Valor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

Its a business. Everything they do is for the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

Its a business. Everything they do is for the money.

I guess it seems fair like any other business, but the product they are providing is the service or coaching, I'm guessing much like a restaurant.

You go in, order and eat, but the service is terrible...In that fashion, how do they keep their customers paying year after year?
Wouldn't they want to improve on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

Narrator's voice: Their kids were never playing at a higher level than rec. They just paid extra money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

How is being on the lowest level performing team playing at a higher level? Serious question. I'm not seeing the connection.
Why wouldn't the recreational option be fun too without the insurmountable variance in cost?

There's somewhat of a difference between some generally good "fun" vs $3000+ commitment for upper-level training.

Seems like a misuse of funds that could have been prioritized elsewhere. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

Narrator's voice: Their kids were never playing at a higher level than rec. They just paid extra money.

Agree. I don't think it's fair to say other parents are delusion.

Reading through the thread, seems like other parents were able to transition to other clubs, join higher level teams and divisions. Assuming, the club or someone got it wrong when placing these kids.

[Anonymous]

[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

Narrator's voice: Their kids were never playing at a higher level than rec. They just paid extra money.

Rec is for the poors. And they are always asking for volunteers. I am willing to pay and extra $3000 for Larlo to play with a better class of bad players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

How is being on the lowest level performing team playing at a higher level? Serious question. I'm not seeing the connection.
Why wouldn't the recreational option be fun too without the insurmountable variance in cost?

There's somewhat of a difference between some generally good "fun" vs $3000+ commitment for upper-level training.

Seems like a misuse of funds that could have been prioritized elsewhere. Just saying.

Omg top team parents are insufferable.

Your kid isnt as good as mine, therefore they should just do rec and I should judge how you should spend your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me about the youth 2015 or 2016 Boys? Experience you had, good things or bad things? I guess eight and nine years old?

It depends on the team level and coach.
Which teams?

I guess I'm not sure. Shouldn't it be the same coaching, but maybe more better players. Are the fees different?

Newbie here.

Coaches are still people. And no two people are the same.

Do they use a standard training regiment? I guess it doesn't matter who is delivering it if it's the same training in my mind?

LOL!

Ok...I might be naive. Help me here people. What am I missing.

lower teams are revenue to club. The clubs dont get enough good coaches. So best coaches usually get the top teams. You are then left with newer inexperienced coaches who coach the lower teams. Add the fact that typically there is also a dropoff in talent and commitment by the lower players.

Revenue?? So they just do it for the money knowing the coaching will ultimately be bad and the team might not be that good?? I’m struggling to see any benefit here.

correct. Little benefit other than hoping your kid eventually make top team. Or the 2nd team assigns a experienced coach. Never pick a 3rd team lower. Your kid will not develop and club doesnt care

.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but looking at their website it seems there are 4 to 5 teams in some of these other age groups.

There must be a lot of enthusiastic or optimistic parents waiting for an opportunity to move up I'm guessing. I wonder what the reality of those opportunities are and how that actually gets vetted. Just curious.

My question for 3rd, 4th, 5th team parents: What has made you stay?

The team has made us stay. The players and parents are a big factor for families/players staying on lower teams. Not everyone is delusional and thinking our kid's going to play in college or become a professional player. Some people just want their kids to have fun and play at a higher level than rec while also having no desire for their kid to be a top team player. My kid didn't have the skills or personality to play on a top teams and I don't think is a bad thing.

How is being on the lowest level performing team playing at a higher level? Serious question. I'm not seeing the connection.
Why wouldn't the recreational option be fun too without the insurmountable variance in cost?

There's somewhat of a difference between some generally good "fun" vs $3000+ commitment for upper-level training.

Seems like a misuse of funds that could have been prioritized elsewhere. Just saying.

No it isn't the same. Look, I get a lot of you don't understand that there is a whole group of players and they families who aren't insanely competitive. YOU ALL might not think there is a difference between a lower team and rec, but there most definitely is. When you are investing more than a few $100 a season the kids actually show up for practice, games, and tournaments. No, the kids are not going to go pro skill level wise, but they aren't horribly untalented, know their positions, and are learning soccer.

Some of you are extremely cruel and unhinged. You spend thousands of dollars on outside trainings on top of your thousands of dollars in travel fees. I don't judge you for your spending habits on your kids that are making them happy so don't bother yourself with my spending on a lower division travel team my kid loves.

[Anonymous]

How is being on the lowest level performing team playing at a higher level? Serious question. I'm not seeing the connection.
Why wouldn't the recreational option be fun too without the insurmountable variance in cost?

There's somewhat of a difference between some generally good "fun" vs $3000+ commitment for upper-level training.

Seems like a misuse of funds that could have been prioritized elsewhere. Just saying.

Playing on the lowest level team of club vs rec is a big difference as players are more committed to practices and games in club usually than they are in rec. Depending on team of course in club or rec.

[Anonymous]

How is being on the lowest level performing team playing at a higher level? Serious question. I'm not seeing the connection.
Why wouldn't the recreational option be fun too without the insurmountable variance in cost?

There's somewhat of a difference between some generally good "fun" vs $3000+ commitment for upper-level training.

Seems like a misuse of funds that could have been prioritized elsewhere. Just saying.

Playing on the lowest level team of club vs rec is a big difference as players are more committed to practices and games in club usually than they are in rec. Depending on team of course in club or rec.

[Anonymous]

Playing on the lowest level team of club vs rec is a big difference as players are more committed to practices and games in club usually than they are in rec. Depending on team of course in club or rec.

[Anonymous]

For many families here $3k just isn't a lot of money. I've got a daughter on a lower tier team - and it's the appropriate team for her skill level. She's been on the same team 2 years now, and some of the girls were on her rec team before that. They are all friends, facetime each other, and enjoy doing team activities together like the travel tournaments, Washington Spirit games, team parties, etc.
With rec you get a new team every year, at least a couple kids who don't really want to be there and are truly awful. The coach has to play them and it just isn't fun. I'd rather play $3k for my daughter to have fun with sports and get exercise while making friends than spend all my time taking her to rec practice and games that she doesn't even like.
Maybe your kid will play in college. Mine won't. I'd prefer it that way anyway. She's a smart kid - she'll still get in somewhere good and I can afford to pay for it.