School vs. club: interesting perspective

School vs club

Great article. My daughters' premiere team was facing the same dilemma. The majority of the team which is made up of both 85'&86' players have decided to play club vs high school this season. The decision which was not coerced by the club coach, has caused quite a stir in the area among the high school coaches.This decision was made even though most of the juniors on this team have either committed already or have solid offers from an assortment of colleges. As more young players on serious clubs aspire to play on the next level, many are foregoing the high school expirience in an attempt to gain exposure,and/or additional training and competition which they believe will help them in their transition to college. In the article, one of the coaches alluded to the point of limited scholarships(at least full rides). That may be the case among the men programs, but among the women's programs which have over 275 Div. 1 teams, significant scholarship opportunities abound for truly talented players. In Ohio, players have to choose either one(club) or the other(hs). In the future hopefully, a compromise could be reached where, players could receive the benefits of both opportunities without the risk of burnout, or overextending the kids.

 

You know Anson Dorrance had an interesting perspective on this...and one that I'm inclined to agree with...in Vision of a Champion

His take was that much of what you inspires players to play for a high school team is equivalent to the factors that will be involved in playing for a college. The combination of academic institution and sporting environment, the participation in a larger sporting environment, and the participation in a sporting community.

If I were a collegiate coach I would have to wonder if a player who gave up high school ball for club ball - especially if he or she already had determined their school and settled that issue - I would have to wonder if that player were coming to school as a student athlete, or just as an athlete who would leave if presented with a better sporting opportunity.

And yes, for high level clubs, the soccer and training are likely to be better but what of the price a player pays in isolating themselves from their community. Especially when you consider that a few weeks of intensive club or college training will probably result in a player reaching that very same level just a few weeks later.

17 years later I still look in the paper to see how teams from my high school did. That club team may very well be non-existent in 2 or 3 years, unless it is one that is very well established. Seems to me to show a little lack of perspective.

 

A very romanticized response by Anson Dorrance, but does it mirror his reality? At Carolina I would assume that many of his players had to sacrifice a significant portion of their high school expirience. Albeit may not have been choosing club over high school, with the number of regional and national caliber players on his roster, how much time did they have to immerse themselves in their high school expirience? The same could be said after they reach Carolina. As far as Carolina goes perenially into the post season and the commitments of the national caliber players to tryout and play for the respective national teams, there has to be a trade off. Whether it is academic performance, which is the case for some or just having the time and energy to enjoy the other aspects of college, to perform at a high level always has its consequences. It is the rare student athlete who can balance it all.

 

Hmm. Interesting perspective. My high school's policy was quite different: you had to play club soccer, or you weren't allowed to even try out for the school team.

 

I don't think you can avoid club soccer unless you're out in the sticks...and I don't think anyone is advocating that players give up club ball...especially when HS soccer lasts 3 months of the year.

But there is a lot of value in playing HS ball and living a balanced life.

 

Re: Club vs School

Sorry about the cut, but posters can read your post for themselves.

There is a lot to discuss here. While I know many of the players and coaches involved in and around this team, I am not knowlegable of the facts surrounding it. I want to say that my comments are not aimed specifically at any person involved. The players are nice people, the trainer is well respected by all his players and has a well documented record of success. The H.S coaches are good people also. My post concerns questions about where our sport is headed and the professionalism of sport in general.

1. What are we trying to do? Are we about developing NT players, college athletes, or paying someone's way to school? What are players being told about reaching their goal?

Most of the supporters of club-only play seem to have a college scholarship as their only goal. At least that's the first thing we hear in any discussion. What is not being said is that many of these parents will spend an amount on youth soccer equivalent to four years tuition. Are we focused on playing in college or getting paid to play?

Further, players are told that more work equals more success. This concept ignores the concept of diminishing returns by ignoring young people's need for rest. Players willingly run themselves into use injuries in both hs and club. If a coach has had 100 days of practice in a year, what else does one have to teach without time for reflection? Why is missing a single practice so critical? Instead we are told " "Playing high school soccer wasn't going to help me," Taylor said. "I think most of the things in high school are more short-term. This is more long-term. I view it as a mature decision to give up all the short-term stuff for the long-term stuff." ". Why is a seventeen year old driving the process? What is the source of his information?

All this effort may not even matter. Best quote in the article: " "If it's a good enough player, we'll recruit him whether he's playing high school or club or both," Georgetown Coach Keith Tabatznik said. ". Think about it. All that time and energy and you're beaten out by Le Bron. Bummer. Given the odds, even with maybe 2500 scholarships available for the hundreds of thousands of female players, is this the best path to pursue? Maybe, but I'm only hearing and seeing "common knowledge" and the opinions of coaches who have a financial stake in this issue. Why isn't there a policy by respected organizations to guide these people. The NSCAA, NCAA, and US Soccer need to study this question and have the guts to post a considered opinion so parents/players have better information on which to base their decisions.

2. Professionalism. Is this the way to go?

From the article: " Said Todd West, a former Lake Braddock High coach who is the head men's coach at American University: "From a soccer standpoint, I absolutely agree with being with better players, better tournaments, against better teams on better fields. What Todd Hitt is doing is professionalizing the game, which is a good thing." ".

