HS Tryout Process

[Unregistered]

well done - interesting that St John's has a Freshman on the varsity for the first time in 30 years - Why??

Because the rest of the team is not very strong.

[Unregistered]

On the girls side it's not uncommon for 9th graders to make varsity, more often they develop physically enough size to compete than boys.

[Unregistered]

There are a lot more boys out there capable of succeeding on varsity as a freshman that you think. Virtually every player on my son's DAP team played varsity as a freshman. There should not be arbitrary rules against it.

Agreed. Varsity is about winning, period. If a kid has the skills and makeup there is zero reason not to place them on Varsity, especially some age old "they have to earn it mantra."

[perspective]

Regardless of who wrote it, this is often the experience of many kids playing HS soccer and for any kid with a competitive bone in their body it's a wasted year.

Of course, in today's world of "everyone gets a medal" you aren't suppose to complain, because if you do, you'll be mocked and ridiculed.

Yeah, aside who wrote it....

Could someone who is reasonably intelligent explain the popularity here of the "medals for all" comeback? This seems to be the new thing, and I am always suspicious that it is half-step away from and/or a lead-in to a crack on Obama which, btw, makes absolutely no sense at all. But aside from that, this seems like a very easy phrase to keep tossing around, and so far I've never seen anyone actually provide any foundation for the statement. Does it mean you believe Special Olympics should be abolished? Does it mean you believe elite college admissions should be even more competitive? Does it mean you believe there should be national championships at U6 and U8? From my vantage point, our society has never been more competitive. Indeed, a good deal of the white male anger out there (which is my guess where a lot of this is coming from) is because that entitled world has been rocked. You aren't guaranteed a certain kind of job just because you are Irish Catholic and grew up in Southie.

In terms of the freshmen thing, clearly it is more of an issue on the girls side, and high schools differ. I can understand the excitement of being a parent who has waited to see your kid play high school soccer and dreams of all the other parents in town salivating over how great your kid really is, but it's not the end of the world. People argue here all the time that the real training and competition is outside of the high school realm, so you can't credibly claim it's a hindrance when many of the same people who complain argue that high school soccer is a waste of time anyway.

[Unregistered]

Regardless of who wrote it, this is often the experience of many kids playing HS soccer and for any kid with a competitive bone in their body it's a wasted year.

Of course, in today's world of "everyone gets a medal" you aren't suppose to complain, because if you do, you'll be mocked and ridiculed.

Often? Bull**** it happens often.

As infrequently as it happens, I'd say that the kids who deserve to make varsity over those who don't do so, regardless of age, because ability drives the process, not age. It just so happens that freshmen being distinctly superior to juniors and seniors is exception rather than rule.

Taking it a step further, it's just as much exception rather than rule that there would be any coach (certainly successful) who without any assessment or exception through tryouts refused to consider freshmen players for varsity. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'd argue they are few and far between (along with being dimwitted and unsuccessful). At the very least, if they do exist and have held true to this practice, then we know they've never coached any of the 4-year varsity players that have played HS soccer that have gone on to be named all-state/all-NE, play college, etc.

And for what it's worth, I do know of immensely successful coaches who don't believe in this approach, while I'm not aware of any who do.

[perspective]

There are a lot more boys out there capable of succeeding on varsity as a freshman that you think. Virtually every player on my son's DAP team played varsity as a freshman. There should not be arbitrary rules against it.

I thought DAP players aren't supposed to be playing high school? And unless you are talking about Diego or a kid at that level, there aren't many male frosh who can be more effective at the high school level than decent to very good club players who are juniors and seniors. This reeks of parents who feel they are entitled to everything. Should we make the frosh players captains too???

[Unregistered]

Yeah, aside who wrote it....

