Colin Cowherd and Jason Whitlock

[ZooCougar]

The Premier teams don't seem to have scholarships. Our club does have scholarships, and it's a pretty diverse club. A quarter of each team is made up of scholarship kids. No complaints from paying parents. Probably because the yearly fee is $1k.

This is a club with all levels, not just premier. Most teams are travel, with about 5 age groups also competing in premier.

I don't disagree with your premise or the original one. Just with the idea that clubs like ours do not exist.

Mind you, my oldest went through years at the club I'm talking about, but when her team was ripped apart by the new USSF age matrix, she moved over to one of the premier teams that you all are criticizing. Only one person of color on the entire team, which is a big change from her older club.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the whole process is evil or anything. It's just evolved into something a bit inefficient. Most of this stuff is volunteer run, but things cost money.

The club we have Riley in is lower cost because the coach pays for his expenses out of his own pocket and they don't bother with team bags and all this other stuff that doesn't help players get better. It's in a smaller town just outside of KC, Overland Park and Leawood. But the kids that play on the teams in his league are paying at least three times as much, for the same amount of practices, games and tournaments.

 

[ZooCougar]

Responding to ZooCougar, I would say that we could take more advantage of ethnic and immigrant communities in my area if only we could do something about facilities and transportation.

I sympathize with what you're saying but I don't think it's the organization of soccer that is to blame.

When we try to encourage our best house league kids to move up to more competitive clubs, we find that transportation is difficult because the lack of facilities (i.e. fields) requires transportation. And parents who work multiple jobs can't imagine their young children traversing the city to get to the fields (never mind practices that end at dark).

So, I think our problems have to do with the lack of numbers of soccer players (for basketball in the inner city, competitive teams congregate at local courts or school gyms) which would produce a demand for facilities, then urban sprawl and the fact that parents often work multiple jobs. If we could solve these problems ,you'd see clubs like our own inner city club begin to dominate the premier teams, and that would really produce change.

First we should focus on the communities that actually are playing soccer.

For whatever reason, the inner cities don't seem to care about soccer. Meanwhile in the southern, central and western parts of the US where we have these large and growing pockets of Hispanic communities, there are leagues and players that are pretty much untapped. Liga MX and Bundesliga have gone there, but it's a major blind spot and those communities should be integrated.

There was just a special on this on Sirius XM, the suburban clubs don't want to play these clubs not out of racism, but really because their facilities are usually really poor.

 

[upstater]

First we should focus on the communities that actually are playing soccer.

For whatever reason, the inner cities don't seem to care about soccer. Meanwhile in the southern, central and western parts of the US where we have these large and growing pockets of Hispanic communities, there are leagues and players that are pretty much untapped. Liga MX and Bundesliga have gone there, but it's a major blind spot and those communities should be integrated.

There was just a special on this on Sirius XM, the suburban clubs don't want to play these clubs not out of racism, but really because their facilities are usually really poor.

We have a weird relationship with one local club. Their field is slanted. Like really uphill/downhill. The club also does not much like it when some of theirs (Somali, Burmese, Hispanic) come over to play for our club a mile away.

My daughter's premier club has some kind of relationship with Bayern Munich and Adidas (which I can't really understand) but I do see that the coaches (all foreign, usually Irish, Spanish, German, young guys) have clinics in the inner city.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Yeah well maybe if you bothered to educate yourself on the issue you'd see that 20 academies in a nation of 340 million is barely a drop in the bucket. And more than just DC United are pay to play.



Pay to play is just the symptom according to this article. Pay-to-play is a symptom, not the problem itself | The 91st Minute | Soccer Blog | Videos | Pop-Culture

In order to get lucky enough to get recruited into a Pro Academy in the US, even if it is a scholarship program, you have to navigate a gauntlet of pay to play setups.

The article above suggests that all of these pay to play outfits are operating on "subsistence", however what the article doesn't account for, is exorbitant league and tournament fees.

The better the league and the tournament, the more expensive the fees. It's simply a fact. Most Academies in the US aren't linked to Pro Clubs so the very best programs are in fact the most expensive. So basically, the best players can participate only if they get a scholarship and if their parents have the time and money to commit.

