Starting to see a pattern at the high school level of girls just quiting the sport - some good to average. I know this young adults find new opportunities for other activities when they enter high school - sometimes it's just social. That said I am starting to see some players who are decent quit as a direct result of having to compete with better players. For example - outside of club we play for fun in a local league that is made up of mostly high school players from our conference. Two of the players who played with us last year recently quit - parents stating that thir kids thought they were good but had no idea how far behind they were when compared to some other players. It's really sad too see this because these two are good and they will make Varsity when they are juniors - so a real shame that they feel they have to quit. There is no rejection from the team - the very good players distribute the ball and have fun - they support the rest knowing that it only benefits them to build up those they may play with come the high school season which is just around the corner. We can see this is many of the opposing teams as well. Girls are getting down on themselves, parents clearly look frustrated. IMO this is a result of USYS and USClub doing nothing to reach out to improve Rec play which is the largest pool of players in the country. Most of these players come up through those ranks as well as the ranks of smaller community based travel clubs - half and half I would say. The gap is just far to great IMO. When do the sanctioning bodies (especially USYS) stop focusing on exclusive leagues to grab the cash at the top and start looking at better ways to elevate the bottom? Why can't we have a cheaper travel hybrid that develops players instead of just mom and dad coaches who never played the game?
It's a good question, and I'd guess varies by location. There's space on my son's HS varsity for a few non-club kids, but not many and virtually all of them at least played club into or through middle school. And I know that look of frustration and realization when players and parents figure out how big the gap between kids who keep playing club and those who don't is. One kid on my son's HS team made the varsity this fall as a junior after not playing on any level for a couple of years, wowed the coach with speed and athleticism and won a starting spot. He then over the course of just a handful of games was badly exposed for not really having much of a soccer IQ, headed to the bench and his parents doubt he'll play next fall (that one is to some degree on the coach). I agree that it'd be nice to have better rec programs, but in the non-metro area where I live kids' rec soccer essentially stops at 8th grade for lack of interest. And, from what I can tell, past about fifth grade it's just a relative handful of kids, enough for a few teams that play each other again and again. It has to get old, and I'm sure the coaching isn't much. But that lack of interest seems to be the determinant. Too many kids drift away to other things (even just dating, hanging out with friends, ...). FWIW, basketball is worse, and baseball appears to be just as bad. At least where we are, if you're not playing AAU basketball or travel baseball, you're not playing on the varsity in either sport in high school unless you go to a small private school or live in one of the really small outlying towns. On the plus side, I see loads of kids continue playing loosely organized (like the indoor soccer leagues) or pickup soccer and basketball around here, in HS and college. Baseball, not so much.
That post on the new elite64 sham or whatever it's called and the leagues you list still has my head spinning. I'm 10 minutes away from Olympic and you'll see plenty of competitive play most nights of the week in season with local scene... Here goes .. not sure if I posted this last fall but after my son finally played h.s. I see potential... Take Schaumburg athletic association... Huge rec program, good sized travel club until kids quit or go to stronger clubs, it's picked over by maybe U14 Our h.s. coach is in that club... Rec program and travel program do not talk because they are competing for players, can you believe that? The high schools in the area have healthy rivalries and have good teams that advance far. All the pieces are there to keep kids in a single pipeline culminating in possibly playing h.s. in fall and then coming together in Spring for club. They have ability cuz they own good facilities to compete on price with good clubs... All the pieces are there but no one willing to get off ass and connect the dots. Such a scenario could grow a strong club and associated high schools. This is what we built back in the day with swim clubs and water polo....
I don't really understand. The players are good enough to make varsity but they feel "less than" so they quit? I think that's on them. They need to be encouraged to be tough, to stick with it, especially if they are good enough to make varsity. It sounds like they're being "snowflakes" for lack of a better word. Maybe they've been fed too much admiration from the parents. I tell my kid reality "hey now you're gonna face tougher competition, you're not gonna win every game, it's gonna be harder to score, etc"... "so practice hard, try hard, etc" It sounds like you're enabling it rather than telling them to toughen up, get out there, get working. In 6-12 months, if they work hard they can catch up to the best girls.
