Travel teams now 4-5 teams deep? Is this for real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay to play.

Capitalism! If it's not worth it to you, don't do it. The market sets the price.

...so sick of all of the 'money grab' commenters.

If it was straight capitalism, I’d agree with you.

I know a couple of coaches who’ve looked into starting clubs - and one who did - as well as another guy who runs a (disintegrating) one. The way that many localities dole out public field space makes it very difficult to get a new club off the ground. The club needs to be a non-profit, which limits the profit motive...If you do go the for-profit route (Barca, St. James), non-profit clubs may block you from joining their leagues. If you were to try to start a club tomorrow, in many jurisdictions (such as Fairfax and PW), a new applicant has a 6 month waiting period before being eligible to receive field space. Many places a club also needs at least 5 teams and to have a rec program, in order to get space. Hard to have 5 teams signed up when your only near-term option may be renting private space, which is limited and expensive. The reality is, trying to start up a viable competitor in a lot of places is extremely difficult (Arlington, Alexandria, Loudoun) and why those local ‘flagship’ clubs have run virtually unchecked since the 70s.

I played in this area in the 80s, and the top clubs were BRYC, FPYC, Bethesda, SAC, McLean, Annandale and LMVSC. And there were about one-tenth the number of teams in any age group. Barely heard a thing about Alexandria or Arlington. Things change.

Arlington and Alexandria were established in 1970; When I played (90s), they both were solid, but my main point is that they both now have the field space in their county/city locked down. I’ve never heard of any other club from either of those places in the last 30 years and doubt anyone could successfully start up an in-County competitor. Loudoun Soccer is in a similar position and all of their in-county ‘competitors’ (FCV, Barca, VRSC, Leesburg) have to resort to paying to use the same private soccer park (Evergreen).

I know when they were founded. But they were not significant for a long time. Arlington has grown astronomically over the past 25 years, and the club has benefited and made a lot of moves that cemented growth and leadership in the area. Alexandria was not doing anything a decade ago but embarked upon a very aggressive expansion that obviously hit LMVSC hard. So the narrative you are developing is simply not complete, and is in someways misleading. They weren’t dominant 40 years ago and they are not large clubs today simply because they were a long time ago. But the field space point today is undoubtedly a barrier to expansion for some clubs. No question about it.

[Anonymous]

I'm in California, where there have been several teams per level in the big clubs since I was a kid, so this isn't new. Rec soccer here generally means AYSO, and it is patchy. Clubs vary; some are more expensive than others (which does not correspond specifically to quality; cost is more based on the club location). Having been through this journey, I wouldn't put a kid who really wants to play seriously in rec. You can find clubs with reasonable fees here, who keep costs down (for instance, foregoing the Capelli uniform nonsense).

My DC is a junior and D1 is a realistic possibility. But DC was only ever on the third and fourth teams as a younger kid. I was glad of it, too. The lower level teams in the big clubs have parents that are less crazy, so the kids weren't yelled at as much by unbalanced parents. It also meant that we didn't fly places (of course in California you can get very high levels of competition without having to go very far, because it is such a popular sport here).

I also liked the coaching at the lower levels. The lower level coaches are often younger, meaning they get into the games with the kids, and have played competitively themselves more recently. They are also often more ambitious. Sure, they don't have their A level coaching licenses yet, but they are often headed that way, and they start at the lower levels because the top positions are held by coaches who have been at the club for years (but aren't necessarily better). My DC's U7-U8 coach (fourth level team) is now coaching MLS Next, for instance.

The only real issue with playing in the lower level teams that I see is that clubs are not great at developing talent to the next level, because people don't like having their kids moved down a level, so there isn't a lot of upward movement. Therefore when your kid is ready for the next level, you are typically better off switching clubs. We did this every time our kid decided (not us) that DC wanted a more competitive level of play. By the time DC gets to college, DC will have played for several different organizations, essentially switching clubs every two years. The movement made DC a better, more flexible player, but for people who want one steady club, but with an ambitious player, I think it would be harder. It wasn't always upward moves as well; at U13 DC dropped a top-level team and went to a lower level team that was a year older (different club) because we all thought the top-level coach wasn't very good. DC got better coaching playing up a year, but at a lower level. We focused on coaches more than anything.

