for an one hour plus) and has 3 players that she works with 4 times a month and another 5 that she works with 1-3 times a month. She usually makes $500 to $600 a month from privates. She thinks that what she makes is sufficient especially for a second year coach who is attending college fulltime. One of her friends, who my daughter thinks is way over paid, is making $800 a month (works out to $50 an hour) for a G12 team plus charges the two G12 players she does privates with as a pair for $80 an hour, and she just got her coaching license this past winter. My daughter did say that her friend has tons of pressure from the club to win, while my daughters club wants her to develop the skills and love of the game for the G8's and with the G14 to make sure they are enjoying the game and learning advanced tactics. I agree with my daughter that coaches who only coach a couple teams should not (didn't want a Trump slip) be making enough to use their club coaching salary as their sole means of income and be making enough to afford a $50K+ car and $500K+ house. If you club soccer were to lower some of these crazy high coaching salaries, maybe clubs could lower their fees a little and be more affordable.

Can you ask your DD if there is any difference between the $35/hr training and the $80/hr training .

A UK coach once told me even he is surprised that he can make a living in the US by teaching little girls soccer.

 

[Grace T.]

p.s. Also keep in mind that soccer isn't the only sport having problems with high school retention

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcoo...-hurting-most-every-other-sport/#2c0da36b1ea8

The part about sailing is hilarious.

All the other sports, including football, are gradually shifting towards more of a club model. Soccer could have evolved along the lines of the English system before club ball took off. It didn't, with AYSO relying upon the uniquely American all star system of play like in other sports. Americans have never been big into sorting (we don't do it in our public schools either, whereas Europe has no problems telling kids early in life which ones should go to college and which ones are destined for trade schools)....there was a sense that all kids should participate on the same teams as a community, even those that might be handicapped for example. Soccer just changed quicker because: 1) the volunteer coaching just isn't up to snuff with so few parents knowing how to play soccer, and 2) soccer's kind of unique as a team sport...for the striker to do anything someone's got to get them the ball....if little Billy defender swings and misses at the ball, a talented striker isn't going to have a lot to do....to progress the striker needs to be with like leveled players, particularly when teams are larger than say a 5 man basketball team or a baseball team that relies upon a few batters on offense or a football team that can have different body types play different roles.

 

[oh canada]

Pet peeve alert: Commentaries, opinions, soapbox rants that only complain about the problem BUT DON'T OFFER A SOLUTION. (as this interview does)

It's easy to identify a problem(s), much more difficult to offer a solution(s), especially one that will work.

I agree with the ESPN piece that soccer kids in USA (and Canada) do not play enough on their own and this is one of the primary reasons why creativity and flair is lacking in most our players' games. So, taking it to the next step, how do we motivate our kids to play with friends in the neighborhoods? Build some attractive small fields/courts that kids can hang out and play on all day long. Every neighborhood--from inner cities in NYC to suburbs of Toronto--have basketball courts. So it's no surprise where most of the creative basketball players come from. Convert some of those paved courts to soccer fields, build some new ones, and guess what you'll see -- kids shooting, juggling and playing with a different type of round ball. Go to any South American country, and most European cities and the number of soccer courts (more like futsal) outnumber basketball courts 20:1. Even in Asia, the public courts are much more likely to be soccer than anything else. As the saying goes, "if you build it, they will come."

Some might say, we have plenty of parks for kids to play soccer...well guess what...after school who is occupying most of those greenspaces? Your local soccer clubs. (or the homeless in the cities)

USA Hockey has no problem hanging with the best countries in the World on the ice (even beating Canada once in awhile ). Why? Because just like in Canada all winter, kids from Minnesota to Maine are playing on neighborhood ice ponds every chance they get. USA Soccer should look to US Hockey as a model.

Last - don't give me that argument that most of USA's best athletes go play other sports...BS...NBA players are 6'5" and taller -- they're not gonna play soccer. NFL players are mostly 240lbs and heavier (and most 6'3" and taller)---they're not gonna play soccer. MLB? most are pitchers (not fast runners nor quick) and now many of the best athletes in MLB are coming from Latin America, not here. But ok granted there could be some overlap in MLB. Hockey? Those kids are not gonna play soccer--hockey much more popular in those parts that churn out the best hockey players. Easy to generalize that "ohhh so many of our athletes are going to other sports," but when you break it down, it's really not true. At the World Cup, how many players did you see that looked like they could put on shoulder pads and play NFL? Lukaku is one, maybe Ronaldo as a second and one or two others, but the nature of soccer fits a different type of athlete than other sports.

