HIGH SCHOOL ball vs. ACADEMY ball, NY Times article

This article highlights the conflict between club vs. community that high school elite soccer boys deal with today. It's not an easy choice. I was particularly impressed how the writer shows the angst the boys encounter. The kid that chooses high school loses to a fierce rival. The kid that chooses club only to find himself at the high school games as a spectator.

If it was up to me, I'd find a way for the elite clubs to allow for high school soccer. By scheduling a mid-term season break (or reduced schedule) during high school season. We can all debate the pros and cons of allowing elite players to play high school, but our teenage boys can never re-live their youth. They deserve a chance to play in front of their school mates, best friends, and their community. Imagine how much more our sport would grow if we allowed soccer to grow at the grass roots level!

NEW YORK TIMES
Forced to Choose in Soccer: Club or Community
By HARVEY ARATON
Published: October 5, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/sports/soccer/club-soccer-pulls-at-players-ties-to-hometown-teams.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Admittedly didn't read the whola article. But I've read 7-10 identical articles on the same subject.

The reality is that only a literal handful of these DA club players have a remote chance of playing professionally.

But I'll digress for a moment...

The flip side is that, if we are going to improve high school (and college for that matter) we need to make some serious changes.

First, professional, fulltime coaches. (Where I live it's mostly a contract, temporary gig for club coaches.)

Second, the high school season (and college) needs to be spread out. To allow for quality play, development and cutting back on player injuries.

In Europe and elsewhere, you see 17 and 18 yr olds training with the first team and even occasionally playing games with the first team...albeit in a limited capacity.

So, in my mind, we need a compromise.

I think even the most elite of players do get something from high school soccer...especially as freshmen and sophomores. Usually this is the first experience of "playing up" for most players. (Just as they will in college soccer.)

So, this really comes down to yet another turf war in soccer.

I'd be willing to bet that in some parts of the country, high school soccer is just as competitive as club soccer.

In reality, the DA is just a continuation of the same crap it was before the DA was formed. And for some players, it may do more harm than good.

If there were enough truly 'professional' academies to accomodate the need (it's a big country folks)then yeah, by 17 or 18 a truly gifted player should be in that type of environment.

I'm sure that there will be plenty disagreeing.

The US has the most competitive, intense youth league structure in the world. Everything is based on competition and results.

And yet, what is the end result? We still underachieve based on our population and number of players.

Personally, I think taking away the experience of playing in front of your peers and community, in some cases hundreds if not thousands of faces in the stands, is borderline criminal.

Laimport wrote:Admittedly didn't read the whola article. But I've read 7-10 identical articles on the same subject.

The reality is that only a literal handful of these DA club players have a remote chance of playing professionally.

But I'll digress for a moment...

The flip side is that, if we are going to improve high school (and college for that matter) we need to make some serious changes.

First, professional, fulltime coaches. (Where I live it's mostly a contract, temporary gig for club coaches.)

Second, the high school season (and college) needs to be spread out. To allow for quality play, development and cutting back on player injuries.

In Europe and elsewhere, you see 17 and 18 yr olds training with the first team and even occasionally playing games with the first team...albeit in a limited capacity.

So, in my mind, we need a compromise.

I think even the most elite of players do get something from high school soccer...especially as freshmen and sophomores. Usually this is the first experience of "playing up" for most players. (Just as they will in college soccer.)

So, this really comes down to yet another turf war in soccer.

I'd be willing to bet that in some parts of the country, high school soccer is just as competitive as club soccer.

In reality, the DA is just a continuation of the same crap it was before the DA was formed. And for some players, it may do more harm than good.

If there were enough truly 'professional' academies to accomodate the need (it's a big country folks)then yeah, by 17 or 18 a truly gifted player should be in that type of environment.

I'm sure that there will be plenty disagreeing.

The US has the most competitive, intense youth league structure in the world. Everything is based on competition and results.

And yet, what is the end result? We still underachieve based on our population and number of players.

Personally, I think taking away the experience of playing in front of your peers and community, in some cases hundreds if not thousands of faces in the stands, is borderline criminal.

