Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fixing high school soccer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    The standard career path for a NFL player is HS football, NCAA football, NFL football. (The NFL has an age minimum of about 20; you can't be drafted until two years beyond HS). Nobody cares how good a football prospect is at age 11--they aren't physically developed yet. Competitive youth football is a thing in Texas--but the local football leagues catering to middle-school children seem more rec- and dev- focused.

    The standard career path for a NBA player is HS basketball, often with AAU on the side, one year in college, and then on to the NBA. Some players do Europe instead of NCAA ball (the NBA has a one-year past high school requirement), but that's unusual. Every once in a while, one hears about 11-year-olds who can dunk, but in general, nobody cares about how good an 11-year-old is. Michael Jordan was infamously frustrated about a HS coach who--even though he was obviously the best player at his high school in the 9th grade--would not let freshmen play varsity. (This tale has morphed into the "Jordan was cut in high school" legend; he was merely denied a spot on varsity as a freshman due to school rules).

    The standard career path for a pro baseball player is HS baseball; a stint in the minors, and if you make it, the majors. Some play college ball, but still are expected to play in the minors before making the big leagues; college ball (with its use of metal bats) is generally not considered adequate preparation. Baseball is the sport that cares the least about what you do as a kid.

    Soccer is unique among team sports in seeing children signed to professional contracts. It's unique (in the US) in havingpro teams run youth academies. And it's unique in that it cares very much how good a player is good at age 11; middle school is when they start narrowing the funnel.

    Now, there may be good reasons for that. The US dominates in hoops and baseball, and American football is exclusively a US sport--so traditional US sporting culture (which values high-school sports as a public good, and still demands strict amateurism out of collegiate athletes--a guy recently quit NCAA football rather than shut down his for-profit Youtube channel, when the NCAA ruled that making money off of videos of him playing football was considered non-amateur) dominates these. And traditional US sporting culture generally disapproves of subjecting middle-schoolers to professional training regimens.

    Another argument often heard is that the other sports simply cannot be played at a high level until one physically matures--and that size and strength matter far more. Until you know who is going to be fastest, strongest, tallest--and this won't be revealed until well after puberty--the funnel cannot be narrowed. The skills of soccer, OTOH, can be mastered at a young age, and according to much received wisdom, skill at manipulating the ball HAS to be learned in early childhood--otherwise it's too late. In other words, the other sports have an attitude of "show me your good athletes, and I'll turn them into star quarterbacks, first basemen, or small forwards". In soccer, it seems to be "show me your technically sound soccer players, and I'll make the good athletes and teach them teamwork".

    Which would work against a development path in which high school is the principal training ground.

    One other point, which drives a whole lot of the arguments in this forum, is the belief that the best way to train elite players is to a) group them with other elite players, and not have them waste their time kicking around with the C-teamers, and b) subject them to intense, high-quality training. This, of course, discourages the HS environment, where one's teammates are determined by geography, not skill.

    Just some food for thought.
    To summarize in the end you must have a high Soccer IQ that is crafted for a specific position/role, be technically sound in all areas, demonstrate a competitive/acountable nature and most importantly be athleticly relevant to play a sport on a field that is 110yds by 75 yes wide vs similar or better players.

    All of the elements mentioned, plus others must be continually developed year after year after year otherwise or you will fall behind.

    In the USA soccer will never get those type of invidiuals to turn out for a sport that has a payday of 40k to 80k for the typical American elite soccer pro. When our Main Street sports have paydays of millions for the best in those sports. Basically soccer gets the athletic leftovers and we are left with passionate afficandos who dream of playing the beautiful game but don't have the requisite skills to achieve this goal. Our unique Soccer Paradox.

    Enjoy the ride.



    Being athletic isn't enough, being skilled isn't enough, having

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      "Club Soccer is solely responsible for the deplorable level of play at the HS Level. "

      This comment doesn't make any sense. You would think club soccer kids, having trained, played and had professional coaching for years more than recreational players who also appear on the team, would improve the play.

