I think "having robust HS teams" can be a different issue than "developing pros vs college players." My home school district is dense with affluent type A parents. The coach can afford to be...challenging...and still roll out a team of 22 select club players (ecnl boys/usclub npl/usys regional) no matter how many parents they offend This works out well for the volleyball/lax/golf/tennis/xcountry/track/ultimate frisbee teams Neighboring schools, schools in the inner city - don't have that luxury, and you find a lot of them filling their rosters with kids who at best are still playing usys state cup level or community travel soccer - on the girls side you get athletic girls that have never played soccer getting onteams in 9th grade and then trying to find places to play u16-19 in the spring (non hs) season in order to improve. Setting up 5-aside leagues seems like it would help, as an extension of many rec/town club programs.
I like that idea of 5-a-side or 7-a-side rec a lot (I guess 6 works, too, since that's common in indoor soccer). They play with smaller teams at younger ages, anyway, and will likely eventually wind up in small-sided leagues if they stick with it into adulthood. With as few as 40 kids you could have a 4-5 teams, versus needing almost that many to realistically have two teams of for 11-v-11. It would mean more touches and fewer opportunities to drift off and get bored or hide from the ball. As for the lack of lung-busting runs mentioned above, speaking for the old and unfit, small-sided indoor soccer always wore me out more than outdoor soccer.
My son's high school (a Catholic school on the smaller side) has the other issue - generally, they're looking for more kids to join the team. I'd say of my son's starting roster this past season (his junior year), there were three or four boys who didn't even play club soccer during the off-season. My son and one or two others were the only who played at even a regional level. That's certainly not the case everywhere, though - there are a number of schools in our area (including the reigning "national champion") who cut more kids than our program has on roster.
I realize I probably was not clear. The players that I am refering to likely will not make varsity until they are juniors - maybe even seniors. It seems that some of these players and parents go into the season (try-outs) as early as freshmen expecting their kids to make Varsity because they played rec and eventually graduated to the local community club where they have played for the last 2-3 years. I heard one parent say they joiningg a local club the year up to high school to prepare for high school try outs. It'could be said that it's delusional but to parents - especially those who have never played the sport, is it? Do they know that in order to play Varsity ball as a freshman or sophmore that rec and (most) comm clubs are not likely to get them there? I saw 2 players just quit the sport because of this last year and another quit this year - quit the sport altogether! How is that gap so huge and how can these players and parents be so shocked to just up and quit?
Yeah, that seems pretty delusional to me. I wonder if that's the girls' expectations or the parents who are missing the mark, but I wouldn't expect my kid to be making varsity in general as a freshman or sophomore without having a pretty strong club background going into it. My son knew going into his freshmen year that he would likely be playing varsity. He also knew a lot of the older players ahead of time because many of them played with our older son in previous years, so he knew what his competition was. Even so, he started with JV for part of a season and knew he would need to prove himself on the field before he got called up. By the end of the season, he was one of the first off the bench on varsity. He probably would have started, except the players he was replacing off the bench were seniors.
I think that sounds like parents who have no idea how HS sports "generally" work. Usually freshman and sophomores would be JV, with Junior & Seniors on Varsity. Obviously if the Freshmen and Sophomores are better than average, they can get called up early. Playing one year of local club MIGHT make you somewhat better than average, but it will depend on the size/quality of the team. For one of the HS in our district, that probably would get you on Varsity. For the two "big boys", probably not.
That is odd for parents to think that way. Players always have to work their way up the depth chart for strong high school programs regardless of sport. Of course there are exceptions where a star freshman or sophomore comes into the program but that's not the normal path. That's true regardless of the source players for the high school.
Totally agree with this in all aspects. At U-12 my daughter is still a few years away from high school, but when she wanted to "get serious" about soccer I stumbled upon this board (specifically the Chicagoland thread) and began my own educational process of leagues, teams, etc. and think she's on a pretty good trajectory at this point. Of course just when I think I understand the landscape, something changes. And of course a year from now she might be playing basketball instead! But anyway to our local friend group I'm the resident expert and have really had to start introducing people to the idea that "hey, if you think your daughter will want to play soccer in high school you might need to have them step it up a bit". I'm not sure that 2-3x weekly club training and 20 games a year against low-level IWSL competition will necessarily be enough to get it done as our HS pulls from a pretty large area, but if nothing else having the proper expectations will help.
It just sounds weird to me that a kid would quit because they didn't make varsity their freshman year. Doesn't make any sense. The majority of kids play JV freshman and sophomore years; varsity jr and sr years (unless its changed since I was in HS). Though sure there's always a couple standouts that play up. But to quit just because of this, it sounds like they don't truly love the sport. That's not a reason to quit playing the sport altogether. There's probably more to the story, like they didn't like the other kids, or maybe they got bullied or didn't like the coach, who knows. How is the gap so huge - it's like any skilled endeavor. Take piano - a kid practices year round while another only practices 4-5 months out of the year; after a few years the first kid will be miles ahead.
Nope, you have it right (about who normally plays JV & V). But at HS age, kids are changing how they think/what they like. They might elect to have more of a social life (hard to do when you have multiple days of practice and multiple games in a week), or get a part time job (it's nice to get some $$). Or they might want to focus on school work (ok, that's a joke). One of DS' former club team mates elected to drop out of soccer his Junior year. He had been on JV Freshman and Sophomore year with a little V playing time. Was all but guaranteed to be V his final two years. He just realized it wasn't fun any more and he wasn't enjoying it. If that's not a reason to drop an activity, I don't know what is. I agree not making V as a freshman isn't a reason *I* approve of for dropping out, but that tells me (assuming it's true) that the sport isn't that important to them. That's fine. Hopefully they find something they're interested in.
