PARENTS: you can stop this soccer madness in this country

[Unregistered]

Not really disagreeing with you but only idiots think this is all about winning tournament games to accumulate GotSoccer points. GotSoccer is just the score keeper so that train of thought is just way too simplistic. With the advent of the ECNL, and now the DA, they are also no longer needed though. The real issues to discuss are why clubs want to accumulate them, what accumulating them does for their brand and why the parents really think that they matter. If you want to stop the lunacy in club soccer, start by putting some objectivity into the situation. That starts with education. Parents believe that GotSoccer points are important because they are told that you need them down the road to get into important showcase tournaments because they are also told that their kid attending those showcases is necessary for them to attract the attention of college coaches and land a soccer scholarship. That whole philosophy is the actual lie in club soccer because if your kid has talent the college coaches will find out about them anyways and if they don't attending a tournament isn't going to disguise that. Organizing tournaments are where the big money is in club soccer and clubs go to them not to help their players land a college scholarship but rather to promote the club brand. Its advertising.

Absolutely dead on !

[Unregistered]

Remarkably, as clear as I was, and it says what it says in plain English, some people lack the intellect or the honesty to read this and debate it as it's stated, its words, logic, stipulations and all, without distortion and deflection.

My post stated specifically that at the lower levels, where we have invested the most money, btw, is where we have seen the most gains in my mind. I think our base has improved dramatically over the last 30 years and certainly in the last 15 when much of the "pay-to-play" took off.

The problems with our MNT stem with identifying and nurturing the top level talent in this country and the undue influence collegiate soccer has on our best soccer players. We are absolutely training better youth soccer players. The problem is by the time they hit 17, instead of training with and playing with and against other professionals, they are going to college and there the gap widens as compared to the best other nations have to offer. Our problem is the top of the pyramid, not the base (where pay2play lives).

[Unregistered]

My post stated specifically that at the lower levels, where we have invested the most money, btw, is where we have seen the most gains in my mind. I think our base has improved dramatically over the last 30 years and certainly in the last 15 when much of the "pay-to-play" took off.

The problems with our MNT stem with identifying and nurturing the top level talent in this country and the undue influence collegiate soccer has on our best soccer players. We are absolutely training better youth soccer players. The problem is by the time they hit 17, instead of training with and playing with and against other professionals, they are going to college and there the gap widens as compared to the best other nations have to offer. Our problem is the top of the pyramid, not the base (where pay2play lives).

Could not agree with this more.

Another consideration. Soccer has a retention problem. Virtually every child who is interested at all in sports, starts playing soccer when they are very young. 3,4,5 years old. Many play recreationally until 5th or 6th grade. At that point extracurriculars start getting pared down due to cost, time, interest level or a combination of factors.

Soccer for Men is still a fringe sport in the US. Football, basketball, hockey, baseball, lacrosse all compete for these athletes. In other countries, soccer is king, not so much here.

For the Women, soccer is one of the premier sports, and the results for the women's NT tell the story on that.

[Unregistered]

Can't help but wonder who started this thread....

It was a Trump supporter

[Unregistered]

Could not agree with this more.

Another consideration. Soccer has a retention problem. Virtually every child who is interested at all in sports, starts playing soccer when they are very young. 3,4,5 years old. Many play recreationally until 5th or 6th grade. At that point extracurriculars start getting pared down due to cost, time, interest level or a combination of factors.

Soccer for Men is still a fringe sport in the US. Football, basketball, hockey, baseball, lacrosse all compete for these athletes. In other countries, soccer is king, not so much here.

For the Women, soccer is one of the premier sports, and the results for the women's NT tell the story on that.

While yes, soccer in other countries is # 1 but here in the US we have as many( if not more) male youth soccer players as they do in say the Netherlands or Belgium....

[Unregistered]

While yes, soccer in other countries is # 1 but here in the US we have as many( if not more) male youth soccer players as they do in say the Netherlands or Belgium....

The Dutch have Ajex and other academies which do a very good job of identifying and training professional soccer players. I'm not sure we can say the same of US DA clubs. Again, at the highest levels we are lacking something, especially in the 16-21 ages when most of our best soccer players are preparing for or attending college.

