GA Showcase

[Anonymous]

Oh brother. Yes of course...your player is the Jordon of soccer. The other jordan of girls soccer is on our team..every ecnl and gal team has at least one Jordon you know. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh brother. Yes of course...your player is the Jordon of soccer. The other jordan of girls soccer is on our team..every ecnl and gal team has at least one Jordon you know. Lol.

You lost the argument

[Anonymous]

What argument? I see the biz of youth soccer and I buy it and I see what I am buying. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anyway..this is tiresome. Good luck to your player(s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What argument? I see the biz of youth soccer and I buy it and I see what I am buying. Do you?

Then no one on planet earth can ever say they’re the best unless there is 100 percent participation.

And ever cent I ever paid has been recouped. So yeah, I understand fully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Low-income female players are excluded from high level youth soccer and plenty of other high level youth sports with few exceptions. The travel is a total deal breaker and anyone arguing otherwise is full of nonsense or is not paying attention at all.

I can't speak for females - but this is 100% not the case for the boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell us, based on your observations, when should the best 36 players per age group be picked and consolidated and by whom. Who is the expert who is going to find, evaluate and pick the best in a population of 2.5 million people in NOVA.

Also, what exactly is the point to consolidate the best 36 while throwing away the other 100. You trust the system to be free of politics and fair. You believe all kids will stay the same?

Are you will to throw away talent song your kid can beat Real SoCal?

Just a mathematical point. If there are 2.5 million in Nova, then there are ~15,000 girls born in any one year. And of those, maybe 5,000 play soccer at all (including rec) with - let's guess - 500 taking it seriously. So maybe finding 36 is not so hard after all...?

Then you have not had a kid go through the entire rec to graduation cycle. Once you do, you will understand.
We can not and must not pretend to be the gate keepers by choosing winners and losers without allowing kids to naturally progress through physical and mental maturity.

Two years after puberty..maybe. Anything before that is a complete waste of time. That is 100 percent non-debatable fact.

I have had that experience and I agree with you. My point was purely mathematical that a population of 2.5 million does not actually translate to an overwhelming number of players competing for spots and that therefore finding the top 36 players would not actually be all that hard.

I don't think that, having found them, it would be a good idea to put them on two elite teams and forget everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is wrong. The high travel leagues are for affluent talent with a few others. No kid is fundamentally deprived just because they can't play fancy youth soccer but it is what it is. I don't pretend it is anything else.

This is just not true. DCU is free, and Arlington/Baltimore/Pipeline/Richmond all have plenty of kids who are most definitely not from affluent backgrounds.

Below that you might have more of a point - but the top clubs are not the domain of the affluent. That's not the same as saying that there are no affluent kids who make those rosters - there are. But there are plenty of kids who are not.

What is affluent vs non-affluent?

Dunno - but the top boys clubs have kids who are not affluent by any measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh brother. Yes of course...your player is the Jordon of soccer. The other jordan of girls soccer is on our team..every ecnl and gal team has at least one Jordon you know. Lol.

Way to miss the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What argument? I see the biz of youth soccer and I buy it and I see what I am buying. Do you?

No you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What argument? I see the biz of youth soccer and I buy it and I see what I am buying. Do you?

Then no one on planet earth can ever say they’re the best unless there is 100 percent participation.

Exactly. The PP is intent on bursting other peoples' bubbles because schadenfruade is his bag baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to run around saying I play with the greatest players in the greatest league when a third or more are excluded from the get go. High end youth soccer is great and my players love it but the marketing BS should go in one ear and out the other. It is a youth sports country club regardless of the spin.

A third? You are dreaming. Over half of us families make less than 75K a year. These families are not flying their kids around to play youth sports. You people are so in a bubble.

[Anonymous]

Looking at local team results Metro has lost every game in every age group. Even when they’re in the last bracket. Other teams doing OK. https://system.gotsport.com/org_event/events/3615

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Low-income female players are excluded from high level youth soccer and plenty of other high level youth sports with few exceptions. The travel is a total deal breaker and anyone arguing otherwise is full of nonsense or is not paying attention at all.

First off, nobody is "excluded" from club soccer, male or female. Every club has scholarships available, so if low income kids aren't playing, there are other reasons. Could be travel to the practices, could be pride, but no players are turned away because of finances. You can't expect the clubs to knock down every barrier for you.

[Anonymous]

The clubs want kids that can pay. That is what everyone expects from the clubs and that is what everyone gets from the clubs. So what?