If they were doing a better job of developing players, wouldn't there be players that play higher levels? Especially since you claim that these generations of sport-playing-parents do such a better job of developing players? And, those sports should be overwhelmingly better at doing it than the lesser-educated (or experienced) soccer counterparts. I've already given numbers regarding sports, clubs, etc. that have implemented curriculum and/or strategy have seen growth or success.
This is exactly what I am talking about…you are completely all over place with these first three sentences…. If they were doing a better job of developing players, wouldn't there be players that play higher levels? What “they” are you talking about? I think you are refereeing to domestic, community-based Football, Basketball and Baseball, which seems really odd, since the those sports routinely sendoff vast amounts of quality players to play that the highest levels every year in their respective sports (big time college and the pros)… Especially since you claim that these generations of sport-playing-parents do such a better job of developing players? Aren’t they? And, those sports should be overwhelmingly better at doing it than the lesser-educated (or experienced) soccer counterparts. See this is where you lose me…you are making/trying to make some leap, some connection, that I just doesn’t understand…. I've already given numbers regarding sports, clubs, etc. that have implemented curriculum and/or strategy have seen growth or success. You have spouted out a few numbers from basically one study that you think proves everything you have or will ever utter…
A lot of the heavy lifting is done by the people who were there before you. I'm not arguing that every area does it, but I don't think we're all that unique either. Football is the example I'm probably most involved with but similar stuff happens in baseball and basketball. Over years of having an established program, you come to know (as an organization) what skills are needed at each level. I run the flag program (K-2) and we break it into K/1 and 2nd grade. We work off some basic principles with the goal that the kids are ready to move into pads in 3rd grade. At this stage, everyone carries the ball and everyone is a lineman. At the K/1 level we emphasize exchanges (C to QB, QB to RB), proper stance for blocking and defensive footwork. We keep the games 5v5 or 7v7, depending on numbers. 2nd grade has a similar emphasis except we play in an 11v11 league and introduce some basic plays that look similar to what they'll see in 3rd grade. Part of my "job" is recruiting new coaches. We do have a formal online training program but the real training occurs with the experienced coaches working with the new ones, who become the experienced coaches next year and repeat the cycle. Again, I'm not arguing this is true of everywhere, but it's more likely that the other sports have this organic, institutional knowledge that gets built upon by each wave of volunteers.
You sound like some professor of Music complaining that someone like Prince or David Bowie (or any number of examples) couldn’t possibly understand music or music theory because they lack formal education… And just like that Ivory tower professor you seem completely unaware or cognizant of community-based programs like the one jvgnj describes…I don’t think I live in the same community as him, but I guarantee we have a very similar, if not identical, youth football program… The fact that you claim you have traveled this country, as some expert in the field no less, and have never come across such programs, quite frankly, boggles my mind… I think you have….but I also think you quickly dismiss them out of hand because they don’t meet some preconceived notions you have on how things should be…and that things that aren’t that [your] way, can’t possibly be working or have value…perhaps you even have some monetary gain in doing so…
I really like this topic I hope discussions keep going. What are your thoughts on High School soccer vs the other traditional team sports. In my opinion I feel like many high school soccer coaches are clueless but the football coaches are guys that have an idea about the game... just my observation.
The they was obvious. I was "referring" to those generations of "football, basketball, and baseball" coaches. The ones you claim are so much better than anything else. I've given numerous examples how they aren't doing their jobs. But, they could be doing better if they had some help with skills/tactics training. All coaches can. Not sure why that continues to be an issue. I've actually spouted off numbers. You have yet to provide any facts. Your baseless assumptions and opinions continue to be your only argument. Would another verified report help you understand? Maybe the training has gone up (should, since I've given examples of other sports providing more recent curriculum/strategy): Proper coach training can help prevent parent-coaches from losing focus on the role of youth athletics: How about another valid article? How about a book? Holy moly... But, go on, you know better.
