MAPLE Politics

[Unregistered]

Focus on NEP? My first comment dismissed them as relevant in this discussion, just as several comments have since.

You can't read. Sad for you.

Here is what I presumed you to have written.

True in fact, but misleading in spirit. Let's start by distinguishing NEP and NPL (I know from a branding perspective that's not the goal, but then there's the reality). NEFC, like other NEP affiliated clubs, has PLENTY of incredibly average to outright crappy teams (as in, lose big in their own tournament to town entries), effectively an open door without cutting players with those parents subsidizing the operational costs for the teams above. That's the club business model, NEP or anyone else, that EVERY club is guilty of on some level. Is NEP more exclusive than MAPLE? Yes, but as much as anything it's because the marketplace provided the opportunity. Any argument that ignores the bigger NEP and its member clubs get (like MAPLE became), the more diluted it will (has) become would be a delusional one.

I read quite well. You are not seeing the forest for the trees (at least in this statement)

[Unregistered]

OK, if you say so.

[Unregistered]

Here is what I presumed you to have written.

I read quite well. You are not seeing the forest for the trees (at least in this statement)

You are not alone. I don't know about anyone else but I find it hard to comprehend things when they are so poorly written. That post just meandered all over the place unintelligently like a stream of unconscious thoughts. The main things that stuck out to me was the author doesn't think much of either NEFC or NEP because he apparently sees them as bloated and completely revenue driven. Regardless of whether he thinks he was making a universal statement, he chose to specifically identify one particular club as his example and contrary to his subsequent protestations that did associate his negative feelings with them.

From what I could decipher, in my opinion he is wrong about two fundamental issues in his post and that leads me to question what his point actually was.

1-ALL clubs are basically communal in that expenses are basically born by the membership as a whole. His ascertain that "parents subsidize the operational costs for the teams above" could just as easily be flipped around and one could say that the more serious players in a club are subsidizing the less serious ones by sharing coaching and facility resources that their level of play and or commitment would typically not enable them to get.

2-One of the most important aspects of NEP is it gives players who might not otherwise have a league to play in a place to play. MAPLE used to intentionally get rid of low performing teams and that limited the playing options for the more recreationally focused players. The soccer at those levels may not be exactly be a representation of the beautiful game but that is not really the goal at the level. The goal really is to give as many players an opportunity to participate as possible. In a club environment the price to do that is going to be higher because the costs are higher. Though the leveling may be imperfect there still opportunities to advance to more competitive levels within NEP and even more beyond it if one has the ability to reach those levels. You really shouldn't criticize the league for servicing a broad spectrum of players.

[Unregistered]

1-ALL clubs are basically communal in that expenses are basically born by the membership as a whole. His ascertain that "parents subsidize the operational costs for the teams above" could just as easily be flipped around and one could say that the more serious players in a club are subsidizing the less serious ones by sharing coaching and facility resources that their level of play and or commitment would typically not enable them to get.

Just as easily flipped around eh? That's a kneeslapper.

[Unregistered]

2-One of the most important aspects of NEP is it gives players who might not otherwise have a league to play in a place to play. MAPLE used to intentionally get rid of low performing teams and that limited the playing options for the more recreationally focused players. The soccer at those levels may not be exactly be a representation of the beautiful game but that is not really the goal at the level. The goal really is to give as many players an opportunity to participate as possible.

Tell me Mr. Pay-to-Play, if you can set aside your obvious conflict of interest, how do you feel about town soccer for 1/10th the price? You know, as "giving players who might not otherwise have a lague to play in a place to play" with the goal of "options for the more recreationally focused" players.

Has it really come to this? Selling pay-to-play as filling a participation void for recreational players rather than a market that competes with those avenues? And whoever this disingenuous ******* really is, who knows, maybe JH himself, are you telling me that the quoted comments reflect the views and more importantly expectations of parents??? Pants on fire.

[Unregistered]

heard that north shore united is bailing on Maple - possible merge with another club - anyone hear anything? Looks like they want to get into NEP...

[Unregistered]

MPS like any other club typically fielding multiple teams across age groups has PLENTY of recreational teams (not competitive). These clubs effectively have an open door without cutting players - they have no limits on their pay-to-play model. By virtue of value, development for the dollar, those parents are, in effect, subsidizing the operational costs for the teams above - this is NOT an act of altruism (the quality of coaching at the top as compared to the revolving door at the bottom reflects this point). That's any club's business model, NEP or anyone else (again, not altruism or charity) - EVERY club is guilty of this on some level.