      It's a weird mix, with emphasis on wins. Recipe for problems as the OP lays out.
      I am also perplexed by that statement. Over the years I've seen the quality improve tremendously as more players are playing club (god when I was in HS there was no club soccer and most of the team had never played other than in middle school! gym class). Granted not all clubs are high quality, but the number of kids coming in with at least some decent exposure to the sport helps improve the game. Same with coaching quality - more club caches are at the top HS programs, not the chemistry teacher. The stronger teams tend to have a large number of higher level club players. But to say club soccer has decreased the quality of HS soccer is absurd.

      Now is the level ECNL or DA level quality? Of course not and it won't ever be. But factor in all the other positives and HS will not go away, even though soccer elitists and USSF want it to. Imagine if the NFL or NBA suggested doing the same thing?

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        I am also perplexed by that statement. Over the years I've seen the quality improve tremendously as more players are playing club (god when I was in HS there was no club soccer and most of the team had never played other than in middle school! gym class). Granted not all clubs are high quality, but the number of kids coming in with at least some decent exposure to the sport helps improve the game. Same with coaching quality - more club caches are at the top HS programs, not the chemistry teacher. The stronger teams tend to have a large number of higher level club players. But to say club soccer has decreased the quality of HS soccer is absurd.

        Now is the level ECNL or DA level quality? Of course not and it won't ever be. But factor in all the other positives and HS will not go away, even though soccer elitists and USSF want it to. Imagine if the NFL or NBA suggested doing the same thing?
        USSF doesn't want high school to go away. They simply need our top national team prospects to skip high school in order to train & play at a higher level. The remaining 99% are welcome to play high school. As stated above, soccer is a different path is different than other sports.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          High school soccer is something that has long been a controversial topic in youth soccer circles--and one that makes many people turn up their nose. The complaints are many, and many of them are currently true:

          * The Laws of the Game are ignored.
          * Many of the coaches are retreads, who know little about the modern game.
          * Too many games, too much focus on winning at all costs, very little focus on development.
          * Inappropriate focus on physical fitness (and training regimens that are more appropriate for the cross-country team)
          * Over-emphasis on bootball, less on technical soccer.

          As a result, the pecking order for progression into NCAA or professional soccer seems to be:

          * Elite academies and programs (including MLS DAs, certain ECNL clubs for girls, etc.)
          * ODP and similar (fading in importance)
          * Ordinary club soccer, particularly premier divisions.
          * High school soccer.

          A lot of conversation in the soccer community seems to focus on how to further marginalize the high school game. DA prohibits participation in HS. OYSA and ECNL accomodate it, but generally consider it to be a lesser level of soccer. It's defenders often defend it for it's social aspects in ways that make it sound like rec--representing your school is fun, playing with your friends and classmates is fun. (And it is fun to do these things).

          For that reason--I'm going to make a suggestion.

          HS soccer shouldn't be denigrated. It shouldn't be marginalized. It shouldn't be put down.

          Instead, it should be fixed--and given that many club coaches double as HS coaches, the club community is in a position to do so.

          If you look at football, basketball, and baseball--the HS game is extremely important to the development of players in these sports. Why?

          * Playing for school and classmates, rather than an empty sideline with nobody but parents, is indeed a major incentive.
          * Not long ago, soccer was a novel sport, one that most people cared nothing about. Football and basketball were kings, soccer was as popular at HS as the chess club. And the number of coaches in the country that understood the game well was very limited.
          * Times are changing now. Soccer is becoming very popular as a generation of parents who learned to love the game are now passing it on to their kids. The growth of the MLS, and the easy availability of top-rank European soccer on TV, is turning more and more of the US into soccer culture.
          * One of the biggest complaints about club soccer is the pay-to-play nature of the sport. HS sports are far less expensive for participants--there generally isn't the travel involved (other than long bus rides).
          * Soccer is far less expensive for school districts than football.
          * Concerns about CTE have presented a threat to American football; many parents (including yours truly) won't let their kids play (organized tackle) football for that reason.
          * The HS model does work for other sports. Perhaps soccer is different--there is a distinction often discussed between tactical soccer (playing to win) and pedagogical soccer (playing to teach) that doesn't seem to exist for other sports; you don't often hear of basketball coaches refusing to run fastbreaks because "kids need to learn to play the halfcourt game". The problem with bootball is that it's bad soccer--this is mainly an issue because there are lots of bad teams that don't know how to defend it, so it frequently works at lower levels of the game.