Welcome @bustos21! Glad to have another member to the discussion. It's a tough situation, no doubt about it. Not sure there's a true "fix" to the HS coaching issue. For football, interscholastic athletics is their only way to truly "coach" the 14-18 year old age group. So, they would naturally have to be in the system. It's not that way for soccer, there's many avenues to coach that age group, depending on the area (club is bigger in some areas). Coach pay probably plays a big role too. The minimal HS soccer coach pay just isn't worth it for "quality" coaches to really invest in the system. But, overall, the culture behind "Friday Night Lights" is putting much more emphasis in ensuring a quality HS football program exists. It's a driver for school and community pride. That culture doesn't exist at many high schools for soccer.
I don’t know better, I simply have different opinions and experiences…. Quoting the opinions of others, in support of your opinions, do not make them facts… Some of the things just quoted are valid points, many I even agree with and/or are worthy of further discourse, yet they aren’t particularly on point and just muddy the water, without directly answering the questions, I and others have, or countering the points we are making…which has become your SOP…
You have yet to truly make a stance EXCEPT for: you don't think educating parent-coaches is that important. That's it. Nothing else. These aren't "opinions" of others. They are researched and factual. Much more than you've ever done. Much more than I've ever done, and I've put in a fair amount of time in research and work in youth athletics (as well as higher education athletics). Not once I have argued that having experienced players-turn-coaches is a bad thing. It's no guarantee in producing anything. The basis of everything I've stated is soccer has the potential to surpass the development potential of other sports because they have a centralized structure. They can lead through education, training, and providing for coaches. No other sport has this centralized structure, as a whole. Yes, USA Basketball exists, but it doesn't "govern" basketball. Yes, USA Baseball exists, but it doesn't "govern" baseball. Providing MORE for MORE coaches is always a good thing. I gave the breakdown of participants earlier. It's much better to have a ratio of 5:1 over 10:1. It's better to have a 2:1 over 5:1. So, if we can help parents get better in teaching their kids, then we can make truly qualified coaches' jobs easier. Simple as that. No matter the sport.
Surprisingly, HS soccer coaches is where I would/could really get on board with curriculum, training and even licensing (once again, not against it elsewhere)…I agree, in general, HS soccer coaching, is lacking compared to other HS sports…but with these HS coaches, you have an identifiable, easy accessed target audience, who already function in an academic setting, where acquiring and continuing education is already part of the culture…I would love to see USSF provide FREE education and training to anyone hired and working as HS soccer coach…but alas, USSF hates HS soccer and would unlikely ever support something like that…
In a nutshell, my stance is football, baseball and basketball transfers knowledge and trains it's next generation of players far better then you give them credit….all without the benefit of “experts” like you and formalized curriculum and training…. I am not saying those other sports are prefect, far from it…yet, they are doing good things and there are many positive takeaways, and soccer in this country would be fortunate and lucky to mimic some of their methods and successes …as opposed to treating those sports like a pariah, full of uneducated morons who are clueless about what they are doing, which seem to be your basic stance… I don’t necessary disagree with training more and more coaches…I would certainly categorize it as “better than nothing”….I just don’t think is the end all, be all, you seem to claim it as…
I'm 100% on board with making education available for coaches. USA Baseball, USA Basketball and USA Football, along with a host of other organizations, all provide different levels of education. Local leagues and programs often require that their coaches take some of the classes before they're allowed to coach. But the fact that they don't truly "govern" the sport is a feature, not a bug, in my view. They're able to stick to their knitting, providing appropriate resources without trying to control the whole system. Where we part ways is that I think the centralized governing structure of soccer is more of a hinderance than anything else. It's no different than any other large bureaucracy that starts off with good intentions and quickly devolves into looking out for its own interests rather than the interests of those it purports to serve. There's no way someone sitting in an office at USSF headquarters cares more about your local program than you do. They don't know the unique challenges that each local program faces better than the people on the ground. But this centralized power results in them having a one size fits all approach for a geographically and ethnically diverse country of over 300mm people. Could they shift strategy and focus resources to things like coaching education and increasing participation and away from controlling the entire developmental path? Sure. But this would require them relinquishing their current power and very few people do that willingly.
