Coach retention at SU

[Unregistered]

Honest question. Most kids the highest level of soccer they’ll play is club/high school soccer. Why more parents don’t place their kids at these smaller clubs closer to their house baffles me. Their is a huge gap between players on the top level teams and B/C level teams. I’m surprised more families don’t sign up for their nearest neighborhood team. There are so many PSPL teams that would meet most people’s needs. Even rec soccer would probably be sufficient. Why drive so far and long when you don’t have to?

[Unregistered]

Honest question. Most kids the highest level of soccer they’ll play is club/high school soccer. Why more parents don’t place their kids at these smaller clubs closer to their house baffles me. Their is a huge gap between players on the top level teams and B/C level teams. I’m surprised more families don’t sign up for their nearest neighborhood team. There are so many PSPL teams that would meet most people’s needs. Even rec soccer would probably be sufficient. Why drive so far and long when you don’t have to?

And lose the bragging rights of your child playing for an "Elite" ECNL club or academy?

Narcissism prevents parents from the pragmatic approach.

[Unregistered]

We honestly moved out of our local rec league because it was such a hot mess. We both even coached because we are both passionate about soccer, but it was clear that many parents just wanted free babysitting. Or they made their custody battle our problem. (No kidding.) We blindly jumped to competitive and we were just lucky that there was a RCL club nearby. No desire to go club shopping unless it's clear our child is the best in their age group and is being held back by the ability of the rest of their team, or they get an abusive coach (2nd scenario is honestly more likely).

[Unregistered]

This is accurate. However, would add that having been at both Celtic and SU as a parent--Celtic does not always pay for the fields they use--they tend to use the grass fields at Magnuson often without permits--when things get tight.

The South end issue about coaches at SU- is incorrect--most coaches live south of I-90--but SU's demographics by zip code have most players living north of I-90. Parents complain constantly of practices in the south end and just do not come. That's the reality.

SU is more than aware of the problem, has tried for years to find a solution, but very little real estate in Seattle to build a field complex within their boundary. People who are new to the Seattle area just simply do not understand the cartel running Seattle Parks and Rec and the lack of real business or common sense.

The female coaches is an issue at all clubs--it was the number one request at Celtic as well based on parent survey--and there still are not hardly any. There are not very many female coaches in the PNW -- SU is trying - and could do more to place female coaches on higher teams, but often they do not want that responsibility as that means more travel and often a longer schedule - neither of which seems appealing to female coaches who are often moms or other careers outside of soccer. And the pay is not all that great at any of the clubs to give up that balance in your own life.

Some of the turnover was due, from what I hear, to actually doing what some of the people are complaining about--giving more successful less tenured coaches more development and promotion to higher teams--displacing some older old school coaches.

Excellent points -- but when SU consistently cancels practices in the South End, they reinforce their existing demographics and work against any diversity goals they might claim to have. They could split practices between north and south locations...If you have a good product and parents realize their complaints about field location don't go anywhere, they will bring their kids to training wherever it happens. It's simply not a priority. Parents who live South of Montlake should choose another club.

[Unregistered]

Excellent points -- but when SU consistently cancels practices in the South End, they reinforce their existing demographics and work against any diversity goals they might claim to have. They could split practices between north and south locations...If you have a good product and parents realize their complaints about field location don't go anywhere, they will bring their kids to training wherever it happens. It's simply not a priority. Parents who live South of Montlake should choose another club.

We were at SU for almost 3 years traveling from East side. During that time practices ranged from Shoreline to Georgetown and everywhere in between. I'd say the weighting was pretty consistent. The positive was that it always took us the same amount of time while West parents lived and died by location.

[Rumor]
I'd heard that early on SU had an option for Magnusson (think XF and Marymoor) but the finances weren't there for Jimmy to take action on, so they lost out on having a dedicated home field like most other RCL clubs.
[/Rumor]

[Unregistered]

Seems like SU is really upping their game to try get closer to Crossfire. They have been going after other teams top coaches offering more money and coaching top teams. SU also has some very good recruiters as coaches (dirty not-so-secret despite club management’s holier than thou attitude) and good kids want to play for good teams. With that they can overcome some of the field deficiencies they have.

Win and they will come.

[Unregistered]

Seems like SU is really upping their game to try get closer to Crossfire. They have been going after other teams top coaches offering more money and coaching top teams. SU also has some very good recruiters as coaches (dirty not-so-secret despite club management’s holier than thou attitude) and good kids want to play for good teams. With that they can overcome some of the field deficiencies they have.

Win and they will come.

Top coaches? Name one of the new coaches that carries an a license and an exceptional resume

[Unregistered]

And lose the bragging rights of your child playing for an "Elite" ECNL club or academy?

Narcissism prevents parents from the pragmatic approach.

So interesting that people think it's all about parents' bragging rights. Think, pragmatic choice: local community college vs brand private school. There are different benefits for both beyond narcissism and bragging rights.

