When I dealt with player cards, it's not like the referees did anything with them legitimately anyway. They deal with them exactly how any other league does them: check the number that was booked and refer to the roster to file that number has received a caution/ejection. I always got the player cards back before the game. Many referees don't even check them. So, not sure they are actually accomplishing anything anyway.
The referee report? Since you're talking about different weeks, that's a league issue. The league can email all coaches during the week with a "these players are ineligible to play" and list them all from every team. Make the penalty strict if a coach plays a DQ'd player... forfeit of the game on 1st offense, forfeit & financial penalty on 2nd offense, kicked out of the league on 3rd offense (in a year). You do the same with a tournament. Look at college football and all the players getting ejected for targeting. Those players aren't eligible to play the following weekend (at least 1/2 the game). How do they keep that straight without player cards?
Jersey numbers? Though I guess he could just wear a different jersey the next week. I've never thought of this aspect, only thought of the passes as hyper vigilance in making sure kids are the right age and appear on the formal roster. Other sports have rules about kids having to sit out if ejected and it seems to get tracked without player passes.
Messi is a world class athlete… Ronaldo is world class athlete… Neymar is a world class athlete…etc., etc., etc… Why do so many soccer people have such a negative reaction to the word athlete? I don’t really follow the NBA, but I think your numbers are a little slanted…yes, more international on paper, but many/most of those guys are living and playing ball in the States by high school…#1 pick Karl-Anthony Towns was born and raised in the US…sure, he is eligible and plays for the Dominica Republic national team; NBA claims his nationality as the Dominica Republic, but he’s as American as you and me… But yes, those other sports, especially Basketball and Baseball, look internationally for young potential talent…but its far more a sign of how popular, healthy and competitive those sports are, then to suggest it has ANYTHING to do with a lack or deficiency in the development of domestic talent …that’s in stark contrast to the retirement league the MLS is… In every sport, only a few elite athletes will make it to the highest level…plan or no plan, curriculum or not…the reason we are losing kids in droves has nothing to do with not having the right plan or curriculum…we lose them because there is more glory, opportunities and money in those other sports, plain and simple… I really question the value of teaching parents, especially those who have never really played soccer at any level, no less a high level (college), how to train our young kids in soccer fundamentals…not really sure it’s something you can learn in a classroom… Of course not…its doesn’t have to be that way, but it is that way currently….and more Importantly, there doesn’t seem much incentive or desire for soccer (the Powers that be anyway) to changes its ways any time soon… People like to bike; biking is has a high participation rate…yet, nobody cares about Tour de France… Participation is not synonymous with popularity…participation is hopefully a leading indicator for eventual popularity, but to say soccer is popular in the US, in the same way, as those other sports are, is a bit of stretch…its getting better, I think, I hope…but we still have a lot of ground to make up and hurdles to clear…the biggest, imo, is figuring out how to fully integrate soccer with our academic/collegiate sporting culture…
I think there IS value in it. You teach the adults the same basic principles that they'll teach the kids. This needs to be done at the U5/U6 age groups. You'll need to keep doing this until those who DID play soccer are raising kids. As I said, I think it's starting to happen, but we're probably 10 years away from it being a majority. When my oldest was playing rec soccer, I agreed to help coach. I knew *NOTHING* about soccer. The head coach got a book about coaching soccer and learned from it. If you don't try to teach parents, how do you find someone who can teach the basics?
I tend to agree. I think volunteer parents can handle what needs to be done at the youngest levels with a little bit of guidance. We were fortunate to find local programs where the coaches were good when my son was this age but you could easily replicate what they were doing during their sessions. But I also think that the current model of tryouts and paid coaches at a young age intimidates and discourages parents who might otherwise step up and volunteer.
