Does a market exist for a "travel-lite" club? (I'll describe my idea in this post)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about the professional coaches + less than $1k.

In Md, SAM Select and MSI Classic seem to be sort of the model you are looking for… more competitive than rec and the players are more dedicated, but the games are close by and it’s less pressure. We have experience with both.

Two practices a week, one game per week in moco, and a couple of tournaments each season. Many kids play other sports or have other big interests and this allows them to play competitively, train consistently, and still have a life. Both kids a practice or a fame here and there and it’s 100% NBD.

Volunteer coach team is about $1k a year plus kit. Paid coach and bigger club is more like $2k per year.

Classic or SAM Select with a volunteer coach should not cost anywhere close to 1k unless the team is hiring a coach or trainer part time or paying to rent space over the winter, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about the professional coaches + less than $1k.

In Md, SAM Select and MSI Classic seem to be sort of the model you are looking for… more competitive than rec and the players are more dedicated, but the games are close by and it’s less pressure. We have experience with both.

Two practices a week, one game per week in moco, and a couple of tournaments each season. Many kids play other sports or have other big interests and this allows them to play competitively, train consistently, and still have a life. Both kids a practice or a fame here and there and it’s 100% NBD.

Volunteer coach team is about $1k a year plus kit. Paid coach and bigger club is more like $2k per year.

Classic or SAM Select with a volunteer coach should not cost anywhere close to 1k unless the team is hiring a coach or trainer part time or paying to rent space over the winter, for example.

Since when are volunteers paid? Ncsl is $1500 per high school team. A 15 person team roster is $100 per person. Add in a basic uniform and field rentals, you are barely approaching $500 a player.

[Anonymous]

SCAA is a step up from REC. You get the 'travel' title, play NCSL and have very mediocre coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vienna used to have "academy-style" programs for U9 and U10 (and maybe older?) in which parents were the official coaches of each team, but each age group's four teams trained together twice a week with the professional staff. Two teams played NCSL; two played ODSL.

Funny thing -- going without a "professional" coach at a lot of games didn't stop the kids from becoming All-District and even All-Met high school players. The best ones typically moved on (aside from some girls players on their best teams a couple of years ago) to DA or ECNL or whichever alphabet seemed more appealing than NCSL, but they didn't suffer from having their peak development years take place with (gasp!) parents.

The parents generally had the same licenses, anyway. The only difference was that the "pros" were younger and had often played at a decent level more recently. But they were less adept than the parents at wrangling 9-year-olds, which is a primary skill of U9 and U10 coaching that they don't teach in the grassroots or D-license courses.

That is an interesting model.

In general...do volunteer rec (parent) coaches get a training curriculum or guidance? [/quote

The expectation as I understood it in Vienna 10-12 years ago was that rec coaches were expected to get a USSF license. In those days, the F and probably the E. Today, that would be a couple of grassroots modules.

But I know not all the coaches did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over the years, I've seen many kids with good soccer skills drop out of travel soccer because they lack time, or because the parents lack the financial resources. Rec soccer remains an option for these kids, but some of them don't pursue rec soccer because they don't find it challenging. So, soccer stops being a part of their lives.

This leads me to my idea for a new soccer "product". Actually, I think Arlington's ADP program already captures this idea, but it has a max age of 11, so that leaves the kids who are 12+ out in the cold. Here is the idea:

1. Aim for a price of $1000 per year
2. One two-hour practice per week, coached by a pro
3. One scrimmage per week. To save money, there is no coach (just a parent or team manager to supervise).
4. Competes in a lower level of the NCSL (but some teams might be able to aim higher)

Does a market exist for this "product"?

Perhaps this isn't possible in dense, urban suburbs like Arlington due to constraints on field space, but further out it seems like it might be feasible.

Trying to wrap my head around #2 and #3 . So you want a pro to coach the team but not a coach, whose asking price is probably less than a coach? Also, NCSL has requirements for their member clubs which I believe includes that their coaches are licensed.

It sounds like you want rec but are just worried about the stigma associated with it. I get it. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vienna used to have "academy-style" programs for U9 and U10 (and maybe older?) in which parents were the official coaches of each team, but each age group's four teams trained together twice a week with the professional staff. Two teams played NCSL; two played ODSL.

Funny thing -- going without a "professional" coach at a lot of games didn't stop the kids from becoming All-District and even All-Met high school players. The best ones typically moved on (aside from some girls players on their best teams a couple of years ago) to DA or ECNL or whichever alphabet seemed more appealing than NCSL, but they didn't suffer from having their peak development years take place with (gasp!) parents.

The parents generally had the same licenses, anyway. The only difference was that the "pros" were younger and had often played at a decent level more recently. But they were less adept than the parents at wrangling 9-year-olds, which is a primary skill of U9 and U10 coaching that they don't teach in the grassroots or D-license courses.

