How often and bad is this obsession at clubs and teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this in another thread here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ...The Clubs that laud and fawn over certain kids only on their team are the worst. A Coach sets the tone on how a 'team' comes together.

moment everyone truly realizes obsession

Is that why they all leave?

No! Talented players leave because they need talented COACHES. Their youth team coach has no longer the knowledge. It could virtually appear that the youth coach is good just because a team win. . However college recruiters recruit individuals not teams. Oh parents be careful with those that label themselves as talent identification experts. Check their CVs and look what their real experience is. Most seem to be marketers pure propaganda.

We have moved after kids have stagnated. I feel it is necessary after a few years to move somewhere else to progress.

Maybe a separate thread, but curious if you've gotten backlash for being a "team hopper". Genuine question- we've switched a couple times already for similar reasons, but there seems to be increasing skepticism from DS teammates and parents.

if your kid can ball, they can ball.

Facts !!! Also most of the "superstar" players on most of the travel teams in the country are still "below average" players. #trophychildren

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the PP you just quoted. In my experience, there have been superstar kids who are just not held to the same standards. At U13, it becomes frustrating from an emotional and even egotistical standpoint. But after that, it becomes frustrating because you lose games you could have won if those kids had been held to the same standards. If they were pulled out of games when not performing, and those who worked hard on their own and everyone else recognized as now better had been given a chance to play. If the superstar kid had been taught to pass and create opportunities for teammates as they had been taught to do for him/her, instead of trying to force the ball because they are the goal scorer, not the supporting cast. It becomes frustrating for the kids who sit on the bench as backup to that superstar, watching him play like it is still 7 v 7 or 9 v 9, where "give it to Jimmy" is effective even in high level competition, instead of 11 v 11 where you need more than one goal scorer. My experience is obviously limited, but we had a much, much better time on a team where everyone is taught to be both the supporting cast and the superstar, and those roles become fluid to account for injuries, growth spurts, different teams with different formations, etc. The teams we knew who had a superstar faltered when either the superstar left or the supporting cast left.

Now, at U16 or U17, I can see where having that superstar and utilizing them based on that team, that year, can be a good strategy. But before that, I think it is a great way to hold a team and most of the kids on it back, serving the interests of the "superstar" at most (and sometimes, hurting that kid as well).

You can't always kids to the same standards 100% of the time, but they can be fair. And sometimes ugly losses are needed, but sometimes ugly wins are needed too.. both should be few and far between. Superstar status isn't always confined to the goal scorer, I've watched many teams continue to fail because of the superstar implodes in midfield. That's not leading a team from the coach or player, that's failing the team on both accounts if it keeps happening.

** team where everyone is taught to be both the supporting cast and the superstar, and those roles become fluid**

tha'ts a team my DCs would love to be a part of, and they've experienced it, shortlived , until the coaches f'd it up with their obsession with superstars.

One of my kids has it. It is such a fantastic environment. I wish all my kids could have the same. But the coach puts so much effort into it, and I do not think there are many willing to do everything he does to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I just really lucked out with my DDs clubs, but they've never had a team where someone rides the bench like that. I don't understand why a kid would want to come to a game and not play, or why a parent would wake up at the ass crack of dawn and drive for two hours to watch their kid not play and then drive another two hours to hear their kid complain about not paying, all while paying money for the privilege

It's not only clubs. We had a MS & HS soccer coach that had bench warmers every year. She was basketball and soccer. She would pick two girls a season and let them just sit, and she would tell all the other teammates they could sit in her office at lunch, but the two girls. This went on for years and years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I just really lucked out with my DDs clubs, but they've never had a team where someone rides the bench like that. I don't understand why a kid would want to come to a game and not play, or why a parent would wake up at the ass crack of dawn and drive for two hours to watch their kid not play and then drive another two hours to hear their kid complain about not paying, all while paying money for the privilege

It's not only clubs. We had a MS & HS soccer coach that had bench warmers every year. She was basketball and soccer. She would pick two girls a season and let them just sit, and she would tell all the other teammates they could sit in her office at lunch, but the two girls. This went on for years and years.

Big difference with travel soccer because you are paying to see your child not playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I just really lucked out with my DDs clubs, but they've never had a team where someone rides the bench like that. I don't understand why a kid would want to come to a game and not play, or why a parent would wake up at the ass crack of dawn and drive for two hours to watch their kid not play and then drive another two hours to hear their kid complain about not paying, all while paying money for the privilege

It's not only clubs. We had a MS & HS soccer coach that had bench warmers every year. She was basketball and soccer. She would pick two girls a season and let them just sit, and she would tell all the other teammates they could sit in her office at lunch, but the two girls. This went on for years and years.

