I would imagine a majority of folks would view DaMarcus Beasley as among the best players to ever play for the USMNT. And yet, it seems he nearly never made it out of Indiana: "Beasley himself remembers the first time he sought to climb to a higher level in the sport, by trying out for the Olympic Development Program, once the nation’s primary talent-identification mechanism before the founding of the Development Academy and the MLS academy system we know today. He missed the cut for his state team in his own age level. Then he tried out for the next-oldest age group and was selected – putting him on the path to US U-17 stardom alongside Landon Donovan, Kyle Beckerman and the rest of their talented age cohort. And it nearly didn’t happen because of murky local youth soccer politics." https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...ey-helping-inner-city-talents-follow-his-path I don't know what the "murky local youth soccer politics" were that stood in his way, but if Beasley doesn't persevere and try out for that older ODP team, perhaps he never makes it up the pipeline to go on to play 4 World Cups for the US. I think we are in a better place now with the DA and academy system than we were back then, but this story once again begs the question - how much talent are we leaving behind in this country because the talent can't access the available pathways? How can we maximize the chances that this talent will bubble up? I don't have the answers, but I'm happy when I see guys like Beasley who may have a different perspective chipping away at the problem. It's a big country and I think it's going to take people from a lot of different points of view working together to get it right.
Murky local politics is just the same BS as when a bunch of adults conspire to get their All-Star kids on the same team to dominate a league. I once got cut from a baseball team because I was a better player than the coach's kid and played the same position as him.
I’m sure you already know this and are just having fun being smug, but the meaning of that phrase is different in modern vernacular than it was, say, in the 16th century when it was mistranslated from Latin. It’s almost like language changes over time.
Come on now. The fact that Beasley came up in the circumstances he did 20 years ago really doesn't "beg" any question about development today. Just because Circumstance A causes you to wonder about Circumstance B, a question is not begged.
"Begs the question" should not be thought of in the way of casual colloquial words. It is a term of art in philosophy, which requires consistent meanings. If 90% of people think of, say, "schizophrenia" differently than the professionals, it does not change the definition of schizophrenia from the one professionals use to what the amateurs think it is.