Does your team suddenly have a bunch playing football?

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

Why? Because a coaching ratio of 1:18 is better than 1:9 ? Or is it because you can't practice tactical things needed for U12-13 teams to win games?

my2cents wrote:

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league.    If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports.       My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

Why? Because a coaching ratio of 1:18 is better than 1:9 ? Or is it because you can't practice tactical things needed for U12-13 teams to win games?

Experienced the same thing with my older bb. Unfortunately there isn't much to do about it. It's a bit disappointing for the ones who focus solely on soccer.

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is good enough to play select soccer and good enough to play other sports and the parents are willing to dish out the $3K and the coach is willing to allow him to miss select soccer practices for another sport…who are you to tell them they should play rec. soccer? Your issue should be with the coach alone.


Most of the time these multi-sport kids are the best players on the team right? If not why else would the coach let them miss? It sounds like a bit of Jealousy to me. Almost all of the kids are not going to receive one financial reward for playing club soccer, so why should they sacrifice the joy of playing multiple sports (especially school sports in front of their classmates) just because some over involved soccer only parents don’t like it?

looprevil wrote:

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is good enough to play select soccer and good enough to play other sports and the parents are willing to dish out the $3K and the coach is willing to allow him to miss select soccer practices for another sport…who are you to tell them they should play rec. soccer? Your issue should be with the coach alone.


Most of the time these multi-sport kids are the best players on the team right?  If not why else would the coach let them miss?  It sounds like a bit of Jealousy to me.  Almost all of the kids are not going to receive one financial reward for playing club soccer, so why should they sacrifice the joy of playing multiple sports (especially school sports in front of their classmates) just because some over involved soccer only parents don’t like it?  

Sure jealousy, that's always it. It couldn't actually be that the ones missing are the ones who need the most practice. . . Please. The coach isn't 'allowing' it because they're the best ones, he's 'allowing' it, because if he didn't, we wouldn't have a team, which leads us BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT. Nice try though.

my2cents wrote:If they want to get serious about one of them then around 15 or 16 they should narrow it to one sport.

I would have to disagree with you on the age since U11/12 is the year when they first start breaking into the pre-academy and at U13/14 they are eligible to begin the USSDA Academy.

The boys who are passionate about making a higher Division in Classic League, or who want to play in Academy or gain selection in ODP or any of the extra associations can be hamstrung by the lack of cohesiveness in their team.

Players are developed and teams are coached and individual skills are further improved as the players work together in an effort to score and defend for their team.

If this sport isn't at the top of your list and you want to play multiple sports then by all means don't be shy about letting your coach and teammates know your intentions. You may have a BB that is incredible in multiple sports, however you will ultimately have to choose and 15-16 is a little late to let everyone know that you were undecided.

On the other hand if a team accepts that a BFS BB helps their league ranking and guarantees team success they will be not be able to complain too loud if and when that BB decides to stay in the sport or move on to another.

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is athletic enough to play both, and has the desire to play both, he should play both sports. It's absolutely ridiculous to tell an athletic 11 or 12 year old that he has to choose one or the other. Are you going to make him pick a college and a career path while you're at it?

I've known 7th and 8th graders who started on their school football AND baskeball teams, yet somehow were still good enough soccer players to be in the starting 11 on a D1 classic league team. Why should a kid have to choose if he is good enough to do it all? if they are not good enough then playing time in one or both sports will probably be diminished, which might make them reconsider priorities.

What if the second sport is school soccer and they are missing club practice for school soccer practice? This being, only till the school soccer season is over. Which last about 1-2 months.

This is in regards to a Netherlands University study on identifying elite athletes, a study that has become so valuable that the Dutch clubs want to take part of it.

"In the last decade, over a 1000 talent identified athletes in a variety of sports, among which are soccer players, field hockey players, basketball players, artistic gymnasts, tennis players and speed skaters, have been followed up in the Groningen talent studies. These studies revealed that to reach expertise, athletes have their own unique development patterns. For example, although on average the ultimately successful soccer players (ie, the ones signing a professional contract) seem to have acquired better dribbling skills by the age of 14, developed their interval endurance capacity faster from the age of 15, and outscored later amateurs by their tactical skills at the age of 17, individual developmental curves differ from each other. This is in line with recent recommendations to eschew the notion of common optimal performance development and instead emphasise the individual nature of pathways to expertise."


link for British Medical Journal article where above language was excerpted from.
http://bjsportmed.com/content/45/9/683.full

Based on this and what every select soccer coach has told me, it depends on the kid when they get to 15-16 and how they apply themselves.


And from Sports Gene book--future pros not only practice more, but take responsibility for practicing better. (Emphasis is the player and not the parent.) Some as young as 12 years old question the training, if they don't agree with it.

mavericks67 wrote:What if the second sport is school soccer and they are missing club practice for school soccer practice? This being, only till the school soccer season is over. Which last about 1-2 months.

