Is playing a sport in college "worth it"?

[Anonymous]

My daughter planned on playing softball, but was soon told her major, engineering would never work with the college sport travel cycle. Even D3 schedules are really tough with a heavy school workload. She decided to go for the big engineering school and plays club softball. The team is better than the travel team she played on. She is very happy. There is no pro softball and she wasn't going to waste easy semesters just to play softball and have to wait a few more years to graduate.

We have a friend who plays at MIT. They did their final exams on the road in proctored hotel banquet rooms in the mornings before game days. It is a 24/7 life of play/study/eat/sleep and repeat. You have to have a passion for both and REALLY love your teammates. And kiss away any other clubs and activities in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

two of my siblings played at the d3 level for soccer. For soccer, it is 100% true. They aren't good players. Barely scrapped into the academy level. one played at an elite nescac school and another in the centennial conference but had recruiting offers from a number of d3 schools all ranked in the top 10 academically. For male soccer, the d3 level can be attained with dedicated training.

the talent and tactical component is very low. I used to coach at crossfire in the seattle area - it's the club where de andre yedlin played it. I know 100% what i'm talking about, but i admit it is only with respect to soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Playing soccer at the jhu/williams is not high level and very easy to obtain if you are a bench player on an academy team with decent grades.

we are an below average asian family of poor genetics when it comes to athleticism and have had two in our family play at top 10 lac's for soccer.

the soccer pool at the strong academic d3 schools is really bad from a technical standpoint. If you are focused on being in the best aerobic shape possibly and you have a modicum of skill, you can make it.

I am 10 years older than my siblings and when I found out how large the hook was for being recruited, we devised a plan for my younger siblings so that they became the best athletes they could be.

At the d3 level for soccer, i believe the average american could play at that level if they focused on training from ages 9-17 on that specific goal.

pretty much any race is more athletically inclined than mine, so if we can do it - your average umc white family can do it. you guys have better athletic genetics and richer resources for training.

but it does require focus and dedication if you aren't athletically blessed. we used it only as a hook to get in. both people in my family quit after one season.

Probably the same nutball given the overlap in some phrases. Might even be Bloggy McTinfoilhat. Hey Bloggy!

Just poor reasoning, factually untrue, and creepily race-focused. Yeesh. We are suburban Maryland public with a decent, somewhat competitive soccer team, meaning we smoke the teams with kids who play soccer as a second or conditioning sport and get handled by schools with dedicated players. Even so, making varsity soccer at our school isn’t anywhere near reasonable for a kid with poor skills and “aerobic shape”. The kids running cross country, for instance, who have “aerobic shape” wouldn’t have a prayer without a long history of club ball or some incredible latent talent. And yet we might have one or two who could possibly play at Williams, the perennial D3 athletic powerhouse. Very few move on to college soccer. Girls lacrosse is much more common to land D3 and even D1 spots, but that’s a sport where we’re more competitive as a region so kind of an anomaly.

In sum, you’re wrong and pretty strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing soccer at the jhu/williams is not high level and very easy to obtain if you are a bench player on an academy team with decent grades.

we are an below average asian family of poor genetics when it comes to athleticism and have had two in our family play at top 10 lac's for soccer.

the soccer pool at the strong academic d3 schools is really bad from a technical standpoint. If you are focused on being in the best aerobic shape possibly and you have a modicum of skill, you can make it.

I am 10 years older than my siblings and when I found out how large the hook was for being recruited, we devised a plan for my younger siblings so that they became the best athletes they could be.

At the d3 level for soccer, i believe the average american could play at that level if they focused on training from ages 9-17 on that specific goal.

pretty much any race is more athletically inclined than mine, so if we can do it - your average umc white family can do it. you guys have better athletic genetics and richer resources for training.

but it does require focus and dedication if you aren't athletically blessed. we used it only as a hook to get in. both people in my family quit after one season.

Probably the same nutball given the overlap in some phrases. Might even be Bloggy McTinfoilhat. Hey Bloggy!