Could someone who is reasonably intelligent explain the popularity here of the "medals for all" comeback? This seems to be the new thing, and I am always suspicious that it is half-step away from and/or a lead-in to a crack on Obama which, btw, makes absolutely no sense at all. But aside from that, this seems like a very easy phrase to keep tossing around, and so far I've never seen anyone actually provide any foundation for the statement. Does it mean you believe Special Olympics should be abolished? Does it mean you believe elite college admissions should be even more competitive? Does it mean you believe there should be national championships at U6 and U8? From my vantage point, our society has never been more competitive. Indeed, a good deal of the white male anger out there (which is my guess where a lot of this is coming from) is because that entitled world has been rocked. You aren't guaranteed a certain kind of job just because you are Irish Catholic and grew up in Southie.

In terms of the freshmen thing, clearly it is more of an issue on the girls side, and high schools differ. I can understand the excitement of being a parent who has waited to see your kid play high school soccer and dreams of all the other parents in town salivating over how great your kid really is, but it's not the end of the world. People argue here all the time that the real training and competition is outside of the high school realm, so you can't credibly claim it's a hindrance when many of the same people who complain argue that high school soccer is a waste of time anyway.

Just so I'm clear, the "Obama cracks" don't make sense to you, but the "white male anger" should resonate with me?

[perspective]

Agreed. Varsity is about winning, period. If a kid has the skills and makeup there is zero reason not to place them on Varsity, especially some age old "they have to earn it mantra."

It is about winning, but it's not about "winning, period." It's a high school activity. Do you think the star players who get caught drinking or smoking a joint should just be allowed to continue because it's "about winning"? Part of the value of high school athletics is the things you learn that you don't necessarily learn playing club, AAU, etc.

[Unregistered]

Let's take the philosophical hand-wringing out of this discussion.

Simple - NAME the school(s) that have this policy. Until I someone posts a single name substantiated by something more than their bitching and moaning about their little Mia, it's just another skewed view of reality by some self-important jerk.

[perspective]

Just so I'm clear, the "Obama cracks" don't make sense to you, but the "white male anger" should resonate with me?

Yes, actually. You should first ask if your impulse to go for the "medals for all" crap has more to do with frustrations over your own lack of competitiveness, because deep down maybe you believe YOU deserve a medal just for being who you are. To go after one of the ultimate winners of all time at every level in this ultra-competitive society rings pretty hollow.

But put all that aside, please explain the foundation for this constant "medals for all" claim.

[Unregistered]

Yeah, aside who wrote it....

Could someone who is reasonably intelligent explain the popularity here of the "medals for all" comeback? This seems to be the new thing, and I am always suspicious that it is half-step away from and/or a lead-in to a crack on Obama which, btw, makes absolutely no sense at all. But aside from that, this seems like a very easy phrase to keep tossing around, and so far I've never seen anyone actually provide any foundation for the statement. Does it mean you believe Special Olympics should be abolished? Does it mean you believe elite college admissions should be even more competitive? Does it mean you believe there should be national championships at U6 and U8? From my vantage point, our society has never been more competitive. Indeed, a good deal of the white male anger out there (which is my guess where a lot of this is coming from) is because that entitled world has been rocked. You aren't guaranteed a certain kind of job just because you are Irish Catholic and grew up in Southie.

In terms of the freshmen thing, clearly it is more of an issue on the girls side, and high schools differ. I can understand the excitement of being a parent who has waited to see your kid play high school soccer and dreams of all the other parents in town salivating over how great your kid really is, but it's not the end of the world. People argue here all the time that the real training and competition is outside of the high school realm, so you can't credibly claim it's a hindrance when many of the same people who complain argue that high school soccer is a waste of time anyway.

Let me make this simple for you, Perspective... Medals-for-all is an attack on merit. If someone invokes the medals-for-all concept in the context of players being left off a roster they probably mean that a better players was left off in favor of a weaker players - ignoring merit. Is it a perfect analogy? I don't think so. But I think you get the gist.

If you can't see how attack on meritocracy might go hand in hand with a revulsion of Obama... Well, let's just say you're not trying very hard.

