Reducing the academic load to play elite soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the thing I don't get is doing this for soccer. Great, so they get an MLS job for a few years. Then what?

It could make sense for basketball or football, for rare athletes.

Investment banking, dentistry, and consulting to name a few: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2018/03/03/they-were-top-mls-draft-picks-but-when-their-soccer-dreams-changed-they-walked-away/

I think you underestimate how attractive a pro sports career looks on a resume (at least a career in a sport that doesn't typically lead to traumatic brain injuries). A lot of former pros go into finance, marketing, or commercial real estate, but the short answer is that taking a few years off the traditional career path treadmill to play sports is as likely to be a career booster as not, regardless of which direction you want to go in.

Pro sports career? Who is saying that. Op is talking about lowered level academics to accommodate YOUTH sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the thing I don't get is doing this for soccer. Great, so they get an MLS job for a few years. Then what?

It could make sense for basketball or football, for rare athletes.

Investment banking, dentistry, and consulting to name a few: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2018/03/03/they-were-top-mls-draft-picks-but-when-their-soccer-dreams-changed-they-walked-away/

I think you underestimate how attractive a pro sports career looks on a resume (at least a career in a sport that doesn't typically lead to traumatic brain injuries). A lot of former pros go into finance, marketing, or commercial real estate, but the short answer is that taking a few years off the traditional career path treadmill to play sports is as likely to be a career booster as not, regardless of which direction you want to go in.

Pro sports career? Who is saying that. Op is talking about lowered level academics to accommodate YOUTH sports.

OP is talking about U17 year olds playing DA soccer who (presumably) hope to go pro or who plan to play D1 as a fallback. A parent with a kid in this situation should be thinking what happens down the line if they do achieve their soccer dreams, which for most kids will mean a few years in USL or MLS at best (assuming we are talking about boys).

Going back to OPs question, it is indeed common for U17 and U19 starters to dial back on academics at least somewhat, but the degree to which it happens depends on where the kids are and what their goals are. Players at those ages at DAs affiliated with an MLS club commonly either attend the club's residential academy and get schooling there (Philadelphia Union has a boarding academy, for example) or they take online classes. This gives them the opportunity to practice with the first (pro) team. You can't really do that otherwise, because the pro teams typically practice during normal school hours.

Kids who are more focused on D1 sports and/or highly academic schools and are confident they will be recruited often take a lighter course load than their peers who are trying to get into the schools on academic merit alone. Typically the coaches at the target college will tell recruits what they need to do in terms of number of APs, GPA, and test scores in order to have a realistic shot of making it through admissions. Every school is different, but for my recruited kid, he was told that a total number of 6 APs was fine so long as he took at least three during junior year. My non-athlete and most of his friends took 10-12.

[Anonymous]

^^^ who told your kid they needed 6 AP classes if he was being recruited. Once mine was recruited we did none.

[Anonymous]

I did not realize this was about boys. Maybe a boy could have a pro soccer career but the chances are basically zero and less then that for girls. But suit yourselves. If my kid even gets a gnat of a thought of pulling back on academics to play more soccer I will shut that down so fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that children will always have an optimistic view of their own talents. It is up to parents to decide how to focus the children on the right path. Parents have an obligation to really stop and consider how much talent their child really has and help guide their child to the right priorities.

Here are some numbers:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf

In general, with only a few exceptions, well under 10% of high school athletes will compete at the NCAA level. And of those, only about 1/3 of those will compete at the Div-I, Div-II and Div-III levels. And of those, only about 1-2% will go to compete at the professional level. In soccer, the numbers are about 6% of high school participants will play NCAA and about 1.4% of those will play professional. So that means out of 440K high school soccer players, less than 400 will play professionally.

So, do you want to prioritize the sport or academics? Yes, it is important to have balance, but moving from a higher rated school to a lower rated school just to play athletics to get into a collegiate athletic program is not wise. Instead, why not stay in the higher rated school and play a lower level/tier of athletics. Your child will still get their balance from sport/academics and will have a better foundation for college.

And if you want to know why this is significant, go look at the thread about the shortage of "economically attractive" men. Ex-college sports stars who are making less money because they focused on athletics instead of academics are a dime a dozen and are less attractive for marriage, so if having that job, family and stability is important, then they may want to reassess their priorities.

My nephew did make the one decision that made sense. He was a cross-country runner. He went to a good high school and still competed. He did go to a school on a track scholarship, but he deliberately chose a school with a good engineering program and a lesser NCAA division track team so that he could focus on academics at the collegiate level. He found the pressure to compete less intense so that he could still compete, but the sports program did place an emphasis on maintaining the academics and made allowances for athletes around their academic requirements, which was exactly what he wanted.

This is exactly the opposite of true.

The large majority of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were college athletes.

College athletes get access to internships that are not available to other students.