 

[foreveryoung]

[QUOTE What reason other than parking revenue would there be to have a final on a Monday?/QUOTE]

For "Stay and Play" tournaments like Surf Cup it means an extra night of hotel stay kickbacks to the club, for a consolation game no less. Competitive youth soccer (and other youth sports) serves the adults (parents, coaches, organizations, etc.) involved. I rarely see examples of it being about the kids anymore.

 

[espola]

Pet peeve alert: Commentaries, opinions, soapbox rants that only complain about the problem BUT DON'T OFFER A SOLUTION. (as this interview does)

It's easy to identify a problem(s), much more difficult to offer a solution(s), especially one that will work.

I agree with the ESPN piece that soccer kids in USA (and Canada) do not play enough on their own and this is one of the primary reasons why creativity and flair is lacking in most our players' games. So, taking it to the next step, how do we motivate our kids to play with friends in the neighborhoods? Build some attractive small fields/courts that kids can hang out and play on all day long. Every neighborhood--from inner cities in NYC to suburbs of Toronto--have basketball courts. So it's no surprise where most of the creative basketball players come from. Convert some of those paved courts to soccer fields, build some new ones, and guess what you'll see -- kids shooting, juggling and playing with a different type of round ball. Go to any South American country, and most European cities and the number of soccer courts (more like futsal) outnumber basketball courts 20:1. Even in Asia, the public courts are much more likely to be soccer than anything else. As the saying goes, "if you build it, they will come."

Some might say, we have plenty of parks for kids to play soccer...well guess what...after school who is occupying most of those greenspaces? Your local soccer clubs. (or the homeless in the cities)

USA Hockey has no problem hanging with the best countries in the World on the ice (even beating Canada once in awhile ). Why? Because just like in Canada all winter, kids from Minnesota to Maine are playing on neighborhood ice ponds every chance they get. USA Soccer should look to US Hockey as a model.

Last - don't give me that argument that most of USA's best athletes go play other sports...BS...NBA players are 6'5" and taller -- they're not gonna play soccer. NFL players are mostly 240lbs and heavier (and most 6'3" and taller)---they're not gonna play soccer. MLB? most are pitchers (not fast runners nor quick) and now many of the best athletes in MLB are coming from Latin America, not here. But ok granted there could be some overlap in MLB. Hockey? Those kids are not gonna play soccer--hockey much more popular in those parts that churn out the best hockey players. Easy to generalize that "ohhh so many of our athletes are going to other sports," but when you break it down, it's really not true. At the World Cup, how many players did you see that looked like they could put on shoulder pads and play NFL? Lukaku is one, maybe Ronaldo as a second and one or two others, but the nature of soccer fits a different type of athlete than other sports.

Most of USA's best athletes go play other sports.

 

[jpeter]

Worked for D. Yedlin but not so much for Crossfire his local development club. Going off to eupore gets MLS compensation but not his local club is something that needs to be fixed.
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/20...ompensation-crossfire-deandre-yedlin-mls-fifa

 

[SPChamp1]

The Youth Soccer system is not broken, it is just sub-optimal. It seems like it has hit its ceiling of what it can do without drastic overhaul and the constant introduction of different leagues, and elite tiers within these leagues are just trying to reinvent the same wheel.

I don’t know what that overhaul looks like exactly, but part of what TT said about being more inclusive makes a lot of sense. So how do we become more inclusive and open the doors to kids who may have been overlooked, without “opening the flood gates”? Would regionalizing the ODP program even smaller than at a State Association level help with identifying missed talent? Could each league (say CSL Gold and SCDSL Flight 1) be tasked with finding these kids and holding more local ODP style camps before making the recommendation to the State Level ODP camp? I ask that because I have seen kids, who IMO can compete at the ODP but don’t get an opportunity because they don’t play for what is considered to be a “major” club. Coaches at these smaller clubs aren’t often encouraged to refer these players.