So basically, we don't have a true organic system where the cream always rises to the top. Secondly, there is a huge base of talent that rarely gets looked at in our Hispanic communities. There's also probably some real talent sitting on High School teams with kids who can't get access to these big leagues around our big cities.

Lastly, in other countries, Federations mandate that clubs at all levels get a piece of the sale fee when players are sold professionally. Even if the Academy or Club isn't professional. There is an active lawsuit going on at the moment, because the US Clubs believe that the USSF is not complying with FIFA Regulations on this.

Say what you want about FIFA, but this soccer form of trickle down economics is proven to work around the world. These lower level clubs and academies actually have some incentive to provide scholarships to exceptional talent AND scout the full population.

You said that MLS academies are "by and large" pay to play. They're not, only DCU has an academy that costs money. And most MLS academies are starting to recruit kids as young as the U-8 level, which takes away that trickle down effect you're talking about.

 

[ZooCougar]

You said that MLS academies are "by and large" pay to play. They're not, only DCU has an academy that costs money. And most MLS academies are starting to recruit kids as young as the U-8 level, which takes away that trickle down effect you're talking about.

DCU is one of a few that still have pay to play. I know some kids are still paying to be in Sporting's Academy. But even if 22 MLS Academies were 100% scholarship it wouldn't put a dent into a country of 340 Million with such immense geographic dispersion. And even still the league's scouting network still can't canvas the entire country, nor would it be realistic to expect it to. We need a bigger structure that provides incentives for grass roots programs to break down some of these barriers, most of which boil down to money.

 

[Chuck]

First we should focus on the communities that actually are playing soccer.

For whatever reason, the inner cities don't seem to care about soccer. Meanwhile in the southern, central and western parts of the US where we have these large and growing pockets of Hispanic communities, there are leagues and players that are pretty much untapped. Liga MX and Bundesliga have gone there, but it's a major blind spot and those communities should be integrated.

There was just a special on this on Sirius XM, the suburban clubs don't want to play these clubs not out of racism, but really because their facilities are usually really poor.

It depends on the demographics. My kids play in Union City (mostly Dominican now, not Cuban), Newark (mostly Brazilian now, not Portuguese), and Passaic, plus a couple questionable Rockland County towns, to name a few. Those cities take their soccer pretty seriously, but they are usual Latin American, not African American. I think Montclair is the only town we play that has a quarter or more African American players.

Re the Sirius XM discussion, I think it's more likely that the clubs are afraid to tell the parents they need to go to those towns. My experience with facilities is the opposite. The best facilities that my kids play in at a U11 level in Northern NJ are almost always our "city" or lower socio-economic teams. Newark has some great fields (and some kick-arse Portuguese/Brazilian teams). They just have more resources that trickle down to the parks departments. My suburban town (which would probably be considered wealthy) has horrible fields. We have 25 teams in our town travel club and they pretty much practice on a sand lot and the playing field is also used as the youth football practice field. A referendum to turf our fields was shot down for health and tax reasons (mostly the tax reasons) and we're now back to square 1 on improving the fields in a different way. The towns surrounding us are some of the wealthiest in the nation and they aren't much better.

My son is not as happy with his team this year and wants to try out for a couple of the academies around us. I'm trying to talk him out of it. I think it's just because he has a lot of new kids with the age changes. They look like they'll be a solid team so I think he'll be happy. He will never be on the A team of one of those academies. Those are the kids that should probably be playing at that higher level. A couple of the academies now have 4 teams in certain age groups. I saw one of the top academies has a girls team in a D flight of our 2nd level league. That, to me, is just a money grab.

 

[ZooCougar]

It depends on the demographics. My kids play in Union City (mostly Dominican now, not Cuban), Newark (mostly Brazilian now, not Portuguese), and Passaic, plus a couple questionable Rockland County towns, to name a few. Those cities take their soccer pretty seriously, but they are usual Latin American, not African American. I think Montclair is the only town we play that has a quarter or more African American players.