NCAA athletes GPAs are higher than the rest of the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize this was about boys. Maybe a boy could have a pro soccer career but the chances are basically zero and less then that for girls. But suit yourselves. If my kid even gets a gnat of a thought of pulling back on academics to play more soccer I will shut that down so fast.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize this was about boys. Maybe a boy could have a pro soccer career but the chances are basically zero and less then that for girls. But suit yourselves. If my kid even gets a gnat of a thought of pulling back on academics to play more soccer I will shut that down so fast.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I get it. This nonsense goes on for girls as well. Go back to whatever con game you came from and leaves these players alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that children will always have an optimistic view of their own talents. It is up to parents to decide how to focus the children on the right path. Parents have an obligation to really stop and consider how much talent their child really has and help guide their child to the right priorities.

Here are some numbers:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf

In general, with only a few exceptions, well under 10% of high school athletes will compete at the NCAA level. And of those, only about 1/3 of those will compete at the Div-I, Div-II and Div-III levels. And of those, only about 1-2% will go to compete at the professional level. In soccer, the numbers are about 6% of high school participants will play NCAA and about 1.4% of those will play professional. So that means out of 440K high school soccer players, less than 400 will play professionally.

So, do you want to prioritize the sport or academics? Yes, it is important to have balance, but moving from a higher rated school to a lower rated school just to play athletics to get into a collegiate athletic program is not wise. Instead, why not stay in the higher rated school and play a lower level/tier of athletics. Your child will still get their balance from sport/academics and will have a better foundation for college.

And if you want to know why this is significant, go look at the thread about the shortage of "economically attractive" men. Ex-college sports stars who are making less money because they focused on athletics instead of academics are a dime a dozen and are less attractive for marriage, so if having that job, family and stability is important, then they may want to reassess their priorities.

My nephew did make the one decision that made sense. He was a cross-country runner. He went to a good high school and still competed. He did go to a school on a track scholarship, but he deliberately chose a school with a good engineering program and a lesser NCAA division track team so that he could focus on academics at the collegiate level. He found the pressure to compete less intense so that he could still compete, but the sports program did place an emphasis on maintaining the academics and made allowances for athletes around their academic requirements, which was exactly what he wanted.

This is exactly the opposite of true.

The large majority of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were college athletes.

College athletes get access to internships that are not available to other students.

NCAA athletes GPAs are higher than the rest of the population.

Ok sure. Cut back on academics and head for that CEO fortune 500 spot.

Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ who told your kid they needed 6 AP classes if he was being recruited. Once mine was recruited we did none.

Yeah, he didn't have that option at this particular school. He'd already taken 1 when he decided this was the school for him, and the coach recommended 3 his junior year and said the admissions committee didn't like to see kids slack off their senior year. Other schools he considered didn't care about APs or rigor at all, since he had a good GPA and decent test scores. It all depends on the school and the relationship the coach has with the admissions office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that children will always have an optimistic view of their own talents. It is up to parents to decide how to focus the children on the right path. Parents have an obligation to really stop and consider how much talent their child really has and help guide their child to the right priorities.

Here are some numbers:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf

In general, with only a few exceptions, well under 10% of high school athletes will compete at the NCAA level. And of those, only about 1/3 of those will compete at the Div-I, Div-II and Div-III levels. And of those, only about 1-2% will go to compete at the professional level. In soccer, the numbers are about 6% of high school participants will play NCAA and about 1.4% of those will play professional. So that means out of 440K high school soccer players, less than 400 will play professionally.

So, do you want to prioritize the sport or academics? Yes, it is important to have balance, but moving from a higher rated school to a lower rated school just to play athletics to get into a collegiate athletic program is not wise. Instead, why not stay in the higher rated school and play a lower level/tier of athletics. Your child will still get their balance from sport/academics and will have a better foundation for college.

And if you want to know why this is significant, go look at the thread about the shortage of "economically attractive" men. Ex-college sports stars who are making less money because they focused on athletics instead of academics are a dime a dozen and are less attractive for marriage, so if having that job, family and stability is important, then they may want to reassess their priorities.

My nephew did make the one decision that made sense. He was a cross-country runner. He went to a good high school and still competed. He did go to a school on a track scholarship, but he deliberately chose a school with a good engineering program and a lesser NCAA division track team so that he could focus on academics at the collegiate level. He found the pressure to compete less intense so that he could still compete, but the sports program did place an emphasis on maintaining the academics and made allowances for athletes around their academic requirements, which was exactly what he wanted.

This is exactly the opposite of true.

The large majority of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were college athletes.

College athletes get access to internships that are not available to other students.

NCAA athletes GPAs are higher than the rest of the population.

Internships were mentioned. Did you mean Scholorships? What internships are available for college athletes , not being a jerk , just curious ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not realize this was about boys. Maybe a boy could have a pro soccer career but the chances are basically zero and less then that for girls. But suit yourselves. If my kid even gets a gnat of a thought of pulling back on academics to play more soccer I will shut that down so fast.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I get it. This nonsense goes on for girls as well. Go back to whatever con game you came from and leaves these players alone.