As for AYSO, I could go on for hours about what a horrible organization they are, but I will save that for another discussion. AYSO is struggling because they are a day late and a dollar short to adapting to the changes in the Youth Soccer landscape. Those that have the power to make changes at AYSO are old school and still believe that what made them successful 25 years ago will continue to make them successful today. AYSO prides itself on being ALL VOLUNTEER, but for many families, 9-5 jobs aren’t common anymore. Many families require both sets of parents to hold jobs, or a single parent to sometimes hold two jobs. Some parents don’t have time to volunteer and those that do are forced to
meet an ever increasing amount of requirements to do so.

AYSO started United officially last year on a National Level as a means to stay relevant, but all they are doing is poaching their own players. Most current club families still see AYSO United as a joke on the Competitive Circuit and many families already in club wouldn’t consider United even if they were “shopping” around. Also save a few coaches that are legit (and will be poached by other clubs), they are being coached by paid volunteer level coaches with a USSF E License. I believe that AYSO United will not survive in its current iteration. To make a real go at competitive soccer they will need to merge with a few smaller clubs to build out their coach and player base and they will need to drop AYSO from the name officially. Just be United South Bay or United High Desert Cities, etc...

 

[Grace T.]

The Youth Soccer system is not broken, it is just sub-optimal. It seems like it has hit its ceiling of what it can do without drastic overhaul and the constant introduction of different leagues, and elite tiers within these leagues are just trying to reinvent the same wheel.
\...

To determine whether it's broken or not you have to ask the question what is youth soccer trying to accomplish. If fielding a competitive's men's team at the world cup is the objective, more kids in ODP isn't going to do much. If creating pro players is the objective, it's irrelevant the number of girls that attend ODP. If making soccer more broadbased is the objective and creating a US Soccer culture, then making ODP more relevant is going to discourage that because the kids that don't make it will just give up which is what numbers are showing across sports right now. If making soccer accessible to the poor is the objective, well then I'm not sure how that helps because you still have to be in the club soccer circle to be considered. If our objective is to produce college players and make sure everyone gets a fair look, well o.k....it couldn't hurt.

It's the same question with United. If creating a men's team or professionals is our objective, you are right it's probably not going to help, at least not directly. It might help the accessibility issue somewhat, though, by providing poorer kids an affordable route into club soccer but they'll: 1) still hit the ceiling at higher levels where money for travel and tournaments is required and 2) AYSO is fixing the E license level in some regions by paying their coaches (which is the biggest component in affordability) (on a side note, the volunteer issue isn't as big of an impediment as you say...sure you need a lot of time to coach, but you can satisfy the requirement by refiing 4-5 games a year, buying the team banner, or manning the hot dog truck on tournament day). If our objective is to create a middle ground between rec and club, as some posters have mentioned, well then both Extras and United a great for that (I mentioned once I interviewed a girl from flight 1 that to focus on academics had stepped to a United team....but for United she probably would have stopped playing). If our objective is to create college players, well you are right United probably isn't going to be much help. And if our objective is to keep AYSO relevant, it probably will, but at the cost of gutting the core program even further after a certain age.

 

[Eagle33]

Yes, but in fairness to them they aren't just marketing United to Rec players....they are marketing it to club parents as well and having some apparent success. Also because United can recruit from a very large talent pool (club/Extras/allstars/core), some teams are having quite a bit of success, though I take the point it will be difficult for many teams to break into the highest levels given how they are structured.

