SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP High School Soccer: Hurt or Help?

[Preface: In another thread on the Dallas Texans, the subject of high school soccer rose once again. Rather than immediately post, I wanted to sit back and think about what people were saying before I replied. In any case, I’ve moved some of the key posts over to this thread to discuss this subject specifically.]

>>[Beezer] Eliminating high school for year-round club is an obvious step in favor of development because it's 3-4 more months of better players being together. Unfortunately, the ra-ra and social aspects are more important then development to most people. It's a hard sell and causes alot of bad feelings between the club and high school coaches.

Another example? U17 Eclipse (IL) women decided to go with NO high school in 2006. Result? A National Championship. During what would be high school season, they trained in specific and intense environments to improve; 3-4 months they would have lost.

People don't want to hear it but a small percent of top players need to stay with clubs while the rest of the large percent can go to high school because they won't be good enough anyway for the next, top level. That way high school has their ra-ra, social environment while the elite players continue to develop in the club system. Best of both worlds!<<

This is an interesting argument. Certainly, training with better players is one of the best ways for a player to get better. And certainly a very good high school soccer team does not have nearly as many of these “better” players than does a very good club team. So at first glance, what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.

Of course, you can compare this to other sports such as basketball in which the better AAU teams certainly have more talent than most high school teams. Or moving further afield, you can compare it to football in which high school is not only dominant but pretty much the only game in town for players.

What I don’t understand is the “either/or” mentality. We in South Carolina have what seems to me to be a potential advantage – our political system actually stepped up and passed the dual participation laws a few years ago that mandate that public high schools allow club participation during the high school season.

There’s no doubt in my mind that South Carolina needs more clubs that offer year-around programs. I’m pleased that the club my kid goes to, CESA, offers both year-around training and games and also that it offers an open-door policy in which they’ll train and allow game participation by players from other clubs. I’m glad to see other clubs beginning to do this to some degree; although I worry that it’s less a decision to offer year-around service training and rather a knee-jerk reaction against what is perceived as a threat.

But why is it that year-around club training means kids shouldn’t play high school soccer? The two hours of touches in a high school environment – those are worthless? Why aren’t our most ambitious kids doing dual training – doing high school training in the afternoon and individual/club/whatever training at night?

I’ve spoken to a few high school coaches and the truth is that these “great” players often try to coast through their high school practice rather than challenging themselves. If that’s occurring, then that player isn’t self-motivated enough to become really “great” – and the player (and parents, depending on the kid) need to examine some character deficiencies that might hurt that kid not only in soccer but in the rest of her/his life as well.

Shouldn’t our ambitious soccer players be learning to adapt to different environments and be flexible enough to work on the skills that environment demands? For example, a great player might work more on moves with the ball in high school but have to content herself/himself with fewer touches when in possession when playing on a state select team.

Look – I’m all for more and better services by our clubs. But I think that there are two other sides to this – first, ambitious players need to spend time on the ball by themselves training – and secondly, I think smart players are going to try to integrate high school and club (and state select, and regional team play, and even national team play) into an advantageous training program for them individually.

Might these kids run out of time in terms of practice hours in a week? Sure. And what should their priority be at that point? That’s up to the kid – I think that when one of our national team players a few years ago chose not to play high school that she made the right call due to the demands on her time from all of the soccer she was being asked to do. But until they run out of time, why try to tell them to stop playing something that they love by telling them that they have to do one thing or another?

>>[purpleandyellow] As much as this might/will upset folk—and keep in mind that I and my wife have been and are high school coaches—I think the US has made a huge mistake connecting ANY sports to academics.<<

While it's difficult to argue with this theoretically and conceptually, I think that this mistake is relatively minor when compared to the coercion that is inherent in the public education system with respect to choice. If we give all parents and students, not just the rich ones, the chance to choose what schools they attend, then we'd solve a much greater societal issue than the bundling of school and sports.

Open question: what clubs out there have an open door policy and either have or will offer year-around training of players? By open door policy -- I mean that the club allows players to train in that club without being on a team in that club. The club may or may not charge for training for these "outside" kids. By "year-around", I mean that the training is offered at least 8-9 months a year.

I know of only one -- is there more than one?

Isn't a primary step in trying to help the kids that want to get better at soccer getting the clubs our kids play in, and in which we volunteer, to offer more training to more kids year-around?

chico—you are deeply wrong about SCHOOL choice—but this isn't the place for that—

i will just reiterate—when we mix academics and athletics, we are making a mistake—the two have nothing to do with each other—we use sports as a carrot to force children to care (or pretend to care) about their academics—that really doesn't work for either better sports or better academics—but it does create dishonesty—IF athletics is a valuable thing, and IF academics is a valuable thing, then they are such on their own merit—we don't tell club players or professional athletes they can or can't play based on factors outside the sport—we don't tell professors they can't do their scholarship if they can't run a 5-minute mile—sports and school is a false marriage that is a US tradition—a tradition that should be ended—for the sake of both sports and academics—

Chico,

The decision to play HS ball, and to work hard and get something out of it, is easy if you have the opportunity to play for a very good HS coach. We've been fortunate, up in this neck of the woods, that recently we have had quality HS coaches who can continue to improve the players technical and tactical ability, while at the same time, field successful teams.

As for passing on HS due to national team commitments, I can understand that but I have first-hand experience in seeing it work. In 1991 & 1992 I was the head boys varsity coach for Lake-Lehman HS in northeastern Pennsylvania. My best player, Brian Kelly, was a starter on the U-17 National Team and also played for FC Delco in Philadelphia. He commuted two and a half hours each way, once or twice a week in the spring, for club practice. Neither his club schedule, nor his National Team schedule, ever conflicted with the late August through early November HS season. Two years, never had a problem....and to this day, Brian will say that his high school experience was tremendous. More fun than the U-17's, U-20's, Duke, MetroStars and LA Galaxy (well.....maybe not as much fun as the MetroStars).

purpleandyellow: I understand your views -- and of course think that you're wrong as well -- but I respect your belief in them. It must be strange to quote Freire and yet have a belief system aimed at propping up a system that is so biased toward the elite!

Regarding your assessment that school and athletics have nothing to do with each other -- the same thing could be said about school and lunch. Of course, some folks decided a while back that nutrition and education were synergistic. I've heard the same argument concerning exercise.

i would add—with Hurst66's post—there is really little argument that high school sports in general is a wonderful experience for many many athletes—my point is that the positives of that experience do not balance the negatives inherent in the academics/athletics connection that we have created—mine is a much larger argument than should he or she play high school instead of or along with club, etc—

Hurst66: You make the point better than I do. It's possible for great players to get something out of their touches, regardless of where those touches are, but a key component is the quality of coaching. Just as in high school, in club there are good and bad coaches as well.

>>[purpleandyellow] ...mine is a much larger argument...<<

You're absolutely right...that's why theoretically and conceptually the unbundling of services from our public education system is a difficult thing to argue against -- but if you're going to start making changes in our public education system then the unbundling of sports and education would be pretty low on my list of priorities.

there is also no connection between school and lunch—BUT we don't stop failing kids in school from eating—so that comparison fails—sorry—we do stop failing kids from playing sports—just because one can make an analogy doesn't mean the analogy fits—

[freire is (present tense used for the timeless aspect of his ideas and writing) for universal public education—not school choice—FYI]