Re the Sirius XM discussion, I think it's more likely that the clubs are afraid to tell the parents they need to go to those towns. My experience with facilities is the opposite. The best facilities that my kids play in at a U11 level in Northern NJ are almost always our "city" or lower socio-economic teams. Newark has some great fields (and some kick-arse Portuguese/Brazilian teams). They just have more resources that trickle down to the parks departments. My suburban town (which would probably be considered wealthy) has horrible fields. We have 25 teams in our town travel club and they pretty much practice on a sand lot and the playing field is also used as the youth football practice field. A referendum to turf our fields was shot down for health and tax reasons (mostly the tax reasons) and we're now back to square 1 on improving the fields in a different way. The towns surrounding us are some of the wealthiest in the nation and they aren't much better.

My son is not as happy with his team this year and wants to try out for a couple of the academies around us. I'm trying to talk him out of it. I think it's just because he has a lot of new kids with the age changes. They look like they'll be a solid team so I think he'll be happy. He will never be on the A team of one of those academies. Those are the kids that should probably be playing at that higher level. A couple of the academies now have 4 teams in certain age groups. I saw one of the top academies has a girls team in a D flight of our 2nd level league. That, to me, is just a money grab.

I thought this article encapsulated the different approaches to youth soccer between Italy and the US.

What I thought was most interesting was the emphasis on team in Italy. Playing as one unit seems to be a consistent theme all the way up to the national level.

SoccerAmerica - Italian-American: Playing youth soccer in Italy 09/15/2016

 

[Chuck]

I thought this article encapsulated the different approaches to youth soccer between Italy and the US.

What I thought was most interesting was the emphasis on team in Italy. Playing as one unit seems to be a consistent theme all the way up to the national level.

SoccerAmerica - Italian-American: Playing youth soccer in Italy 09/15/2016

I can tell you that as a coach, that is absolutely being preached by US Soccer in their coach training (I only have an F license). I also know that at U11 and below, the best academies in my area follow that once you make their team. My club is making a concerted effort this year to go style of play over results. I can't imagine that every coach will buy in though since we are trainer trained, but parent coached. There are other challenges to making the Italian style work, but I would bore all of you with that.

With more parents forbidding their kids to play football and the increased opportunities for kids to get solid soccer training and visibility of European leagues, I expect US soccer to get deeper. I don't know if that will result in a better national team, but it will benefit the MLS at some point.

 

[upstater]

I thought this article encapsulated the different approaches to youth soccer between Italy and the US.

What I thought was most interesting was the emphasis on team in Italy. Playing as one unit seems to be a consistent theme all the way up to the national level.

SoccerAmerica - Italian-American: Playing youth soccer in Italy 09/15/2016

I find all the different approaches clash.

We had a coach that was teaching team strategy early on, possession, he broke down every stage of the game and spent a good month on each teaching it to 10-11 year olds, then linking the phases. And it worked. Our games were ugly at first because teaching possession when skill levels aren't up to snuff leads to a lot of turnovers. His pet peeve was when away games were scheduled on oversized fields (which opened space and encouraged through balls and "bad habits.")

Well, you had several parents with soccer knowledge that were critical of the fact that so much time was spent learning the team game to the detriment of getting touches on the ball, of players making risky individual moves, and these parents even cited the German system which emphasizes practice and keeping a ball at your feet at all times. The parents took their kids to academies.

The Italian team emphasis works well when your kids schedule high level games. Around here though, in the spring season, the academies only play 8 games the entire season, and they have 3 practices a week.

 

[Chuck]

I find all the different approaches clash.

We had a coach that was teaching team strategy early on, possession, he broke down every stage of the game and spent a good month on each teaching it to 10-11 year olds, then linking the phases. And it worked. Our games were ugly at first because teaching possession when skill levels aren't up to snuff leads to a lot of turnovers. His pet peeve was when away games were scheduled on oversized fields (which opened space and encouraged through balls and "bad habits.")

Well, you had several parents with soccer knowledge that were critical of the fact that so much time was spent learning the team game to the detriment of getting touches on the ball, of players making risky individual moves, and these parents even cited the German system which emphasizes practice and keeping a ball at your feet at all times. The parents took their kids to academies.

The Italian team emphasis works well when your kids schedule high level games. Around here though, in the spring season, the academies only play 8 games the entire season, and they have 3 practices a week.

I've turned this thread into my youth soccer dumping ground.