Did NEP begin as more exclusive than MAPLE? Yes. The marketplace for numerous reasons having to do with the failure of organizations like USYS, MYSA and MAPLE to evolve afforded the opportunities like NEP to emerge with drivers locally like MPS and nationally like USCS.

From the soccer perspective, the narrative has changed - it's ultimately about dollars and reach, and what was once billed as exclusive has now (according to a recent post) been sold as inclusive and recreational. So any argument that ignores the bigger NEP and its member clubs get (like MAPLE became), the more diluted it will (has) become would be a delusional one. But apparently anything can be and will be said to keep pay-to-play intact and seen as legitimate and without flaws.

Despite the changes, the points are the same, no mention of another club besides MPS, which only serves as the example to describe the model, irrelevant the first time, irrelevant this time.

[Unregistered]

MPS like any other club typically fielding multiple teams across age groups has PLENTY of recreational teams (not competitive). These clubs effectively have an open door without cutting players - they have no limits on their pay-to-play model. By virtue of value, development for the dollar, those parents are, in effect, subsidizing the operational costs for the teams above - this is NOT an act of altruism (the quality of coaching at the top as compared to the revolving door at the bottom reflects this point). That's any club's business model, NEP or anyone else (again, not altruism or charity) - EVERY club is guilty of this on some level.

Did NEP begin as more exclusive than MAPLE? Yes. The marketplace for numerous reasons having to do with the failure of organizations like USYS, MYSA and MAPLE to evolve afforded the opportunities like NEP to emerge with drivers locally like MPS and nationally like USCS.

From the soccer perspective, the narrative has changed - it's ultimately about dollars and reach, and what was once billed as exclusive has now (according to a recent post) been sold as inclusive and recreational. So any argument that ignores the bigger NEP and its member clubs get (like MAPLE became), the more diluted it will (has) become would be a delusional one. But apparently anything can be and will be said to keep pay-to-play intact and seen as legitimate and without flaws.

Despite the changes, the points are the same, no mention of another club besides MPS, which only serves as the example to describe the model, irrelevant the first time, irrelevant this time.

Don't blame the watering down of club soccer on the clubs or the leagues. They are only businesses that are serving demand created by families that are making illogical purchasing decisions (in many, many cases). I believe that there are numerous (50+%?) kids playing club soccer that would be just as well served playing town soccer at 25% of the cost. They'd ultimately get enough training and experience to reach the level that works for them (e.g., HS JV team, HS Varsity, or pursue something different). Unfortunately, many parents are either unwilling or unable to completely think through their soccer options, and opt for the higher end, name-brand, more expensive club option for the wrong reasons. It's like buying an $80,000 luxury car to drive 2 miles to the train station every day, when a used Toyota Camry could easily suffice.

[Unregistered]

Don't blame the watering down of club soccer on the clubs or the leagues. They are only businesses that are serving demand created by families that are making illogical purchasing decisions (in many, many cases). I believe that there are numerous (50+%?) kids playing club soccer that would be just as well served playing town soccer at 25% of the cost. They'd ultimately get enough training and experience to reach the level that works for them (e.g., HS JV team, HS Varsity, or pursue something different). Unfortunately, many parents are either unwilling or unable to completely think through their soccer options, and opt for the higher end, name-brand, more expensive club option for the wrong reasons. It's like buying an $80,000 luxury car to drive 2 miles to the train station every day, when a used Toyota Camry could easily suffice.

A couple of points.
1. Who says they are not still playing town?
2. Soccer helps all other sports so why not pay for higher-end training so that they might be better at basketball
3. Some people want to drive the Lexus 2 miles versus the Camry. In a free society, we are free to choose. What you think is the base line (like a Camry) is frivolous to the Corolla owner which is frivolous to the Nissan Versa owner. Bottom-line. don't judge. Live your own life.

[Unregistered]

A couple of points.
1. Who says they are not still playing town?
2. Soccer helps all other sports so why not pay for higher-end training so that they might be better at basketball
3. Some people want to drive the Lexus 2 miles versus the Camry. In a free society, we are free to choose. What you think is the base line (like a Camry) is frivolous to the Corolla owner which is frivolous to the Nissan Versa owner. Bottom-line. don't judge. Live your own life.

Exactly. Everyone is so willing to judge how others spend their money. Hell, whose to say some other person wouldn't criticize the person driving the Camry because heck, you could walk that 2 miles every day and save even more money. Truth is, everyone has their own reasons personal to them, and judging people's choices, and as long as they are not illegal, unethical or hurting anyone else, why would I care where others choose to have their kid play soccer?!?!?!

