SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP NSCAA weighs in on Club vs. High School conflict

9/29/11

Club vs. High School conflict heats up (A view from the NSCAA)
Mike Woitalla, Soccer America

Quote:

---

More than a third of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America’s 30,000-plus members are high school coaches. So we spoke with NSCAA CEO Joe Cummings about the tug-of-war for players between high schools and elite clubs, who often urge their players to skip scholastic ball. The conflict intensified when the U.S. Soccer Development Academy, which is comprised of 78 clubs and includes more than 3,000 of the nation’s top boys players, announced that about of a third of its clubs have moved to a 10-month schedule this season and by fall of 2012 it expects all of its clubs to do so. Cummings' career in soccer has included high school, college and youth club coaching, as well as administrative positions at the pro level with MLS’s New England Revolution and WPS’s Boston Breakers.

---

SOCCER AMERICA: You’ve heard from high school coaches regarding the Development Academy’s move toward a 10-month season, which would keep its players out of high school ball?

JOE CUMMINGS: Yes. High school coaches are one of the most active constituency groups we have.

They want to know, first of all, if this will be a topic at the NSCAA Convention [Jan. 11-15 in Kansas City] -- and yes, it was last year and will again be this year.

And they want to know what our position is.

We have a committee that has come up with a position paper -- it’s being wordsmithed now for the NSCAA -- relative to what we call “personal choice.”

It’s our position that players have a personal choice to decide whether to play for high school and youth soccer programs whenever possible, but we appreciate the position of the Academies as far as player development being at their core.

We appreciate and understand the Academy side of things, but we also appreciate and understand that our high school coaches would have some questions about this.

We just want to make sure that the decision being made by parents and players is being made so that the players’ personal, social and soccer development is always considered.

SA: Comments from some club coaches about high school ball is quite disparaging. They’re basically saying that spending a couple months of the year with high school coaches is a major detriment to a player's development …

JC: I think it’s dangerous to make statements like that and make them sound like facts.

We [the NSCAA] this year put 7,000 coaches through coaching programs, residentially and non-residentially. Well, thousands of them are high school coaches.

We have high school coaches we feel comfortable saying have received a level of coaching education that improves their ability to present the game. And to say that that a high school coach isn’t going to help in the development of a player – that just doesn’t seem fair.

That’s why I have trouble with the statement that sending a player to high school program means he’s not going to develop.

If someone had ever said that about me when I was coaching high school, I would have been pretty upset, knowing all I’d put in to become the coach I was at the high school level.

SA: The less severe argument for keeping players out of high school ball is that it allows Academy clubs to spread their season out and maintain a more reasonable practice-to-game ratio …

JC: It just may not be practical or possible for a young athlete to participate in multiple levels of the game. We understand that.

What we want to make sure is that as these decisions are being made, the players' personal development, social development and soccer development are being considered.

If that means 10 months a year in the Academy, we support it. If that means opting to play high school, we support that.

SA: While club coaches may say high school ball puts elite players in a sub-par, less challenging environment, high school coaches respond that playing at a different level can be beneficial. For example, an average player at an elite club could be a playmaker, team leader at the high school level. That he carries a bigger burden and that will help his all-around game ...

JC: Yes, that could be the case. In my opinion, players should always have the opportunity to play at a level in which their development can be enhanced.

I also taught school for 21 years. I’m going to say this to you as a teacher, an educator and a coach: If a child has an opportunity to play, practice, train – no matter what their love for the game is – at a level that provides them with greater development, then I think that’s an opportunity they should explore.

SA: I have heard legitimate complaints from club coaches that high school ball sometimes doesn’t mesh well club ball. For example, a high school coach putting a player, fresh off a club season, into a rigorous preseason training regime the player doesn’t need at that point. Couldn’t something like that be solved with more cooperation between the factions?

JC: It’s definitely possible when the coaches on both sides of the player have the player's development as a key concern.

SA: High school sports in America have traditionally been considered an integral part of the elite athlete’s development and I’m not aware that other high school sports, such as basketball, are under fire the way high school soccer is. Any idea why high school soccer is considered by many a weak link in an elite youth player’s development?

JC: That’s an interesting question. Do they question high school football? Do they question high school hockey, high school track & field?

That’s a great question. Perhaps it’s because our sport is perceived to be playing catch-up internationally.

SA: Even if the nation’s top 3,000 boys players opt out of high school ball, it’s not as if the USA has a shortage of soccer players. Could the case be made that the opportunities they open up for other players raises the overall level of players?