We are playing in a Columbus Day tournament in central NJ. They are making the U11 and U12 9v9. Our league in northern NJ plays 8v8. I can't understand why you'd want to jam another player on a small side field that is already getting a bit tight for the boys. If the idea is to promote more touches with less players and small sided fields, why go 9v9? Someone told me that 9v9 is pretty standard at U11, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it will be as big of a deal for my daughter's U11 team that I coach, but I still don't think it's helpful.

I also still think the age group changes were stupid. Our league had a lot of trouble with flighting because every team wanted to move down just in case their new players weren't good. The league went with 1 A flight and 3 B flights. My son's team is in their usual B flight, but have had no competition in their first four games. It's uncomfortable for both teams when the score is so lopsided. It will be better in spring, but I still think they should stick with age groups based on the area's school calendar.

 

[upstater]

I've turned this thread into my youth soccer dumping ground.

We are playing in a Columbus Day tournament in central NJ. They are making the U11 and U12 9v9. Our league in northern NJ plays 8v8. I can't understand why you'd want to jam another player on a small side field that is already getting a bit tight for the boys. If the idea is to promote more touches with less players and small sided fields, why go 9v9? Someone told me that 9v9 is pretty standard at U11, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it will be as big of a deal for my daughter's U11 team that I coach, but I still don't think it's helpful.

I also still think the age group changes were stupid. Our league had a lot of trouble with flighting because every team wanted to move down just in case their new players weren't good. The league went with 1 A flight and 3 B flights. My son's team is in their usual B flight, but have had no competition in their first four games. It's uncomfortable for both teams when the score is so lopsided. It will be better in spring, but I still think they should stick with age groups based on the area's school calendar.

It's been 9v9 at U11 for awhile where I am.

Our current coach is like the last one, prefers a very small field. All the drills have the kids controlling the ball in very tight quarters.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

It's been 9v9 at U11 for awhile where I am.

Our current coach is like the last one, prefers a very small field. All the drills have the kids controlling the ball in very tight quarters.

My challenge this season as a ref and a coach has been the new USSF heading ban for under 12, especially the kids who have been taught how to head the ball and have been comfortable doing so for a few years now.

 

[upstater]

My challenge this season as a ref and a coach has been the new USSF heading ban for under 12, especially the kids who have been taught how to head the ball and have been comfortable doing so for a few years now.

When was this ruling made? As of this summer, U12s were heading balls, and allowed to do so.

 

[Chuck]

My challenge this season as a ref and a coach has been the new USSF heading ban for under 12, especially the kids who have been taught how to head the ball and have been comfortable doing so for a few years now.

USSF says you can't head until U12. It started last year in our league and was a problem for our boys (then U10) because they had become decent at heading. This year there have been less indirect kicks awarded. Our refs have gotten used to the rules also. Last year we saw fouls called when kids got hit in the head with the ball. Our U10 girls (now U11) didn't want anything to do with heading any ball with pace so it didn't effect them as much.

I'm looking forward to the rule change allowing a pass back on the restart. It makes sense.

I'm not sure how I feel about the throw in changes. its not a foul throw if the ball comes out of a throw-in spinning.

Do you ref Northern Counties? If so, I'll definitely have to make sure we never meet!

 

[DarthGrumpy]

USSF says you can't head until U12. It startedt last year in our league and was a problem for our boys (then U10) because they had become decent at heading. This year there have been less indirect kicks awarded. Our refs have gotten used to the rules also. Last year we saw fouls called when kids got hit in the head with the ball. Our U10 girls (now U11) didn't want anything to do with heading any ball with pace so it didn't effect them as much.

I'm looking forward to the rule change allowing a pass back on the restart. It makes sense.

I'm not sure how I feel about the throw in changes. its not a foul throw if the ball comes out of a throw-in spinning.

Do you ref Northern Counties? If so, I'll definitely have to make sure we never meet!

I have not heard about the throw-in change. Where's that? Our Rec program just shifted on the heading rule this year and its a real problem at the U10 level in our town. Way too many whistles. I coach and ref in North Jersey, so no issue there.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

When was this ruling made? As of this summer, U12s were heading balls, and allowed to do so.

U11 and under, no heading, with Restrictions on U12 through U13.

Implementation guidelines for U.S. Soccer's Player Safety Campaign: Concussion initiatives & heading for youth players - US Club Soccer

 

[upstater]

U11 and under, no heading, with Restrictions on U12 through U13.