[Unregistered]

While yes, soccer in other countries is # 1 but here in the US we have as many( if not more) male youth soccer players as they do in say the Netherlands or Belgium....

While true for the most part, how many are exclusively soccer players? How many have parents that play, older siblings that play, friends that play, neighborhoods that play.

It's building, slowly, but there are still way too many other things for kids to do today than just dedicate themselves to soccer.

[Unregistered]

While yes, soccer in other countries is # 1 but here in the US we have as many( if not more) male youth soccer players as they do in say the Netherlands or Belgium....

At what level are you making this claim for? Once you start getting past the 5th grade when almost all other sports are firmly in motion the participation levels starts to drop off steeply.

[Unregistered]

Now that's funny. Not just not worse. We're better.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

[Unregistered]

Maybe some of us simpletons need clarification on your vague terms like "measurably" and "exponential" (when you don't define a starting point).

Evidently, thanks for clearing that up. You can define those terms however you want, again, that seemed clear in how I framed the argument.

And however YOU choose to suggest the state of soccer in America has improved (and I agree that it has), again IN ANY WAY YOU define it, it has NOT improved at a rate or heights (velocity or delta) COMMENSURATE with the rate of change or level (velocity or delta) measured by dollars spent (which in the past 20 years has gone from essentially zero to millions upon millions), thus the term exponential.

Not complicated if we're being honest or smart.

The local high school is pretty good, competes for a state championship from time to time. Several college athletes on a state title winner more than twenty years ago had next to nothing invested in the sport and a few awarded scholarships as I recall, one All-American I think. The town soccer program was a pretty big deal back then. Fast forward, today that team has about a million dollars invested between all the parents, maybe a few more go on to college, quite a few all state players recently, maybe scholarships too.

Between the two what's really changed most? The game or the money?

[Unregistered]

Evidently, thanks for clearing that up. You can define those terms however you want, again, that seemed clear in how I framed the argument.

And however YOU choose to suggest the state of soccer in America has improved (and I agree that it has), again IN ANY WAY YOU define it, it has NOT improved at a rate or heights (velocity or delta) COMMENSURATE with the rate of change or level (velocity or delta) measured by dollars spent (which in the past 20 years has gone from essentially zero to millions upon millions), thus the term exponential.

Not complicated if we're being honest or smart.

The local high school is pretty good, competes for a state championship from time to time. Several college athletes on a state title winner more than twenty years ago had next to nothing invested in the sport and a few awarded scholarships as I recall, one All-American I think. The town soccer program was a pretty big deal back then. Fast forward, today that team has about a million dollars invested between all the parents, maybe a few more go on to college, quite a few all state players recently, maybe scholarships too.

Between the two what's really changed most? The game or the money?

Are the players better now vs 20years ago? Is the soccer more technical? Has the bar been raised? Their is your answer.

[Unregistered]

So, some undefined acceptable rate of performanced does not meet an inexact standard as based by some other undefined financial impact.

Got it.

Real hard-hitting stuff there.

[Unregistered]

So, some undefined acceptable rate of performanced does not meet an inexact standard as based by some other undefined financial impact.

Got it.

Real hard-hitting stuff there.

I'm sorry ROI is so hard for you to grasp. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the quality of public education, funding, and the preparedness of high school graduates for college and the labor force today versus two decades ago.

[Unregistered]

Are the players better now vs 20years ago? Is the soccer more technical? Has the bar been raised? Their is your answer.

I'd say there's room for debate there... But regardless of the answer to those questions, there's by how much? AND at what cost (financial or otherwise)?

[Unregistered]

I'm sorry ROI is so hard for you to grasp. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the quality of public education, funding, and the preparedness of high school graduates for college and the labor force today versus two decades ago.

Actually, as someone who leads a product management group, I'm quite familiar with ROI. I deal in set costs and forecasted revenues based on historical data.

I don't make statements that have zero defined costs, zero defined desired results, and using terms as open as "zero to millions to millions".