VYS Travel Soccer Bait and Switch-Team Placement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We left VYS two years ago. Only regret is not leaving sooner. The age group my son was with (first team / Eagles) has had the same coach for 5 of their 7 years with the club - including the transition to Brave. Hard to produce a well-rounded player when you're slotted into the same position, doing the same drills, with the same coach for your entire youth soccer experience. Stop trying to make them better. Focus on making your kid better - just leave.

2010B I assume?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s a bait and switch, but then you need to think about development. If the coach doesn’t think your kid can cut it, why keep them there? There is no guarantee of playing time, so is your child better off keeping the label of the “top team” and riding the bench, or are they better playing with a lower team, likely as a starter but certainly with more time, where they can develop their skills? I’d prefer the latter. No kid enjoys riding the bench.

OP here. Totally agree with this, but the coaches on the lower teams are not as good and playing with better players is important to improvement as well. It's not like the higher level teams have kids that are all-stars, for pete's sake! They lose every game as well. And if they weren't trying to bait and switch, wouldn't the better approach be starting them on the lower team and moving them up mid-year vs. moving them down? It just seems disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s a bait and switch, but then you need to think about development. If the coach doesn’t think your kid can cut it, why keep them there? There is no guarantee of playing time, so is your child better off keeping the label of the “top team” and riding the bench, or are they better playing with a lower team, likely as a starter but certainly with more time, where they can develop their skills? I’d prefer the latter. No kid enjoys riding the bench.

When the drop off between A and B is large, the kid is probably better off developing on the A team bench. You don't get better if you're practicing and playing with players significantly below you. The advantage to clubs like Bethesda, McLean and Arlington is that there are so many teams that your kid can find their level. At clubs with two teams, kids may be both not good enough for the A team and way better than the B team. If I was OP, I'd get my money back and try to have my kid practice with another club.

But you are assuming the next team down is significantly below the top team. Maybe, in which case your kid may be just much better (but then, theoretically, there wouldn’t be the performance issue causing them to get moved down). But if your kid cannot keep up it may be they were placed on the wrong team, in which case they really WONT develop with those kids. It’s really hard to judge a player based on a few tryouts, and sometimes new talent comes in and switches things up too. I certainly think you could make the case to going to another club and getting released, but to demand and underperformer on the top team because that was their offer doesn’t hurt the club—they just won’t play them—but it will hurt your kid. Parents need to be realistic about their kids’ performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s a bait and switch, but then you need to think about development. If the coach doesn’t think your kid can cut it, why keep them there? There is no guarantee of playing time, so is your child better off keeping the label of the “top team” and riding the bench, or are they better playing with a lower team, likely as a starter but certainly with more time, where they can develop their skills? I’d prefer the latter. No kid enjoys riding the bench.

When the drop off between A and B is large, the kid is probably better off developing on the A team bench. You don't get better if you're practicing and playing with players significantly below you. The advantage to clubs like Bethesda, McLean and Arlington is that there are so many teams that your kid can find their level. At clubs with two teams, kids may be both not good enough for the A team and way better than the B team. If I was OP, I'd get my money back and try to have my kid practice with another club.

But you are assuming the next team down is significantly below the top team. Maybe, in which case your kid may be just much better (but then, theoretically, there wouldn’t be the performance issue causing them to get moved down). But if your kid cannot keep up it may be they were placed on the wrong team, in which case they really WONT develop with those kids. It’s really hard to judge a player based on a few tryouts, and sometimes new talent comes in and switches things up too. I certainly think you could make the case to going to another club and getting released, but to demand and underperformer on the top team because that was their offer doesn’t hurt the club—they just won’t play them—but it will hurt your kid. Parents need to be realistic about their kids’ performance.

I've been in this situation before and the drop off was enormous. The top team was usually in a top bracket at big tournaments and did well. The second team might as well have been rec. The top team wasn't a great fit, but neither was the bottom team. We decided to leave and DD ended up on the third team at a bigger club that season that was a much better fit. The next year, she was on the second team which was a great fit.