Implementation guidelines for U.S. Soccer's Player Safety Campaign: Concussion initiatives & heading for youth players - US Club Soccer

Yes, I know that rule. The funny thing is how you can get around that rule. In my area, there are travel leagues with 50+ teams at a given level, and they try to group all the U11s together, but they are essentially playing in U12 divisions even if most of the team is U11. In other words, our U11 girls were legally heading the ball this summer because ALL the teams are in the U12 division.

 

[Chuck]

I have not heard about the throw-in change. Where's that? Our Rec program just shifted on the heading rule this year and its a real problem at the U10 level in our town. Way too many whistles. I coach and ref in North Jersey, so no issue there.

Apparently not a rule change, but maybe a reinterpretation of how things used to be called. When I played, the ball had to come out with no sideways spin. My co-coach and I noticed that this year kids are not getting called for a spinning ball. We asked the ref if it's a new rule and he said yes. As long as they go over the head, it is okay that the ball spins. I looked it up, and I don't think it's a rule change, but correcting a common misinterpretation. Spinning is okay, but it used to be assumed that if the ball was spinning, you didn't throw over head. I'm fine with it. Now I just have to nail our girls back foot to the ground so we stop getting called for the foot-lift!

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Apparently not a rule change, but maybe a reinterpretation of how things used to be called. When I played, the ball had to come out with no sideways spin. My co-coach and I noticed that this year kids are not getting called for a spinning ball. We asked the ref if it's a new rule and he said yes. As long as they go over the head, it is okay that the ball spins. I looked it up, and I don't think it's a rule change, but correcting a common misinterpretation. Spinning is okay, but it used to be assumed that if the ball was spinning, you didn't throw over head. I'm fine with it. Now I just have to nail our girls back foot to the ground so we stop getting called for the foot-lift!

Thanks. Try the U10 crowd in general, they hop & skip for everything, running, throw-ins, sitting on the bench, etc. As a ref, If I blew the whistle every time I saw someone 'somewhat' lift a foot at that age, I would spend 30 minutes a game re-doing throw-ins.

 

[ZooCougar]

Thanks. Try the U10 crowd in general, they hop & skip for everything, running, throw-ins, sitting on the bench, etc. As a ref, If I blew the whistle every time I saw someone 'somewhat' lift a foot at that age, I would spend 30 minutes a game re-doing throw-ins.

Last weekend the ref kept calling heading. He kept forgetting which age group he was reffing. We had five drop balls.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Last weekend the ref kept calling heading. He kept forgetting which age group he was reffing. We had five drop balls.

It happens.

I had a ref last year who did not know that slide tackling is not allowed in Rec (we play a multi-town rec league) for U9. The other team's best player, he got a hat-trick, made 5 slide tackles without a single whistle. Luckily only one of my players was hurt. I finally had enough and grabbed the ref and the other team's head coach and told that player was done or I was going to call the Rec Commissioner on the spot. The opposing coach said he did not know about the rule, which I pointed out was BS because it was rule #1 on the rule book that each coach got at the beginning of the season. I should know as I wrote it. The rule on slide tackling was foul #1) warning (some kids play on Rec also play travel, which does allow slide tackling, so I can understand a U9 kid just forgetting), 2) yellow, 3) red. Oh, my team lost by a goal, too.

This year, a different ref, now U10, was trying to explain to me that two goals scored by the other team were not offside were no offside. I get that offside is a tough call to make, especially when there is just one referee. The explanation that the goals counted because the goalscorer (same player) was not in an offside position when he scored both goals and therefore the the two passes that lead directly to each goal to players who were significantly offside did not matter. It was an interesting conversation. Basically, both goals were from long clearances from their defensive end across the midfield line to 3 players who were all behind our defensive line by several yards. So, the clearance pass and then the pass from the wing to the middle were offisides; but, the final parallel pass that got the goal keeper past our keeper was technically not. We lost 4 to 2.

 

[meyers7]

I've turned this thread into my youth soccer dumping ground.