Big difference with travel soccer because you are paying to see your child not playing.

take the hint your kid isn't good enough... if they were you wouldn't be here complaining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

I think we are interpreting a number of comments very differently. I do not expect equal playing time. Positive feedback is not even on my radar in terms of this conversation. My issue is when kids are being taught to always get the ball to Jimmy, they are not being encouraged to carry it when they can, to find open teammates with clear paths to the net. Instead, they are being encouraged to set up one favored teammate for achievement, at the detriment of the other teammates who are getting open, getting in perfect position, but will not get the ball touches, chances to take on a defender, or take a shot, simply because they are not "Jimmy." This may make sense at the professional level, but where you are paying for coaches to develop your kids, having them there simply to be the supporting cast to a kid deemed more important, who is not paying any more than you are, is every reason to leave the team. Even more so if your kid is Jimmy's back up, and does not even get to play unless Jimmy wants a water break. Little Jimmy's parents often think everyone is just jealous of Jimmy. Maybe some are, but there are others who just logically know it is not an environment where their child is getting what they are paying for, so it's time to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

Never said they had to put them (or me) on a pedestal, fair is good enough for me. Lack of respect is not an option
It’s nice to live in a world filled with respect and fair (enough) opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

Never said they had to put them (or me) on a pedestal, fair is good enough for me. Lack of respect is not an option
It’s nice to live in a world filled with respect and fair (enough) opportunity.

PP. All fair. Respect from teammates and coach are essential, I totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

I think we are interpreting a number of comments very differently. I do not expect equal playing time. Positive feedback is not even on my radar in terms of this conversation. My issue is when kids are being taught to always get the ball to Jimmy, they are not being encouraged to carry it when they can, to find open teammates with clear paths to the net. Instead, they are being encouraged to set up one favored teammate for achievement, at the detriment of the other teammates who are getting open, getting in perfect position, but will not get the ball touches, chances to take on a defender, or take a shot, simply because they are not "Jimmy." This may make sense at the professional level, but where you are paying for coaches to develop your kids, having them there simply to be the supporting cast to a kid deemed more important, who is not paying any more than you are, is every reason to leave the team. Even more so if your kid is Jimmy's back up, and does not even get to play unless Jimmy wants a water break. Little Jimmy's parents often think everyone is just jealous of Jimmy. Maybe some are, but there are others who just logically know it is not an environment where their child is getting what they are paying for, so it's time to move on.

I like this explanation, it sets up the reasonable discussion of this youth environment. Although I’ve heard the argument that Jimmy is needed so everyone else can get better, i havent seen that really pan out. In fact, its been mostly the opposite result, no one buys into the long term vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BRYC boys

BRYC girls too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good coaches know how this works, as do good players. Parents rarely understand any of this. But the question is why are supporting role players leaving?

Give some parents some credit, some absolutely understand this. I wasn't aware that supporting role players only stayed supporting roles day to day, week to week, year to year, etc from u9 to u19.

Because they are not getting enough publicity?

not my kid, but getting cropped out of your teams social media photo is kind of a big thing..

Respect from the coach? Respect from teammates?

those are 2 extremely good reasons to find a better fit.

Because they would rather be playing a different role? (Doesn't everybody?)

stop projecting, but I've never seen a coach REALLY ask a kid and develop that even if they aren't the preferred or backup. They shuffle them out somewhere else.

Isn't the satisfaction of knowing how good you are sufficient?

LOL... what planet do you live on?

Why does recognition of others mean so much to people on this board?

again LOL..

I can understand if the coach and club are making poor decisions and favoring kids whom nonexpert parents think are overrated. But I think a lot of parents are struggling with the idea there should be any favoritism in travel soccer.

Non-expert parents? Hahaha.. they pay you to be the experts, favor a kid this week or next to build confidence, but spread it out, it's not an individual sport, they all need favor sometime over the course of their careers, pro or not, best technical player or not, fastest player or not. What i think they are struggling is how long you, coach, are going to obsess and overhype until they realize it's just one player of a team.

And if you think all of this is irrelevant at U13 or younger, I assume you also object to the assortment of teams into first, second, third fourth, etc? Why don't a lot of the same points apply to placing kids on different teams based on their perceived level?

I don't think anyone *really* objects, a good fit is a good fit. But make sure it's legitimate and not blatant favoritism, nepotism, politics, etc.

We know there are observable differences in skill and athletic ability at any given point in time -- that's why. Nobody is saying those are locked in. And most clubs have no problems rotating kids among these teams depending on their performance, at least the good ones.

TBH, I've seen many spots that appeared on lock for certain players and it has taken a loooong time to figuratively defenestrate those "impact" players at the "good ones". And by that time it's an outside player taking that spot, hmmm...


I saw someone post earlier about 90% completion of passes.. so can players use game statistics, more specifically lack of success in them, to bring to their coach in defense of moving an overhyped kid out of that impact position and giving someone else a shot? inshallah

The planet I live on is a pretty successful one. If your kids (or more accurately, you) need the coaches to do more than respect your kid and treat them fairly (not necessarily equally), your kids (and you) are in for a rough ride. Positive feedback dependency is a lifelong handicap.

