Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the fact that you can play competitive in REC SOCCER. For travel soccer the structure should be different. More competitive in all aspects like playing time. Its natural progression as is HS (no guarantees of time) , college (no guarantees) , And God forbid if your favorite pro team gave everyone equal or even FAIR playing time you would lose your mind. travel sports especially at the young years is a peak into real live where nothing is guaranteed. You get in where you fit in , Make your own luck, Etc. Talent 1st. hard work next. and charisma 3rd. are the the order that seems to play out more often than not.

Yeah that’s exactly not right. It is, in fact, really stupid.

Why? Because (1) everyone is paying the same. Don’t want to play a kid? Don’t take their $$. Tell them sorry we have to cut you.
(2) there is not a coach in the world who can look at a 10 year old and say that kid is going to be a good adult player. If they could do that they would not be coaching here. But they can’t. Ever see Moneyball? That speech about not knowing if a 18 or 19 year old will turn into a good player holds in every sport. How many blown first round draft picks has your favorite NFL team made? And those are 21-22 year olds who have worked with big time college programs for years.

I would add that anyone with a kid who has gone through youth soccer and into college can easily point to many players who were “all everything” at 15 and never panned out. My daughter has an acqientence who she keeps in touch with (same church lots of mutual friends mostly through soccer) who was on a u15 national team. Never played college ball. Puberty slowed bhee down more and more.

So - if a club takes the money from 8 to 18 it has to play the kid. Don’t want to do that? Don’t take the money. Easy.

And, again, for good clubs with good coaching that is not a problem. So really ask yourself - if a good club/coach can figure out how to get everyone in a game so that everyone is at least reasonably happy about playing time, why do other clubs/coaches have a problem doing that?

I would add, that the situation on playing time is changing quickly in US colleges with the transfer portal.

Just go away. You don’t understand competitive sports and the purpose of travel and rec sports. Your kid will not last long in travel sports.

Just because you paid does not mean playing time is an entitlement. 50% of minutes is fair. Take a look at DA game reports and you’ll see kids getting 10-20 minutes a game and they pay significantly more than U10.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the fact that you can play competitive in REC SOCCER. For travel soccer the structure should be different. More competitive in all aspects like playing time. Its natural progression as is HS (no guarantees of time) , college (no guarantees) , And God forbid if your favorite pro team gave everyone equal or even FAIR playing time you would lose your mind. travel sports especially at the young years is a peak into real live where nothing is guaranteed. You get in where you fit in , Make your own luck, Etc. Talent 1st. hard work next. and charisma 3rd. are the the order that seems to play out more often than not.

Yeah that’s exactly not right. It is, in fact, really stupid.

Why? Because (1) everyone is paying the same. Don’t want to play a kid? Don’t take their $$. Tell them sorry we have to cut you.
(2) there is not a coach in the world who can look at a 10 year old and say that kid is going to be a good adult player. If they could do that they would not be coaching here. But they can’t. Ever see Moneyball? That speech about not knowing if a 18 or 19 year old will turn into a good player holds in every sport. How many blown first round draft picks has your favorite NFL team made? And those are 21-22 year olds who have worked with big time college programs for years.

I would add that anyone with a kid who has gone through youth soccer and into college can easily point to many players who were “all everything” at 15 and never panned out. My daughter has an acqientence who she keeps in touch with (same church lots of mutual friends mostly through soccer) who was on a u15 national team. Never played college ball. Puberty slowed bhee down more and more.

So - if a club takes the money from 8 to 18 it has to play the kid. Don’t want to do that? Don’t take the money. Easy.

And, again, for good clubs with good coaching that is not a problem. So really ask yourself - if a good club/coach can figure out how to get everyone in a game so that everyone is at least reasonably happy about playing time, why do other clubs/coaches have a problem doing that?

I would add, that the situation on playing time is changing quickly in US colleges with the transfer portal.

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the fact that you can play competitive in REC SOCCER. For travel soccer the structure should be different. More competitive in all aspects like playing time. Its natural progression as is HS (no guarantees of time) , college (no guarantees) , And God forbid if your favorite pro team gave everyone equal or even FAIR playing time you would lose your mind. travel sports especially at the young years is a peak into real live where nothing is guaranteed. You get in where you fit in , Make your own luck, Etc. Talent 1st. hard work next. and charisma 3rd. are the the order that seems to play out more often than not.