The issue is that the parents have been putting so much pressure on them since they were little, they feel like not making varsity as a freshman or sophmore is a failure, and they will never succeed. I saw so much pressure that many kids quit when they didn't make the team they wanted. It's a shame, but that's part of the drawback to specialization. Never again will see the three sport athlete be a common thing.
That's nuts. I've always been surprised that most of the HS coaches in our area have nothing to do with the clubs that feed them their best players -- zero contact (or interest, from what I can tell). I grew up in a state where American football is king and the connections between middle school teams (where you played your first tackle football when I was a kid in the dark ages) and the high schools they fed into were pretty seamless. A lot of the middle school coaches worked (likely volunteered) as scouts for the HS team their school fed into, watching upcoming opponents, ... The HS coaches knew what was coming their way the next year from the middle schools and influenced how the middle schools practiced and played. That was a different time and place, so this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, but participation remained high all the way through HS. At my son's school, some of the coaches work against each other, from what I can tell (football program doesn't like its players to do track, and tries to keep soccer kids away from the weight facilities and limit their access to their turf field, ...). Why, if you really wanted to succeed, you wouldn't create some kind connected program across age groups (and between sports -- it's dumb for football players to be discouraged from running track, for instance) for whatever sport you're coaching in HS is beyond me. Or why you wouldn't try to create some kind of connected soccer program within your area with clubs, park district, ...
I'm just getting into the high-school soccer scene---tryouts are in a week---with my 9th-grade daughter, but I'd imagine that it's a similar story. The fact of the matter is that any female player who's been involved in the ECNL/RL, DA, or GA---and thrived---during their middle-school years is going to be far ahead---generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions)---of rec. or USYS classic-level players. The speed and physicality that those players encounter on a weekly basis is a pressure-cooker, and if they've been in it for multiple seasons, high-school ball is no problem. My daughter will be one of four ECNL/RL players on her high-school team this spring. The others are upperclassmen. There are several solid 9th graders coming into the program, but what sets my kid at the head of the class is that she can play multiple positions, is good with both feet, sees passing angles faster than others, and is hardened by years of performance training. Will her presence douse the enthusiasm/hopes of some juniors looking for their varsity chance? Undoubtedly. It's a shame, and yes, such reactions are probably a sign of the times (i.e., If I can't have it all, right now, why try? Especially if trying means months of back-to-the-drawing-board labor and training.).
Parents bear a good bit of the blame, to be sure. There is a fine line between healthy pressure---the kind that ultimately originates in the heart of the player---and the unhealthy variety. To be sure, if your kid makes JV as a freshman, it shouldn't be treated by the parents as any sort of failure. Does the kid think it's a failure? Maybe. And if that's something that's eating away at them (as it often does with true competitors), the motivation to end that perceived slight won't be anything that the parents will need to fan. Specialization is here to stay, and there are ways to play it to your benefit. For example, my soccer-obsessed daughter has been branching out into serious weight-training and track, ostensibly to improve her soccer game, sure, but these ancillary pursuits have become important in their own right, not just as soccer-accelerators.
I want to touch on this, because I have raised this question before. I think we do need more of this. The club coaches want/need paid. So it gets expensive. They have more experience, invest in their own development by taking coaching classes. They have bills to pay, yada yada But there is a hybrid in our city. It's "semi-competitive". Basically it's comp soccer but with volunteer coaches. It's 1/4th the cost. They enter a few tournaments. They are sort of the comp extension of the rec league that feeds into it. But it sounds like not every city has this? Competitiveness wise, I'd say they are about on par with the mid tier comp team. They compete in some of the same leagues. But at the older ages... a lot of the top clubs are now trying to get into the more competitive leagues. ECNL / MLS Next / USL Academy league / etc If it were up to me there would be a different structure for lower cost development. Basically it would be more like pickup soccer. Not coached or reffed per se, but facilitated by adults. Available almost every day. Basically... they have this at indoor facilities... drop ins. You pay $10 and play pickup for say 2 hours. Kids love it. Ages 5 all the way up to adults. But... I don't see this for outdoor. Someone start it!
For failing to deliver what? It's rec soccer! The only thing that should be delivered is fun, some basic understanding of the game, and hopefully a desire to play again in the future or move on to competive. What needs to change is all of us parents thinking our kids all need to be on a professional development path by age 10.