Just poor reasoning, factually untrue, and creepily race-focused. Yeesh. We are suburban Maryland public with a decent, somewhat competitive soccer team, meaning we smoke the teams with kids who play soccer as a second or conditioning sport and get handled by schools with dedicated players. Even so, making varsity soccer at our school isn’t anywhere near reasonable for a kid with poor skills and “aerobic shape”. The kids running cross country, for instance, who have “aerobic shape” wouldn’t have a prayer without a long history of club ball or some incredible latent talent. And yet we might have one or two who could possibly play at Williams, the perennial D3 athletic powerhouse. Very few move on to college soccer. Girls lacrosse is much more common to land D3 and even D1 spots, but that’s a sport where we’re more competitive as a region so kind of an anomaly.

In sum, you’re wrong and pretty strange.

You did read the part where I said the player in question needs to be at the level of a reserve player in the academy system. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a high technical level. I've attended training sessions at williams in the past (they run id clinics in the late springs/summer every year - i was there in 2009 and two years ago) and when you see the speed in which the ball moves, and tactical decision making of the kids at that level it isn't great.

nothing creepy about me mentioning race. it was a small component. For example, manchester city scouts recently were exposed to mentioning players were "bbqs" - standnig for big, black, quick - in scouting reports.

What i'm trying to say is for academic focused d3 schools, the level required to play can be 'trained' for by an average athlete if they focus at it. Of the four compenents of a footballer - technical, tactical, physical, and mental/psychosocial - the d3 levels skews HEAVILY to the physical side - which is the easiest to train for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

two of my siblings played at the d3 level for soccer. For soccer, it is 100% true. They aren't good players. Barely scrapped into the academy level. one played at an elite nescac school and another in the centennial conference but had recruiting offers from a number of d3 schools all ranked in the top 10 academically. For male soccer, the d3 level can be attained with dedicated training.

the talent and tactical component is very low. I used to coach at crossfire in the seattle area - it's the club where de andre yedlin played it. I know 100% what i'm talking about, but i admit it is only with respect to soccer.

They aren’t good players compared to some crazy elite club that produces pros. Yeah, that’s the standard. Your experience has given you a warped perspective. Of course your siblings are good players - they’ve achieved a percentile of excellence in the high nineties. Do you know what tiny fraction of high school players make it to the next level? It’s fewer than 10%. For women’s basketball, for instance, it’s about 3 out of every 100 girls. The notion of hiring a coach to train up an uncoordinated kid for the college level is moronic. They need tons of talent AND years of hard work and coaching. There may be some D3’s where it’s easier but at the elite LAC level like the NESCAC the kids can play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing soccer at the jhu/williams is not high level and very easy to obtain if you are a bench player on an academy team with decent grades.

we are an below average asian family of poor genetics when it comes to athleticism and have had two in our family play at top 10 lac's for soccer.

the soccer pool at the strong academic d3 schools is really bad from a technical standpoint. If you are focused on being in the best aerobic shape possibly and you have a modicum of skill, you can make it.

I am 10 years older than my siblings and when I found out how large the hook was for being recruited, we devised a plan for my younger siblings so that they became the best athletes they could be.

At the d3 level for soccer, i believe the average american could play at that level if they focused on training from ages 9-17 on that specific goal.

pretty much any race is more athletically inclined than mine, so if we can do it - your average umc white family can do it. you guys have better athletic genetics and richer resources for training.

but it does require focus and dedication if you aren't athletically blessed. we used it only as a hook to get in. both people in my family quit after one season.

Probably the same nutball given the overlap in some phrases. Might even be Bloggy McTinfoilhat. Hey Bloggy!

Just poor reasoning, factually untrue, and creepily race-focused. Yeesh. We are suburban Maryland public with a decent, somewhat competitive soccer team, meaning we smoke the teams with kids who play soccer as a second or conditioning sport and get handled by schools with dedicated players. Even so, making varsity soccer at our school isn’t anywhere near reasonable for a kid with poor skills and “aerobic shape”. The kids running cross country, for instance, who have “aerobic shape” wouldn’t have a prayer without a long history of club ball or some incredible latent talent. And yet we might have one or two who could possibly play at Williams, the perennial D3 athletic powerhouse. Very few move on to college soccer. Girls lacrosse is much more common to land D3 and even D1 spots, but that’s a sport where we’re more competitive as a region so kind of an anomaly.

In sum, you’re wrong and pretty strange.

