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

[Anonymous]

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.

Who is putting elementary schoolers on a plane twice a year to play soccer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a big gap in activity level between Rec (a couple practices a week, small number of games, no tournaments) and Travel (3 practices a week, more games, tournaments). My kids (and I) want an activity that will take up more of their time than what Rec offers, so Travel is the best option for us even though we have no intentions of playing in college or "elite" levels. The decision to play travel has nothing to do with how far they plan to go in the sport, and everything to do with how often the activity occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a big gap in activity level between Rec (a couple practices a week, small number of games, no tournaments) and Travel (3 practices a week, more games, tournaments). My kids (and I) want an activity that will take up more of their time than what Rec offers, so Travel is the best option for us even though we have no intentions of playing in college or "elite" levels. The decision to play travel has nothing to do with how far they plan to go in the sport, and everything to do with how often the activity occurs.

Plus, good coaches are rarely found in rec.

[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.

Who is putting elementary schoolers on a plane twice a year to play soccer?

Pp here. Our 2011s just came back from Dallas. Of course last March and last fall’s events were canceled. Our 2010s went to Denver in June.

[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.

Who is putting elementary schoolers on a plane twice a year to play soccer?

The same folks that are flying to the Caribbean, Europe or Hawaii twice a year. Those with lots of money or those with lots of debt.

[Anonymous]

Rec was too basic. Half the kids were barely trying, coaches were absent, practice never happened. My kid wanted “more” but we didn’t want to “travel”. But what can you do? Rec used to be more competitive/fun, but it is dying off as more and more people peel off for travel. There needs to be an in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a big gap in activity level between Rec (a couple practices a week, small number of games, no tournaments) and Travel (3 practices a week, more games, tournaments). My kids (and I) want an activity that will take up more of their time than what Rec offers, so Travel is the best option for us even though we have no intentions of playing in college or "elite" levels. The decision to play travel has nothing to do with how far they plan to go in the sport, and everything to do with how often the activity occurs.

Pretty much this. My kid wanted more soccer than rec offers, so we were lucky enough to find a “travel” team with minimal travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a big gap in activity level between Rec (a couple practices a week, small number of games, no tournaments) and Travel (3 practices a week, more games, tournaments). My kids (and I) want an activity that will take up more of their time than what Rec offers, so Travel is the best option for us even though we have no intentions of playing in college or "elite" levels. The decision to play travel has nothing to do with how far they plan to go in the sport, and everything to do with how often the activity occurs.

Pretty much this. My kid wanted more soccer than rec offers, so we were lucky enough to find a “travel” team with minimal travel.

Yep. This is common. By HS, I know kids that have turned down the MLS/ECNL teams and asked to remain on the next one down because of the time commitment and wanting to commit to academics and other HS sports...not to mention a social life too.

The weighing of soccer scholarship reality for boys and which schools those would likely be, starts to make the trade off for fun and competitive but not extreme more salable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rec was too basic. Half the kids were barely trying, coaches were absent, practice never happened. My kid wanted “more” but we didn’t want to “travel”. But what can you do? Rec used to be more competitive/fun, but it is dying off as more and more people peel off for travel. There needs to be an in between.

Play up a year or two in rec.

[Anonymous]

Of course people pay for mediocre teams. This is not new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is putting elementary schoolers on a plane twice a year to play soccer?

Pp here. Our 2011s just came back from Dallas. Of course last March and last fall’s events were canceled. Our 2010s went to Denver in June.

Bethesda loves that cash!

[Anonymous]

Join a smaller club. Juventus, Fusion, etc

[Anonymous]

People seem to be answering the wrong question. It wasn't about travel being too costly, but that it has been watered down as a product.

I had a kid on my rec team who wanted to sign up for travel, but the parent missed the deadlines. I let them know how they could get onto the team anyways. I knew this because my son had been given an offer to tryout late, despite my never inquiring about travel. When they heard about this, they decided it wasn't worth the money to play for something that wouldn't be that challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People seem to be answering the wrong question. It wasn't about travel being too costly, but that it has been watered down as a product.

I had a kid on my rec team who wanted to sign up for travel, but the parent missed the deadlines. I let them know how they could get onto the team anyways. I knew this because my son had been given an offer to tryout late, despite my never inquiring about travel. When they heard about this, they decided it wasn't worth the money to play for something that wouldn't be that challenging.

Yeah there is definitely overlap between lower level travel soccer and SFL. But I think you are missing what they are getting from the product. Their kid gets physical exercise outdoors for 2 or 3 practices per week and a game. He socializes with some peers. All in all, it is not the worst expenditure of money. I have one of my kids that is not into sports in swimming classes during the year and our pool's swim team in the summer. The kid's never going to be a competitive swimmer but that's not the point. I think these low level and mid level travel soccer parents are largely realistic about what they are getting. You will find the delusional parents on the high end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People seem to be answering the wrong question. It wasn't about travel being too costly, but that it has been watered down as a product.

I had a kid on my rec team who wanted to sign up for travel, but the parent missed the deadlines. I let them know how they could get onto the team anyways. I knew this because my son had been given an offer to tryout late, despite my never inquiring about travel. When they heard about this, they decided it wasn't worth the money to play for something that wouldn't be that challenging.

Having more teams at lower tiered travel doesn't water down the top teams at the big clubs.