I dont understand the battle between rec and travel people here. If a kid loves to play, whatever the level, good for them!

Anonymous wrote:Its a reference to a famous LBJ quote.

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

No it was a reference to how much of an idiot you are. That LBJ quote isn't even close to what you said. You're just cover-your-@$$ (cya) mode now.

Its a reference to a famous LBJ quote.

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Dude, I'm just saying if at U11 your kid is in rec soccer because they have no friends and need it for socialization... then you're paying $150 to make sure your kid has friends... that's very sad. If your kid can't make a 1st or 2nd travel team (even Valor), then maybe it's time to find a new sport or hobby. The "socialization" thing at 5th or 6th grade is actually kind of sad, but I guess spending $150 to pretend your kid has friends is better than actually helping your kid develop a personality or actual soccer skills.

See, its the low level travel parents who have the biggest chips on their shoulders. Lol. They need to desperately believe that they haven't wasted tens of thousands of dollars over the years to end up pretty much even with rec kids having fun.

Yup, Its like how the poorest white people are the most racist. Everyone wants someone else to look down on. Pathetic.

I have not posted to this thread until now... poor white people are the most racist? What the heck is the matter with you? This blog is about soccer and this thread is about travel and rec... what kind of mental moron are you to bring race into it. And such a racist comment like that. Watch what you say, this thread can easily get locked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Dude, I'm just saying if at U11 your kid is in rec soccer because they have no friends and need it for socialization... then you're paying $150 to make sure your kid has friends... that's very sad. If your kid can't make a 1st or 2nd travel team (even Valor), then maybe it's time to find a new sport or hobby. The "socialization" thing at 5th or 6th grade is actually kind of sad, but I guess spending $150 to pretend your kid has friends is better than actually helping your kid develop a personality or actual soccer skills.

See, its the low level travel parents who have the biggest chips on their shoulders. Lol. They need to desperately believe that they haven't wasted tens of thousands of dollars over the years to end up pretty much even with rec kids having fun.

Maybe her kid was one of those high school travel players who was passed over for a spot on a team for a rec player. It burns!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Dude, I'm just saying if at U11 your kid is in rec soccer because they have no friends and need it for socialization... then you're paying $150 to make sure your kid has friends... that's very sad. If your kid can't make a 1st or 2nd travel team (even Valor), then maybe it's time to find a new sport or hobby. The "socialization" thing at 5th or 6th grade is actually kind of sad, but I guess spending $150 to pretend your kid has friends is better than actually helping your kid develop a personality or actual soccer skills.

See, its the low level travel parents who have the biggest chips on their shoulders. Lol. They need to desperately believe that they haven't wasted tens of thousands of dollars over the years to end up pretty much even with rec kids having fun.

Yup, Its like how the poorest white people are the most racist. Everyone wants someone else to look down on. Pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Dude, I'm just saying if at U11 your kid is in rec soccer because they have no friends and need it for socialization... then you're paying $150 to make sure your kid has friends... that's very sad. If your kid can't make a 1st or 2nd travel team (even Valor), then maybe it's time to find a new sport or hobby. The "socialization" thing at 5th or 6th grade is actually kind of sad, but I guess spending $150 to pretend your kid has friends is better than actually helping your kid develop a personality or actual soccer skills.

See, its the low level travel parents who have the biggest chips on their shoulders. Lol. They need to desperately believe that they haven't wasted tens of thousands of dollars over the years to end up pretty much even with rec kids having fun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Dude, I'm just saying if at U11 your kid is in rec soccer because they have no friends and need it for socialization... then you're paying $150 to make sure your kid has friends... that's very sad. If your kid can't make a 1st or 2nd travel team (even Valor), then maybe it's time to find a new sport or hobby. The "socialization" thing at 5th or 6th grade is actually kind of sad, but I guess spending $150 to pretend your kid has friends is better than actually helping your kid develop a personality or actual soccer skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Good for you. I pay $150 a season so that my kid can play a game they enjoy and hang out with friends. It's low commitment and she enjoys it. Do you think it's somehow better to pay 3k for a kid to play low level travel?

Who cares what travel people think about rec leagues? i sure don't.

If i wanted to drive to Fredericksburg and back and waste my whole weekend to watch one game, I would have signed my kid up for travel. That one is a hell no. They are really going to have complaints about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

You have some encyclopedic knowledge of every rec program?

In the league we are discussing, SFL and now NCSL rec, U11 and up play teams from other places. So the better teams play in D1 and the other teams play in D2, and hopefully everyone finds a good level of competition. The age groups span multiple years and teams are mixed age,usually.

In NCSL travel, there are one year age brackets and within those, age groups divided up into a ridiculous number of divisions, all so a Division 7 parent can say, proudly, at least we aren't division 9! Its completely ludicrous and frankly, those teams would probably lose to a regular old "lame and pathetic" as you call them, rec team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

After U10 rec teams just consolidate the better players into one team and then beat up on the remaining teams leftover players and start to believe they are really good. It's really kind of lame and pathetic. The only time you might see some mid level soccer playing is at an all-star rec tournament... and even that is nothing to behold.

Just adding my anonymous self to the list of parents who would never drive to Fredericksburg for a rec soccer game.

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly they should just eliminate rec at U13. If you are not on travel by then your kid is really just pretending to play a sport and likely doing it just to placate the parents.

Nope--- rec players at U13 and higher are there because they enjoy the game and the social aspects of being on a team. Look at Arlington-- they have a huge HS program (26 teams on the boys side and 23 on girl side for the spring.

Every single club would forfeit rather then spend the day going to and from freakin Fredericksburg