Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.
Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.
Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.
I agree but you are missing the point. It’s pay to play not because someone thought it would be a better development model, but because there isn’t another source to fund it because professional soccer doesn’t have enough money to fund it here because it’s not popular enough. If it were more popular there would be more money which would attract better coaches and athletes. Pay to play is a fine development model which could still turn out globally competitive players like it does in other sports here.
Anonymous wrote:^ and the top college basketball players only stay for 1 year of college before heading Pro—-like Cooper Flagg.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.
Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.
Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.
Anonymous wrote:Lack of free play is killing youth soccer. Parents would rather pay cone drill kings than have their kid plays play pickup with their friends in a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 format.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tournaments that are just showcases have changed soccer maybe not ruined it ... when was the last tournament a U15+ team played in that they played for a championship? These kids are starting these showcase type tournaments as young as u12 and the ones that don't even have a championship is what is changing the landscape of competitiveness. same with pool play. Bracket them up and let the teams feel real pressure in competition again. understanding how to hold a lead late in the game so you can advance, not just end the game in a tie or be ok with a tie because it is pool play. it's not runinig soccer - but it's putting the players in continued less competitive situations. i know it's not all about winning, but winning isn't a bad thing. it teaches players how to deal with stress of a tight game as and how to keep a lead and play wiht a lead or come from behind. i know those same things can happen in a showcase or pool play, but ask your kid the difference ... my DD has told me she loves the competitiveness of that type of tournament over a showcase any day.
I had to backtrack with my own daughter on the "it's about development more than winning" philosophy. Her club liked to say it, and I repeated it to her. But she really seemed to not care about the result, just whether she played well. This led to her playing her position well, but without much creativity, and no one was making good runs out of their position. After she was green-lit to care about the win or loss (I simply told her it's OK to hate losing and to take pride in winning, and that it will motivate her to raise her soccer IQ, which in part is how to problem-solve to win), she looks like such a better player in the span of two months. She makes noticeably better tactical decisions and looks far more fearless. I've come to really believe that the message about development needs to be carefully tailored to let the kids have a competitive fire, especially on the girls side.
Anonymous wrote:Its against the rules of this forum to just post a link without any elaboration
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.
Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.
Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.
Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.
There were more kids trying out for soccer at our high school by far than any other sport. It's popular enough. It's just that the rest of the world has no other sport of consequence.
LOL 😆..
The rest of the world only competes in soccer at the Olympics?