If we were seriously about restructuring AYSO a few things would have to happen, and the parties are too invested too realistically have it occur:

1. AYSO would have to fully submit to the US Soccer umbrella. They haven't wanted to do that, preferring to keep their own philosophy and leadership structure.
2. Pay or play would have to be outlawed and there would be no club soccer outside of fully funded academy programs. As a result there would probably be fewer of them than there already are DA teams in the U.S.
3. AYSO would then be free to reorg into various levels. Other than the basic 1 level, teams would sort based on coach selection and recruitment. Naturally, the better coaches would sort into the higher level teams....compensation would be minimal, but increasing as you move up in level....the incentive for the coaches in addition would be bragging rights for their levels. Of course, level 1 would still be the old AYSO parents that never played soccer (at least til the next generation grows up). All Stars/United/Extras also go away. You couldn't recruit outside your region (with progressively higher levels having bigger regions). At a certain level, you couldn't recruit your own kid. The existing AYSO region chapter autonomy would go away as well. Everyone would have some sort of service requirement placed on them to play, sort of like now for AYSO but more restrictive and severe.
4. The everyone plays, no competition purists would need to cave. Part of the motivation of the coaches to do this is personal glory....to win. The possessionists also wouldn't be happy....you'd see a lot of kick ball, particularly in the early ages.

In other words, we'd get the current English system: volunteer based with minimal compensation, very restricted and limited academy system, graduated tiers, lot's of kickball (perhaps more than we even have now) at the younger ages. But it would solve the income problem (too much talent too poor or unable to travel to afford club), the participation issue (there are enough levels for everyone, depending on their level of commitment), the randomized problem (that AYSO is like a box of chocolates...you never know what coach you are going to get, unless it's you) and the high school problem (outside of the academies, largely funded by the MLS, recruitment would have to fall back on high school). It would maintain a professional track (the academies) as well as allow room for late bloomers to advance up the level chain and be spotted by professional clubs. The ones who would be unhappy of course would be the paid coaches and parents hoping to develop their kids for college athletics...in other words most of us on this board.

It's amazing how you subconsciously (or not) started promoting AYSO

To determine whether it's broken or not you have to ask the question what is youth soccer trying to accomplish. If fielding a competitive's men's team at the world cup is the objective, more kids in ODP isn't going to do much. If creating pro players is the objective, it's irrelevant the number of girls that attend ODP. If making soccer more broadbased is the objective and creating a US Soccer culture, then making ODP more relevant is going to discourage that because the kids that don't make it will just give up which is what numbers are showing across sports right now. If making soccer accessible to the poor is the objective, well then I'm not sure how that helps because you still have to be in the club soccer circle to be considered. If our objective is to produce college players and make sure everyone gets a fair look, well o.k....it couldn't hurt.

It's the same question with United. If creating a men's team or professionals is our objective, you are right it's probably not going to help, at least not directly. It might help the accessibility issue somewhat, though, by providing poorer kids an affordable route into club soccer but they'll: 1) still hit the ceiling at higher levels where money for travel and tournaments is required and 2) AYSO is fixing the E license level in some regions by paying their coaches (which is the biggest component in affordability) (on a side note, the volunteer issue isn't as big of an impediment as you say...sure you need a lot of time to coach, but you can satisfy the requirement by refiing 4-5 games a year, buying the team banner, or manning the hot dog truck on tournament day). If our objective is to create a middle ground between rec and club, as some posters have mentioned, well then both Extras and United a great for that (I mentioned once I interviewed a girl from flight 1 that to focus on academics had stepped to a United team....but for United she probably would have stopped playing). If our objective is to create college players, well you are right United probably isn't going to be much help. And if our objective is to keep AYSO relevant, it probably will, but at the cost of gutting the core program even further after a certain age.

It's amazing how parents of kids who got cut from the club become AYSO promoters.
AYSO is nothing more than a recreational program. It was build for this particular purpose and it should stay this way. "Everyone plays" philosophy is exactly what hurts soccer in this country. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that and kids who wants play for fun should stay in AYSO, but you need to understand how United came about. Actually you said it yourself talking about UK guys figuring out they can make a living coaching little girls soccer in US. Look who runs United and maybe you'll understand what it's all about.

 

[Grace T.]

It's amazing how you subconsciously (or not) started promoting AYSO


It's amazing how parents of kids who got cut from the club become AYSO promoters.
AYSO is nothing more than a recreational program. It was build for this particular purpose and it should stay this way. "Everyone plays" philosophy is exactly what hurts soccer in this country. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that and kids who wants play for fun should stay in AYSO, but you need to understand how United came about. Actually you said it yourself talking about UK guys figuring out they can make a living coaching little girls soccer in US. Look who runs United and maybe you'll understand what it's all about.