How will he feel if college soccer is marginalized for professional farm teams? How will all these college assistants, who recruit by ripping on HS coaches, feel when the pro coaches start commenting on their skills?

I do considerable reading, but I have yet to see any sort of scholarly comparison of your youth sports programs with those of other countries. What we have is a whole bunch of people making factual statements based on little more than ancedotal information or intuition. Maybe what we are doing is allowing players and their parents to have their way. There is nothing wrong with this, but I think that it is wrong to imply that this is the best path for everyone. We need to think carefully about what is best for all levels of sport.

3. Who's in charge?

Most of these club coaches are not covered by any organizing body. Leagues now have vetting processes, but many of these clubs do not participate in leagues. We are beginning to have coaches who can earn a professional living in youth soccer. I think that this could be a very good thing, but I also believe that we need to consider some safeguards for the comsumers - players and their parents. Coaches need this too. It is only a matter of time before coach malpractice lawsuits begin.

4. Will we have " country club " soccer?

$8-10,000 per year??? Wow. I wish I were a better coach.

Second best quote: " And families pay between $8,000 to $10,000 per year to play, one parent said.

"That's the downside," said Bob Chaves, whose son, Chris, is an RFC '85 midfielder and a junior at Loudoun County High. "It's just one of those things we fell into. It wasn't so expensive before. Todd came up with some big plans." ".


If spending money mattered, the NFL and NBA would be mostly white. Can we really tell players that more money, more training, more time really can make up for athletic talent? We need to study the financial aspects of youth sports and come up with recomendations for policy.

5. Can they play both?

Good question. You're a coach, do you want a part time player? How do their teammates feel about it - especially the kid who practices but doesn't get to play when the " stars " show up?
Intuitively, I don't like it, but dual play was not available when I coached in Ohio. It would be good to hear from coaches in states that allow it.

Although I seem to have some strong opinions, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I believe that Ohio will have to go through this process just to find out what is really best for the players. It is unfortunate that we must experiment with players, but we have no alternative. The challenge is on the professional organizations to study the issue and promulgate reccomendations so players and parents will have more considered advice.

 

Well Elroy, being in Dayton you're a lot closer to the situation my daughter's team faced than most that read this forum. Her team is in Dayton. Her club coach didn't want a situation where you have to choose either club or high school. He proposed a scenario where they could possibly coexist. In club soccer the league sets its schedule. Premiere teams and others apply for competitive tourneys. When they are accepted, they have to reschedule league games to accomodate the tourney. Why couldn't the same be done in Ohio or other places, for the high school season? When Wags or Surf Cup or any other prestigious showcase tourney has a conflict with a high school game, try to reschedule. In lieu of practice, play a rescheduled game. Another alternative is to play without some of your club players. This is certainly done when seniors go on their official visits. Teams have to play without their college bound players. As to $8-$10,000 a year, wow! That's a steep price to pay for enriching a kid's soccer and life expiriences. My daughter plays for a high caliber club and it's not that steep.The cost of club soccer is one of the reasons I believe that few minorities delve into soccer. Not to mention that most select clubs are in the suburbs, but that's another thread... The high school expirience is great for a sense of connection with your community etc, etc, but it won't do much for getting you noticed if a kid has aspirations of playing in college. If a parent has plans for their kids to attend college and play soccer, the club route is the best way to go. Even if a kid doesn't get a significant scholarship, participation on a good club team, odp, premiere team etc, could be the difference in a kid getting accepted into a more selective institution as well.Good grades and premiere athlete gets the nod over good grades alone in many cases. The club scenario gives you the best(not the only) options for development, competition, and college exposure. I'm not knocking high school soccer. There is a place for it, but in comparison with club soccer overall, there is none if you want to develop into a top notch player.

 

It's hard to add much to Elroy's post, but I do think the parents of boys/men often have an unrealistic idea of what type of scholarship money is available for men's soccer. Most programs have nine full scholarships or less to offer, which means that a lot of players get partial funding. (Soccer America runs an issue with the programs and number of scholarships available.)

Of course, something is better than nothing, but the players have to factor in that there are many international players also competing for those dollars.

To illustrate, I was at a coaching meeting recently and had coffee with a couple of guys who coach at NAIA schools in the Midwest. When the subject of recruiting came up, the only things they talked about were how hard it is to get visas now and how to make connections with players from Brazil, Africa and/or Latin America.

I know that all of them have American-born players and recruit them, but when you look at the rosters of the schools that offer scholarships--they are heavily populated with international students (at least the competitive ones).

Second, it's funny because the high school coaches look down on the youth coaches; the club coaches look down on the high school coaches; the college coaches look down on the club and the high school coaches and those outside the U.S. look down on all of us. (I would say the coaches of pro teams look down on everyone else, but there are too many guys who have moved up through the college coaching ranks.)

Finally, a truly talented soccer player will get a chance at a scholarship whether he plays club or high school. I find it hard to believe that too many college coaches (if any) would say, "I'm not going to take this kid because he didn't play at X high school." It's just not going to happen. What gives the clubs cachet is that you can see more good players at one time.

At the same time, collegiate soccer was never designed as a feeder system to MLS or European clubs. A large majority of college players won't go beyond that level, so I can see a coach being concerned about a player who sees college as a stepping stone to a pro career. It happens at the top programs, but the failure rate is high.