You did read the part where I said the player in question needs to be at the level of a reserve player in the academy system. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a high technical level. I've attended training sessions at williams in the past (they run id clinics in the late springs/summer every year - i was there in 2009 and two years ago) and when you see the speed in which the ball moves, and tactical decision making of the kids at that level it isn't great.

nothing creepy about me mentioning race. it was a small component. For example, manchester city scouts recently were exposed to mentioning players were "bbqs" - standnig for big, black, quick - in scouting reports.

What i'm trying to say is for academic focused d3 schools, the level required to play can be 'trained' for by an average athlete if they focus at it. Of the four compenents of a footballer - technical, tactical, physical, and mental/psychosocial - the d3 levels skews HEAVILY to the physical side - which is the easiest to train for.

They were exposed because it was horrible. Yet you offer it as some sort of defense. Lord you’re racist AND dumb.

[Anonymous]

Academy soccer is elite. All players are excellent, even the reserves, and have played for years. Not at all the point the poster was trying to make and which you are straining to support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter planned on playing softball, but was soon told her major, engineering would never work with the college sport travel cycle. Even D3 schedules are really tough with a heavy school workload. She decided to go for the big engineering school and plays club softball. The team is better than the travel team she played on. She is very happy. There is no pro softball and she wasn't going to waste easy semesters just to play softball and have to wait a few more years to graduate.

We have a friend who plays at MIT. They did their final exams on the road in proctored hotel banquet rooms in the mornings before game days. It is a 24/7 life of play/study/eat/sleep and repeat. You have to have a passion for both and REALLY love your teammates. And kiss away any other clubs and activities in college.

Engineering and probably anything at MIT are particularly rigorous so both are atypical cases, but good perspective. Intended path of study is certainly a factor and potentially a poor mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

two of my siblings played at the d3 level for soccer. For soccer, it is 100% true. They aren't good players. Barely scrapped into the academy level. one played at an elite nescac school and another in the centennial conference but had recruiting offers from a number of d3 schools all ranked in the top 10 academically. For male soccer, the d3 level can be attained with dedicated training.

the talent and tactical component is very low. I used to coach at crossfire in the seattle area - it's the club where de andre yedlin played it. I know 100% what i'm talking about, but i admit it is only with respect to soccer.

They aren’t good players compared to some crazy elite club that produces pros. Yeah, that’s the standard. Your experience has given you a warped perspective. Of course your siblings are good players - they’ve achieved a percentile of excellence in the high nineties. Do you know what tiny fraction of high school players make it to the next level? It’s fewer than 10%. For women’s basketball, for instance, it’s about 3 out of every 100 girls. The notion of hiring a coach to train up an uncoordinated kid for the college level is moronic. They need tons of talent AND years of hard work and coaching. There may be some D3’s where it’s easier but at the elite LAC level like the NESCAC the kids can play.

What I am trying to say is the level my siblings achieved is a trained level. They really don't have much latent natural skill - especially technically. Their strongest ability is they are very focused and people pleasers who didn't really rebel or 'get off track'. They were good students (though average for 'high achieving' asians in an academic sense) that trained at soccer as if it was SAT prep for 10 years.

When i was at crossfire, I saw literally hundreds of kids in the seattle area who at various age groups at one point in time had the tools to be much better than my siblings - a LOT better. But once the early-mid teens age hit, for many kids the focus suffers (or suffer injury unfortunately which derails crucial development at a critical age for 12 months or something long term like that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academy soccer is elite. All players are excellent, even the reserves, and have played for years. Not at all the point the poster was trying to make and which you are straining to support.

this part is true - i don't deny it. What i'm saying that it is a trainable level achievable with focus and determination.

This isn't nescac, but look at this roster - I'm familiar with a kid on this roster and vassar is a school where the level required can be achieved by an average athlete if they dedicate themselves to training to be the best player they can be.

https://www.vassarathletics.com/roster.aspx?path=msoc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing soccer at the jhu/williams is not high level and very easy to obtain if you are a bench player on an academy team with decent grades.

we are an below average asian family of poor genetics when it comes to athleticism and have had two in our family play at top 10 lac's for soccer.

the soccer pool at the strong academic d3 schools is really bad from a technical standpoint. If you are focused on being in the best aerobic shape possibly and you have a modicum of skill, you can make it.

I am 10 years older than my siblings and when I found out how large the hook was for being recruited, we devised a plan for my younger siblings so that they became the best athletes they could be.