That is a realistic scenario for a lot of players and I can see where you might be forced to make a decision between Club and School sports. I think the primary beef in this thread is in regards to choosing between different sports that don't cross-develop the player and missing one team practice for another.

Another issue in regards to American Tackle Football (ATF) is the downtime associated with an ATF related sports injury. I may be biased, but in Texas, ATF reigns supreme and the level of intensity is very high and so is the likelihood of an injury during a game.

I was QB on a D3 team that played a west coast offense (aka I was well protected) and I dislocated my shoulder three times, broke two ribs and saw more stars than I care to think about, but when I saw a JV Football game at Marcus I had to chuckle when I observed a much higher level of quality and intensity being played by very large freshman and sophomore athletes. Those JV teams played better than anything I was ever exposed to and I can only imagine that I would have been seeing planets if one of them had tackled me when I was playing in High School. I cannot imagine that any of those boys walked onto the team and into the sport of American Tackle Football at the beginning of their Freshman year and I am convinced that they are as committed to ATF as others are to Football (soccer).

That is my simple analysis of Tackle Football in Texas and why it is unlikely that you can serve both sports equally so feel free to criticize my conclusion, but the fact remains that ATF is a rough game and since everything is bigger in Texas so is the game.

My son loved Football season. With boys injured each week, he knew he would be on the field for every game.

PremierLeagueFan wrote:

mavericks67 wrote:What if the second sport is school soccer and they are missing club practice for school soccer practice? This being, only till the school soccer season is over. Which last about 1-2 months.

That is a realistic scenario for a lot of players and I can see where you might be forced to make a decision between Club and School sports. I think the primary beef in this thread is in regards to choosing between different sports that don't cross-develop the player and missing one team practice for another.

Another issue in regards to American Tackle Football (ATF) is the downtime associated with an ATF related sports injury. I may be biased, but in Texas, ATF reigns supreme and the level of intensity is very high and so is the likelihood of an injury during a game.

I was QB on a D3 team that played a west coast offense (aka I was well protected) and I dislocated my shoulder three times, broke two ribs and saw more stars than I care to think about, but when I saw a JV Football game at Marcus I had to chuckle when I observed a much higher level of quality and intensity being played by very large freshman and sophomore athletes. Those JV teams played better than anything I was ever exposed to and I can only imagine that I would have been seeing planets if one of them had tackled me when I was playing in High School. I cannot imagine that any of those boys walked onto the team and into the sport of American Tackle Football at the beginning of their Freshman year and I am convinced that they are as committed to ATF as others are to Football (soccer).

That is my simple analysis of Tackle Football in Texas and why it is unlikely that you can serve both sports equally so feel free to criticize my conclusion, but the fact remains that ATF is a rough game and since everything is bigger in Texas so is the game.

Wont criticize but I will tell you that I know a soccer player and a basketball player from a local 4A school that never stepped on a HS football field but walked on to the OU football team as college freshman just last year.

earbucket wrote:This is in regards to a Netherlands University study on identifying elite athletes, a study that has become so valuable that the Dutch clubs want to take part of it.

"In the last decade, over a 1000 talent identified athletes in a variety of sports, among which are soccer players, field hockey players, basketball players, artistic gymnasts, tennis players and speed skaters, have been followed up in the Groningen talent studies. These studies revealed that to reach expertise, athletes have their own unique development patterns. For example, although on average the ultimately successful soccer players (ie, the ones signing a professional contract) seem to have acquired better dribbling skills by the age of 14, developed their interval endurance capacity faster from the age of 15, and outscored later amateurs by their tactical skills at the age of 17, individual developmental curves differ from each other. This is in line with recent recommendations to eschew the notion of common optimal performance development and instead emphasise the individual nature of pathways to expertise."


link for British Medical Journal article where above language was excerpted from.
http://bjsportmed.com/content/45/9/683.full

Based on this and what every select soccer coach has told me, it depends on the kid when they get to 15-16 and how they apply themselves.  


And from Sports Gene book--future pros not only practice more, but take responsibility for practicing better. (Emphasis is the player and not the parent.)  Some as young as 12 years old question the training, if they don't agree with it.

That is all great if the reason for youth athletics was to produce professional athletes but it is not. To base decisions and policies on what is best for the one out of every 10,000 competitve soccer players that makes it to the pros would be a disservice to the other 9,999.

Wow, I can not believe I am reading this as my child sits in bed with a mild concussion from football. He only kicks for the team, but was put into drills and guess what a kid leading with his helmet, hit him head to head. I am so frustrated, because all he does for the team is kick extra points, punts and field goals (not yet in a game). I have to agree that football injuries are over the top, that the nurse at the school has her own form just for football injuries. My child is a soccer kid and likes the social aspect of football, so that is why he is kicking. Defiantly going to rethink it after this accident, it just sucks because he has been playing soccer for 9 years and has had nothing this serious other than bumps and bruises.