No. You don't get it. I know girls at Stanford, UCLA, Yale... playing sports and they would have NEVER had the opportunity without their sport. So no, mom of little girl, you don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that children will always have an optimistic view of their own talents. It is up to parents to decide how to focus the children on the right path. Parents have an obligation to really stop and consider how much talent their child really has and help guide their child to the right priorities.

Here are some numbers:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-college-athletics
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf

In general, with only a few exceptions, well under 10% of high school athletes will compete at the NCAA level. And of those, only about 1/3 of those will compete at the Div-I, Div-II and Div-III levels. And of those, only about 1-2% will go to compete at the professional level. In soccer, the numbers are about 6% of high school participants will play NCAA and about 1.4% of those will play professional. So that means out of 440K high school soccer players, less than 400 will play professionally.

So, do you want to prioritize the sport or academics? Yes, it is important to have balance, but moving from a higher rated school to a lower rated school just to play athletics to get into a collegiate athletic program is not wise. Instead, why not stay in the higher rated school and play a lower level/tier of athletics. Your child will still get their balance from sport/academics and will have a better foundation for college.

And if you want to know why this is significant, go look at the thread about the shortage of "economically attractive" men. Ex-college sports stars who are making less money because they focused on athletics instead of academics are a dime a dozen and are less attractive for marriage, so if having that job, family and stability is important, then they may want to reassess their priorities.

My nephew did make the one decision that made sense. He was a cross-country runner. He went to a good high school and still competed. He did go to a school on a track scholarship, but he deliberately chose a school with a good engineering program and a lesser NCAA division track team so that he could focus on academics at the collegiate level. He found the pressure to compete less intense so that he could still compete, but the sports program did place an emphasis on maintaining the academics and made allowances for athletes around their academic requirements, which was exactly what he wanted.

This is exactly the opposite of true.

The large majority of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were college athletes.

College athletes get access to internships that are not available to other students.

NCAA athletes GPAs are higher than the rest of the population.

Internships were mentioned. Did you mean Scholorships? What internships are available for college athletes , not being a jerk , just curious ?

It depends on the sport and the school.

School 1: Every junior gives a request to the AD of 3 cities they would like to intern and their field of study. They are given 2 choices, the internships are alumni who played the sport for that school.

School 2: Every student is given a mentor who was an athlete in that sport at their school who works in their area of study. They meet 3 times a year to discuss goals. After sophomore year they get an internship that is worked out with the mentor and his contacts. After that summer, if you don't like that area of study you may change mentors or stay with the same mentor and get a different internship after junior year. The mentor follows students for 2 years post graduate to make sure they are on track.

Every school we toured talked about internships, if you go on a visit ask about their internships. I only have 2 kids playing college sports so that is all I know specifically.

[Anonymous]

Majority of CEOs. Well....

There are claims that "95% of CEOs played sports" but the only 'source' for that is not that credible. Quite a few did, but a majority of CEOs? Hmmm....

There was a HBR study of female C-Level executives in business around the world. 52% of them played college or university sport. But again, this is a) only females, b) C-Level, and c) not Fortune 500 only.

Not arguing the with the central point--sports does help build skills that are essential in business such as leadership and teamwork, but the stat "majority" seems a bit of a stretch.

But if anyone has a reliable link (i.e. not the "95%" clickbait story but an actual line by line list) I'd like to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Majority of CEOs. Well....

There are claims that "95% of CEOs played sports" but the only 'source' for that is not that credible. Quite a few did, but a majority of CEOs? Hmmm....

There was a HBR study of female C-Level executives in business around the world. 52% of them played college or university sport. But again, this is a) only females, b) C-Level, and c) not Fortune 500 only.

Not arguing the with the central point--sports does help build skills that are essential in business such as leadership and teamwork, but the stat "majority" seems a bit of a stretch.

But if anyone has a reliable link (i.e. not the "95%" clickbait story but an actual line by line list) I'd like to see it.

There is an enormous difference between "played sports" and "deliberately downgraded education to get a small chance at playing sports."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Majority of CEOs. Well....

There are claims that "95% of CEOs played sports" but the only 'source' for that is not that credible. Quite a few did, but a majority of CEOs? Hmmm....

There was a HBR study of female C-Level executives in business around the world. 52% of them played college or university sport. But again, this is a) only females, b) C-Level, and c) not Fortune 500 only.

Not arguing the with the central point--sports does help build skills that are essential in business such as leadership and teamwork, but the stat "majority" seems a bit of a stretch.

But if anyone has a reliable link (i.e. not the "95%" clickbait story but an actual line by line list) I'd like to see it.

There is an enormous difference between "played sports" and "deliberately downgraded education to get a small chance at playing sports."

Nobody is suggesting that somebody with a slim chance of playing a sport in college shoudl downgrade their educations.

What is being said is that once somebody know their kids is a top player in the nations, they take less AP classes because they are unnecessary.