I think we are interpreting a number of comments very differently. I do not expect equal playing time. Positive feedback is not even on my radar in terms of this conversation. My issue is when kids are being taught to always get the ball to Jimmy, they are not being encouraged to carry it when they can, to find open teammates with clear paths to the net. Instead, they are being encouraged to set up one favored teammate for achievement, at the detriment of the other teammates who are getting open, getting in perfect position, but will not get the ball touches, chances to take on a defender, or take a shot, simply because they are not "Jimmy." This may make sense at the professional level, but where you are paying for coaches to develop your kids, having them there simply to be the supporting cast to a kid deemed more important, who is not paying any more than you are, is every reason to leave the team. Even more so if your kid is Jimmy's back up, and does not even get to play unless Jimmy wants a water break. Little Jimmy's parents often think everyone is just jealous of Jimmy. Maybe some are, but there are others who just logically know it is not an environment where their child is getting what they are paying for, so it's time to move on.

I like this explanation, it sets up the reasonable discussion of this youth environment. Although I’ve heard the argument that Jimmy is needed so everyone else can get better, i havent seen that really pan out. In fact, its been mostly the opposite result, no one buys into the long term vision.

On really good teams, Jimmy will leave if other players don’t develop or progress, so Jimmy and parents often know this and want to see others develop as well.

[Anonymous]

On really good teams, Jimmy will leave if other players don’t develop or progress, so Jimmy and parents often know this and want to see others develop as well.

Yes, but unfortunately, in many cases, Jimmy, his parents, and the coaches blame the other kids for not developing on their own, without ever acknowledging how the Jimmy-centric model is to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On really good teams, Jimmy will leave if other players don’t develop or progress, so Jimmy and parents often know this and want to see others develop as well.

Yes, but unfortunately, in many cases, Jimmy, his parents, and the coaches blame the other kids for not developing on their own, without ever acknowledging how the Jimmy-centric model is to blame.

01 Will Jimmy leave if others don't get better, hell yeah.

02 Does Jimmy and his parents really care about others? Only if they can pass it to Jimmy, if no, goto 01

[Anonymous]

I think we are interpreting a number of comments very differently.

Agreed. It's like people are talking past each other. I see three groups of people here:

Group 1 sees a coach exploiting a superstar to win now in a way which acts to the detriment of the other players' development, of the team in anything other than the very short term, and quite possibly of the superstar himself.

Group 2 feels that their kid is being unfairly overlooked and not given the recognition he deserves when in fact their kid isn't very good and doesn't deserve the recognition or the opportunity. I'm not sure anyone actually falls into this group - but I have to define it so I can define group 3.

Group 3 sees the opinion of someone in group 1 and believes that they are in group 2 - and tells them they're just jealous.

I do not expect equal playing time. Positive feedback is not even on my radar in terms of this conversation. My issue is when kids are being taught to always get the ball to Jimmy, they are not being encouraged to carry it when they can, to find open teammates with clear paths to the net. Instead, they are being encouraged to set up one favored teammate for achievement, at the detriment of the other teammates who are getting open, getting in perfect position, but will not get the ball touches, chances to take on a defender, or take a shot, simply because they are not "Jimmy."

So you are in group 1. I entirely agree with you. My view would be that
- the best players should get more playing time, and play in the position(s) where they have the most impact
- the best players should see more of the ball - but only because that happens naturally because they are the best player and therefore pop up in the right place / make the right runs at the right time / etc.
- all players, assuming they are giving a good effort in practise and on game day, should get a reasonable amount of playing time
- the team should be taught to play soccer as a team and make the best soccer decision: take the man on / pass to the player in the best position / switch the field / etc.

This may make sense at the professional level

No - it doesn't make sense at the professional level. You will never see a professional team playing this way. Sure the very best players have the greatest impact - but you will never see a professional team not pass to the player in the best position whoever that player is. They pass to the best player when and because he's in the best position - and he is often in the best position because he's the best player and getting in the right position is part of being a good player. And he does better when he gets the ball in a good position - again because he's the best player.

but where you are paying for coaches to develop your kids, having them there simply to be the supporting cast to a kid deemed more important, who is not paying any more than you are, is every reason to leave the team.

This is also true. But I would suggest that a coach who funnels the ball to one player in the way suggested on this thread is such a bad coach that that would be a reason to leave the team in any case - even if your kid is the superstar.

Even more so if your kid is Jimmy's back up, and does not even get to play unless Jimmy wants a water break.

Agreed - coaches should not make offers to kids who won't get playing time. And once they have made an offer then the kid should get a reasonable amount of playing time assuming the kid is giving his best effort in practise and games.

Little Jimmy's parents often think everyone is just jealous of Jimmy.

With a good coach, parents (apart from the odd idiot) are not jealous of the best players. They welcome the impact that the best players have on the team's play and results.