Anonymous wrote:People who have spent tens of thousands of dollars so their kids can play on the fourth travel team don’t want to believe that kids in rec could have had more fun and learnt soccer skills for $100/season.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Participating rates are dropping across lots of youth sports, not just soccer. This is. It news. But for soccer specifically....

...the share of children aged 6 to 12 who participate in outdoor soccer on a regular basis in the United States from 2008 to 2019. According to the source, 7.7 percent of children participated in soccer on a regular basis in 2019, down from 10.4 percent in 2008.

For all sports.....From 2008 to 2018, the participation rate of kids between the ages of 6 and 12 dropped from 45 to 38 percent, due largely to the increasing costs, time commitments, and competitive nature of organized sports leagues.Jan 27, 2021

Obesity rates are 43% and overweight 73%. Soccer is not a sport for fat, out of shape kids. Obese nieces/nephews in the Midwest hate playing soccer.

Anonymous wrote:Participating rates are dropping across lots of youth sports, not just soccer. This is. It news. But for soccer specifically....

...the share of children aged 6 to 12 who participate in outdoor soccer on a regular basis in the United States from 2008 to 2019. According to the source, 7.7 percent of children participated in soccer on a regular basis in 2019, down from 10.4 percent in 2008.

For all sports.....From 2008 to 2018, the participation rate of kids between the ages of 6 and 12 dropped from 45 to 38 percent, due largely to the increasing costs, time commitments, and competitive nature of organized sports leagues.Jan 27, 2021

Anonymous wrote:Serving the players at the lower incomes is difficult when all the higher income customers are siphoned off to the expensive clubs. I really don't see this changing unless the college coaches resist and refuse to recruit from leagues that only serve higher income players.

Clubs drop down to maybe 2-3 teams per age group at U-13 (aside from the very biggest) for 11v11 games.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:As others have said, this is absolutely not new. Ten years ago, a typical club would have two teams in NCSL and 2-3 in ODSL. Then it became one in CCL or VPL (now ECNLRLVPSLNPL), two in NCSL and 1-2 in ODSL. Then one in the DA (RIP) or ECNL, 1-2 in CCL, VPL and/or EDP, 2-3 in NCSL and one in ODSL. And so on.

By U-13 or so, things shake out a bit more sensibly. Kids who aren't going to have big soccer futures leave travel teams and hopefully continue to play rec rather than dropping out of the sport entirely. The parents who continue to coach at that level have been doing it for several years by then and have picked up the same licenses as the alleged "pro" coaches on lower-level travel teams. Clubs drop down to maybe 2-3 teams per age group at U-13 (aside from the very biggest) for 11v11 games.

The problem is U-9 through U-12. The clubs take 40-50 kids out of the rec program, and their parents leave coaching. Then you have to grab new coaches who may not have even gotten their licenses, even though US Soccer now makes it ridiculously easy to get basic grassroots instruction online. And the players don't take it seriously enough to listen to the coaches, anyway. So U-9 and U-10 rec soccer can be dire, and it can be a pretty bad experience for serious players who either get overlooked at tryouts or can't make the commitment to travel. (You might get lucky, though -- I've seen some good players at U-9 in particular this past year, when COVID shook up the tryout process, so *some* games can be decent quality.)

If I had all-encompassing power, I'd register 4-5 travel teams at U-9 but rotate players between travel and rec. Give all players who want it access to the top coaches at the club at least once a week. Don't lock in a full-time travel team roster until U-11. Keep giving kids access, and keep evaluating them week to week instead of locking in kids for a year based on a couple of small-sided tryout games that a few athletic but uncoachable kids will dominate.

We, of course, do not allow such sensible things.

Why are you so delusional and bitter?

RantingSoccerDad wrote:As others have said, this is absolutely not new. Ten years ago, a typical club would have two teams in NCSL and 2-3 in ODSL. Then it became one in CCL or VPL (now ECNLRLVPSLNPL), two in NCSL and 1-2 in ODSL. Then one in the DA (RIP) or ECNL, 1-2 in CCL, VPL and/or EDP, 2-3 in NCSL and one in ODSL. And so on.

By U-13 or so, things shake out a bit more sensibly. Kids who aren't going to have big soccer futures leave travel teams and hopefully continue to play rec rather than dropping out of the sport entirely. The parents who continue to coach at that level have been doing it for several years by then and have picked up the same licenses as the alleged "pro" coaches on lower-level travel teams. Clubs drop down to maybe 2-3 teams per age group at U-13 (aside from the very biggest) for 11v11 games.

The problem is U-9 through U-12. The clubs take 40-50 kids out of the rec program, and their parents leave coaching. Then you have to grab new coaches who may not have even gotten their licenses, even though US Soccer now makes it ridiculously easy to get basic grassroots instruction online. And the players don't take it seriously enough to listen to the coaches, anyway. So U-9 and U-10 rec soccer can be dire, and it can be a pretty bad experience for serious players who either get overlooked at tryouts or can't make the commitment to travel. (You might get lucky, though -- I've seen some good players at U-9 in particular this past year, when COVID shook up the tryout process, so *some* games can be decent quality.)

If I had all-encompassing power, I'd register 4-5 travel teams at U-9 but rotate players between travel and rec. Give all players who want it access to the top coaches at the club at least once a week. Don't lock in a full-time travel team roster until U-11. Keep giving kids access, and keep evaluating them week to week instead of locking in kids for a year based on a couple of small-sided tryout games that a few athletic but uncoachable kids will dominate.

We, of course, do not allow such sensible things.

Anonymous wrote:Rec was too basic. Half the kids were barely trying, coaches were absent, practice never happened. My kid wanted “more” but we didn’t want to “travel”. But what can you do? Rec used to be more competitive/fun, but it is dying off as more and more people peel off for travel. There needs to be an in between.

Anonymous wrote:People seem to be answering the wrong question. It wasn't about travel being too costly, but that it has been watered down as a product.

I had a kid on my rec team who wanted to sign up for travel, but the parent missed the deadlines. I let them know how they could get onto the team anyways. I knew this because my son had been given an offer to tryout late, despite my never inquiring about travel. When they heard about this, they decided it wasn't worth the money to play for something that wouldn't be that challenging.