[Unregistered]

Don't blame the watering down of club soccer on the clubs or the leagues. They are only businesses that are serving demand created by families that are making illogical purchasing decisions (in many, many cases).

ROUND AND ROUND WE GO... One of my original protestations:

Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Why pick on NEFC with all of your examples? Situation does apply across the board. A damn near holy war was started on TS because of similar criticisms about the Stars. Just sayin'.

Because it's familiar and valid...and psst...it WASN'T a criticism! It's business, I don't begrudge any club for saying yes to the check. I like more kids playing soccer, not fewer. Pay to play has all kinds of flaws, but ultimately if it turns into a discussion of blame, we can start with the parents before we talk about the clubs.

I made an observation of fact: That there is a watering down in clubs and leagues by extension. That's it. Blaming the clubs or leagues was your inference, not my implication.

[Unregistered]

A couple of points.
1. Who says they are not still playing town?
2. Soccer helps all other sports so why not pay for higher-end training so that they might be better at basketball
3. Some people want to drive the Lexus 2 miles versus the Camry. In a free society, we are free to choose. What you think is the base line (like a Camry) is frivolous to the Corolla owner which is frivolous to the Nissan Versa owner. Bottom-line. don't judge. Live your own life.

I knew the "don't judge" comment was coming, but there's no way to discuss rational consumer choices without appearing judgmental. I am living my own life, but I was under the (mistaken) impression that this was a discussion forum where posters opine on soccer-related issues, including what kinds of forces might be contributing to the watering-down effect.

I agree that all is relative; in our family we have 2 high-end club players and 1 town player and it's working out fine.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. Everyone is so willing to judge how others spend their money. Hell, whose to say some other person wouldn't criticize the person driving the Camry because heck, you could walk that 2 miles every day and save even more money. Truth is, everyone has their own reasons personal to them, and judging people's choices, and as long as they are not illegal, unethical or hurting anyone else, why would I care where others choose to have their kid play soccer?!?!?!

This debate took place recently. It's an interesting one. It's not a judgment of how other people spend their money. But just because someone exercises that freedom or it's more affordable for someone driving the Lexus instead of the Camry, it doesn't not change the intrinsic value of development for the dollar spent.

The "don't judge" case (meaning club is always an acceptable or superior development value for the dollar spent) ONLY makes sense if the following are all true: (a) every player has the same potential (elite) regardless of their starting point in the sport and when they enter the club environment, and (b) the quality/level of training, resources, etc. is exponentially greater (by the same factor cost), not just marginally better (never mind not better at all).

Watching town teams beat club teams at club-hosted tournaments is the first, best and easiest example to cite that a definitive argument that every parent of every player spending 10 times the amount to play in addition or instead of town doesn't always makes sense. If you are capable of acknowledging "watered down" has occurred in club soccer, regardless of who's to blame, then I'd love to hear how the value proposition (relative to the alternative cost and experience being a fraction of the cost) is a good one at all, much less superior for those players doing the watering down, again, town teams beating club teams in tournaments, club players being cut from high school teams, etc. now being the reality in the marketplace of pay-to-play.

[Unregistered]

Two additional points to add here.

1-If the higher end players did not demand a better product (coaches, facilities, uniforms etc) most kids would still be playing in T-shirts on rock strewn fields with volunteer coaches who may or may not have a clue what they were doing. That is even if they were able to find a team to play on which was not always possible. The fact is unlike other parts of the country where clubs have a more municipal footprint, the clubs in this area have always come into being to service the needs of the top end player first. Traditionally club soccer was about the elite player, not the recreational player. Over the last 10 years demand for improved coaching and an escape from the traditional pitfalls of town programs increased the demand for club soccer. The clubs responded by adding capacity to meet this demand, often times by sacrificing the needs of their elite players. To say that the recreational players now subsidize the elite players is not really accurate. If anything it is the recreational players that are responsible for the dilution in club soccer.

2-All is certainly not perfect in the club model and quality is certainly not universal but by and large the overall quality of coaching HAS dramatically improved in the last 10 years and the environment is both more open/accessible and conducive to training than it once was. The fact is club soccer does exist as a tangible product, which has fairly solid quality and meets a customer demand. Whether that product is worth the price that is generally charged is completely subjective and more a matter of personal values and parental goals than anything.

[Unregistered]

To say that the recreational players now subsidize the elite players is not really accurate. If anything it is the recreational players that are responsible for the dilution in club soccer.

Not mutually exclusive. Are subsidizing (clubs facilitating and/or chasing those dollars...because business is business) and are diluting. Evil? No. Parents willfully ignorant in many cases? Yes.