Couldnt have said it better and the idea that the elite players are playing DA while the not so elite are in HS is funny to me but I say that knowing several DA players that aren't as good as or are similar to kids in my sons HS who chose instead to play HS because that was where they preferred to play. NOw do you have a greater concentration of quality players playing DA, yes, of course. But your comment about kids playing professionally is one every parent should take a serious note of because 99.99% of the kids playing in NTX whether its DA or HS will not be playiing professional soccer. Only a small percentage will get scholarships. People need to get a grip.

kids can play highschool soccer in front of their friends etc. Nobody is stoping them from playing it. Sometime you have to make a choice in in life and its not always easy but you don't always get everything you want in life. So lets say the kid who doesn't want to play highschool soccer. Should he have to sit and do nothing for a few month? Lets say a kid gets hurt during the highschool game and can no longer play. Should the highschool have to reimburse the MLS club for its investment? Oh and what about the highschool kid who is now playing because the team has to use him now that the DA player isn't available. If the DA player play highschool ball, why not let him play CL also? So the highschool v DA issue seems a little bigger and more complex than the small handful of kids who feel they mis out and yes there are some elite players who are in highschool because they made a choice based on what was important to them.

High school sports will always attract the athletes. Academy soccer will always attract the better "pay to play" club kids. It's just always going to be that way. Not good or bad, just is. There's nothing wrong with it until parents start trying to make P2P more than it is. That's just unfair and undue pressure for their kids.

Just curious. Does anyone know what percentage of the women on the US national team played high school? Played College?

Sorry, grinder, but it doesn't matter.

But since there is no DA for girls, I would say virtually all of them played both high school and college ball.

I've heard the same 'justification' for ODP. Well, ODP was the only thing around for years...so yeah most NT players played ODP...and college ball for that matter.

But that doesn't mean it was better or the "right thing to do" from a development standpoint.

It's like saying the US produces the best gridiron football players...

Well, no one else in the world gives a sh*t about or plays American football...

I am interested in knowing how many of the people commenting and offering their opinion on this subject have boys playing DA or who were selected for a DA team and chose high school instead of DA.

Lamport. Not sure what you are sorry about? Everything matters.

I assume you don't have a daughter or you would know that the girls have the equivalent of DA in ECNL.

"But that doesn't mean it was better or the "right thing to do" from a development standpoint." You are absolutely correct. And just because the people running DA says it's better to eliminate high school soccer doesn't make it the "right thing to do" either.

I'm not sure how you equate american football to women's soccer?

The point being it doesn't take the elimination of high school soccer to play at the top level. That's obviously a fallacy.

just2smile wrote:I am interested in knowing how many of the people commenting and offering their opinion on this subject have boys playing DA or who were selected for a DA team and chose high school instead of DA.

Awesome question just2smile. I would say most of the peanut gallery here do not. I on the other hand did and do.

grinder, I'm aware of the ECNL. Didn't bring it up because it so recent in its creation. 2, 3 years?

I'm sure the question/dilemma raised on the girls side as well.

The gridiron football analogy is just to point out that there is little room for comparing.

The rest of the world is catching up to the US women. Only within the last decade has there even been any support for the womens game on a large scale that the US has had.

Rest of the world to my knowledge doesn't have "Title IX".

I don't think high school soccer is necessarily bad for developing a player.

Fortunately for my son, DA is not really an option (due to geography). He's a freshman and is stoked about playing high school soccer.

And I personally do feel there is some 'developmental value' with scholastic ball. At least his freshman and sophomore years. When you add in the 'intrinsic' stuff, it's even better.

Competition is a good thing. It sharpens the athlete. Problem is, we take competition way too seriously at way too young an age.

Compound that with poor coaching. (Not teaching soccer fundamentals and overly focusing on results. As well as possession, building from the back, etc.)

My philosophy is that coaching is a small but important part of the total equation. The vast majority is up to the individual player.

"Balance" is key. It's okay to be the star of your hs team. But you also have to seek out environments where you aren't the star...in order to improve.

As long as the emphasis is on "team development" we will continue to have the same problems.

And since we don't have the infrastructure in place that exists elsewhere, playing high school soccer in addition to club/DA is not an issue.

Just another turf war within the sport...

Laimport wrote:The US has the most competitive, intense youth league structure in the world. Everything is based on competition and results.

I disagree on this one. There are plenty of contries with competetive leagues all the way down to U10.
The US has the most competitive, intense parents in the world. Everything is based on competition and results.

German, I get what you're saying.

But, the difference here is that the cost and commitment skews what should be the real focus.

Not to mention adds fuel to the fire regarding competition.

Laimport wrote:German, I get what you're saying.

But, the difference here is that the cost and commitment skews what should be the real focus.

Not to mention adds fuel to the fire regarding competition.

On this one I agree. But it's not only the money. There are so many differences between the setups in Europe and the US that any comparison doesn't make to much sense.