[Anonymous]

The rift between Vienna Phoenix and the B team is pretty wide!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why VYS would promote a few players from the B team who were one of the weakest to the A team? Not only are they struggling with team A, but several players on the B team are easily much better than more than half of team A. Do they cave into nagging parents even though the players don't belong? Do they reward "loyalty" by staying with the club over actual soccer skills and abilities with new incoming players? I understand balancing the A and B teams but it is ridiculous watching players fumble around on the ball that certainly don't belong.

You are complaining because they promoted some kids but then also complaining that they aren't promoting kids. Clearly you haven't asked for or know of the coaches reasoning.
Maybe for the B kids who really are great this affords them to play more. And let's be honest, the competition level of the teams they are playing against are good enough--nobody on the B team you mention is always the best player on the field in those B team games against other teams.

If they promoted your kid, they'd be caving to parents who "nag" on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why VYS would promote a few players from the B team who were one of the weakest to the A team? Not only are they struggling with team A, but several players on the B team are easily much better than more than half of team A. Do they cave into nagging parents even though the players don't belong? Do they reward "loyalty" by staying with the club over actual soccer skills and abilities with new incoming players? I understand balancing the A and B teams but it is ridiculous watching players fumble around on the ball that certainly don't belong.

You are complaining because they promoted some kids but then also complaining that they aren't promoting kids. Clearly you haven't asked for or know of the coaches reasoning.
Maybe for the B kids who really are great this affords them to play more. And let's be honest, the competition level of the teams they are playing against are good enough--nobody on the B team you mention is always the best player on the field in those B team games against other teams.

If they promoted your kid, they'd be caving to parents who "nag" on DCUM.

Hey Coach!

[Anonymous]

You are complaining because they promoted some kids but then also complaining that they aren't promoting kids. Clearly you haven't asked for or know of the coaches reasoning.
Maybe for the B kids who really are great this affords them to play more. And let's be honest, the competition level of the teams they are playing against are good enough--nobody on the B team you mention is always the best player on the field in those B team games against other teams.

If they promoted your kid, they'd be caving to parents who "nag" on DCUM.


Welcome to the party amigo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are complaining because they promoted some kids but then also complaining that they aren't promoting kids. Clearly you haven't asked for or know of the coaches reasoning.
Maybe for the B kids who really are great this affords them to play more. And let's be honest, the competition level of the teams they are playing against are good enough--nobody on the B team you mention is always the best player on the field in those B team games against other teams.

If they promoted your kid, they'd be caving to parents who "nag" on DCUM.

Welcome to the party amigo.

Lol. Best response that encapsulates what youth soccer is. Every family wants a club/team that is exactly right for their kid. Everyone else be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s a bait and switch, but then you need to think about development. If the coach doesn’t think your kid can cut it, why keep them there? There is no guarantee of playing time, so is your child better off keeping the label of the “top team” and riding the bench, or are they better playing with a lower team, likely as a starter but certainly with more time, where they can develop their skills? I’d prefer the latter. No kid enjoys riding the bench.

I have to agree with this. My ds is on a great team in a very large club and and outside players were brought in who were many levels below rest of the team. They were not dropped and it significantly impacted the entire team in many ways. I could also say it limited their development in ways. This is not a good situation in most cases and dropping the player to a better fit team benefits everyone of the gap is large. If player doesn't agree with decision, since you had a contract you can request refund and player card for beach of contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are complaining because they promoted some kids but then also complaining that they aren't promoting kids. Clearly you haven't asked for or know of the coaches reasoning.
Maybe for the B kids who really are great this affords them to play more. And let's be honest, the competition level of the teams they are playing against are good enough--nobody on the B team you mention is always the best player on the field in those B team games against other teams.

If they promoted your kid, they'd be caving to parents who "nag" on DCUM.

Welcome to the party amigo.

OP here. This makes sense. However do all travel teams do this after they have slotted a kid on a team or is it just unique to VYS?