Where have I ever claimed that it's end all, be all? From my first response, I simply stated that soccer possesses the ability to develop more coaches because they have a governing body that oversees the sport. That's it. There is no true governing body for any other sport. I've never met one basketball coach who looks at USA basketball for development/ideas. Those sports are individual coach driven. Most have no idea how to develop or teach. This is widely known. Yes, there is some "transfer of knowledge," but that does not mean anyone is teaching anyone properly. Just because a parent played HS baseball doesn't mean he knows how to teach his kid how to pitch with proper mechanics. But, imagine having that parent who played, but now is given proper education/training to help the child pitch with proper mechanics. Let's look at the heading initiative that USSF instituted. Sure, the kids can't learn heading U10 in a coaching situation with their clubs/leagues. But, now parents can help their kids learn how to properly head a ball at home to prepare them for U12. Weird how you don't see the value in curriculum, but Little League and NBA/USA Basketball actually see the value in it. Maybe you know more than they do? You probably know more than Kobe too, since he's been quoted numerous times in saying international coaches are doing better at preparing kids to play basketball than US basketball coaches and AAU have done. I'm not saying that any curriculum should say "play this way, and this way only." But a curriculum provides a pathway to where kids should have competency at certain ages. They provide you with an outline of what are technical abilities that should be learned and when. They provide coaches with an understanding of what the previous coaches have taught, what they need to continue teaching, and what they need to prepare their kids for in the future. College football and HS football coaches have told me how annoying it is that they get players who think they know what they are doing, without actually knowing how to do it. It comes from these biddy league coaches trying to do things they think is proper so they can win. Trying to run shotgun, when the kids have no idea how to run it. It's all based around an individual mindset with very little thought process for development, and especially the development of a whole team -- mainly focused on their child, or a few special "athletes." My hometown started full-pad football now at kindergarten. They did that because soccer started that early. The other way they communicated it was because they need to get all kids on the same pathway to make the varsity team better. This has been going for nearly 10+ years ago. Guess what, the football team is still a 0-1-2 win program every season. My dad was a college lineman, he watches games still at our alma mater. Every year it's the same comments, linemen don't know how to block. There is zero pathway, knowledge, and development of players. Imagine if they had an idea to help get them training kids properly? Hmmmm.
You stated far more than that…perhaps you should re-read that first response…it is the “huge disadvantage” and the clear implication that allowing our children to participate in sports that lack formal education and curriculum standards is practically akin to child abuse and being an bad parent…that’s what I took issue with and that we disagree on… this disadvantage, imo, is vastly overstated and you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the advantages these other sports have and bring to the table… My takeaway is this: no other sport truly has a "governing body" that promotes (however minor USSF actually does this is another story) "development." Football, basketball, and baseball are mainly singular coach driven, whatever the coach knows the team does. Without a "development" model to actually follow. To me, this is a huge disadvantage to some other sports. How can you not have a "curriculum" to gauge baseline abilities off of? Where and what should players be knowing and when they know it? Granted, many soccer clubs don't do that either...but, at least there is some sort of understanding that it does exist. Would anyone send their kids to a school without a curriculum, no. Why would you send your kids to play something where they have no educational standard.
My opinion of course, but I think HS soccer coaches suffer from the same generational issue we talked about earlier... there aren't enough coaches with playing experience to fill out all the slots. That doesn't mean there aren't good coaches out there because there absolutely are. I just think in another 20 years or so it will be better as those who played in HS and college get old enough to coach HS.
You have yet to prove any advantage that "un-education" can provide over an educated coaching basis. Zero. What advantage have you shown? None. If you don't know, a counter-point usually provides some sort of data, basis, etc. on trying to prove that point OR to negate the initial claim. The facts show: other sports are starting to provide a curriculum to retain participants, instruct coaches, and develop players. That's something that USSF has failed miserably on. They've refused to address the concern. The structure is already in place to help, but they've managed to neglect their constituents. You really jumped off the deep end with the child abuse implication. Really disgusting.
What do you think is the number to get there? There's hundreds of thousands playing HS soccer yearly. That surely means there are plenty of potential good coaches to provide adequate coaching for these programs, right? Even in last 10 years, wouldn't there be plenty of good coaches produced? Those seniors 10 years ago would be 28 years old today. Surely, there's plenty to raise the level? Sadly enough, there were more soccer participants 10 years ago than there are now in HS soccer.