Sue, it has some value…something is always better than nothing… But it’s not really the answer; it’s not what we really need…we don’t really need more licensed or “educated” parent coaches who have never played the game… What we really need is parent coaches who have played the game all their lives, preferable at a high level, regardless if they have a license or sat in few a class sessions…and that’s only going to happen with time… Remember the context is comparing soccer to certain other sports…those other sports, by and large, have unlicensed, [formally] uneducated parent coaches transferring generational knowledge of their particular sports on to the next generation…Ponchat seemed to poopoo that formula as ineffective and unorganized…whereas I see it as the gold standard…
Sorry, I don't understand. At what age do they have tryouts and paid coaches in your area? Here, it starts at U8. BUT there are rec leagues that utilize parent coaches well past U8
No negative reaction to the word athlete. It's not necessary because "athlete" isn't quantifiable. All professional soccer players are good "athletes" (however one wants to define that). All sports require vastly different sets of skills, for the most part. So, just talking "athleticism" is really a moot point. We need to have the discussions on how we can make better "soccer players." Our USMNT does just fine with "athleticism" but they need to be better soccer players. That's the point. You really want to nitpick about one player? Let's nitpick then. The cultures are completely different of how kids are raised. He qualifies as international for a reason. He's got dual-citizenship (possibly). He's got a parent from another nationality. The cultures behind different nationalities help people become the people they become -- even within sports. Pulisic has a Croatian passport, but is "as American as you and me..." Do you think that his dad's [and family's] international background helped him become who he has become? Absolutely. Heritage matters. Numbers still don't lie. Neither do the NBA players who rail on the current state of basketball development while praising the international player development. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that. They are professional for a reason. They want to make money. They want to win. They want to bring notoriety to their franchises. If there were BETTER domestic players than these international players, they'd be signed. Period. Why do you think US players start going abroad? They are better than players in those other countries and those countries know they can win with US players. There are DII, DIII, NAIA, and HS players that can sign pro overseas in certain countries. There is a deficiency in other countries, JUST like there is in the US -- in a variety of sports. We lose them because we cannot provide a better setting for them, this includes opportunities. Kids will leave soccer if they don't feel they are adequate enough to play. Coaches will cut kids early because they have a "set roster" and the kid doesn't have the talent...yet. They are more willing to cut a kid than work with a kid for 2-3 years to make the kid better. That's a problem. Soccer is NOT in a situation to cut anyone right now. If the sport wants to grow, they CANNOT cut anyone. Those kids typically will not go back to the sport, ever. That means they'll have a hard time raising kids in the sport, coaching the sport, being a fan of the sport, etc. We have no idea where these "elite" players will come from if they are cut early and are not taught properly earlier and more regularly. This is an extremely elitist mentality and part of the problem that's wrong with US soccer. How do you think most of the rest of the world learns soccer? They learn it from mom, dad, family, friends, etc. They don't start at FC Barcelona academy from U4. It's part of their culture. They play in the streets. They play in their free time. They don't require their whole development to be done in 2-4 hours a week of training with an A License coach while paying $5000 a year to wear adidas and travel all over the country for lame tournaments. As mentioned previously, look at how long ALL sport has developed in the US. It comes from tons of moms and dads coaching their kids. Most of these parent coaches have not played past HS. Guess what, it's helped a lot of players. There's always more that can be done, but parent coaches are valuable to the sport. No one spends more time with the players than their own parents. You probably think a guy like Tom Byer is a moron then. SMH. Yeah, people participate in things that aren't popular...what?! The Tour de France has a higher viewership rate in the US than MLS does. So, how does no one care about it? There's a lot that can be done to increase the soccer culture, but USSF continues to fail in this. Anyone notice that FIFA released a "strategic initiative" to increase women's football? Does everyone realize that USSF has NEVER had a strategic initiative for ANY soccer in the US. None. Zero. Terrible leadership and we wonder why we continue to lag behind...
So you agree it will take time before we have a bunch of parents who played soccer available to teach kids. But what do we do in the mean time? As far as "high level", how do you define that? The other sports we're talking about (football, baseball, basketball), most parent coaches may have played in high school. Few would have played in college, and even less beyond that. I graduated HS in 88. Soccer wasn't even a glimmer on the radar (that I know of). I know my HS now has Boys & Girls V & JV teams. Let's say they started in '98 (I really don't know). That means kids who played four years graduated HS in '02. Another four years of college and that's 06. So we're 12 years past that. I would assume those players now have kids that are old enough to play. I think we'll get to the point where more adults who played soccer as kids will be coaching their kids on rec teams, but until then? Do nothing?
U8 as well but that's a lot earlier than other sports by me have tryouts. Based on our Sept. school cutoff, an older Kindergartner would be trying out in the spring for a U8 team for the following fall. Conversely, "travel" basketball starts in 4th grade and Club Lacrosse and Club Baseball really don't gear up until middle school. The main difference is that parent volunteers are really the only option for all players for a few years while kids will start migrating to soccer clubs with paid coaches in 1st or 2nd grade.