          Of course, high-quality high-school soccer might pose a threat to the pay-to-play business model, especially at the older age groups; so it's entirely possible that various directors of coaching might have a vested interest in keeping the scholastic game second-class. And there is a longstanding US cultural prejudice, often reflected in some of the anti-Timbers rants in this forum, that pro sports teams have no business involving themselves in youth sports (whereas club academies are the norm in the rest of the world).

          But we ever get to the point where the Friday homecoming game is played with a round ball rather than a pointy one, and the "captain of the football team" is a striker or midfielder or keeper, not a quarterback, then that will be a big sign that the US has arrived as a soccer country.
          Unlike some posts, I won't resort to name calling. You bring up valid arguments. However, those arguments aren't new. I will offer my two cents regarding HS v. Club soccer because we are currently living it:

          HS soccer is a short season, in both games and practice. Teams can be comprised of rec level players to premiere players. The limited time to practice and play and disparity in skill levels, result in the type of game in HS. Meaning, what people call bootball. The goal in HS games is to win, and to win you need to score, which means more direct plays(bootball). There is very little time to develop or teach the more fine points of the game.

          I would argue club soccer has proliferated because of the state of HS soccer, not vice versa. Kids and parents simply wanted more opportunities at the older ages than what HS soccer could offer. I would submit that HS soccer has benefitted because more players have Improved their skills through club play. It's not a knock on HS soccer, it just is what it is.

          As far as playing for school and friends, well, it's really more parents than anything else. That's just reality.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Unlike some posts, I won't resort to name calling. You bring up valid arguments. However, those arguments aren't new. I will offer my two cents regarding HS v. Club soccer because we are currently living it:

            HS soccer is a short season, in both games and practice. Teams can be comprised of rec level players to premiere players. The limited time to practice and play and disparity in skill levels, result in the type of game in HS. Meaning, what people call bootball. The goal in HS games is to win, and to win you need to score, which means more direct plays(bootball). There is very little time to develop or teach the more fine points of the game.

            I would argue club soccer has proliferated because of the state of HS soccer, not vice versa. Kids and parents simply wanted more opportunities at the older ages than what HS soccer could offer. I would submit that HS soccer has benefitted because more players have Improved their skills through club play. It's not a knock on HS soccer, it just is what it is.

            As far as playing for school and friends, well, it's really more parents than anything else. That's just reality.
            Fair enough--but HS football and HS basketball are also "short seasons, in both games and practice". HS football starts up in August and finishes by November. Basketball starts after football season ends and finishes by Spring Break. HS baseball is played April-June.

            Yet this seems not to prevent the development of excellence in these three sports.

            A lot of this is done to accommodate kids who want to play two or even three sports during a school year. (Which is fine if that's what you want). Many kids who are multi-sport athletes as preps don't have to "choose" until college, and a few (Danny Ainge is the most prominent example from Oregon) play multiple sports at a high level into college. Both Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson had successful careers as dual-sport athletes in the pros, even.

            I think the difference is simply a tacit agreement between the pro, collegiate, and prep levels of the "big three" sports to stay out of each others' turf. Many MLS teams (including the Timbers) like to complain about the expense of running youth academies; in many cases we are dealing with ownership groups who are familiar with the business model of other North American leagues, where this simply isn't done. The NCAA and its constituent universities don't mind making big money off of unpaid labor, and having this be a de facto requirement for a pro career (at least in football and basketball). Perhaps if we TRULY wanted the best of the best in these sports, the soccer model would be adopted--with pro academies and year-round youth clubs replacing prep and college ball as the primary path for professional development, and the current HS/NCAA model is in fact holding athletes in these sports back.