And are these organizations at all interested in developing that "basic understanding of the game" in the non-top-tier players? No, not from my experience---the rhetoric is mostly hot air. Rec. soccer is---for the most part---rancid in the U.S. It bears little resemblance to the very competitive rec. baseball that I played as a kid, but then again, baseball is/was another animal altogether. Both of my kids left rec. soccer in the dust at early ages. Why? They wanted more...both of them love to compete, scrap, and win...simple as that. Is rec. soccer fun? Well, sure, but kids can have fun doing just about anything that involves running, jumping, flipping, tumbling, etc., or anything that involves spherical objects. Do these kids truly learn the game at the rec. level? Generally speaking, no, not from what I've seen. If they're lucky enough to be coached by a parent who played at a high level, and who has some knowledge of the technical and tactical aspects of the game, yes, sure, but that's rare. As for parents who push their kids onto the professional-development path, well, I see that in all walks of life. Oh, the humanity. Ever checked out gymnastics? Or how about computer coding? Modeling? Fencing? Theater? Chess? I digress.
I guess we just have different definitions/expectations for rec soccer. It's not a program where I expect professional coaching and definitely not a level where I'd want to pay for coaching. Pay to play is already a big problem for club soccer. It doesn't need to extend to rec.
If we're throwing around the "we," just understand that kids have a say in this, and some of them simply need more than what the well-adjusted, normie adults can provide. But back to the main topic...if your rec. high-school kid gets demoralized, and quits the sport, after she gets pummeled at HS tryouts by the high-level travel players, then someone has been feeding that child a heap of pure bull. Never mind the fact that resilience is seemingly non-existent in the outlined scenario. Now, am I a fan of pay-to-play? Not at all. But I will most certainly encourage my kids to reach for what they want, even if that involves playing within the rotten U.S. system. Neither you nor I---by ourselves---are changing that system, by the way.
Obviously rec soccer is not the path to being a competitive player if that's all a kid does and any high school varsity team with rec players will not be competitive against teams with club filled players. This all assumes being in an area with strong club teams available. But too many parents have an unrealistic view of their kid's ability which results in unrealistic expectations. My 04 just accepted a roster spot at a WI D3 school. Nearly every player on that roster is a top player from their high school team -- at least all conference, some all state, many team MVP. And this is just D3, not MLS pro development academy. The vast majority of kids are not going pro no matter how good they appear at age 10 even if they might already have moved from rec to club competitive.
1. Who feeds into these unrealistic parental expectations? Why, yes, it's the clubs and their governing organizations! Why do they feed that parental monster? Dollars. 2. But...the vast majority of kids are going pro in something, assuming, of course, that they don't end up in your basement. Here's another thought...if a kid doesn't know what it means to pour everything they have into something that they love do (and yes, likely fail at it...), they sure as heck won't know what to expect when they start their first business, let alone any other endeavor worth thinking about, at age 24. Let's say a kid decides to be a coach later on.... Will they be as effective if they don't understand the limits of talent, hard work, and drive? I don't think so.
There's a lot of good points already mentioned. One thing I wanted "it depends". If your HS has some decent clubs in the area, you can end up with a lot of club players on the team, and yes, pushing "out" the rec players. BUT, that doesn't mean rec players won't get a spot on the team (and possibly even playing time). That will depend on the size of school and number of rec players. Do SOME parents have unrealistic expectations of their kids abilities? Of course. But around 7-10th grade, kids start to branch out into other activities. Whether that's just different interests, social (boys/girls), or wanting to work, they realize they don't want to be "hard core" in soccer. And there's nothing wrong with that. Parents shouldn't force them to play (unless they've already committed to a season and then they should finish the season IMO). That's not a soccer only story though. Every sport and every extracurricular activity will generally see a drop off in participation as kids continue to age out. Heck, pick a college roster in any sport. Go back four years and look at how many freshman they have on the team, then look at how many seniors they had four years later. Pretty safe in assuming the number has dropped. People change.
I agree with both of those points. The main point I was trying to make is that (IMO of course) rec soccer has its place and it should remain one place for all kids to play and have fun without too much emphasis on competing and developing. That also means it is not the path to varsity soccer or beyond unless some kid is just an amazing outlier.