Hope he is OK. Don't let them rush him back or let him feel indestructable and go right back too early. Hope your program did a baseline for him to test against.

my2cents wrote:

earbucket wrote:This is in regards to a Netherlands University study on identifying elite athletes, a study that has become so valuable that the Dutch clubs want to take part of it.

"In the last decade, over a 1000 talent identified athletes in a variety of sports, among which are soccer players, field hockey players, basketball players, artistic gymnasts, tennis players and speed skaters, have been followed up in the Groningen talent studies. These studies revealed that to reach expertise, athletes have their own unique development patterns. For example, although on average the ultimately successful soccer players (ie, the ones signing a professional contract) seem to have acquired better dribbling skills by the age of 14, developed their interval endurance capacity faster from the age of 15, and outscored later amateurs by their tactical skills at the age of 17, individual developmental curves differ from each other. This is in line with recent recommendations to eschew the notion of common optimal performance development and instead emphasise the individual nature of pathways to expertise."


link for British Medical Journal article where above language was excerpted from.
http://bjsportmed.com/content/45/9/683.full

Based on this and what every select soccer coach has told me, it depends on the kid when they get to 15-16 and how they apply themselves.  


And from Sports Gene book--future pros not only practice more, but take responsibility for practicing better. (Emphasis is the player and not the parent.)  Some as young as 12 years old question the training, if they don't agree with it.

That is all great if the reason for youth athletics was to produce professional athletes but it is not. To base decisions and policies on what is best for the one out of every 10,000 competitve soccer players that makes it to the pros would be a disservice to the other 9,999.

I fail to see your point. There are not two different systems in producing athletes at the youth level. It is a continuum and what works at the top level gets passed down to the other levels. The point of above is not some special recipe for future professionals, but setting markers for identification of elite athletes and how there is no effect on whether a teammate plays multiple sports. I didn't find any studies of player burn out from playing a single sport, but I'm sure there are lots of anecdotes.

Thanks for the thoughts, he will get back at a very slow pace, just not worth it.

Careful with heading the ball when he goes back now. It is easier to get the 2nd concussion once you have had the first.
I know from experience all to well about concussions. My son was out 3 months from a head to head shot in select soccer, so it can happen anywhere.
Football just has more, because they are leading with the head.

Good topic, I happen to agree with my2cents.

If your kid is good enough and you want 100% commitment to soccer, he should be on DA or Pre-academy. If you choose to let him have a balanced life with multiple sports, then you don't choose DA. Many kids that do both still happen to be better than the ones who only choose one sport. That is just the way it works. Why put all your eggs in 1 basket? I happen to know a D1 player that has scholarship offers for both soccer and D1 american football kicker.

If they are before PA or DA, they should be working on skills and if the football players miss your son should get more attention and touches.

Most won't become professional soccer players. So they can have found memories to look back on of playing multiple sports. If they choose the soccer only, they can look back knowing they have memories and gave it their all dedicated to that particular sport.

34blast wrote:Good topic,  I happen to agree with my2cents.



If they are before PA or DA,  they should be working on skills and if the football players miss your son should get more attention and touches.

I think sometimes the parents of the ATF players needs to be reminded of this, too....If your child chooses to play another sport, don't be surprised if someone who is making every practice gets more of the playtime on game day that your kid had.

mookieblaylock wrote:

looprevil wrote:

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is good enough to play select soccer and good enough to play other sports and the parents are willing to dish out the $3K and the coach is willing to allow him to miss select soccer practices for another sport…who are you to tell them they should play rec. soccer? Your issue should be with the coach alone.


Most of the time these multi-sport kids are the best players on the team right?  If not why else would the coach let them miss?  It sounds like a bit of Jealousy to me.  Almost all of the kids are not going to receive one financial reward for playing club soccer, so why should they sacrifice the joy of playing multiple sports (especially school sports in front of their classmates) just because some over involved soccer only parents don’t like it?  

Sure jealousy, that's always it.  It couldn't actually be that the ones missing are the ones who need the most practice. . .  Please.  The coach isn't 'allowing' it because they're the best ones, he's 'allowing' it, because if he didn't, we wouldn't have a team, which leads us BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT.  Nice try though.

OK so you are saying that several less skilled/talented players on your 01 team are now missing soccer practice for football. The coach of the team was not aware this was going to happen and cannot do anything about it. Huh wonder where the issue lies??  

Also sense you referenced your original post, you did ask this question: “they are not forced into football, so why do it?” Sorry but that has to be one of the most ridiculous questions I have seen on this forum.  

