MAPLE Politics

[Unregistered]

Before we go any further, something must be made clear.

A line must be drawn between two camps:
1.Those who ultimately view soccer as recreation.
2.Those who are about creating professional footballers of the highest quality.

Both have vastly different requirements.

1) Recreation

This does not mean the ‘rec soccer community’ – as in reserved for AYSO or its analogues.

No. This could include anyone, anywhere throughout the soccer pyramid. From those having a role in Bronze level club to Development Academy, to college, to MLS, to the National Teams themselves. And to any organization and its supporters.

What we’re talking about here is a state of mind.

That, in and of itself, will be reflected in what your product is, and who it’s for.

2) Professional

If you apprentice under a master violinist, you go to reach the maximum at the violin.

Again, you go to learn the god damn violin! You don’t go for mathematics, morality, or treat it as some extra-curricular activity.

It is the curriculum! It is the passion!

The professional mindset carries an insatiable apetite for the peak. You don’t constantly hedge your bet, or console yourself with rationalizations.

This goes for both student and master, and their expectations of one another …
the person doing the mentoring has little place for pupils of a recreational inclination.

Hopefully you can tell this is a vastly different mindset:
You’re all in, or you’re all out.

The Requirements

Here is where we have a severe problem in the soccer community.

FAR GREATER than 99% at any level fall in the recreation camp, and can’t seem to distinguish between the two. Most don’t even recognize, or want to recognize, this line – let alone explore it.

I can accept that.
What I can’t accept is when the recreation mindset pollutes the discussion and policies within what should be an unwavering commitment to quality pro-player development.

That’s a huge problem and reason for this country’s mediocrity.

The requirements are so different, they are essentially opposites.
•“It’s all about the kids”
•“They’re only 12″
•“Playing time issues”
•“Well rounded”
•“Just let them play”
•“Cutting players is horrible”
•“Winning vs Development”
•“Diving”
•“High School vs Academy”
•“Referees this and that”
•“Unlucky”
•“Don’t run up scores”
•“Mourinho’s a piece of garbage”
•“Balotelli’s a piece of garbage”
•“Suarez is a piece of garbage”
•“Coaches should shut up on the sidelines”
•“It’s a player’s game”
•“The team just needs to ‘gel’”

These are all artifacts of the recreational state of mind (non-exhaustive of course). And that’s ok … for recreation.

Sure these things have a place in the professional camp, but the frequency and magnitude with which they arise – along with the context – is a dead giveaway on which side of the fence one resides.

If you want to pursue footballers and a field product of the highest quality, you do not apply the recreational mindset and requirements.

Doing so leads to recreational products.

And that’s what we’re living with. Essentially one big AYSO community operating under the guise of ‘competitive’, ‘academy’, ‘professional’.

Couple Brief Examples
•The pro camp relentlessly pursues the scouting, identification, and recruiting of the best possible players – which of course requires the identification and releasing of the weakest players. Something demonized by the rec mentality, and something the rec community wants to dictate and attach certain terms as to how this should or shouldn’t be done.
•The pro camp relentlessly pursues both winning and development. This discussion is closed!

What Camp?

Now, if you don’t churn out quality professionals, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in the ‘recreation camp’. Similarly, if a quality pro happened to have come from one of your teams, that doesn’t mean you’re in the ‘professional camp’.

I think the differentiator is the following:
If you run your ship with genuine and extraordinary commitment to the understanding and execution of the professional mindset (and the requirements that come with it), you’re not a rec person or program.

Key Takeaways

There exist two camps:
1.Those who ultimately view soccer as recreation.
2.Those who are about creating professional footballers of the highest quality.

Both have vastly different requirements.

And finally, since FAR greater than 99% at all levels are in camp #1, whatever few camp #2 people exist have enormous pressure to conform and pander to camp #1 mentality (ie mediocrity).

Let's go back to this article. It really speaks to the foundation of not only this discussion but also so many others that take place here on TS. Really all of this comes down to three basic questions:

1-What are your goals for your child's participation?
2-Are you prepared to pay the price to attain your goals?
3-Based upon your child's level of talent and interest, are your goals realistic?

Basically your answers are going to put you either the "recreational" or "professional" camps discussed in that article. The thing about this topic is if you are involved for "recreational" purposes you see all of the dilution as something very different than if you are involved for "professional" purposes. That is what it is. We have to recognize that we all are not here for the same reasons. One of the issues that I find most disturbing in a thread like this is the utter lack of respect those in that "recreational" camp have for those in the "professional" camp. They clearly think that those parents are crazy and overzealous and as we have seen in this thread their attitudes are often quite dismissive of the very real problems that are out there right now. Nobody says that the recreational types have to pursue a professional agenda but why can't that group respect that not everyone wants to follow them? Isn't it time that we realize that there really are some kids out there that do dream of becoming soccer stars who might have what it takes to get there and the "system" has to be able to not only accommodate them, but encourage them as well?

[Unregistered]

Bull****.

That article comes closer to suggesting there are two camps: the 1% and the 99%. And by doing so, as long as you identify as the 99%, all is OK. Sorry, but that sort of equivocation doesn't work for me. Painting this picture that what's happening in pay-to-play youth soccer and applying the label of "recreational" (never mind the spirit behind the label) is remotely honest is crap. Within the 99% that article would frame as recreational is a very, very, very fragmented set of players, both in terms of ability and venues, ranging from highly competitive to non-competitive.

[Unregistered]

The thing about this topic is if you are involved for "recreational" purposes you see all of the dilution as something very different than if you are involved for "professional" purposes.