Never once said that licensing NEEDS to happen. You claim that all these "other sports" have transferred generational knowledge of their particular sports on to the next generation. Where is the evidence that any of these parent coaches actually have what you claim? For all we know, and most of that is quality life experiences, many of these other sports have the exact same thing as soccer does. Parent coaches with little-to-no true background of ever playing the game. I go through where I've lived, coached, and been involved in youth sports. Most coaches I've seen have no real experience in playing the sport. If you want to count HS, sure, they did that. But, can we truly claim that a once-HS-player-turned-youth-coach-15-years-later is the "gold standard," then go ahead. Soccer has one of the lowest ratios of HS:College participation. What does that mean, and why is that important? A low ratio means low numbers of participation at the "next level." So, we must do a better job educating EVERYONE involved in the sport in doing their jobs better. Parents, cousins, uncles, aunts, prospective coaches, etc. All included. If there's already a lower number of HS athletes, then we must rely on quality TEACHERS to do the job properly. We never know where the next great player could come from, so it's important to help anyone become a "good enough" coach to get kids started on the right foot.
College is not the next level for soccer though. The best soccer players should be on pro teams at 19yo. We will never do much internationally with roster of former college players.
Just building on this with some hypothetical numbers. There are 73.8 million kids in the United States in 2018. Let's just say there are 2 kids per household. So, that means there's at least 36.9 million parents for those kids (only utilizing one parent for this figure, not two or more). That means we could have a 2:1 player-to-"coach" ratio. If parents taught their kids. If we just go by numbers in soccer, there are roughly 2.3-4 million registered youth soccer players. That ratio could potentially be 10:1 (player-to-coach). So, we would have around 230,000 to 400,000 total youth soccer coaches in the US -- if the coaches only coach their team and not others. What could serve a bigger impact in the game? A better educated 36.9 million parents OR 400,000 coaches? Let's just use soccer parents -- roughly 2.3 million parents up to possibly 8 million parents. What could be more valuable? 8 million soccer parents OR 400,000 coaches? It's so valuable to do more for ALL involved in the sport instead of just the elite.
College is the next level in the US. I'm not arguing that pro should be the next level. I agree that it should be. The fact is, college IS a logical step in the game. Until there's a change in the soccer landscape, college will always be part of the development landscape. It is not realistic to think that we'll have loads of pros at 18-19 years old anytime soon. These kids are hardly prepared for college, and that's the next "step" for them in development. MLS -- 23 teams, 653 players, and 55% international USL -- 33 teams, 902 players, and 47% international We have over 4 million youth soccer players (registered) and 24 million (registered and unregistered) soccer players in the United States. It's not realistic for the US to have a progression of its youth players into professional soccer in the US when there's only 56 teams for them to play for. MLS has 294 spots for Americans and USL has 478 spots. How do we think that'll be filled with Americans that get the opportunities? Average age for each league is over 25 years old. They do not give opportunities to young OR American players.
I never said that…I just questioned its value; my point isn’t that its worthless, just not ideal, not all that its cracked up to be, nor the real answer….
Maybe they should actually make college soccer conform to FIFA rules to start then, since that development infrastructure is already in place. I think it will be tough though, because different players develop and different ages. Waiting to take in a player until they hit 18 (or graduate high school) then coaching them up for four years, half of which is probably riding a bench, does not seem like the best route to go.
It's not the best route. But, it's the only route. What needs to happen is a system that opens up development pathways for millions. Not alienating areas because they aren't located in the major metropolitan areas in the US. An open system creates opportunities for EVERY youth player in the US.
OK. I get that. The problem is "the real answer" (parents who have played the game teaching it to kids) is not available yet. So what do you do in the meantime? Throw up your hands and say "just wait"?
You can do whatever you want…just relies in the end, it’s not really doing all that much…and lets certainly not pretend, it’s a better system then what more established and more popular sports do…
I know we are getting bogged down on some ancillary, and mostly academic points of order, but this, this we absolutely agree on….