I don't get how rigid people are in this forum. Maybe DC soccer has fewer options, I don't know. But I see plenty of kids who were playing lower level at U11 who are now on their way to D1 soccer, and also plenty of kids who were stars at U10 but who have dropped out entirely by junior year. It just isn't as formulaic as people make it out to be here.

[Anonymous]

Stop comparing to how things were in the 80s, 90s, even 2000s. Of course there are more teams because there are a lot more people living in this area. Especially in the outer suburbs like Loudoun, Columbia, even Fairfax population has more than doubled since the 80s. More people, more wealth, more leagues and more teams. Not to mention the demographics of the area has changed along with the growth. More Latin American immigrants with more interest in soccer. Go find a part of the country which hasn’t grown in the last 40 years and I’ll bet they still have the same number of teams and life is just as it was in the good old days. Anywhere else change is a constant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay to play.

Capitalism! If it's not worth it to you, don't do it. The market sets the price.

...so sick of all of the 'money grab' commenters.

If it was straight capitalism, I’d agree with you.

I know a couple of coaches who’ve looked into starting clubs - and one who did - as well as another guy who runs a (disintegrating) one. The way that many localities dole out public field space makes it very difficult to get a new club off the ground. The club needs to be a non-profit, which limits the profit motive...If you do go the for-profit route (Barca, St. James), non-profit clubs may block you from joining their leagues. If you were to try to start a club tomorrow, in many jurisdictions (such as Fairfax and PW), a new applicant has a 6 month waiting period before being eligible to receive field space. Many places a club also needs at least 5 teams and to have a rec program, in order to get space. Hard to have 5 teams signed up when your only near-term option may be renting private space, which is limited and expensive. The reality is, trying to start up a viable competitor in a lot of places is extremely difficult (Arlington, Alexandria, Loudoun) and why those local ‘flagship’ clubs have run virtually unchecked since the 70s.

I played in this area in the 80s, and the top clubs were BRYC, FPYC, Bethesda, SAC, McLean, Annandale and LMVSC. And there were about one-tenth the number of teams in any age group. Barely heard a thing about Alexandria or Arlington. Things change.

Well girls SYC was very strong in the 80s. Team was VA State champs 4 years running and undefeated in WAGS almost every season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in California, where there have been several teams per level in the big clubs since I was a kid, so this isn't new. Rec soccer here generally means AYSO, and it is patchy. Clubs vary; some are more expensive than others (which does not correspond specifically to quality; cost is more based on the club location). Having been through this journey, I wouldn't put a kid who really wants to play seriously in rec. You can find clubs with reasonable fees here, who keep costs down (for instance, foregoing the Capelli uniform nonsense).

My DC is a junior and D1 is a realistic possibility. But DC was only ever on the third and fourth teams as a younger kid. I was glad of it, too. The lower level teams in the big clubs have parents that are less crazy, so the kids weren't yelled at as much by unbalanced parents. It also meant that we didn't fly places (of course in California you can get very high levels of competition without having to go very far, because it is such a popular sport here).

I also liked the coaching at the lower levels. The lower level coaches are often younger, meaning they get into the games with the kids, and have played competitively themselves more recently. They are also often more ambitious. Sure, they don't have their A level coaching licenses yet, but they are often headed that way, and they start at the lower levels because the top positions are held by coaches who have been at the club for years (but aren't necessarily better). My DC's U7-U8 coach (fourth level team) is now coaching MLS Next, for instance.