[Unregistered]

Seems like SU is really upping their game to try get closer to Crossfire. They have been going after other teams top coaches offering more money and coaching top teams. SU also has some very good recruiters as coaches (dirty not-so-secret despite club management’s holier than thou attitude) and good kids want to play for good teams. With that they can overcome some of the field deficiencies they have.

Win and they will come.

Um, feelings are not facts

https://public.totalglobalsports.com...al-club/1643/9

[Unregistered]

Seems like SU is really upping their game to try get closer to Crossfire. They have been going after other teams top coaches offering more money and coaching top teams. SU also has some very good recruiters as coaches (dirty not-so-secret despite club management’s holier than thou attitude) and good kids want to play for good teams. With that they can overcome some of the field deficiencies they have.

Win and they will come.

True, win and have a good reputation, this can overcome the field situation for at least some families. SU does seem to be lagging further behind XF...not sure if it is just me. It seems that there is a higher chance for a high level Seattle player to go to XF vs a high level Eastside player to come to SU.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, wins aren't necessarily a reflection of coaching. Knowing parents on EFC, XF and SU ECNL teams, you need to also take into account team dynamics (which coaches can't fix), and some of them are a mess.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, wins aren't necessarily a reflection of coaching. Knowing parents on EFC, XF and SU ECNL teams, you need to also take into account team dynamics (which coaches can't fix), and some of them are a mess.

This is spot on. Winning teams are sometimes awful to play on due to the kid dynamics. Typically winning teams rise up because they gain more "impact" players than the rest. Rarely do youth teams get to the top of the charts by great tactical play. It only takes 1-2 "impact" players to score alot. We have been on a couple of ECNL teams with "impact" players. My kid was not an impact player but played full minutes and contributed to the team play. My kid was nothing but frustrated with the first team and wanted to leave due to toxic kids, selfish play and, get it to the "1" type of play. Typically you can pick this out right away by looking at the "1" (number 9). I call it the "1" because you see this huge ( or just naturally fast) kid parked up front in a 4-2-3-1 with the sole job to score breakaways and such. Coaches will tell kids to get it to the "1". The play always ends whenever the "1" gets the ball. The other attacking players take supporting roles and the attacking third is a frustrating place to be for anyone except the "1". The parents of the "1" are more often than not have a smug arrogance about how great their kid is. I argue being the "1" is also hard on the "1" as that kid becomes a single trick pony. I have seen the "1" play in other positions and be a disaster.

[Unregistered]

This is spot on. Winning teams are sometimes awful to play on due to the kid dynamics. Typically winning teams rise up because they gain more "impact" players than the rest. Rarely do youth teams get to the top of the charts by great tactical play. It only takes 1-2 "impact" players to score alot. We have been on a couple of ECNL teams with "impact" players. My kid was not an impact player but played full minutes and contributed to the team play. My kid was nothing but frustrated with the first team and wanted to leave due to toxic kids, selfish play and, get it to the "1" type of play. Typically you can pick this out right away by looking at the "1" (number 9). I call it the "1" because you see this huge ( or just naturally fast) kid parked up front in a 4-2-3-1 with the sole job to score breakaways and such. Coaches will tell kids to get it to the "1". The play always ends whenever the "1" gets the ball. The other attacking players take supporting roles and the attacking third is a frustrating place to be for anyone except the "1". The parents of the "1" are more often than not have a smug arrogance about how great their kid is. I argue being the "1" is also hard on the "1" as that kid becomes a single trick pony. I have seen the "1" play in other positions and be a disaster.

This has been my experience as well. My DD was at one of the big clubs with a strong team that won most of their games. The top 3 girls on the team were some of the meanest young adults we've ever met. My DD asked to leave the club by the second year. Another top A team player on the team asked to be moved down to the B team due to the bullying nature of the top girls. She was a very talented player. My DD described the feeling as uncomfortable and tense, being on a team where everyone seemed to dislike each other. The girls didn't talk during warm ups, it was as if they were enemies from opposing teams. The coach didn't seem to mind, he has a winning record.

[Unregistered]

This is the case of many girls teams and a few boys teams. The girls if they are sticking together on an ECNL team or the A team at a club through middle school get pretty clicky and aren't great towards the non click girls or the new girls who make the team. SU has a talented 06 ECNL girls team and its a down right disaster-girls are leaving due to the nastiness by the mean girl group. There is some really good talent and a great coach--but no chemistry and just hatred on the field and the poor results show.

[Unregistered]

This is the case of many girls teams and a few boys teams. The girls if they are sticking together on an ECNL team or the A team at a club through middle school get pretty clicky and aren't great towards the non click girls or the new girls who make the team. SU has a talented 06 ECNL girls team and its a down right disaster-girls are leaving due to the nastiness by the mean girl group. There is some really good talent and a great coach--but no chemistry and just hatred on the field and the poor results show.

Sad but true. This team was broken when Alex was coaching them, and he enabled that behavior (along with the parents). Pat was a holding action and didn't want to rock the boat. Rafa (who I think is AWESOME) was given a hot mess and has tried a number of different tactics to break down the barriers and behavior with little positive result. Again, this is as much a parent/player issue as anything else.