We got a lot going on and I have to admit, I am losing moment/interest in hitting every single point… Heritage has nothing [directly] to do with it… Pulisic is a 2nd generational player (if not 3rd or 4th)…. his Daddy sure played soccer and played at a “high level”… Pulisic is the posterchild, mind you an extreme one, of what I am talking about…growing up in a soccer family, with a parent who played and understands soccer, is in large part, why Pulisic is the player he is today…his Croatian passport just makes things easier for him… I agree cutting kids, especially early on, is a bad idea; I agree soccer needs to be to as inclusive and as assessable as possible…but those other sports cut kids as well, so soccer is not alone in that… Whereas cutting kids is bad, it’s not the problem we (or I am) talking about…the issue is kids choosing to leave soccer, when they are or could be “elite” players, in order to play other sports instead… I don’t think you are really understanding what I am saying….I am not in favor of fancy, high-priced, professional, licensed coaches in lieu of parent volunteer coaches…NOT at all; I agree parents coaches are one of the fundamental long term KEYS to soccer success in this country…I am just pointing out their impact is limited right now, trained or not…it’s a generational problem and solution, not one of curriculum…. I have no idea who Tom Byer is…although I did google him…you throw out some obscure soccer guru who works in Japan, as if he’s some household name, in a sad ad hominem attack…and you claim I have an elitist mentality? Seriously, exactly my point….that's a rather sad and depressing statistic, isn't it? Doesn’t really scream soccer is so popular in the US….
Honestly, @mwulf67, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get to. You are all over the place with any point you are trying to make in regards to coaching. I've tried understanding what your "objective" is, and I just cannot find where anything aligns to your philosophy on this topic. Here's what you've said: So, you praise the value of parent coaches in other sports -- mind you, most have never played at a high level and have a very low understanding of actually teaching fundamentals. BUT, you also do not believe in soccer parent coaches being educated properly being a solution? These "other sport" coaches aren't coming from great backgrounds of college and pro sports, nowhere near the majority of these youth sports coaches have those backgrounds. It doesn't matter if it's "generational" right now. If a generation of basketball parents continue to teach wrong, is it really doing any good? It's not hard to go watch a youth baseball league and continue to see these baseball parents teach their kids the fundamentals completely wrong, and they've been doing that for generations. I don't know who you've talked to, but any college football coach I've talked to cannot understand how generations of football dads continue to teach their kids/teams the wrong aspects of the fundamentals AND tactics of American football. They think they can watch Drew Brees and incorporate everything that Drew Brees does in their biddy league football. Your idea of curriculum and my idea must be way off. There HAS to be a development pathway for every sport. Kids cannot be lost, period. Would you send your kid to a school if it didn't have a development pathway for education? No. Why do we do it in sport then? Curriculum isn't ALL about "play this way and it's the right way for 328 million people in the US." A curriculum is a development standard of what skills are necessary by certain ages to progress properly. A curriculum gives people a foundation of HOW to teach and WHAT to teach. Just because someone has a generational background or an excellent career doesn't mean they know HOW to teach anything -- look at Ted William's managerial career. Absolutely, the elite "athlete" will end up rising to the top. That typically happens no matter what industry one looks at (education, work force, etc.). But, as coaches and educators, our job isn't always to cater to the "elite." We have no idea where the next Pulisic will come from. We have no idea where the next McKennie will come from. Sargent. Dempsey. You name it. Also notice, none of these players were "good enough" to play in the top domestic league in the US at a young age, but were able to grab on overseas to push their development. While McKennie joined FC Dallas at 11, their development started MUCH earlier and outside of the MLS DA setups. If we can put much hope in a kid from Hershey, PA, we can help develop kids all over with the proper strategies and development emphasis that curriculum can provide. No offense, but calling Tom Byer obscure shows that you are "out of the loop" when it comes to youth soccer development in the United States. He only may be one of the biggest influencers in youth soccer development in the US.
Thanks for bringing this question up. USSF and MLS, as well as USL, have focused their efforts in only the television markets believing those areas will give the US the soccer talent they need. There are only 56 professional teams in the US. Few countries have this low of a number of professional clubs in their system. If they have lower, they will have more recognized clubs in their lower divisions. The US has a ratio of 5.767m people PER recognized club in the pyramid. The next closest is Brazil and it's ratio is half of what the US has, and that's not including clubs further down their pyramid that are amateur. Image how much BETTER the US soccer opportunities would be if they had a ratio like Brazil even, that would give the US 123 recognized pro clubs. If we wanted to reach 2018 World Cup winners levels, we'd have 1,400 clubs recognized in a pyramid. There is NO WAY we can properly identify players, give opportunities, and reach truly World Class levels by having 56 clubs (and half of their rosters are international). The US is the only country in the top-25 (2018 rankings) that only has clubs in two divisions. Sure, having a D3 in 2019 could help. But, as we currently see, there's not been a big numbers change in total pro teams -- D2 teams moving to D3, a few taking hiatus, etc.