That is an interesting model.

In general...do volunteer rec (parent) coaches get a training curriculum or guidance?

Many do- also the leagues will also subsidize/ reimburse for the cost of the US Soccer Grassroots license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the same challenge that has been mentioned on this board before

You want
1. Competitive/more serious kids on your team
2. Professional Coach
3. Not travel far away for games
4. Play against other reasonably competitive kids
5. Want it cheaper than travel
6. A yearlong commitment but also not so committed that you can't play other sports
7. Practice once or twice a week
8. Focus on development
9. Practice location needs to be reasonable commute/decent fields

Am I missing anything?

This sounds a lot like Arlington's ADP program.

[Anonymous]

I think we need to stop making rec sound inferior and start supporting it more as a good thing. All rec leagues are not the same. My kid has done 3 seasons at OBGC now with a great coach and has made good friends. The coach has made some of the girls good enough for travel. The majority don’t want the full year commitment though and the 2-3x a week practice because it limits other activities. So they stay with OBGC and get better together for much less cost.
We need to improve the rec experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same challenge that has been mentioned on this board before

You want
1. Competitive/more serious kids on your team
2. Professional Coach
3. Not travel far away for games
4. Play against other reasonably competitive kids
5. Want it cheaper than travel
6. A yearlong commitment but also not so committed that you can't play other sports
7. Practice once or twice a week
8. Focus on development
9. Practice location needs to be reasonable commute/decent fields

Am I missing anything?

This sounds a lot like Arlington's ADP program.

I just looked up ADP. Sounds good. Now I just need someone to do that in Loudoun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to stop making rec sound inferior and start supporting it more as a good thing. All rec leagues are not the same. My kid has done 3 seasons at OBGC now with a great coach and has made good friends. The coach has made some of the girls good enough for travel. The majority don’t want the full year commitment though and the 2-3x a week practice because it limits other activities. So they stay with OBGC and get better together for much less cost.
We need to improve the rec experience.

I've coached rec for 6 years. Yes, it is possible help some kids improve. But many kids are either hopelessly unathletic, or they don't even want to play soccer -- they are doing so because their parents require them to play a team sport. You can put years and years of effort into coaching this type of kid, and produce little or no forward progression.

My rec team is the strongest in the league. We have won the division 3 seasons in a row. Yet even when I place my strongest line-up on the field, about 50% of the players lack basic skills. Connecting passes is difficult under these conditions.

I think the only way to boost rec soccer would be to eliminate the travel clubs, thus forcing all types of players into a single, universal league. This would elevate the average skill-level on each rec team and partially mask the negative effects of those kids that have no desire or capacity to learn the game. However, this radical structural change isn't going to happen, and it wouldn't be fair to those kids seeking a high level of competition.

[Anonymous]

I think what your plan is missing is multiple practices per week. That is what my child wanted that caused her to move to travel from rec. She wanted 2-3 practices per week and travel offered that. ADP also has 2 practices per week, one parent led and one pro coach led. And then the parent coach does the weekly games.

[Anonymous]

In the dense areas like Arlington, there really are a lot of options for people who have money. You have access to highest levels (MLS-Next and ECNL), strong teams in big clubs, small clubs that specialize in development PLUS loads of travel-lite experiences. ADP is a good model but honestly the lowest teams in MYS and Arlington are travel lite in everything except cost. Meaning, you have fewer practices than high level teams, you can miss training without consequence, people have multiple sports and commitments.

But it comes down to the costs. There are SO many costs associated with playing soccer. The biggest is the professional coaching but in my opinion, you'll never improve if you skimp here. Besides coaching, there are field fees, league fees, tournament fees, uniforms, and so on. It adds up very quickly.

I have seen the breakdown and it is impossible to get it down to $1000 if you have professional coaches. And without professional coaches, I don't think anything above rec is worth paying for.

[Anonymous]

Yes I wish ADP continued past age 11/12. It was the perfect fit for our multi-sport daughter who wanted to play at a higher-level than rec but didn't want the full travel commitment. I assume it cuts off due to field space?

[Anonymous]

Agree. My son just finished his first year of ADP. I wish it went past age 11. He does multiple sports and will probably not move on to travel by choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what your plan is missing is multiple practices per week. That is what my child wanted that caused her to move to travel from rec. She wanted 2-3 practices per week and travel offered that. ADP also has 2 practices per week, one parent led and one pro coach led. And then the parent coach does the weekly games.

The ADP program is being updated for the upcoming year and changes will be implemented, including that both the pool and team practices will be overseen by pro coaches. And a pro coach will be present at every game, supporting the parent coach.

Info here: https://arlingtonsoccer.com/programs/adp