The only real issue with playing in the lower level teams that I see is that clubs are not great at developing talent to the next level, because people don't like having their kids moved down a level, so there isn't a lot of upward movement. Therefore when your kid is ready for the next level, you are typically better off switching clubs. We did this every time our kid decided (not us) that DC wanted a more competitive level of play. By the time DC gets to college, DC will have played for several different organizations, essentially switching clubs every two years. The movement made DC a better, more flexible player, but for people who want one steady club, but with an ambitious player, I think it would be harder. It wasn't always upward moves as well; at U13 DC dropped a top-level team and went to a lower level team that was a year older (different club) because we all thought the top-level coach wasn't very good. DC got better coaching playing up a year, but at a lower level. We focused on coaches more than anything.

I don't get how rigid people are in this forum. Maybe DC soccer has fewer options, I don't know. But I see plenty of kids who were playing lower level at U11 who are now on their way to D1 soccer, and also plenty of kids who were stars at U10 but who have dropped out entirely by junior year. It just isn't as formulaic as people make it out to be here.

I know so many kids on bottom/lower teams U13 and below that were on the very highest level teams by U16.

The best coaches we had coached the lower teams. They had more playing experience, a few ex-pros but day jobs where it wasn’t a full-time gig.

[Anonymous]

A lot of kids develop & grow at different physical and mental rate. Everyone focuses on physical and technical growth but mental growth is also key, especially in girls. Some girls have a lot aggressiveness while others didn’t develop aggressive until at a latter stage. My DD went from Rec, to Select and then to travel soccer. With Rec & Select soccer is that a lot of kids were purely playing for fun and not focused on developing & learning and the coaches were mostly parent coaches that lacked soccer knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in California, where there have been several teams per level in the big clubs since I was a kid, so this isn't new. Rec soccer here generally means AYSO, and it is patchy. Clubs vary; some are more expensive than others (which does not correspond specifically to quality; cost is more based on the club location). Having been through this journey, I wouldn't put a kid who really wants to play seriously in rec. You can find clubs with reasonable fees here, who keep costs down (for instance, foregoing the Capelli uniform nonsense).

My DC is a junior and D1 is a realistic possibility. But DC was only ever on the third and fourth teams as a younger kid. I was glad of it, too. The lower level teams in the big clubs have parents that are less crazy, so the kids weren't yelled at as much by unbalanced parents. It also meant that we didn't fly places (of course in California you can get very high levels of competition without having to go very far, because it is such a popular sport here).

I also liked the coaching at the lower levels. The lower level coaches are often younger, meaning they get into the games with the kids, and have played competitively themselves more recently. They are also often more ambitious. Sure, they don't have their A level coaching licenses yet, but they are often headed that way, and they start at the lower levels because the top positions are held by coaches who have been at the club for years (but aren't necessarily better). My DC's U7-U8 coach (fourth level team) is now coaching MLS Next, for instance.

The only real issue with playing in the lower level teams that I see is that clubs are not great at developing talent to the next level, because people don't like having their kids moved down a level, so there isn't a lot of upward movement. Therefore when your kid is ready for the next level, you are typically better off switching clubs. We did this every time our kid decided (not us) that DC wanted a more competitive level of play. By the time DC gets to college, DC will have played for several different organizations, essentially switching clubs every two years. The movement made DC a better, more flexible player, but for people who want one steady club, but with an ambitious player, I think it would be harder. It wasn't always upward moves as well; at U13 DC dropped a top-level team and went to a lower level team that was a year older (different club) because we all thought the top-level coach wasn't very good. DC got better coaching playing up a year, but at a lower level. We focused on coaches more than anything.

I don't get how rigid people are in this forum. Maybe DC soccer has fewer options, I don't know. But I see plenty of kids who were playing lower level at U11 who are now on their way to D1 soccer, and also plenty of kids who were stars at U10 but who have dropped out entirely by junior year. It just isn't as formulaic as people make it out to be here.

I know so many kids on bottom/lower teams U13 and below that were on the very highest level teams by U16.