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the fact that you can play competitive in REC SOCCER. For travel soccer the structure should be different. More competitive in all aspects like playing time. Its natural progression as is HS (no guarantees of time) , college (no guarantees) , And God forbid if your favorite pro team gave everyone equal or even FAIR playing time you would lose your mind. travel sports especially at the young years is a peak into real live where nothing is guaranteed. You get in where you fit in , Make your own luck, Etc. Talent 1st. hard work next. and charisma 3rd. are the the order that seems to play out more often than not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somebody has to be that 11 or 12 player. If its your kid your trying to play for a team your not quite ready for. The reality is every kid isn't an A team player. There are more than enough clubs where you can find the right fit for your kid. Its not easy for most parents to accept it , But, its worse to have your kid fail because their placement isn't correct. If your kids a worker and improves he/she won't bet player 11-12 next year . If next year comes and you know your kid is still 11 or 12 on the team. you have to move on. Just as they're kids coming from far away to play at Arlington its because they too good for Vienna and vise versa , they aren't good enough play in Arlington but they thrive at Vienna. and remember its all about your kid becoming the best they can not the best kid on the team.

Being a sub is not what I take issue with. You are right. Someone will be a starter and someone will be a sub. But a coach can get it right. I've seen it done where playing time isn't equal, but it is fair. Parents and kids alike are fine with it. I've even seen some elite level coaches for older ages do it, well beyond U10. It can be done if the coach is development minded and makes a commitment to all his players.

Yes, a coach can get it right. If competitive clubs like FCV can give "fair" playing time on their non DA but competitive teams, all clubs can follow suit. It's a matter of the club's priority on customer service and developing the team as a whole rather than the few that have been deemed to "carry" a team. If you've spoken to the coach, the director is aware, and nothing changes, make a decision about whether the team/club is a right fit. Chances are , it's not and there's better options available.

Anonymous wrote:I’d say that at the DA and ECNL levels there should be smaller rosters (16-17) and everyone should get some playing time, but not equal. If the kid is not good enough to be on the field he/she should not be on the team and the coaches shouldn’t put the kid on it just to get a check from the parent. That’s not always how it works, but it should. At lower level travel all kids should get close to equal playing time, again enabled by smaller rosters and not putting kids on a team simply to get their money. If the club has enough depth of multi level teams, create game day rosters of 15 and move top players up / bottom players down for games to create proper playing time opportunities. Rotate 4 subs in thru the game giving everyone time to play and except for maybe the superstars, everyone time to rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somebody has to be that 11 or 12 player. If its your kid your trying to play for a team your not quite ready for. The reality is every kid isn't an A team player. There are more than enough clubs where you can find the right fit for your kid. Its not easy for most parents to accept it , But, its worse to have your kid fail because their placement isn't correct. If your kids a worker and improves he/she won't bet player 11-12 next year . If next year comes and you know your kid is still 11 or 12 on the team. you have to move on. Just as they're kids coming from far away to play at Arlington its because they too good for Vienna and vise versa , they aren't good enough play in Arlington but they thrive at Vienna. and remember its all about your kid becoming the best they can not the best kid on the team.

Being a sub is not what I take issue with. You are right. Someone will be a starter and someone will be a sub. But a coach can get it right. I've seen it done where playing time isn't equal, but it is fair. Parents and kids alike are fine with it. I've even seen some elite level coaches for older ages do it, well beyond U10. It can be done if the coach is development minded and makes a commitment to all his players.

Anonymous wrote:Somebody has to be that 11 or 12 player. If its your kid your trying to play for a team your not quite ready for. The reality is every kid isn't an A team player. There are more than enough clubs where you can find the right fit for your kid. Its not easy for most parents to accept it , But, its worse to have your kid fail because their placement isn't correct. If your kids a worker and improves he/she won't bet player 11-12 next year . If next year comes and you know your kid is still 11 or 12 on the team. you have to move on. Just as they're kids coming from far away to play at Arlington its because they too good for Vienna and vise versa , they aren't good enough play in Arlington but they thrive at Vienna. and remember its all about your kid becoming the best they can not the best kid on the team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I would always prefer my child not make a team if a coach doesn't see them as good enough to play on it. Club's do that all the time though: put players on a team because there are available roster spots. A short term pain is better than a year of a slow death by a 1000 small cuts.

I agree but it’s tough for a coach to determine how a player would pan out just from a few tryouts. How often do people get hired after a great interview but gets fired a few months later because they can’t do the job as expected? Do all #1 Draft picks in the NFL have long careers even when the NFL has the most experience and high playing scouts and coaches or do some get cut after a few years?

Also, a paying bench player is better for some coach than an empty slot. It’s not right, but it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I would always prefer my child not make a team if a coach doesn't see them as good enough to play on it. Club's do that all the time though: put players on a team because there are available roster spots. A short term pain is better than a year of a slow death by a 1000 small cuts.