We are playing in a Columbus Day tournament in central NJ. They are making the U11 and U12 9v9. Our league in northern NJ plays 8v8. I can't understand why you'd want to jam another player on a small side field that is already getting a bit tight for the boys. If the idea is to promote more touches with less players and small sided fields, why go 9v9? Someone told me that 9v9 is pretty standard at U11, but I'm not a fan. I don't think it will be as big of a deal for my daughter's U11 team that I coach, but I still don't think it's helpful.

I also still think the age group changes were stupid. Our league had a lot of trouble with flighting because every team wanted to move down just in case their new players weren't good. The league went with 1 A flight and 3 B flights. My son's team is in their usual B flight, but have had no competition in their first four games. It's uncomfortable for both teams when the score is so lopsided. It will be better in spring, but I still think they should stick with age groups based on the area's school calendar.

Yea, most people don't like the calendar age change, but it comes down from on high. Not a whole lot can be done about it. In a couple of years, people will be used to it and it won't make much difference. There always has to be some set date. And it will always leave some kids too young or too old or in a different grade.

The biggest scramble I've seen is for the U15's who have not entered HS yet. I've seen the Travel teams address this, but so far not the in-town programs.

 

[upstater]

Thanks. Try the U10 crowd in general, they hop & skip for everything, running, throw-ins, sitting on the bench, etc. As a ref, If I blew the whistle every time I saw someone 'somewhat' lift a foot at that age, I would spend 30 minutes a game re-doing throw-ins.

Our travel kids had it down pretty early. Although they all use the same throw in technique (toe drag). Funny thing is that now that we're up at Premier level we're see more foot-lifts. I think this is just a matter of practice. 30 minutes could fix this easily.

 

[meyers7]

USSF says you can't head until U12. It started last year in our league and was a problem for our boys (then U10) because they had become decent at heading. This year there have been less indirect kicks awarded. Our refs have gotten used to the rules also. Last year we saw fouls called when kids got hit in the head with the ball. Our U10 girls (now U11) didn't want anything to do with heading any ball with pace so it didn't effect them as much.

I'm looking forward to the rule change allowing a pass back on the restart. It makes sense.

I'm not sure how I feel about the throw in changes. its not a foul throw if the ball comes out of a throw-in spinning.

Do you ref Northern Counties? If so, I'll definitely have to make sure we never meet!

I have not heard about the throw-in change. Where's that? Our Rec program just shifted on the heading rule this year and its a real problem at the U10 level in our town. Way too many whistles. I coach and ref in North Jersey, so no issue there.

Apparently not a rule change, but maybe a reinterpretation of how things used to be called. When I played, the ball had to come out with no sideways spin. My co-coach and I noticed that this year kids are not getting called for a spinning ball. We asked the ref if it's a new rule and he said yes. As long as they go over the head, it is okay that the ball spins. I looked it up, and I don't think it's a rule change, but correcting a common misinterpretation. Spinning is okay, but it used to be assumed that if the ball was spinning, you didn't throw over head. I'm fine with it. Now I just have to nail our girls back foot to the ground so we stop getting called for the foot-lift!

Yea, there was no change to the throw-in. Not really even a new interpretation. It was always supposed to be ok for there to be spin on the ball.

Now if we could get refs to call handling and offside like it's supposed to be called.

 

[upstater]

This year, a different ref, now U10, was trying to explain to me that two goals scored by the other team were not offside were no offside. I get that offside is a tough call to make, especially when there is just one referee. The explanation that the goals counted because the goalscorer (same player) was not in an offside position when he scored both goals and therefore the the two passes that lead directly to each goal to players who were significantly offside did not matter. It was an interesting conversation. Basically, both goals were from long clearances from their defensive end across the midfield line to 3 players who were all behind our defensive line by several yards. So, the clearance pass and then the pass from the wing to the middle were offsides; but, the final parallel pass that got the goal keeper past our keeper was technically not. We lost 4 to 2.

Last year, a sideline ref called a goal off a corner kick in a 1 goal loss game for my kid's team. The ball was kicked out of the box by a player guarding the far post. Our coach, who never questions refs, had a talk at halftime with the sideline guy. The sideline guy made a hand motion like the ball had somehow swerved in and then come out of the net--from a corner kick!! We all saw that didn't happen--the laws of physics still applied. I called it the magic corner kick theory, Leo H. Osvaldo.