At the d3 level for soccer, i believe the average american could play at that level if they focused on training from ages 9-17 on that specific goal.

pretty much any race is more athletically inclined than mine, so if we can do it - your average umc white family can do it. you guys have better athletic genetics and richer resources for training.

but it does require focus and dedication if you aren't athletically blessed. we used it only as a hook to get in. both people in my family quit after one season.

Probably the same nutball given the overlap in some phrases. Might even be Bloggy McTinfoilhat. Hey Bloggy!

Just poor reasoning, factually untrue, and creepily race-focused. Yeesh. We are suburban Maryland public with a decent, somewhat competitive soccer team, meaning we smoke the teams with kids who play soccer as a second or conditioning sport and get handled by schools with dedicated players. Even so, making varsity soccer at our school isn’t anywhere near reasonable for a kid with poor skills and “aerobic shape”. The kids running cross country, for instance, who have “aerobic shape” wouldn’t have a prayer without a long history of club ball or some incredible latent talent. And yet we might have one or two who could possibly play at Williams, the perennial D3 athletic powerhouse. Very few move on to college soccer. Girls lacrosse is much more common to land D3 and even D1 spots, but that’s a sport where we’re more competitive as a region so kind of an anomaly.

In sum, you’re wrong and pretty strange.

You did read the part where I said the player in question needs to be at the level of a reserve player in the academy system. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a high technical level. I've attended training sessions at williams in the past (they run id clinics in the late springs/summer every year - i was there in 2009 and two years ago) and when you see the speed in which the ball moves, and tactical decision making of the kids at that level it isn't great.

nothing creepy about me mentioning race. it was a small component. For example, manchester city scouts recently were exposed to mentioning players were "bbqs" - standnig for big, black, quick - in scouting reports.

What i'm trying to say is for academic focused d3 schools, the level required to play can be 'trained' for by an average athlete if they focus at it. Of the four compenents of a footballer - technical, tactical, physical, and mental/psychosocial - the d3 levels skews HEAVILY to the physical side - which is the easiest to train for.

They were exposed because it was horrible. Yet you offer it as some sort of defense. Lord you’re racist AND dumb.

I'm sure the best trainer on the planet, pep guardiola, is going to sternly lecture them

If you have any experience with european or south american scouts, they are WAY less PC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents spend money on piano, guitar, singing, chess, and lacrosse lessons for their children,; that's fine. As long as you know that those private lessons are not going to help your child be admitted to Hopkins or an Ivy. Sure, spend your money anyway you see fit to enrich the life of your child. That's good parenting. But, if someone approaches you or your slightly above average 7th grader about private coaching because your child with some specialized training could make varsity and eventually win a scholarship to Hopkins - run as fast as you can because YOU are the mark.

I agree in principle, because talent matters and training can only take you so far, and because there is a real industry that preys on athletic pipe dreams. And yes D1 scholarships are unicorns. But don’t think for a minute that being an elite athlete isn’t a massive advantage in gaining admission to selective schools. At selective D3’s grades and test scores and EC’s matter most and without them you can’t get anywhere. But if you have those covered and you’re getting recruited, doors that are hard to crack fly open. (Not saying I like it either, because I don’t.)

for d3 sports, the training component outweighs the talent piece. at the d3 level for top academic schools, the level required can be 'trained' for by an average person if they dedicate themselves from 8-17.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

two of my siblings played at the d3 level for soccer. For soccer, it is 100% true. They aren't good players. Barely scrapped into the academy level. one played at an elite nescac school and another in the centennial conference but had recruiting offers from a number of d3 schools all ranked in the top 10 academically. For male soccer, the d3 level can be attained with dedicated training.

the talent and tactical component is very low. I used to coach at crossfire in the seattle area - it's the club where de andre yedlin played it. I know 100% what i'm talking about, but i admit it is only with respect to soccer.

They aren’t good players compared to some crazy elite club that produces pros. Yeah, that’s the standard. Your experience has given you a warped perspective. Of course your siblings are good players - they’ve achieved a percentile of excellence in the high nineties. Do you know what tiny fraction of high school players make it to the next level? It’s fewer than 10%. For women’s basketball, for instance, it’s about 3 out of every 100 girls. The notion of hiring a coach to train up an uncoordinated kid for the college level is moronic. They need tons of talent AND years of hard work and coaching. There may be some D3’s where it’s easier but at the elite LAC level like the NESCAC the kids can play.