I'm hardly an AYSO promoter, and stand by my past criticism of the daddy ball issues. I even just said it....if it hadn't been for the daddy ball and everyone plays philosophy, club soccer wouldn't exist. I even pointed out soccer is a harder sport to have an everyone plays philosophy because is little defender Billy swings and misses and can't get the ball up to talented striker Johnny, Johnny's not going to be able to develop much. Indeed, one of the reasons I took my own sons out of core and into Extras was because that was happening way too much.

Same question to you regarding what "hurts" soccer. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to create a men's team, have broad participation, or create college athletes? The original post started with the position that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. If that's what we are concerned about, then United and Extras is a great solution. If it's trying to create a men's team, then as currently structured, I think both club soccer and AYSO are an impediment.

 

[INFAMEE]

If players are not playing CSL Gold or Flight 1 by age 12 they should just play AYSO or MX Leagues.

I get it most parents just want to be part of something, it doesn't matter if they're completely oblivious to what development is. It's fun it's fuzzy and just the in thing because everybody's kid is doing it.

If righteous parents that are in the know take your kid to the nearest full funded academy and have them try out there. All those fun worthless tournaments and league games in flight 2 and Silver Elite will be put to the test.

 

[Eagle33]

I'm hardly an AYSO promoter, and stand by my past criticism of the daddy ball issues. I even just said it....if it hadn't been for the daddy ball and everyone plays philosophy, club soccer wouldn't exist. I even pointed out soccer is a harder sport to have an everyone plays philosophy because is little defender Billy swings and misses and can't get the ball up to talented striker Johnny, Johnny's not going to be able to develop much. Indeed, one of the reasons I took my own sons out of core and into Extras was because that was happening way too much.

Same question to you regarding what "hurts" soccer. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to create a men's team, have broad participation, or create college athletes? The original post started with the position that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. If that's what we are concerned about, then United and Extras is a great solution. If it's trying to create a men's team, then as currently structured, I think both club soccer and AYSO are an impediment.

The only thing "hurts" soccer in US is cultural issue and it always will be here. Soccer is NOT #1 sport here and it will never be #1. All the best athletes will not play soccer in US. Not much you or anyone else can do about it. Compare to 30 years ago, we made huge leap in popularity of the sport, however we are still ways behind. All this nonsense about bringing foreign consultants and changing player and coaching education will never work. I would start with changing parents soccer perspective before anything else.

 

[Grace T.]

p.s. we were having the same argument about heading in the world cup thread. If our goal is to create a winning men's team, the no header rule is probably going to hurt us in the long run because heading has become so important in soccer and so many of the world cup goals were scored that way. And it takes a really long time not only to get good at heading but to practice getting the ball into a place where it can be headed...and you need to know the technical skills solidly before you can start to develop tactically and strategically. If our goal is to keep the 99.9% of kids safe that won't be playing at that level, well then I agree the header rule is probably a good idea. What's frustrating about these discussions and articles is that no one (consciously or subsconsciously) can seem to agree as to what our objective is....only that missing the world cup is bad...which is why we keep talking each other in circles on this debate instead of coming to a realistic solution. If our goal is to create college athletes, SPChamp1 is right on: systems working probably just needs to be tweaked.

The only thing "hurts" soccer in US is cultural issue and it always will be here. Soccer is NOT #1 sport here and it will never be #1. All the best athletes will not play soccer in US. Not much you or anyone else can do about it. Compare to 30 years ago, we made huge leap in popularity of the sport, however we are still ways behind. All this nonsense about bringing foreign consultants and changing player and coaching education will never work. I would start with changing parents soccer perspective before anything else.

If our problem is the cultural issue, then I agree as well (see above) that both AYSO and club sport are an impediment. That question though is different from the best athletes playing. Cultural penetration only gets the best athletes to give soccer a look. What makes the differences is the money. If you pay, they'll come. Again, I ask the question: what's the end goal here? What are we trying to create?

 

[Chalklines]

The only thing "hurts" soccer in US is cultural issue and it always will be here. Soccer is NOT #1 sport here and it will never be #1.

