SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Academy Players Can't Play High School Soon?

You are correct about the CESA teams staying active during the HS season. Usually it is because they are getting ready for regionals. I can tell you that their coaches would not tell kids that they could not play HS soccer, the coaches I know encourage the kids to even play other sports so that they keep their fitness levels high.
I can also tell you that the HS programs where many of the top players in the state play--Mann, eastside, riverside, wando, irmo, BE, Christ etc.. have training that is just as good if not sometimes better than a lot of the academy and club coaches offer. The one invaluable thing they provide is playing for school pride and allowing the kids an opportunity to excel in front of their friends not just their parents.

Interesting that I just received this article this morning from SoccerAmerica's Youth Soccer Insider. Note Tony Lepore's use of the word "yet."


Monday, May 30, 2011
The high-school dilemma

By Mike Woitalla

HIGH SCHOOL VS. CLUB. One of the most unfortunate aspects of American youth soccer is forcing kids to choose between club soccer and high school ball. For sure, in many cases it’s not an either-or, but the pressure on the very elite players, especially those in the U.S. Soccer Development Academy, to skip school ball continues to increase.

The Washington Post’s Paul Tenorio did an excellent job reporting on the dilemma in a recent article headlined, “Is it best to play in high school, or on an academy team?”

Tony Lepore, director of scouting for U.S. youth national teams and a technical adviser for the Development Academy, says, “In top footballing nations, school soccer is not where the top players play and develop. That’s how this has evolved and how this shift has continued. ... We’ve given the choice to the clubs. It’s not a mandate yet, but we totally get why they’re choosing that and that’s why we’re supporting it.”

Taylor Twellman, one of the most prolific goalscorers in MLS history, played multiple high school sports and says: “There’s no denying if you play U.S. Development Academy, the coaching, fields, players surrounding you is going to be better, but is that ultimately the goal of life? I don’t know if that trade-off is worth it, but I understand U.S. Soccer’s best opportunity is to get the area’s best players together to train together. I understand that argument, but what is the sacrifice?”

How many parents of academically gifted students would tell their child not to take AP classes, but instead take CP classes so they could be in class with their friends?

Let me re-phrase.....why not argue for the elimination of Honors and AP level classes and simply offer CP or TP classes?

Is the committment towards a full or near full slate of AP classes any less demanding or challenging then a soccer kid playing Academy?

As a society are we sort of encouraging a dumbing down of our kids when we take away choices and avenues to excel?

Kids (and adults) make choices all the time. Those choices define us in many ways. Choices also bind us by the opportunity cost of a path not taken. 15 and 16 year olds need to start learning that lesson.

And not meaning to be ugly....but Taylor Twellman isn't exactly on my sons radar (or mine) in terms of soccer and life choices. I would far prefer he read Rick Warren to understand the "goals of life".

same can be true for college soccer. there's a lot of boom ball at the college level, too. will they outlaw college soccer next?

Coincidentally, my day job is teaching AP classes, and at this time of year as my students are making their final decisions about next year's classes, I am constantly encouraging them to challenge themselves by continuing to take the AP classes still available to them.

On the other hand--and this has become somewhat of an issue--there has been a push to eliminate choices for these students...scheduling changes that make it next-to-impossible for students to take one or more AP classes without taking ALL AP classes. And I'm against taking away that choice, because for one thing, it may turn students away from starting an AP journey if they know they are locked into it with reduced choices. If a child takes AP Language, does that mean they MUST also take AP Calculus? Why must it be both or neither? Why not attempt to allow them to take advantage of every challenging opportunity available in one semester without making it contingent on other semesters and courses?

Example: A student wants to take Marine Science in the spring. It's not offered at the AP level, but the student is really interested in that curriculum. However, it conflicts with AP Calculus, but not with Honors Calculus. Do we tell the student he can't take AP Literature in the fall unless he also commits to AP Calculus in the spring--foregoing Marine Science?

What I am against is exactly what you claim to be--taking away choices and avenues to excel. Choices don't have to be either-or, all-or-nothing, especially when there are lifelong benefits to both sides of a choice.