What I am trying to say is the level my siblings achieved is a trained level. They really don't have much latent natural skill - especially technically. Their strongest ability is they are very focused and people pleasers who didn't really rebel or 'get off track'. They were good students (though average for 'high achieving' asians in an academic sense) that trained at soccer as if it was SAT prep for 10 years.

When i was at crossfire, I saw literally hundreds of kids in the seattle area who at various age groups at one point in time had the tools to be much better than my siblings - a LOT better. But once the early-mid teens age hit, for many kids the focus suffers (or suffer injury unfortunately which derails crucial development at a critical age for 12 months or something long term like that).

Maybe so but you’ve lost sight of the real world. You’re in the elite club bubble. Millions of kids play youth soccer. Then it’s down to about a half million in high school. Then just 25,000 play in college. You don’t see the kids we regular parents see on regular high school teams. These are the kids who (but for a select handful) have no chance of college ball. Coach them all you want. Too slow. Not quick enough. Poor field sense. Coach them til the cows come home they won’t be playing college soccer, least of all anywhere compoetitive. Now go apologize to your siblings. They are excellent players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing soccer at the jhu/williams is not high level and very easy to obtain if you are a bench player on an academy team with decent grades.

we are an below average asian family of poor genetics when it comes to athleticism and have had two in our family play at top 10 lac's for soccer.

the soccer pool at the strong academic d3 schools is really bad from a technical standpoint. If you are focused on being in the best aerobic shape possibly and you have a modicum of skill, you can make it.

I am 10 years older than my siblings and when I found out how large the hook was for being recruited, we devised a plan for my younger siblings so that they became the best athletes they could be.

At the d3 level for soccer, i believe the average american could play at that level if they focused on training from ages 9-17 on that specific goal.

pretty much any race is more athletically inclined than mine, so if we can do it - your average umc white family can do it. you guys have better athletic genetics and richer resources for training.

but it does require focus and dedication if you aren't athletically blessed. we used it only as a hook to get in. both people in my family quit after one season.

Probably the same nutball given the overlap in some phrases. Might even be Bloggy McTinfoilhat. Hey Bloggy!

Just poor reasoning, factually untrue, and creepily race-focused. Yeesh. We are suburban Maryland public with a decent, somewhat competitive soccer team, meaning we smoke the teams with kids who play soccer as a second or conditioning sport and get handled by schools with dedicated players. Even so, making varsity soccer at our school isn’t anywhere near reasonable for a kid with poor skills and “aerobic shape”. The kids running cross country, for instance, who have “aerobic shape” wouldn’t have a prayer without a long history of club ball or some incredible latent talent. And yet we might have one or two who could possibly play at Williams, the perennial D3 athletic powerhouse. Very few move on to college soccer. Girls lacrosse is much more common to land D3 and even D1 spots, but that’s a sport where we’re more competitive as a region so kind of an anomaly.

In sum, you’re wrong and pretty strange.

You did read the part where I said the player in question needs to be at the level of a reserve player in the academy system. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a high technical level. I've attended training sessions at williams in the past (they run id clinics in the late springs/summer every year - i was there in 2009 and two years ago) and when you see the speed in which the ball moves, and tactical decision making of the kids at that level it isn't great.

nothing creepy about me mentioning race. it was a small component. For example, manchester city scouts recently were exposed to mentioning players were "bbqs" - standnig for big, black, quick - in scouting reports.

What i'm trying to say is for academic focused d3 schools, the level required to play can be 'trained' for by an average athlete if they focus at it. Of the four compenents of a footballer - technical, tactical, physical, and mental/psychosocial - the d3 levels skews HEAVILY to the physical side - which is the easiest to train for.

They were exposed because it was horrible. Yet you offer it as some sort of defense. Lord you’re racist AND dumb.

I'm sure the best trainer on the planet, pep guardiola, is going to sternly lecture them

If you have any experience with european or south american scouts, they are WAY less PC.

Yes, categorizing people by race for some athletic evaluative purpose is merely PC, not racist. And I don’t care who he is, he’s a douchebag racist.