This is it. Agree 100%

 

[Simisoccerfan]

[QUOTE What reason other than parking revenue would there be to have a final on a Monday?/QUOTE]

For "Stay and Play" tournaments like Surf Cup it means an extra night of hotel stay kickbacks to the club, for a consolation game no less. Competitive youth soccer (and other youth sports) serves the adults (parents, coaches, organizations, etc.) involved. I rarely see examples of it being about the kids anymore.

I am all for the extra day if it means the kids are only playing one game a day. Once a kid hit HS age they should never play more than one game a day. There is a whole host of reasons why playing more than one game a day is not good for them. The DA has gotten it right regarding this issue. Surf Cup should doing this for the other brackets not just the DA brackets. Why on earth does the U18 bracket winners need to play 5 games over 3 days? That's ridiculous. Just call it a showcase and do 3 games instead. Yes parents complain about the cost of stretching out a tournament/showcase but if it was truly about the kids they would do this.

 

[Messi>CR7]

Last - don't give me that argument that most of USA's best athletes go play other sports...BS...NBA players are 6'5" and taller -- they're not gonna play soccer. NFL players are mostly 240lbs and heavier (and most 6'3" and taller)---they're not gonna play soccer. MLB? most are pitchers (not fast runners nor quick) and now many of the best athletes in MLB are coming from Latin America, not here. But ok granted there could be some overlap in MLB. Hockey? Those kids are not gonna play soccer--hockey much more popular in those parts that churn out the best hockey players. Easy to generalize that "ohhh so many of our athletes are going to other sports," but when you break it down, it's really not true. At the World Cup, how many players did you see that looked like they could put on shoulder pads and play NFL? Lukaku is one, maybe Ronaldo as a second and one or two others, but the nature of soccer fits a different type of athlete than other sports.

The problem is the best athletes 6'2" and under were also playing basketball and football during puberty. They just can't make it to the pro level because of their height limitation. Using a local OC tennis legend Michael Chang as an example. John McEnroe once said if Chang were a couple inches taller and 15 pounds heavier, Chang would be Jimmy Connors.

For US to be a soccer powerhouse, we just need a constitutional amendment to force kids to play only soccer if their dad is 6' or shorter. History has shown an authoritarian or communist government may not be good for its citizens, but is very effective at winning Olympic medals.

 

[ItsCalledSoccer]

Having just come back from the AYSO National Cup (Where United teams from all over the place came to compete in a tournament), I can see that some areas of AYSO United are less professional than we have in OC and can understand the criticisms. But AYSO definitely has it's place, providing opportunity to play for those recreational players, providing cheap opportunities to develop without having to commit 100% to soccer year round (Extra) and for those who want to go beyond and take the sport seriously (United). Yes I understand the car sticker isn't as impressive as some of the others, but in the end it doesn't matter if the coaching is good and your child is getting playing time.

Its funny how there was a comment on how the 'Everyone Plays' idea is killing US Soccer, I think soon there will be mandates on all club teams to copy AYSO's vision and have kids play at least 50% of the game (at least up until a certain age, maybe 11v11).

 

[Eagle33]

p.s. we were having the same argument about heading in the world cup thread. If our goal is to create a winning men's team, the no header rule is probably going to hurt us in the long run because heading has become so important in soccer and so many of the world cup goals were scored that way. And it takes a really long time not only to get good at heading but to practice getting the ball into a place where it can be headed...and you need to know the technical skills solidly before you can start to develop tactically and strategically. If our goal is to keep the 99.9% of kids safe that won't be playing at that level, well then I agree the header rule is probably a good idea. What's frustrating about these discussions and articles is that no one (consciously or subsconsciously) can seem to agree as to what our objective is....only that missing the world cup is bad...which is why we keep talking each other in circles on this debate instead of coming to a realistic solution. If our goal is to create college athletes, SPChamp1 is right on: systems working probably just needs to be tweaked.



If our problem is the cultural issue, then I agree as well (see above) that both AYSO and club sport are an impediment. That question though is different from the best athletes playing. Cultural penetration only gets the best athletes to give soccer a look. What makes the differences is the money. If you pay, they'll come. Again, I ask the question: what's the end goal here? What are we trying to create?

US Soccer goal is to produce World Class players.
Parents goal is to get their kid to College.