            Which brings up another point. Out of the big three sports, the only one in which there is has been significant international competition is basketball--and that's mainly at the national team level (the Olympics, and a few other tournaments). After the McDonalds Championship ended in 1999, there isn't any regularly-scheduled competition involving NBA teams and foreign pro teams. Thus, it may be the case that the US model hasn't been challenged at all by foreign clubs, thus facing no pressure to evolve.

            Or--this entire conversation may be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps what matters is cultural immersion rather the organization--US soccer will take the next step when a generation of kids grows up with balls at their feet--that if nine-year-olds are being taught the basics of the game by rec or even club coaches, then it's too late, and no amount of coaching later in youth will correct that.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Fair enough--but HS football and HS basketball are also "short seasons, in both games and practice". HS football starts up in August and finishes by November. Basketball starts after football season ends and finishes by Spring Break. HS baseball is played April-June.

              Yet this seems not to prevent the development of excellence in these three sports.

              A lot of this is done to accommodate kids who want to play two or even three sports during a school year. (Which is fine if that's what you want). Many kids who are multi-sport athletes as preps don't have to "choose" until college, and a few (Danny Ainge is the most prominent example from Oregon) play multiple sports at a high level into college. Both Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson had successful careers as dual-sport athletes in the pros, even.

              I think the difference is simply a tacit agreement between the pro, collegiate, and prep levels of the "big three" sports to stay out of each others' turf. Many MLS teams (including the Timbers) like to complain about the expense of running youth academies; in many cases we are dealing with ownership groups who are familiar with the business model of other North American leagues, where this simply isn't done. The NCAA and its constituent universities don't mind making big money off of unpaid labor, and having this be a de facto requirement for a pro career (at least in football and basketball). Perhaps if we TRULY wanted the best of the best in these sports, the soccer model would be adopted--with pro academies and year-round youth clubs replacing prep and college ball as the primary path for professional development, and the current HS/NCAA model is in fact holding athletes in these sports back.

              Which brings up another point. Out of the big three sports, the only one in which there is has been significant international competition is basketball--and that's mainly at the national team level (the Olympics, and a few other tournaments). After the McDonalds Championship ended in 1999, there isn't any regularly-scheduled competition involving NBA teams and foreign pro teams. Thus, it may be the case that the US model hasn't been challenged at all by foreign clubs, thus facing no pressure to evolve.

              Or--this entire conversation may be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps what matters is cultural immersion rather the organization--US soccer will take the next step when a generation of kids grows up with balls at their feet--that if nine-year-olds are being taught the basics of the game by rec or even club coaches, then it's too late, and no amount of coaching later in youth will correct that.
              Funny observation was made by Senior USWNT staff: Best predictor of girls making it to Senior team was multi-sport athletes. Multi sport American athletes were more common on US senior Women's team then even girls who spent youth in National Team Camps. So if we have traditionally, and still have the best Women's team in the world, shouldn't we be trying to cultivate the athlete? Maybe not the soccer drone.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Fair enough--but HS football and HS basketball are also "short seasons, in both games and practice". HS football starts up in August and finishes by November. Basketball starts after football season ends and finishes by Spring Break. HS baseball is played April-June.

                Yet this seems not to prevent the development of excellence in these three sports.

                A lot of this is done to accommodate kids who want to play two or even three sports during a school year. (Which is fine if that's what you want). Many kids who are multi-sport athletes as preps don't have to "choose" until college, and a few (Danny Ainge is the most prominent example from Oregon) play multiple sports at a high level into college. Both Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson had successful careers as dual-sport athletes in the pros, even.

