Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most clubs overstack rosters because they can and it generates more revenue. Another $2-3k per kid. Who cares if they don't get the game development minutes, right? Players need game time. If your kid isn't getting it, you need to move.

and if A team bench kids are coming down to get playing time, it's very clear how the club views their B team players. I'd leave and drop to a club where DC can play for their A team (I know people have arguments on both sides, but to me it comes down to clubs usually care more about their A teams)

[Anonymous]

Agree with the PPs. There is no reason to use A team players on B teams unless the B team is short players. No A team player should be taking playing time away from B team players and if they are, that is a red flag. If you kid is not playing at least half the game, I'd look for another club.

[Anonymous]

Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most clubs overstack rosters because they can and it generates more revenue. Another $2-3k per kid. Who cares if they don't get the game development minutes, right? Players need game time. If your kid isn't getting it, you need to move.

and if A team bench kids are coming down to get playing time, it's very clear how the club views their B team players. I'd leave and drop to a club where DC can play for their A team (I know people have arguments on both sides, but to me it comes down to clubs usually care more about their A teams)

We made this move for our sons. It was the best. They weren't treated like 2nd class anymore. Even if a Club/parents/other players, don't explicitly come out and say things to these young kids...it's blatantly obvious.

A lot of this is not a case of ---just work harder. They can visibly be better than many players on the upper team and still not be moved. However, an outside player of their ability will have no problem.

My kids were able to play and compete in higher brackets in tournaments. Play in more competitive tournaments and better league and league division. Better than B team at other Club. They also have far more opportunities than the B and below team kids.

But, it's about them. If they are happy where they are leave them. I can't imagine any kid not getting much game time is happy riding the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

I think some clubs are reluctant to move kids down because they risk losing them. I feel badly for the goalie on the A team because kids will start blaming them for losses if the B team keeper is better. Of course the B team keeper may not stick around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

And you have parents that determine their own self-worth by their kid's placement. That fuels the *ss-kissing and politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PPs. There is no reason to use A team players on B teams unless the B team is short players. No A team player should be taking playing time away from B team players and if they are, that is a red flag. If you kid is not playing at least half the game, I'd look for another club.

The Clubs we have been at have only used C team or below players for B teams. B team players for A team, etc. It has always been a reward and developmental chance for kids on lower teams. Never has a kid from a higher team played down in tournaments or games. Clubs that do that are usually looking for a 'ringer' to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

fluid doesn't work if you have multiple clubs who aren't fluid also making offers. If DD goes to tryouts and on club gives DD an A team offer for the year and another club gives DD a fluid offer, which club do you think DD would choose? Most people don't care about development in a national sense, most clubs will never have national team players- they care about winning at the age group that is most important to them and developing with that in mind, which makes perfect sense for them and their players. If DD is 13 and really good, but not national team good, why should she care that one method of development will yield a better national U17 team vs. a club that will do well in a top youth league and compete in the tournaments she wants to play in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

fluid doesn't work if you have multiple clubs who aren't fluid also making offers. If DD goes to tryouts and on club gives DD an A team offer for the year and another club gives DD a fluid offer, which club do you think DD would choose? Most people don't care about development in a national sense, most clubs will never have national team players- they care about winning at the age group that is most important to them and developing with that in mind, which makes perfect sense for them and their players. If DD is 13 and really good, but not national team good, why should she care that one method of development will yield a better national U17 team vs. a club that will do well in a top youth league and compete in the tournaments she wants to play in?

The national team is for 0.0001% of all US youth soccer players.

0.07% of high school seniors who play soccer (not just HS soccer) will eventually be drafted by a MLS team.

Out of the 473,130 males playing high school-age soccer: only 7% play soccer in college and only 0.8% will play Division 1. If you want to talk about scholarship $, that's even more depressing.

But, by all means invest every cent you have ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

fluid doesn't work if you have multiple clubs who aren't fluid also making offers. If DD goes to tryouts and on club gives DD an A team offer for the year and another club gives DD a fluid offer, which club do you think DD would choose? Most people don't care about development in a national sense, most clubs will never have national team players- they care about winning at the age group that is most important to them and developing with that in mind, which makes perfect sense for them and their players. If DD is 13 and really good, but not national team good, why should she care that one method of development will yield a better national U17 team vs. a club that will do well in a top youth league and compete in the tournaments she wants to play in?

The national team is for 0.0001% of all US youth soccer players.

0.07% of high school seniors who play soccer (not just HS soccer) will eventually be drafted by a MLS team.