JC: I would agree with that. A high school that loses its top two players for an Academy team will still be represented by full rosters.

A boy or girl who was on the junior varsity team -- they have an opportunity to play on the varsity. They are going to be challenged to improve.

In theory, it makes sense -- like moving a child up to an advanced class knowing they’ll be challenged to work harder and keep up with the material.

Is it just me or was there nothing major said in the interview?

good discussion, I'm sure can have pages of debate, and I believe we have, but the prudent thing is to allow the parents and kids make their own decision.

Does Academy have to be on the same schedule as the academic year? Maybe they could adjust their season so there is less overlap with high school season (like league play in the summer). This might create another problem of not having any time off to rest. And not all schools play soccer during the same time, so there would be further adjustment there. I'm sure there are other considerations as well.

But there is a lot of intrinsic value to playing on your school team. Just as all team sports are great developers of good citizens, playing for your school connects you to a community. I'd like to see some recognition of the value team sports has over the emphasis on individual skill/player development, and how playing on a school team has rewards you can't get out of club ball.

Obviously I'm a little old school about this. I still think kids should have the opportunity to letter in three sports.

This speaks poorly of all parties involved. The fact that there are two sides to this speaks volumes of the egos and dollars involved. Are all club/Academy coaches particularly qualified or capable? No. Are all high school coaches incompetent? No. Time to COOPERATE. Forcing kids to make a choice between loyalties is no way to develop better PEOPLE, much less athletes.

Coaches may indeed be divided and egos do abound but I don't think that is the problem here.

We've already argued the merits of a longer training season for the academy so there is no need to belabour that.

Life is about making tough choices. Many of these lead to a singular choice. At some point they or their parents choose what High School to go to, they only attend that High School. They eventually choose what college to go to and simply attend that one school. They will finally get a job and if it is a full-time job that provides sufficient remuneration, that will be the only job they do.

Let the kids make a choice. If they really want to pursue playing soccer at a high level and see the opportunity provided by the Academy system as that vehicle then the choice to commit should not be painful. However if they feel that community and social aspects of High School soccer are of extreme importance to their development, then more power to them as they take that route.


The number of players affected here pales in comparison to those who are not impacted. In South Carolina, it is about 40 kids that are sprinkled across how many schools? Let's not forget that there are still strong players playing club soccer that would still be able to participate in High School soccer. The number of non-academy club players dwarfs the number of academy players by atleast a 10 to 1 ratio.

Even if academy players stop playing high school soccer the impact to the High School game as a whole will be minimal. Yes there will be teams that will be impacted more than others. However there are decent players who will rise up to fill the void created by the departing academy players.

Well-stated. It's about choice. Academy is the extreme top level. There are plenty of other kids out there to fill out high school rosters.

Here's my question: How do we measure the success of the Academy? A top four finish in the World Cup by 2026? (That's a long window of opportunity, isn't it?) More US players playing professionally in Europe? That’s what it should be.

Look, I'm not anti- Academy. The coaches are top notch; they have good players (though I don't think they have all the best players in SC). My concern is measurable goals to determine the success of Academy soccer. Kids and parents believe it will help them play soccer in college. But plenty of kids went to college and played soccer way before the Academy. A parent who wants their kid to get a soccer scholarship could conceivable pay more in four years of Academy soccer than they would have paying for college.

And let's be honest with ourselves: It isn't high school soccer that's a detriment to US Soccer; it's the college soccer system. Not because there aren't excellent players in college and even better coaches, but because college players are playing only half as much as their peers across the world while they are 18-22.

If US Soccer's goal is to use the Academy to improve the national team, then the Academy's goal should be to get as many 18 year olds as possible signed to professional contracts, in leagues that play 10 months a year. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the Academy to play 10 month seasons to get kids into a 4 month college program.

My point is, properly managed, there is room for both, and both can be balanced. In my opinion, the likelihood that year-round Academy training, as opposed to split seasons, will somehow miraculously produce a golden generation of U.S. internationals is (at best) self-serving.
The inner circle of U.S. soccer continues to grope for band-aids to cover larger philosophical issues. The point is made about "choice" and "making tough choices." The reality is, many kids are ALREADY COMMITTED AND LOYAL to both Academy and high school. That's a whole lot different than making a single, honorable college (or career) commitment and sticking to it.

I agree with you completely.