                I think the difference is simply a tacit agreement between the pro, collegiate, and prep levels of the "big three" sports to stay out of each others' turf. Many MLS teams (including the Timbers) like to complain about the expense of running youth academies; in many cases we are dealing with ownership groups who are familiar with the business model of other North American leagues, where this simply isn't done. The NCAA and its constituent universities don't mind making big money off of unpaid labor, and having this be a de facto requirement for a pro career (at least in football and basketball). Perhaps if we TRULY wanted the best of the best in these sports, the soccer model would be adopted--with pro academies and year-round youth clubs replacing prep and college ball as the primary path for professional development, and the current HS/NCAA model is in fact holding athletes in these sports back.

                Which brings up another point. Out of the big three sports, the only one in which there is has been significant international competition is basketball--and that's mainly at the national team level (the Olympics, and a few other tournaments). After the McDonalds Championship ended in 1999, there isn't any regularly-scheduled competition involving NBA teams and foreign pro teams. Thus, it may be the case that the US model hasn't been challenged at all by foreign clubs, thus facing no pressure to evolve.

                Or--this entire conversation may be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps what matters is cultural immersion rather the organization--US soccer will take the next step when a generation of kids grows up with balls at their feet--that if nine-year-olds are being taught the basics of the game by rec or even club coaches, then it's too late, and no amount of coaching later in youth will correct that.
                You are correct that the big three also have short season (relatively), but all three sports have the same issue. Athletes are doing off season training, whether it be through club sports or through training programs. Clubs are huge for baseball and basketball and camps for football. I accept HS soccer for what it is; a chance to represent your school and community. I recognize that most development isn't done in HS soccer, it's through experience with club soccer.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  USSF doesn't want high school to go away. They simply need our top national team prospects to skip high school in order to train & play at a higher level. The remaining 99% are welcome to play high school. As stated above, soccer is a different path is different than other sports.
                  There aren't enough top NT or even pro level players to create a viable league without the 99%. But to USSF the 99% are practice cones for the 1%. Just keep that I'm mind when considering BDA or GDA.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    You are correct that the big three also have short season (relatively), but all three sports have the same issue. Athletes are doing off season training, whether it be through club sports or through training programs. Clubs are huge for baseball and basketball and camps for football. I accept HS soccer for what it is; a chance to represent your school and community. I recognize that most development isn't done in HS soccer, it's through experience with club soccer.
                    Yes, but the NFL doesn't tell prospective talents "you're wasting your time with high school football--we recommend you focus on club". The NBA doesn't tell kids "don't bother playing in the school gym; you should play full time with the AAU". (Indeed, the AAU has a bit of a bad reputation in basketball circles, or did in the past, for encouraging selfish players).

                    Of course, neither sport is soccer. Football requires far more specialization, particularly on offense. Basketball is the sport most affected by individual talent.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Funny observation was made by Senior USWNT staff: Best predictor of girls making it to Senior team was multi-sport athletes. Multi sport American athletes were more common on US senior Women's team then even girls who spent youth in National Team Camps. So if we have traditionally, and still have the best Women's team in the world, shouldn't we be trying to cultivate the athlete? Maybe not the soccer drone.
                      While I agree that multisport training is highly beneficial those NT players rarely played other sports through HS. Certainly international pro players are rarely multisport athletes - they're essentially full time soccer players by 16-18.

                      That said, the vast majority of US soccer players won't ever reach that level. So then the physical benefits of playing different sports comes into play - along with the psychological benefit of taking a break from things now and then and social benefits as well. DA doesn't want multisport athletes, only full time soccer players. Doesn't matter that so few will ever be pro players or on the NT. Parents need to look out for the best interest of their kids. You don't have to do other sports at a similarly high level as soccer, but kids should be given every opportunity to continue playing sports they enjoy.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Yes, but the NFL doesn't tell prospective talents "you're wasting your time with high school football--we recommend you focus on club". The NBA doesn't tell kids "don't bother playing in the school gym; you should play full time with the AAU". (Indeed, the AAU has a bit of a bad reputation in basketball circles, or did in the past, for encouraging selfish players).