Exactly. For one thing, even 'academy' teams over there don't do nearly as much traveling. A lot of their games are 'friendlies'. They play a lot of older local teams.

The coaches are looking for technical and tactical competence.

Let the players decide.

I've known some that stayed DA until they made their college committment and then quit DA to play HS their senior season.

Some were glad they had a way out of HS soccer.

A lot depends on the HS program (coaching, facilities, etc.).

Some players make DA to help pay the teams bills and rarely get to play.

Some players will tell you they've learned more from their HS coaches (yes, we are talking top DI teams).

Some don't learn anything from HS.

Not all situations are the same.

Again, let the player decide.

Laimport,

It's not a dilemma for the girls. They are allowed to play both.

In the end you want the player to develop in the best possible way and to its fullest potential (whatever that may be). For some players it might be High school, for some it will be DA, for some Club and for some Rec but for most it will be some combination of elements. Keep the player hungry and engaged and you will have the best possible outcome. If he is too comfortable with one level then it is time to move him on to the next level. If he is struggling at that level then leave him there for a while longer (or drop him one level). Patience my little grasshopper (I mean parents), patience.

great posr. But the question then becomes, how do you know (who determines) if they need to move up or down?

Parent? Coach? DOC?

The who is the parent and player agree and seek input from the coach(s) and/or DOC. Everyone will have slightly diffrent perspectives and the right choice will be somewhere inbetween. No one will be more committed to doing what is best for the playewr than the parent.

I would seek advice from independent sources if at all possible. Coaches and DOCs might have a conflict of interest (not always but usually). On the other hand they tend to be the ones with the most experience so take what they say and analyze it according to what you see and independent sources see. Discuss it with your son and make a decision. Always include your son. After all he is the one that is sweating it at practice and in the game. Set milestones during his development and see if he is reaching those milestones and if not then why this is not happening. Finally remember that development of players is a dynamic process with periods of stagnation, frustration and no guarantees. For the rest see m2c's post.

There are almost always conflicts of interest.

In the case of 'whether a kid should play up' especially. many times the coach wants to keep his 'star player' in order to strenghten the team.

Even though he knows that the player will more than likely benefit at a higher level.

Plus, different coaches usually see different things or have different opinions about a player.

But, yes, ultimately it should be the kid's decision.

If he is playing 100% of the game all the time it is time to move on no matter what the coach says or wants...Unless of course there are no other options.

Interesting...

Laimport wrote:grinder, I'm aware of the ECNL. Didn't bring it up because it so recent in its creation. 2, 3 years?

I'm sure the question/dilemma raised on the girls side as well.

The gridiron football analogy is just to point out that there is little room for comparing.

The rest of the world is catching up to the US women. Only within the last decade has there even been any support for the womens game on a large scale that the US has had.

Rest of the world to my knowledge doesn't have "Title IX".

I don't think high school soccer is necessarily bad for developing a player.

Fortunately for my son, DA is not really an option (due to geography). He's a freshman and is stoked about playing high school soccer.

And I personally do feel there is some 'developmental value' with scholastic ball. At least his freshman and sophomore years. When you add in the 'intrinsic' stuff, it's even better.

Competition is a good thing. It sharpens the athlete. Problem is, we take competition way too seriously at way too young an age.

Compound that with poor coaching. (Not teaching soccer fundamentals and overly focusing on results. As well as possession, building from the back, etc.)

My philosophy is that coaching is a small but important part of the total equation. The vast majority is up to the individual player.

"Balance" is key. It's okay to be the star of your hs team. But you also have to seek out environments where you aren't the star...in order to improve.

As long as the emphasis is on "team development" we will continue to have the same problems.

And since we don't have the infrastructure in place that exists elsewhere, playing high school soccer in addition to club/DA is not an issue.

Just another turf war within the sport...

Laimp. I agree with your wisdom. From my experience with DA the coaching was not better. The majority of the teams we played against played ugly long ball and little if any developing was going on. The collective of quality players was higher than club and high school. But the coaching was on par across the board from club, DA and high school. My kid chose to leave DA, if you can call being forced to leave a choice. He didn't want to leave, and his coach didn't want him to leave. But once the Academy threatened the coach and club with sanctions, we walked away. DA is not about doing whats best for the players, it is as you suggested, a turf war. Best thing for my kid was when he left DA. Played high school and made it all the way to regional finals. Then was recruited to play the summer up on a U20 USL team that was a step up from the DA. It prepared him better for Big Ten ball. So in the end it all worked out.