Travel is overated
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You can easily do that by playing for a team in a local league. NCSL/EDP/SAM Select and this new Chesapeake league are happy to have you. |
Anonymous
True re: ECNL RL for Virginia teams. Look at the Maryland teams. Regular trips to PA, NJ, DE, etc. That type of travel is ridiculous and not necessary given the hundreds of talented kids playing in this area at any age level. For the few kids who are truly elite (like, a small handful in the entire DMV), then sure, let them travel to get that level of competition. But the vast, vast majority of kids don't need to go that far. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We don’t play travel hoping to play in college. We play for the organized practices 3-4 days a week for 10 months a year. The friendships, the tournament fun, and hopefully the professional coaching vs a parent. The many (so many more than rec) games and scrimmages they always look forward to year round. Personally I don’t understand the 8 week rec soccer idea with a random parent coach and teammates. If you get lucky with a coach or team that’s great. But still it’s only for a few weeks a year. [/quote]
Those are fair points to bring up. Still unnecessarily expensive. We’re from England, where kids start “travel style” programs recreationally at a young age for literally a few dollars equivalent a month. anyone could play them. Looking at the players England and other countries produce then compare them to the USMNT..something’s unfortunately broken here. Definitely think it’s not beneficial having a random parent coach. They just pick their kid and their friends to play and put their least productive players in goal or on the bench. [/quote] I think in a lot of countries local governments and even local soccer clubs subsidize these teams. That’s not true in the USA. England is way better than the USA at soccer, sure, but remember here it’s viewed as just one of like a dozen or two sports a kid might play and not like the main sport for serious athletes. |
Anonymous
| Travel sports is not overrated. The parents just make the experience sour. |
Anonymous
Looking at for example Loudoun SC, VRSC, NVA, and LFC from Leesburg alone. Please explain what justifies your 5k fees when LFC can (and does) beat the other 3 and they’re paying about 800 or 900. This bubble will explode and a lot of face masks will drop hard. |
Anonymous
| Sorry, never heard of LFC |
Anonymous
| Do they keep score when VRSC plays? I’m used to my kids playing the team that is one year older than they are and winning 7-0. |
Anonymous
VRSC only posts their wins. That’s how insecure they are. It doesn’t help either that dmv knows they’re full of shyt. |
Anonymous
|
Always people like you OP who expect Travel to offer a college or pro career. You think it's why 10k kids in NOVA play travel really?
Travel v rec for structured competition, discipline, friendship and teamwork. That's what you should expect from travel in the context of having fun playing soccer weekly. Nothing more nothing less. There's something wrong with you or your kid if they did not get into D1 just cause you signed them up to play travel! It's pretty obviously at U14 or so if your kid would have a shot at college soccer. |
Anonymous
|
Using soccer as an avenue to get acceptance into a college (especially with scholarship assistance) you desire academically makes sense
Just playing low level college soccer anywhere can't be the end goal Speaking of which, there isn't a lot of soccer scholarship money floating around either. Spending tens of thousands and putting in many hours and travel miles weekly and yearly for a HS age kid who has no shot of playing college soccer is crazy work |
Anonymous
Leesburg FC. They're a club that doesn't chase a league and doesn't travel all over the US to play matches. |
Anonymous
Better coaches than NVA and VRSC |
Anonymous
Most "travel" in D.C.-area soccer means "drive an hour," not "fly to Connecticut." |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We don’t play travel hoping to play in college. We play for the organized practices 3-4 days a week for 10 months a year. The friendships, the tournament fun, and hopefully the professional coaching vs a parent. The many (so many more than rec) games and scrimmages they always look forward to year round. Personally I don’t understand the 8 week rec soccer idea with a random parent coach and teammates. If you get lucky with a coach or team that’s great. But still it’s only for a few weeks a year. [/quote]
Those are fair points to bring up. Still unnecessarily expensive. [b]We’re from England, where kids start “travel style” programs recreationally at a young age for literally a few dollars equivalent a month. anyone could play them.[/b] Looking at the players England and other countries produce then compare them to the USMNT..something’s unfortunately broken here. Definitely think it’s not beneficial having a random parent coach. They just pick their kid and their friends to play and put their least productive players in goal or on the bench. [/quote] These programs are run by massive, rich soccer clubs (or in some cases, by smaller, but still minor-league-baseball-level rich, lower-division clubs). It's a very easy investment for them, because it takes care of player recruiting and training and also builds on existing fan loyalties. The same thing in most other countries where soccer is the main professional sport -- academies run by professional clubs instead of small local travel clubs here. I agree that model is better, but I don't think most Major League Soccer teams have the same level of resources (and that's leaving girls' soccer out entirely). |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We don’t play travel hoping to play in college. We play for the organized practices 3-4 days a week for 10 months a year. The friendships, the tournament fun, and hopefully the professional coaching vs a parent. The many (so many more than rec) games and scrimmages they always look forward to year round. Personally I don’t understand the 8 week rec soccer idea with a random parent coach and teammates. If you get lucky with a coach or team that’s great. But still it’s only for a few weeks a year. [/quote]
Those are fair points to bring up. Still unnecessarily expensive. [b]We’re from England, where kids start “travel style” programs recreationally at a young age for literally a few dollars equivalent a month. anyone could play them.[/b] Looking at the players England and other countries produce then compare them to the USMNT..something’s unfortunately broken here. Definitely think it’s not beneficial having a random parent coach. They just pick their kid and their friends to play and put their least productive players in goal or on the bench. [/quote] These programs are run by massive, rich soccer clubs (or in some cases, by smaller, but still minor-league-baseball-level rich, lower-division clubs). It's a very easy investment for them, because it takes care of player recruiting and training and also builds on existing fan loyalties. The same thing in most other countries where soccer is the main professional sport -- academies run by professional clubs instead of small local travel clubs here. I agree that model is better, but I don't think most Major League Soccer teams have the same level of resources (and that's leaving girls' soccer out entirely). [/quote] We're never going to be Europe with their Academy structure, soccer just isn't as important to casual fans. Teams in the Club World Cup are already complaining about the attendance in some of the stadiums, if we truly were a soccer nation the stadiums would be packed but they're not, we need to quit comparing ourselves to other countries. Arsenal vs LAFC had 22k in a stadium that holds 71k, meanwhile the Chicago Bears average 58k (NFL worst) in a 66k capacity stadium |