                        Of course, neither sport is soccer. Football requires far more specialization, particularly on offense. Basketball is the sport most affected by individual talent.
                        Nope. Only US soccer's governing body wants you to stop playing HS. Do you think they care about your kid? Unless you're one of the top 20 players in your age group in the US, seriously think twice about that. If you really want DA ok, especially if your HS program blows. But if you're torn? Go where your heart tells you to go

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Funny observation was made by Senior USWNT staff: Best predictor of girls making it to Senior team was multi-sport athletes. Multi sport American athletes were more common on US senior Women's team then even girls who spent youth in National Team Camps. So if we have traditionally, and still have the best Women's team in the world, shouldn't we be trying to cultivate the athlete? Maybe not the soccer drone.
                          I am sorry but you and whatever USWNT Staff said that the key is multipart talent you are both dead wrong. Thats why Australia just beat the home and several teams in Europe will beet them the next opportunity. Because now these countries are developing soccer players, with soccer minds and they are simply better at playing soccer then they US women athlete. If you think I am wrong the recent results should speak to you. They lost to Australia, had to pull out a last minute win against Brazil. Australia beat them 6-1. They also did not look convincing in the win against Japan. A team that did not qualify for the last World Cup.

                          You are living in the past with the Superior US women Athletes. If the USWNT is going to stay near the top they need to develop soccer players. Not pastime player/Athlete. We are being caught by other Nations. England, France, Australia, Germany and others are coming Sweden, Holland. US dominance is over because we relied on superior athletes!

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Yes, but the NFL doesn't tell prospective talents "you're wasting your time with high school football--we recommend you focus on club". The NBA doesn't tell kids "don't bother playing in the school gym; you should play full time with the AAU". (Indeed, the AAU has a bit of a bad reputation in basketball circles, or did in the past, for encouraging selfish players).

                            Of course, neither sport is soccer. Football requires far more specialization, particularly on offense. Basketball is the sport most affected by individual talent.
                            Naturally, the NFL wouldnt tell a HS kid not to play football, there isn't club teams for that. For a highschool, Football player, highschool IS it. As Far as basketball, for better or worse, much of the recruiting occurs in AAU and other off season leagues. HS basketball is nice, but it's difficult to gauge just how good a player is if he only plays HS basketball. A player may be good and be a very big fish in a small pond, but not so much against top competition found in AAU and other leagues.

                            Soccer has become the same. Naturally, the exceptional HS player will be found regardless of club or not. But, for the vast majority, recruiting occurs of club players at showcase and national events. From a fiscal and other standpoints, it makes sense for colleges to do it that way. I don't think HS soccer needs fixing. It's is what it is, for the reasons I've mentioned.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              High school soccer is something that has long been a controversial topic in youth soccer circles--and one that makes many people turn up their nose. The complaints are many, and many of them are currently true:

                              * The Laws of the Game are ignored.
                              * Many of the coaches are retreads, who know little about the modern game.
                              * Too many games, too much focus on winning at all costs, very little focus on development.
                              * Inappropriate focus on physical fitness (and training regimens that are more appropriate for the cross-country team)
                              * Over-emphasis on bootball, less on technical soccer.

                              As a result, the pecking order for progression into NCAA or professional soccer seems to be:

                              * Elite academies and programs (including MLS DAs, certain ECNL clubs for girls, etc.)
                              * ODP and similar (fading in importance)
                              * Ordinary club soccer, particularly premier divisions.
                              * High school soccer.

                              A lot of conversation in the soccer community seems to focus on how to further marginalize the high school game. DA prohibits participation in HS. OYSA and ECNL accomodate it, but generally consider it to be a lesser level of soccer. It's defenders often defend it for it's social aspects in ways that make it sound like rec--representing your school is fun, playing with your friends and classmates is fun. (And it is fun to do these things).

                              For that reason--I'm going to make a suggestion.

                              HS soccer shouldn't be denigrated. It shouldn't be marginalized. It shouldn't be put down.

                              Instead, it should be fixed--and given that many club coaches double as HS coaches, the club community is in a position to do so.

                              If you look at football, basketball, and baseball--the HS game is extremely important to the development of players in these sports. Why?