My son actually had a teammate decide not to come back to the HS team because he was focusing on school work - he was a senior and apparently close to making valedictorian. Admittedly, that's a rare situation. I agree, that most kids drop a sport in general for all the other reasons you list. My older son quit as well after Junior year, but he could never see eye to eye with the head coach (who started during his Sophomore year) and it was making him miserable.
I do think it would be great to have a low cost option that is more games than rec. The only way I see this being feasible is by essentially making it pickup games. A large part of comp soccer cost is coaching. You have to lower that cost, but still provide a high volume of minutes. Sure, that removes a lot of the instructional part. But hey, there's no perfect system. Playing pickup is a great way to get better and have fun. And all the pros have played a lot of pickup, so it's a necessary component to improvement. But sure, that alone will not be enough to go pro. At some point you need instruction. But pickup can help one improve at a low cost.
I've got nothing against pick up games. I think it would be a great thing. But, I think a lot will depend on your area. Is public space readily available? Are there enough kids/people to participate (yes, I know you can do things as small as 3v3)? What about the "level" of play? Having 'A' players (for example) either on the same team or against 'F' players, can discourage the poorer players. Yes, it MIGHT encourage them to get better, but that will depend on the other players also. Do the better players taunt or tease the lesser ones? Do they include the lesser players in their play?
From my experience, a significant number of clubs do a terrible job of providing legitimate educational materials to paying customers. My daughter played two full travel seasons before I had any clue what "ECNL" or "ODP" even meant. Heck, since the local club doesn't compete at the ECNL level, I never heard anyone associated with the organization even utter the acronym in mixed conversations. Once I started digging around, however, and talking to parents associated with other clubs, I was in...but even as a college professor, it took me awhile to get up to speed. The process of self-education for a parent who starts with zero knowledge about the U. S. youth landscape---I never played soccer---is indeed daunting. I'll just add that, in my area, the travel clubs essentially run the local rec. leagues. Said leagues are significant money-makers for them. The quality of play that you see in these leagues is brutally bad. When I played rec. baseball as a kid, I actually learned some useful skills (hitting to opposite field, how to throw a slider, reading a pitcher's wind-up motion, etc.). Is there an equivalent set of skills that players are receiving at the rec.-soccer level? Not from what I've observed. I've actually argued for having a mentorship program of sorts, with volunteer travel players serving as assistant coaches on the rec. teams. Tie it in with the schools, and the travel kids could complete service-project requirements, etc. I would say that crickets is the response from the local soccer gurus to ideas like this one, but perhaps dead silence is more like it.
I've got to agree with you. When we started, it took a while to learn the landscape. But that's pretty much the same in any sport. FWIW, we don't even have ECNL teams (that I know of) in our area. Regarding teaching at the rec level, I know when my kids did rec, the parents MAY have had an older child go through the soccer landscape. One actually read "Soccer for Dummies" or some coaching book to get ready for the season. Contrast that to when we were growing up playing rec baseball and being taught by parents who had grown up playing baseball, etc. I think the knowledge base just isn't there yet. People would like to think soccer fans are swelling, and I think they are, but (IMO) we're still a generation or two away from having enough parents with a soccer background to REALLY teach the rec players. I *LOVE* the idea of having travel players help coach the rec level. I do think you need to be careful. Around here, many of the better soccer players also referee. It wouldn't be a good look for them to ref a game with a team they coach. Maybe rotate them around teams?
Rightly or wrongly, the travel players in my daughter's cohort (U15 and U16) are brutally honest about their rec.-league counterparts. My daughter, for example, simply refers to them as "toe ballers." I get it, too---it isn't necessarily enjoyable for the advanced players to bring their games down that far. Now, a situation where the travel players are providing some coaching/training to their rec.-league pals? That might work. We are, though, talking about teenagers here. Lol.
It's true, and yes, a rotation pattern would need to be established. In our area, many of the mid- to lower-tier travel players tend to be the referees. The "A" team (and those playing for out-of-town clubs) players rarely do it---lack of time, etc. I think the idea has merit, but it's one of those "oh-this-came-from-one-of-those-damn-know-nothing-loudmouth-parents" situations, so implementation is tough. That being said, I am looking to sneak my way onto the local club's board (my son plays there), so we'll see. Ha!
Agree with this idea, and I have seen some fairly successful programs like what you've described above. The so-called "challenge" program that we have in my area does a nice job of meeting these needs, although by 7th or 8th grade, participating kids generally either ascend to travel ball or find their way back to rec. Said program is also somewhat pricey, but solid, meaningful development does happen there. My daughter initially transitioned from rec. to the low-cost, in-town program. She left after one season---"players don't care about soccer!!! I hate it!!!" (add tears)---and graduated to full-fledged travel ball (and has never looked back).
It's also important for the parent to pass along their newly-uncovered knowledge to the player(s), and---even better---get them involved in the educational process. If you have a child who wants to play college ball, both of you must have a good understanding about how to play the old game within the game. The player will be the one to play that game, too, but they'll need your support.