ASA travel soccer lower teams

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of negative comments about the lower level travel teams.
Has anyone had positive experiences with their DC being on a lower team?
Not isolated to progressively moving up levels, but just improving, enjoying the team experience, finding value in the coaching, etc.

[Anonymous]

ASA girls lower teams embody the stereotype. Disinterested coaches and inconsistent field space at full price

[Anonymous]

Which ASA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which ASA?

Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ASA girls lower teams embody the stereotype. Disinterested coaches and inconsistent field space at full price

We are on a lower team in a younger age group and our coach is awesome.

[Anonymous]

We’ve been very happy on a Black team.

[Anonymous]

Once you are on a lower team at a young age and then stay on a lower team after new team formation, do you really ever get the real opportunity from the coaches to move up? Do they have it in their minds where you belong and then you stay there? Is it better to stay with Arlington and maybe get the chance to move up or is it better to change clubs and grow elsewhere? What age do you need to start worrying about being on a lower team and getting cut?

[Anonymous]

The issue with the lower teams is that you should know the club views your team as a revenue team. They won't have a strong coach, your chile may not develop as well as possible, and the club sees your family as a cash cow, taking your $$ until you get fed up and leave (churn and burn - there's always someone who wants their kid on a travel team, even though it's such a low level, chances are your spending a ton of money on a glorified Rec or Select team)

[Anonymous]

My kid was on a Black team this year. We had an extremely dedicated coach and the kids all worked very hard. It was in no way a glorified Rec team. If anything, the problem was that most of the teams we played against weren’t competitive.

[Anonymous]

My child is on the third of six teams. One of top two players. She has no chance of moving up - sadly not how Arlington seems to work. Players just keep moving down as they bring players from outside for top teams. She loves the sport and that it's more competitive than rec, so we stay.

[Anonymous]

Really your child’s experience and development will depend tremendously on the coach and the teammates. I have two kids kn travel, one whose “higher level” coach mails it in and the other whose “lower level” coach is outstanding.

It seems the lower level coaches often are more patient, instruct more, and are generally better with kids. Its not like rec at all and in our opinion was worth the club fees.

[Anonymous]

My child has been happy on a low level Arlington travel team and finds it much more enjoyable than rec because of the more comparable skill level of peers and opposing teams. Coaches have been great too (main coach and skills coaches). Development has been dramatically better, even on the low level team, than the top rec division. Rec was fun socially but ~1/2 to 2/3 of the kids were fairly new to soccer so hard for the team to consistently receive/give solid passes, make overlapping runs, etc. Important for players to find teammates and competitors that are of similar or better level to challenge them.

[Anonymous]

My experience has been mixed. DC mostly had fun and improved. The coaches weren’t yellers and DC liked them. Communication and feedback from coaches were nonexistent. I heard that even the kids on DC’s team that got moved down didn’t get any sort of warning or feedback (which is supposedly against policy, but tough luck for them).

What people have been saying about lower level players being seen as disposable sources of funds seems true. But I disagree with people who are saying it’s similar to rec. The coaches are professionals (not parents), there are three practices (including skill sessions) per week for most of the season, and the level of competition is way higher (the worst travel players are similar to the best rec players).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that even the kids on DC’s team that got moved down didn’t get any sort of warning or feedback (which is supposedly against policy, but tough luck for them).

Is this really against policy? Where did you see that? I thought I had read everything, but hadn't seen that. Very interesting. Have you heard of kids getting cut and not having warning either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you are on a lower team at a young age and then stay on a lower team after new team formation, do you really ever get the real opportunity from the coaches to move up? Do they have it in their minds where you belong and then you stay there? Is it better to stay with Arlington and maybe get the chance to move up or is it better to change clubs and grow elsewhere? What age do you need to start worrying about being on a lower team and getting cut?

We're not at Arlington, but after 3 years at our current club, kids can have a great experience on a lower level team. They usually start new kids out from Rec and place them there. What they are waiting for is to see who really develops in their 1st year, then move them up. We had 6 new kids start on the lower team and they moved 1 kid up who really blossomed.