Apples and oranges. The amount of current players has nothing to do with how many coaches (good or bad) are available. I don't know that a 28 year old will have the financial standing and time availability to dedicate to HS soccer. They are still "new" in their field (if they've even gotten into their field) and probably don't have the flexibility in scheduling that coaching requires. More soccer participants where? Nationwide? All age groups? HS only?
If there has been hundreds of thousands of HS players over the last 20 years, that should correlate to quality coaches, at some point, no? A 28-year-old can have the money, time, etc. in coaching. I got my start at 22, and went fully into coaching at 23. At 28, a person would have the potential to gain experience coaching for 10 years after graduating HS. They could have a job as an educator (what many HS coaches must be, in many areas). They could have 5+ years of teaching experience as well. 10 years ago, there were more soccer players nationwide in HS than there were in the 2017-18 school year. (2007-08: 930,106; 2017-18: 846,844 -- combined boys/girls) If you agree with research, there are over 500,000 fewer youth (age 6-12) soccer players now than there were in 2008. I can try to dig it up, but I saw somewhere that said in 1-year, soccer lost 9.5% participation due to the birth-year mandate (kids want to play with friends).
Sorry, you've done a 180 here. You started off arguing soccer had an advantage because, unlike the other sports, it has a curriculum and now you're arguing the other sports have a curriculum while soccer has none.
Other sports have started curriculum. But, they aren't centrally governed (USA Basketball and NBA do not govern youth basketball & Little League does not govern youth baseball). Whereas, USSF is a central governing body that works with USYSA and others to develop soccer -- or it should be doing that. It's only been recent that the basketball and baseball curriculum came to exist. USSF has a curriculum, I've never said it didn't. There is little emphasis in it and it's hardly ever referenced. I've worked with 5 clubs in the last 10 years and none used it, three never knew it existed (can't speak for the other two), and none provided any curriculum. Add in the other youth clubs and leagues that I have experience with through my own time or from colleagues, no direction from leadership.
I am supposed to prove something that most reasonable people take as self-evident? How I am supposed to “prove” to you that Football, Baseball and Basketball all produce large qualities of quality talent all the way to the pro level? I mean, technically, I could, but it would be tedious, and I have no doubt, ultimately, pointless…There is no lack or decrease in [US domestic] talent in the MLB, NBA or the NFL….nor are foreigners, in significant numbers, filling those rosters spots in college…and that all of this is being done without mandated, heavy-handed, overabundance of centralize direction, curriculum, and licensing… Furthermore, I have no idea how you can say USSF hasn’t shoved their curriculum and mandates down the throats everyone involved in US Youth Soccer…from banning HS play, to changing the age groups, to field size, to build out lines, to banning headers…the list goes on and on; the USSF finger prints are all over the sad state of US Youth Soccer… Its call hyperbole, most educated people know and understand when they see it…
Soccer produces large quantities of pros too. So, technically, they are all on the same level. The problem is, none of the other sports compete on a major international scale -- i.e., World Cup. I've already given facts of international percentage in NBA. If domestic players were better, then there wouldn't be more international players taking roster spots -- especially those lower on the bench spots. I haven't done the researched the baseball statistics, but I'm sure it's been a rather steady international make-up for awhile. USSF hasn't shoved their curriculum in anyone. Even with the latest Player Development Initiatives, it was never mentioned once. HS play was only banned within USSDA. It's not banned overall. It's no different than NFHS governing bodies banning outside club play during season -- that's done and no one complains about it, but gasp when USSF says something that may impact 4,000 kids. But, again, I have my gripes about USSF. Always have mentioned that. They've failed miserably. Never once said they haven't. They possess the capability to influence how we educate players and coaches. They've failed. But, they COULD influence the sport more positively than any others, if they choose to finally do something. Top-down leadership can work. Has worked. It can empower bottom-up leadership. Currently, neither really exist in youth soccer. Funny thing is, I'm probably more educated than you. Most educated people don't like to throw around child abuse to try to prove a point.
Getting back to this statement. College rosters have a ton of foreign players on them now. Way more than football or even basketball. I go to a few college soccer games every year and some of these teams are starting 4-6 foreign players. With the low amount of men's college soccer scholarships and giving up roster spots to foreigners, I don't see it being a logical step for any US kid who wants to play for a career.