One of the issues that I find most disturbing in a thread like this is the utter lack of respect those in that "recreational" camp have for those in the "professional" camp. They clearly think that those parents are crazy and overzealous and as we have seen in this thread their attitudes are often quite dismissive of the very real problems that are out there right now.

Nobody says that the recreational types have to pursue a professional agenda but why can't that group respect that not everyone wants to follow them? Isn't it time that we realize that there really are some kids out there that do dream of becoming soccer stars who might have what it takes to get there and the "system" has to be able to not only accommodate them, but encourage them as well?

Not only don't I think people view dilution differently based on whether they are in different camps, I don't think there's any problem if they do. What I do believe is that within the recreational camp, people see dilution the same way at all. Would we really see double-digit goal differentials on autumn Sundays if everyone saw everything, including dilution, the same way?

Another problem I don't see as significant is the envy, resentment or whatever it is for the truly elite by those who can't fathom what attaining that level is all about (mostly winning a genetic and financial lottery at some point in life). And I'm not suggesting the support behind a truly elite player hasn't come from working hard for their success, financial or otherwise; it's just not an equal and open opportunity in a literal sense, nor should it be.

But I do think there's a sweet spot (for the lack of a better description) somewhere below truly elite, and somewhere above the lowest levels, where ego and insecurity among the parents has a ruinous effect. Not nearly enough sitting back and enjoying the kids playing, instead way too much 'Keeping up with the Joneses/Kardashians' so to speak. The back and forth on TS reflects that with all the ****ting on opposing leagues, clubs and even players. I think that's all about really knowing your own kid, part of that means not trying to live through them vicariously. My experience tells me that parents who know they have a kid who is either really elite or really not very good tend to be very comfortable in their own skin, but a big chunk in between aren't nearly satisfied enough with the idea that their own kid or team is just OK and not as special as they'd like to believe.

[Unregistered]

Not only don't I think people view dilution differently based on whether they are in different camps, I don't think there's any problem if they do. What I do believe is that within the recreational camp, people see dilution the same way at all. Would we really see double-digit goal differentials on autumn Sundays if everyone saw everything, including dilution, the same way?

Another problem I don't see as significant is the envy, resentment or whatever it is for the truly elite by those who can't fathom what attaining that level is all about (mostly winning a genetic and financial lottery at some point in life). And I'm not suggesting the support behind a truly elite player hasn't come from working hard for their success, financial or otherwise; it's just not an equal and open opportunity in a literal sense, nor should it be.

But I do think there's a sweet spot (for the lack of a better description) somewhere below truly elite, and somewhere above the lowest levels, where ego and insecurity among the parents has a ruinous effect. Not nearly enough sitting back and enjoying the kids playing, instead way too much 'Keeping up with the Joneses/Kardashians' so to speak. The back and forth on TS reflects that with all the ****ting on opposing leagues, clubs and even players. I think that's all about really knowing your own kid, part of that means not trying to live through them vicariously. My experience tells me that parents who know they have a kid who is either really elite or really not very good tend to be very comfortable in their own skin, but a big chunk in between aren't nearly satisfied enough with the idea that their own kid or team is just OK and not as special as they'd like to believe.

Don't know if I would characterize it as envy but you appear certainly angry at the notion that there might be different views than yours. It is also quite telling that you see that middle ground as the "sweet spot". That is what it is. All this back and forth serves more of a purpose than you think. It helps many people process their own thinking so they can make their own decisions.

My observation of you is you don't want to be in the USCS realm but MAPLE isn't the answer either. USCS is too much of a country club atmosphere (it is) for your taste and MAPLE really is now just an odd duck league at this point. My recommendation would be to go look for a team in the USYSA new regional league. Their mindset worked for everyone for many many years and if they have cleaned up the administrative issues that traditionally dogged them I think that you will find their leagues are more suited to your "middle ground" mindset than either NEP or NPL.

[Unregistered]

Bull****.

That article comes closer to suggesting there are two camps: the 1% and the 99%. And by doing so, as long as you identify as the 99%, all is OK. Sorry, but that sort of equivocation doesn't work for me. Painting this picture that what's happening in pay-to-play youth soccer and applying the label of "recreational" (never mind the spirit behind the label) is remotely honest is crap. Within the 99% that article would frame as recreational is a very, very, very fragmented set of players, both in terms of ability and venues, ranging from highly competitive to non-competitive.

By definition if you are setting limits on how far you are willing to go with soccer (you are by saying you are in the middle) you are in the 99%. The real issue for you is that 99% also has very many gradients. It is not just one big happy group.

[Unregistered]

Don't know if I would characterize it as envy but you appear certainly angry at the notion that there might be different views than yours. It is also quite telling that you see that middle ground as the "sweet spot". That is what it is. All this back and forth serves more of a purpose than you think. It helps many people process their own thinking so they can make their own decisions.

My observation of you is you don't want to be in the USCS realm but MAPLE isn't the answer either. USCS is too much of a country club atmosphere (it is) for your taste and MAPLE really is now just an odd duck league at this point. My recommendation would be to go look for a team in the USYSA new regional league. Their mindset worked for everyone for many many years and if they have cleaned up the administrative issues that traditionally dogged them I think that you will find their leagues are more suited to your "middle ground" mindset than either NEP or NPL.

Don't quit your day job to become a mind reader.

[Unregistered]

By definition if you are setting limits on how far you are willing to go with soccer (you are by saying you are in the middle) you are in the 99%. The real issue for you is that 99% also has very many gradients. It is not just one big happy group.

Isn't that what I said...as opposed to the article? Or does it only matter what you think I meant...in spite of what I said?

There are many gradients. Calling it recreational, given that label as described in the article, applies to 99% of those who play. That's absurd. It's definitely not just one big group, happy or otherwise, and that article is a waste of time to frame it as it does.