[Anonymous]

Our VYS kid has been in the opposite situation. Offered a lower team, worked super hard over the summer, had an amazing tournament at OBGC and the coaches saw the growth. I don’t think DC deserved the top team when the teams were formed but did when the season started.

No clue if you have a true bait and switch vs my kid’s fact pattern but it isn’t always nefarious. With puberty, brain development, etc - sometimes kids are just different after a summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How typical is this? Tryouts, kid gets accepted to a "higher level color team" we pay the travel fee. They say they will continue to assess team placement, solidifying at the end of August. Get our "higher level" team placement end of August, practice commences. 2 weeks later, kid is bumped down to the next level down team. This seems to be happening to a bunch of kids. Is this typical? I feel like it's a bait and switch- get 'em in the club by promising them higher level play, having them forego perhaps other travel team offers and then, JUST KIDDING, you are dropped down. There have been maybe 5 games played in total, and a handful of practices. Whatever happened to making a commitment to coach the players who have committed to you and giving them a runway to improve and for the team to mesh? I get VYS has to try raise their profile by winning, but I was under the impression they were a little more concerned with player development. This is our first year, maybe this is typical at other clubs as well?

OP, you sound like you are new to travel. Relax, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Your child’s team placement at U9 or Y10 is not going to determine anything. It doesn’t really matter how many games they win at that age, either. The only thing that matters is whether your child develops, and whether they have fun.

I have had kids on literally every color team at VYS (including Gold), on both the boys’ and girls’ sides. I’ve had kids get moved down multiple times. I’ve had a daughter moved down at exactly this time of year. I’ve had a sub on gold, and a starter on Phoenix. At the younger ages, it doesn’t matter, except maybe once Phoenix / Eagles start practicing a third day per week.

At 7v7, the kids’ talent is so inconsistent, it is extremely hard to get team placement right. The absolute last thing you want is your kid playing on a team they aren’t ready for. Their teammates and opponents will likely be larger, faster, more aggressive, or more skilled. Your kid will be afraid to make a mistake, will be rushed every time they receive the ball, etc. Playing time can be affected.

Lots of people say “Your kid needs to practice against players better than them to improve”. The reality is, there’s probably a reason why those other players are better, and it is up to your child to commit to improving first, whether speed, stamina, touch, aggressiveness, etc.

I’ve seen dozens of kids get moved down, and have never, not once, seen a child moved down where it wasn’t clearly obvious to everyone they should be playing on the lower team, and I’m including my own kid in that. It can be a part of the journey, and many players wind up improving, getting moved back up, and being better off for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vienna has a long history of not developing players. You would expect that to change with the number of paid staff rather than the old parent coach/trainer model, but the leadership and coaches have been poor, especially for the younger girls.

They talk great a great game and make lots of promises, but there is very little actual development and once you are in they tend to treat you poorly. Communication is awful. There is a reason they have such consistently high attrition compared to other local clubs.

None of this is even close to true. Maybe 5+ years ago, but the coaching is excellent on the uLittle girls’ side, and the teams are very competitive. Vincent and Regi are great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vienna has a long history of not developing players. You would expect that to change with the number of paid staff rather than the old parent coach/trainer model, but the leadership and coaches have been poor, especially for the younger girls.

They talk great a great game and make lots of promises, but there is very little actual development and once you are in they tend to treat you poorly. Communication is awful. There is a reason they have such consistently high attrition compared to other local clubs.

None of this is even close to true. Maybe 5+ years ago, but the coaching is excellent on the uLittle girls’ side, and the teams are very competitive. Vincent and Regi are great.

I didn’t want to bring names into it, but you identified the problem. If they were great they wouldn’t hemorrhage players each year when players get sick of getting moved every two weeks with no explanation or realize that they aren’t progressing while kids at the surrounding clubs are learning and growing (2014s only have 2 teams now - they drove off an entire team’s worth of kids in 1 year). R seems like a nice guy. V is a heck of a talker. I wouldn’t let either of them work with my kids.