[perspective]

Let me make this simple for you, Perspective... Medals-for-all is an attack on merit. If someone invokes the medals-for-all concept in the context of players being left off a roster they probably mean that a better players was left off in favor of a weaker players - ignoring merit. Is it a perfect analogy? I don't think so. But I think you get the gist.

If you can't see how attack on meritocracy might go hand in hand with a revulsion of Obama... Well, let's just say you're not trying very hard.

Oh, I'm well aware that's the perception by many of a certain ilk. Never seen it explained, and we can just agree to disagree. I have an entirely opposite view and believe that OUR President (how many 8 year Presidents do you know?) endorses and supports competition to the highest degrees while having an emphasis on fairness in pursuit of being the best.

As for the "medals for all" crap, let me be blunt. I haven't seen anything dumber and thrown around more loosely in 5+ years on the site. It's ridiculous.

[Unregistered]

It is about winning, but it's not about "winning, period." It's a high school activity. Do you think the star players who get caught drinking or smoking a joint should just be allowed to continue because it's "about winning"? Part of the value of high school athletics is the things you learn that you don't necessarily learn playing club, AAU, etc.

Of course. I'm not advocating not following the rules. I'm saying that for varsity you take the best players which put you in the best position to succeed.

Btw, I may be wrong but I think the "everyone gets a medal" point in this discussion concerns the policy followed by some schools to carry weak players merely because they are upperclassmen not because they are better.

[Unregistered]

Yes, actually. You should first ask if your impulse to go for the "medals for all" crap has more to do with frustrations over your own lack of competitiveness, because deep down maybe you believe YOU deserve a medal just for being who you are. To go after one of the ultimate winners of all time at every level in this ultra-competitive society rings pretty hollow.

I'm not sure that's actually an answer. Besides the fact that I didn't mention "medals for all" (nor does it have anything to do with my point), you presume that I disagree with your point of view, as stated in that prior response (at least as it relates to the "medals"). I think that's pretty telling, because as usual, your self-importance and desire to be right shines through. For what it's worth, you made some excellent points in "medals" argument (when you were on point). And again, I'm essentially in agreement on that issue. But that had nothing to do with my comment.

I was just highlighting something you do consistently, however often it presents itself. It's simple enough to call it being some combination of hypocritical and dismissive. I get that you don't like the Obama cracks (I can't stand the guy, but I too find them as much misplaced here as they seem relevant - I guess that just makes me an angry white guy agreeing with an elitist white guy some of the time?).

My comment was simple enough, leaving out the medals argument. I think it's amusing that you said what you said - objecting to any potential Obama reference, but making it yourself, as if to do so had to be at least as banal and trite as the "medals" argument itself (and again, as often as I find those Obama knocks misplaced, your comment making that argument makes sense enough to me). But how you can then go on to write the equivalent with your angry white guy rant and not realize it for what it is...

Oh wait, you're a narcissist who denies being one... Well there you go.

And I'm quite certain that instead of reading from you "yeah, come to think of it you have a point," or "you're right, that was sort of hypocritical" or "I guess I was dismissive of a potential point of view, but expecting not be dismissed myself in offering what I wrote" - I'll be able to see you digging in your heels in protest through my smartphones. After all, despite your claims to admitting that your wrong, as a practical matter, you argue like you're not. So let the pages of protest begin.

- Angry White Guy

[perspective]

Let me make this simple for you, Perspective... Medals-for-all is an attack on merit. If someone invokes the medals-for-all concept in the context of players being left off a roster they probably mean that a better players was left off in favor of a weaker players - ignoring merit. Is it a perfect analogy? I don't think so. But I think you get the gist.

If you can't see how attack on meritocracy might go hand in hand with a revulsion of Obama... Well, let's just say you're not trying very hard.

BTW, so it sounds like my suspicion is correct...that the use of the phrase IS connected to taking jabs at our President.