So you are seriously asking why, in the State of Texas, would a boy want to play American football for his school. Lets compare the two- money spent on football (programs, stadiums, etc), the coverage it gets on TV and the level of involvement around it (parents in lawn chairs on sideline in club soccer vs. cheerleaders, band, flag core, fellow students, etc). Sorry but wouldn't a much better question be why wouldn’t a boy that has the ability to play American football in Texas not do it? I am not suggesting all that can play American football should, but I certainly would not struggle to understand why a select soccer player would want to participate in American football if they enjoyed it.

i think if you want to play football, ok. BUT your decision has consequences, miss practices, games etc, you ride the bench,fall back on the depth chart, lose playing time. i view it as no different then your kid wanted to stay home and watch tv. you aren't there, so you pay the price and those that do practice and show up reap the rewards.....

soccerisgood123 wrote:i think if you want to play football, ok. BUT your decision has consequences, miss practices, games etc, you ride the bench,fall back on the depth chart, lose playing time. i view it as no different then your kid wanted to stay home and watch tv. you aren't there, so you pay the price and those that do practice and show up reap the rewards.....

Agreed- like I said it all goes back to how the coach handles it. However, from what I have seen (unlike Mookies) is the players that play football are often the better players on the team - so a little hard for the coach to move them to the back of the bench if they want to win. I will also say in the cases I have seen the coaches are also very aware of what the fall plans are, they may not like it but they still sign them (again because they are talented).

mookieblaylock wrote:

looprevil wrote:

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is good enough to play select soccer and good enough to play other sports and the parents are willing to dish out the $3K and the coach is willing to allow him to miss select soccer practices for another sport…who are you to tell them they should play rec. soccer? Your issue should be with the coach alone.


Most of the time these multi-sport kids are the best players on the team right?  If not why else would the coach let them miss?  It sounds like a bit of Jealousy to me.  Almost all of the kids are not going to receive one financial reward for playing club soccer, so why should they sacrifice the joy of playing multiple sports (especially school sports in front of their classmates) just because some over involved soccer only parents don’t like it?  

Sure jealousy, that's always it.  It couldn't actually be that the ones missing are the ones who need the most practice. . .  Please.  The coach isn't 'allowing' it because they're the best ones, he's 'allowing' it, because if he didn't, we wouldn't have a team, which leads us BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT.  Nice try though.

Jealousy    
You would not say that if you had seen my son play soccer or run track for his school! I have no desire to see him play football, although he has the athletic skills to be one of the best in the field.
I am not risking my child's health for the gratification of seeing him play for the school.

Laroja_2012 wrote:

mookieblaylock wrote:

looprevil wrote:

Laroja_2012 wrote:If a kid wants to play more than a sport, then he is more than welcome to do it. But he should play in a recreational league. If I am spending $3000/year on my son, I hate going to a practice were half of the kids are missing because they play other sports. My son did play other sports last year (not football), but he did not miss any practice. We gave his club team priority over the school team.

If a kid is good enough to play select soccer and good enough to play other sports and the parents are willing to dish out the $3K and the coach is willing to allow him to miss select soccer practices for another sport…who are you to tell them they should play rec. soccer? Your issue should be with the coach alone.


Most of the time these multi-sport kids are the best players on the team right?  If not why else would the coach let them miss?  It sounds like a bit of Jealousy to me.  Almost all of the kids are not going to receive one financial reward for playing club soccer, so why should they sacrifice the joy of playing multiple sports (especially school sports in front of their classmates) just because some over involved soccer only parents don’t like it?  

Sure jealousy, that's always it.  It couldn't actually be that the ones missing are the ones who need the most practice. . .  Please.  The coach isn't 'allowing' it because they're the best ones, he's 'allowing' it, because if he didn't, we wouldn't have a team, which leads us BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT.  Nice try though.

Jealousy    
You would not say that if you had seen my son play soccer or run track for his school! I have no desire to see him play football, although he has the athletic skills to be one of the best in the field.
I am not risking my child's health for the gratification of seeing him play for the school.

You kinda enjoy seeing what you write, don't ya? You're a bit of a dandy. Everyone is a fool except for you. "I am not risking my child's health for the gratification of seeing him play for the school." That's one of the more self-centered quotes I've seen on here. Oh, I get the "I am not risking my child's health" part. It's the rest of it that kinda opens you up for the see you as you are. I'm guessing you never played organized sports or saw the value in them. Let me guess... trombone or clarinet, right? Maybe drum-major?

It may not be jealousy, but there's something going on there.

"so a little hard for the coach to move them to the back of the bench if they want to win."
And that is what is all about, for most coaches and parents. Talking about self gratification:( 

Agreed Real....

Every time I see the parents that believe that the team can't win without their son in the game, i want to run! No one is NOT replaceable...teams adjust without their stars, and oh, shock, sometimes do even better with the workhorses sharing the ball and working together.

Stars don't win championships, teams do!