                              * Playing for school and classmates, rather than an empty sideline with nobody but parents, is indeed a major incentive.
                              * Not long ago, soccer was a novel sport, one that most people cared nothing about. Football and basketball were kings, soccer was as popular at HS as the chess club. And the number of coaches in the country that understood the game well was very limited.
                              * Times are changing now. Soccer is becoming very popular as a generation of parents who learned to love the game are now passing it on to their kids. The growth of the MLS, and the easy availability of top-rank European soccer on TV, is turning more and more of the US into soccer culture.
                              * One of the biggest complaints about club soccer is the pay-to-play nature of the sport. HS sports are far less expensive for participants--there generally isn't the travel involved (other than long bus rides).
                              * Soccer is far less expensive for school districts than football.
                              * Concerns about CTE have presented a threat to American football; many parents (including yours truly) won't let their kids play (organized tackle) football for that reason.
                              * The HS model does work for other sports. Perhaps soccer is different--there is a distinction often discussed between tactical soccer (playing to win) and pedagogical soccer (playing to teach) that doesn't seem to exist for other sports; you don't often hear of basketball coaches refusing to run fastbreaks because "kids need to learn to play the halfcourt game". The problem with bootball is that it's bad soccer--this is mainly an issue because there are lots of bad teams that don't know how to defend it, so it frequently works at lower levels of the game.

                              Of course, high-quality high-school soccer might pose a threat to the pay-to-play business model, especially at the older age groups; so it's entirely possible that various directors of coaching might have a vested interest in keeping the scholastic game second-class. And there is a longstanding US cultural prejudice, often reflected in some of the anti-Timbers rants in this forum, that pro sports teams have no business involving themselves in youth sports (whereas club academies are the norm in the rest of the world).

                              But we ever get to the point where the Friday homecoming game is played with a round ball rather than a pointy one, and the "captain of the football team" is a striker or midfielder or keeper, not a quarterback, then that will be a big sign that the US has arrived as a soccer country.
                              I am sorry but I think there are several ideas of just what HS soccer is and should be. It currently is an after thought by most High Schools. Simply not important. Yes, there are a few exception around the country but just a few.

                              Second is what is the level of HS soccer. To be fair you would have to say it is mediocre at best and mostly bad. It is in general an over physical game with little skill and no development.

                              Lastly, Who is HS soccer for and what should it be? In the past everyone played HS Soccer. Not because they had tremendous pride in their school or to hear their peers cheer them on but because they had no choice for HS aged players. Now there is a choice. I say choices are better. The top their players that are interested in seeing how far they can go now have an avenue to test themselves and for others there is still HS soccer.

                              So, HS soccer is now what it should be for those that do take pride in playing for their school knowing it is not the top level but thats OK. There should and needs be be several layers for different talent and desire.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                I am sorry but you and whatever USWNT Staff said that the key is multipart talent you are both dead wrong. Thats why Australia just beat the home and several teams in Europe will beet them the next opportunity. Because now these countries are developing soccer players, with soccer minds and they are simply better at playing soccer then they US women athlete. If you think I am wrong the recent results should speak to you. They lost to Australia, had to pull out a last minute win against Brazil. Australia beat them 6-1. They also did not look convincing in the win against Japan. A team that did not qualify for the last World Cup.

                                You are living in the past with the Superior US women Athletes. If the USWNT is going to stay near the top they need to develop soccer players. Not pastime player/Athlete. We are being caught by other Nations. England, France, Australia, Germany and others are coming Sweden, Holland. US dominance is over because we relied on superior athletes!
                                You people who make your living off of soccer say this every time our US Women lose a game. But our girls will be in Finals for World Cup and Olympics. Our pool is huge and coaches are giving many players chances to make the roster. Once real tourneys begin we will be ready. We simply have alot of really good players because of our diverse routes to the top. As long as US Soccer doesn't screw this up with only one route we will be ok for a long time to come. Money is the root of all evil and greed has crept into US Soccer with youth GDA.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X