The best coaches we had coached the lower teams. They had more playing experience, a few ex-pros but day jobs where it wasn’t a full-time gig.

Is that because of improvement or because of numbers of players dropping off every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a scam? Because you don’t see the value? There’s lots of kids who really love to play soccer, and are pretty good at it. Only a few players are goi to end up playing at the elite level and college. But between that and recreational soccer there’s a big range and travel teams and developmental teams fill the void. It costs money to reserve fields, pay coaches who are not volunteers, join an organized league, get uniforms, pay referees, etc. it’s a machine and it’s not free to run it. My kid loves soccer and is quite good at it but not elite level good. We don’t go crazy with private training and have no inclination they will play in college. But they are staying very active, have great friendships, have matured as humans and players, and gained skills to continue playing a game they love. We can afford it. What’s wrong with that? Don’t like it, don’t participate.

Is your kid going to just get a job straight out of HS if they don’t get into Princeton or Harvard?

I’m the scam caller. I don’t think the costs for coaching and fields etc is pointless AT ALL. I think it’s awesome that your child loves the game and puts so much time into it. In my opinion it’s the TRAVEL that’s the scam. How much do you pay for hotel rooms, gas, and food on the road? I get that it’s fun for the kids too, but why not make that one weekend a year instead of what feels like constantly? Why do you have to play travel teams in Delaware when there are plenty of elite level players in the DMV? The scam is the extra cost that has nothing to do with playing the actual game of soccer. That’s the part that doesn’t have value. But quality coaches etc, totally worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, totally agree! One of my kids is on the highest non-travel team (we only have one travel team at each age) and the club is considering going to two.

She’s going into 4th grade. There’s no chance I’d put her on a travel team and spend the money to send her to Dallas/Denver/LA/or North Carolina for a week twice a year.

The highest non-travel team? So, a rec team? How is there a highest rec team?

No. Our club has one Academy team at each age level, then Elite. Our Academy teams travel to National tournaments a few times a year. Our Elite teams are within the state and 2-3 regional tournaments. Our Elite teams are leveled.

They are considering expanding to two Academy teams so national tournaments if they qualify.

[Anonymous]

Why does this seem wrong to you? My now 14 year old started out on the 5th of Alexandria's soccer teams several years back, he is now on the second (which is the top non-MLS next team). Kids can work their way up if they put in effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it a scam? Because you don’t see the value? There’s lots of kids who really love to play soccer, and are pretty good at it. Only a few players are goi to end up playing at the elite level and college. But between that and recreational soccer there’s a big range and travel teams and developmental teams fill the void. It costs money to reserve fields, pay coaches who are not volunteers, join an organized league, get uniforms, pay referees, etc. it’s a machine and it’s not free to run it. My kid loves soccer and is quite good at it but not elite level good. We don’t go crazy with private training and have no inclination they will play in college. But they are staying very active, have great friendships, have matured as humans and players, and gained skills to continue playing a game they love. We can afford it. What’s wrong with that? Don’t like it, don’t participate.

Is your kid going to just get a job straight out of HS if they don’t get into Princeton or Harvard?

I’m the scam caller. I don’t think the costs for coaching and fields etc is pointless AT ALL. I think it’s awesome that your child loves the game and puts so much time into it. In my opinion it’s the TRAVEL that’s the scam. How much do you pay for hotel rooms, gas, and food on the road? I get that it’s fun for the kids too, but why not make that one weekend a year instead of what feels like constantly? Why do you have to play travel teams in Delaware when there are plenty of elite level players in the DMV? The scam is the extra cost that has nothing to do with playing the actual game of soccer. That’s the part that doesn’t have value. But quality coaches etc, totally worth it.