Out of the 473,130 males playing high school-age soccer: only 7% play soccer in college and only 0.8% will play Division 1. If you want to talk about scholarship $, that's even more depressing.

But, by all means invest every cent you have ....

Do the Math! NCAA Division I men’s Soccer teams have an average roster size of 29 players but only a maximum of 9.9 athletic scholarships to award per team. This means the average award covers only about 1/3 of a typical athlete’s annual college costs – and this assumes the sport is fully funded at the sponsoring school.

* Average Athletic Scholarship is the average annual award per athlete for ALL varsity sports sponsored by the specific school. Some athletes receive full awards, some receive partial and many receive none. Additionally some sports within a school may be fully funded, some partially and some sports provide no athletic scholarships. Private schools generally have higher tuition than public schools and the average award will reflect this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the PPs. There is no reason to use A team players on B teams unless the B team is short players. No A team player should be taking playing time away from B team players and if they are, that is a red flag. If you kid is not playing at least half the game, I'd look for another club.

The Clubs we have been at have only used C team or below players for B teams. B team players for A team, etc. It has always been a reward and developmental chance for kids on lower teams. Never has a kid from a higher team played down in tournaments or games. Clubs that do that are usually looking for a 'ringer' to win.

Wow. Can you name the club? Pretty much every club we have played in has done exactly the opposite . . . and then bragged on social media when the C team won a tournament using A team players. Isn't that how is supposed to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

fluid doesn't work if you have multiple clubs who aren't fluid also making offers. If DD goes to tryouts and on club gives DD an A team offer for the year and another club gives DD a fluid offer, which club do you think DD would choose? Most people don't care about development in a national sense, most clubs will never have national team players- they care about winning at the age group that is most important to them and developing with that in mind, which makes perfect sense for them and their players. If DD is 13 and really good, but not national team good, why should she care that one method of development will yield a better national U17 team vs. a club that will do well in a top youth league and compete in the tournaments she wants to play in?

The national team is for 0.0001% of all US youth soccer players.

0.07% of high school seniors who play soccer (not just HS soccer) will eventually be drafted by a MLS team.

Out of the 473,130 males playing high school-age soccer: only 7% play soccer in college and only 0.8% will play Division 1. If you want to talk about scholarship $, that's even more depressing.

But, by all means invest every cent you have ....

pp, this is why no one cares or should care which method of development is better for US soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our team which is the A team has been together for the better art of 5 years minus a player or two each year. The lower team has more roster movement year to year. They have a much better goalie than we have but our goalie has been with us for the entire time. Its awkward because the players talk about it. Not sure how to interact with the parents about it. Is it a bid deal moving down to the B team if you have been on A from the start?

It's easier for any kid to move up vs move down. I think Clubs that keep the same team year after year after year often do a disservice to the players. It often is not about being the best anymore and many become complacent. They get too comfortable.

A more fluid mixing and having to earn your spot every season is so much better for development and it is less stigmatized. It becomes about the work and time point in physical development. Unfortunately, we have these set yearly rosters when 12 months is really a lifetime in a kid's development. Development does not follow a straight upward trajectory within a group of 100 kids. US Youth soccer does not recognize this. You have good kids dropping out of the sport because their improvement and results are not rewarded and they get frustrated and you have kids that get embarrassed by being demoted and drop out.

It's a broken system fueled by $.

fluid doesn't work if you have multiple clubs who aren't fluid also making offers. If DD goes to tryouts and on club gives DD an A team offer for the year and another club gives DD a fluid offer, which club do you think DD would choose? Most people don't care about development in a national sense, most clubs will never have national team players- they care about winning at the age group that is most important to them and developing with that in mind, which makes perfect sense for them and their players. If DD is 13 and really good, but not national team good, why should she care that one method of development will yield a better national U17 team vs. a club that will do well in a top youth league and compete in the tournaments she wants to play in?

The national team is for 0.0001% of all US youth soccer players.

0.07% of high school seniors who play soccer (not just HS soccer) will eventually be drafted by a MLS team.

Out of the 473,130 males playing high school-age soccer: only 7% play soccer in college and only 0.8% will play Division 1. If you want to talk about scholarship $, that's even more depressing.

But, by all means invest every cent you have ....

Interesting that more boys play D1 overall than play in college overall. lol

[Anonymous]

The club we play for sends 2 1st team kids who get very little playing time with their team down to start with the 2nd team any time the schedule permits.