A question to which I really don't know the answer is this: Would the Development Academy activities in the spring be so time-intensive that a player literally could not participate in the Academy and high school ball, as long as the high school coaches are willing to share time for the benefit of the player? Or are there other reasons for not wanting to allow both?

I want free choice for kids....and I don't want dumb constraints put on them that says if they take an AP literature class they must also take AP calculus. Thats dumb.

However, if Academy expanded into spring for SC and Fall for NC kids.....true conflict would exist for kids who want to do both.

My son was encouraged to play school soccer this spring and I looked at the schedule. He would never make a practice and I think there were 5 games where there wouldn't be a conflict. Five. Is that worth doing?

High school soccer plays a lot. More or less 4 days a week, sometimes 5 days a week, in between practices and games. Now you add something else to it like Academy? Academy practices 3-4 times per week. Where would be the time to do school ball?

High school kids typically aren't allowed to play two school sports in the same season. If you play football, you can't also run cross country. If you play baseball, you can't also play soccer.

To me that is a better parallel.

No one should tell a kid who plays football in the fall that if he plays a sport in the spring it has to be baseball. If he wants to play soccer then have at it. But, I am ok with the rule that tells a kid that if he plays football he can't run cross country too. Even if you can jam 5 events into a season, its not good for that athletes body.....to do so.

USSF is wanting to improve this country's top soccer players and rightly or wrongly, is looking at Academy going year round as a path to do so. I don't see it as a conspiracy or elitist or anything else other than an honest attempt at improvement. And the logic behind the move.....makes sense. Agree or disagree there is logic to it.

There is a logic to it, indeed. And you're right in your analogy that high school kids aren't typically allowed to play two sports in the same season; if you're playing football, you can't play cross country which is also in the fall, but you can play soccer in the spring.

The analogy breaks down a little, though, when you take into account there are no high school sports that take up multiple sports seasons. We have fall, winter, and spring sports seasons, which allow players to take part in different things at different times, so it's easier to justify saying you can't take part in two sports in the same season when you can also say there are different seasons availabe to do different things.

Football is one of the most-followed and biggest moneymaking sports in the U.S. It offers many more opportunities for college scholarships and professional contracts than soccer. By the same logic, we could produce better football players if we required football training and competition in two seasons; keep the players involved on the gridiron year round rather than letting them digress into other activities that they may enjoy, but won't necessarily help them to become better football players. I mean, having them play other sports like baseball or tennis or soccer takes them even farther away from their football development than playing high school soccer takes them from Academy soccer, right? They're wandering off into a whole different sport, skill set, type of conditioning, etc. We could make better football players if we kept them in football year round.

Yet we don't do that. Why not?

My question, stated as clearly as I can put it, is this:

Can we provide the advantages that Academy training obviously gives to players during the fall season, without also REQUIRING that they commit to the spring season to the exclusion of all other opportunities as well? Or are we telling them they can't have a piece of what the Academy offers in the fall unless they are also willing to give up everything else in the spring?

One reason we don't do that with other sports - we don't need to - the U.S. has the best football/baseball/basketball players/teams in the world; and it's been that way since...forever? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

U.S. soccer, relative to the rest of the world, is broke (no pun intended). It needs to be fixed.

you forgot the $ factor, too many soccer coaches have found a way to make a career out of yth soccer.

yth baseball, basketball & fball don't, yet still produce

well, except for the hs coaches do get paid , which brings us back to our dilemma.

No argument there. Of course, one very noticeable difference between the U.S. and other, more "successful" soccer nations goes beyond any differences in technical and tactical skills; it's a national passion for the sport. Teams and players tend to feed or starve on the passion of their fans. South Africa had no chance to win the last World Cup, yet "The Boys" still had a nation behind them, and even though England choked, I'd say their national passion will push them to get better.

Question is, can we cultivate the kind of national passion that elevates players and teams by further separating our best soccer players from the grassroots fans who might otherwise learn to watch, appreciate, and support them as they grow into the national/international spotlight? Does it matter how good they are if few people actually feel a kinship to them? Can we develop highly-skilled players AND help create that bond between them and the rest of the nation?

Just thinking out loud...perfectly valid arguments to be made either way. Chicken or the egg...does a highly skilled national team create passion in its fans, or do passionate fans elevate a skilled national team?