NP. I actually think the "travel" part of travel soccer is part of the experience. Team and family bonding. Some of the best conversations with my teens come from 1.5 car rides each way to a game. And the hotels a couple times a year are great fun adventures we still remember. Sure, we could have spent that money on a hotel stay outside of a soccer tournament, but if not for the tournaments we probably wouldn't have gone anywhere. Soccer provides a built in activity to do while we stay in the hotel and comes with built in travel companions. It's not a scam. We know exactly what's involved and choose still choose to do it. You may have different preferences and that's fine. You do you. But to call it a scam, which implies some kind of deception, is just not correct. We all know what we're signing up for.

[Anonymous]

Only the first and sometimes second teams do much travel. Because there’s such a deep bench of teams in this area we’ve only had to do day trips for most soccer games with occasional travel for tournaments. Those are fun weekends but definitely not every week. We’ve never had to fly for a tournament or game on a mid-level team at a larger club.

We used to live in a rural state where you had to travel hours just to have teams to play. It was more involved and the soccer wasn’t as high as we have here by any means but the only option above rec (which, due to the area population was basically just playing with friends on the school grass fields) was to get in the car and drive to a more competitive team to play.

[Anonymous]

The number of kids who have any real use for a travel program is pretty small. It's not going to be a big percentage of soccer players who end up starting on their high school teams, let alone go on to play college. Most of them can get competition at their level in rec teams locally. Good coaching is the scarcest resource, and that's what you should pay for if you're really serious about the sport. But there's a ton of value to just getting some exercise, working with a team, having some competition, getting some joy out of playing at something, and all of the generic benefits that come with sport.

But, parents want the best for their kids and are scared that their kids will miss out. So they are reluctant to just put their son or a daughter on a rec team and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in California, where there have been several teams per level in the big clubs since I was a kid, so this isn't new. Rec soccer here generally means AYSO, and it is patchy. Clubs vary; some are more expensive than others (which does not correspond specifically to quality; cost is more based on the club location). Having been through this journey, I wouldn't put a kid who really wants to play seriously in rec. You can find clubs with reasonable fees here, who keep costs down (for instance, foregoing the Capelli uniform nonsense).

My DC is a junior and D1 is a realistic possibility. But DC was only ever on the third and fourth teams as a younger kid. I was glad of it, too. The lower level teams in the big clubs have parents that are less crazy, so the kids weren't yelled at as much by unbalanced parents. It also meant that we didn't fly places (of course in California you can get very high levels of competition without having to go very far, because it is such a popular sport here).

I also liked the coaching at the lower levels. The lower level coaches are often younger, meaning they get into the games with the kids, and have played competitively themselves more recently. They are also often more ambitious. Sure, they don't have their A level coaching licenses yet, but they are often headed that way, and they start at the lower levels because the top positions are held by coaches who have been at the club for years (but aren't necessarily better). My DC's U7-U8 coach (fourth level team) is now coaching MLS Next, for instance.

The only real issue with playing in the lower level teams that I see is that clubs are not great at developing talent to the next level, because people don't like having their kids moved down a level, so there isn't a lot of upward movement. Therefore when your kid is ready for the next level, you are typically better off switching clubs. We did this every time our kid decided (not us) that DC wanted a more competitive level of play. By the time DC gets to college, DC will have played for several different organizations, essentially switching clubs every two years. The movement made DC a better, more flexible player, but for people who want one steady club, but with an ambitious player, I think it would be harder. It wasn't always upward moves as well; at U13 DC dropped a top-level team and went to a lower level team that was a year older (different club) because we all thought the top-level coach wasn't very good. DC got better coaching playing up a year, but at a lower level. We focused on coaches more than anything.

I don't get how rigid people are in this forum. Maybe DC soccer has fewer options, I don't know. But I see plenty of kids who were playing lower level at U11 who are now on their way to D1 soccer, and also plenty of kids who were stars at U10 but who have dropped out entirely by junior year. It just isn't as formulaic as people make it out to be here.

I know so many kids on bottom/lower teams U13 and below that were on the very highest level teams by U16.

The best coaches we had coached the lower teams. They had more playing experience, a few ex-pros but day jobs where it wasn’t a full-time gig.