With the caveat that the plural of anecdote isn't data, and that different areas of the country have different requirements/cultures around club vs community vs scholastic coaching... 've notice, when I was in charge of a community club, that the travel (non select, we didn't really cut, if we had coaches we fielded teams, all parent coaches (tbf, 1/3 grew up in "soccer first" cultures but didn't play at any level beyond "with friends")) teams that trained at 1x/weekly over the winter, and entered futsal or wallball leagues that were outside of the USYS state sanctioning, could compete with the select teams when they ran into them in those unsanctioned leagues, u10 - u15. In general, in my area, I don't know tht the select coaching makes a difference as much as in the select programming, you get 2-3 practices week, at least 1 game on a weekend if not 3-5 tourneys per spring/fall, plus consistent winter indoor programming. Compared to 2 practices/week, 1 game for 8 weekends, no indoor in the winter. The "best" coach at the club played in college in the 80s, was a long term HS coach of a successful program - ie equally credentialed to top local "select" coaches - he got his kid's team promoted from the community division to the select division (u14), won the lowest select division (u16) and earned promotion to the next leve select division....only to have it come crashing down with the birth year change where all of his Jan-Mar kids that weren't quite good enough for select before suddenly became 1st quarter birthdays and got snatched up, along with his keeper joining an MLS academy Around 2017 or so the select clubs all started offering Strenght and Conditioning sessions, and it seems like it might have widened the gap some, I've been away from the internals since then so don't keep up with the standings or murmurings There's a lot to be said for quantity of soccering vs seletiveness of soccering.
One other thing - the insistence on 11v11 at the HS ages in places that don't have the population density for it. My state introduced outdoor 5v5 (u12 field/goals, sub on the fly, kick-ins) a few years back to try to address this. If you want kids to keep playing, they gotta have teams/leagues available. They'll get touches in 5v5, maybe not so much exposure to lung busting recovery runs or balls over the top to space...
Volk, What would you propose as a hybrid? I don't see rec ever being relative in any sense with the exception of having the affiliated community clubs promoting travel to these players and families and the rec programs cooperating... As a parent I'm still amazed at how you have to search for proper programs and opportunities...
Yes, this is one of the biggest issues in the US. The primary development path is currently very focused on players in very large metro areas that have multiple traveling clubs where the clubs have positioned themselves to compete in exclusive leagues. The club team that was one year younger than my son's had a player coming from a different state (4+ hours away). And that doesn't even take into consideration the MLS which I believe is trying to create a path that bypasses clubs, high school, etc... Send away your superstar at age 12 and let them wash out around 18 and then look back on everything they gave up. I had previously read a great article (Edit: here) about this and the forgotten players in the UK that experience this. I guess it probably becomes best if there are two definitive paths -- Pro vs High School/College. Don't let the players who think they are on a pro path take spots from the kids that want the other path. But I believe that's tougher on the girl's side because professional play is not as lucrative. And hasn't girl's ECNL always been the primary path to college?
MNBob mentioned it above, but rec soccer (and by extension those kids who, years later, want to make their HS teams but don't have the ability of the club soccer kids) will always face the problem of the kids who "want more" leaving in search of it. And while I don't disagree that lots of parents have crazy expectations and delusions of glory for their kids, to a large extent kids often drive the move away from rec -- many want to play at a higher level, face better opposition, have better and more-motivated teammates, ... By age 9 my son could see the difference between the rec teams he played on and the club teams some of his friends had migrated to, and how the abilities of those kids who were doing both at that age started to diverge from the rec-only kids. We could have drawn a hard line and said "no club" until he was a older (my wife and I thought about it), but I suspect forcing him to keep playing against the same kids on the same handful of teams that weren't really improving much might have left him bored and, eventually, maybe even leaving the sport.
I'm not sure the experience of those who don't make it to a professional team through MLS (or the USL academies) is quite as zero-sum as the UK version. An awful lot of the American kids on higher-level DI college rosters are former MLS-academy players. And increasingly, those kids who wash out of academies overseas, but that's another discussion.
Agreed, but I think that's the model they want to become. I'd also like to see US colleges focus on US players which fits better with two paths = pro vs HS/college. There isn't enough money (revenue for colleges, scholarships for players) in US soccer for colleges to focus on pro drop outs. Short term you might get top players but long term it continues to kill the college sport. College soccer is never going to become like college football or college basketball and especially if you don't have US kids being the role models for younger kids. (Perspective from the boy's side)