Is that because of improvement or because of numbers of players dropping off every year.

I'm the original PP. It's improvement. What happens with the players dropping off is that the lower level teams often collapse in clubs. It means the competition to get on the top level teams is very stiff after U13 or so because those are the only ones that get seen by college coaches. Also, kids who aren't at that level will naturally drop off because they get a lot less playing time. Sometimes the lower level teams will start running multi-age teams, so competitive kids will play against older kids.

I've seen people in this forum get so worked up about their 8-year-old getting on the top team or whatever, but in my almost-at-college experience, the team levels at that age are almost irrelevant to outcome. The coaching, however, is extremely important, which is why I think rec is not a great idea for a serious player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in California, where there have been several teams per level in the big clubs since I was a kid, so this isn't new. Rec soccer here generally means AYSO, and it is patchy. Clubs vary; some are more expensive than others (which does not correspond specifically to quality; cost is more based on the club location). Having been through this journey, I wouldn't put a kid who really wants to play seriously in rec. You can find clubs with reasonable fees here, who keep costs down (for instance, foregoing the Capelli uniform nonsense).

My DC is a junior and D1 is a realistic possibility. But DC was only ever on the third and fourth teams as a younger kid. I was glad of it, too. The lower level teams in the big clubs have parents that are less crazy, so the kids weren't yelled at as much by unbalanced parents. It also meant that we didn't fly places (of course in California you can get very high levels of competition without having to go very far, because it is such a popular sport here).

I also liked the coaching at the lower levels. The lower level coaches are often younger, meaning they get into the games with the kids, and have played competitively themselves more recently. They are also often more ambitious. Sure, they don't have their A level coaching licenses yet, but they are often headed that way, and they start at the lower levels because the top positions are held by coaches who have been at the club for years (but aren't necessarily better). My DC's U7-U8 coach (fourth level team) is now coaching MLS Next, for instance.

The only real issue with playing in the lower level teams that I see is that clubs are not great at developing talent to the next level, because people don't like having their kids moved down a level, so there isn't a lot of upward movement. Therefore when your kid is ready for the next level, you are typically better off switching clubs. We did this every time our kid decided (not us) that DC wanted a more competitive level of play. By the time DC gets to college, DC will have played for several different organizations, essentially switching clubs every two years. The movement made DC a better, more flexible player, but for people who want one steady club, but with an ambitious player, I think it would be harder. It wasn't always upward moves as well; at U13 DC dropped a top-level team and went to a lower level team that was a year older (different club) because we all thought the top-level coach wasn't very good. DC got better coaching playing up a year, but at a lower level. We focused on coaches more than anything.

I don't get how rigid people are in this forum. Maybe DC soccer has fewer options, I don't know. But I see plenty of kids who were playing lower level at U11 who are now on their way to D1 soccer, and also plenty of kids who were stars at U10 but who have dropped out entirely by junior year. It just isn't as formulaic as people make it out to be here.

I know so many kids on bottom/lower teams U13 and below that were on the very highest level teams by U16.

The best coaches we had coached the lower teams. They had more playing experience, a few ex-pros but day jobs where it wasn’t a full-time gig.

Is that because of improvement or because of numbers of players dropping off every year.

I'm the original PP. It's improvement. What happens with the players dropping off is that the lower level teams often collapse in clubs. It means the competition to get on the top level teams is very stiff after U13 or so because those are the only ones that get seen by college coaches. Also, kids who aren't at that level will naturally drop off because they get a lot less playing time. Sometimes the lower level teams will start running multi-age teams, so competitive kids will play against older kids.

I've seen people in this forum get so worked up about their 8-year-old getting on the top team or whatever, but in my almost-at-college experience, the team levels at that age are almost irrelevant to outcome. The coaching, however, is extremely important, which is why I think rec is not a great idea for a serious player.

+1 Also, so many that started at the top and were the stars that became less effective from age 8 to 15 will leave the sport vs getting dropped down and playing for a lower team.