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]

I've always seen high school athletics as an extra-curricular activity and an extension of the physical education program.

Relatively harmless unless you introduce steroids or the recruiting of children from outside the district boundaries for the sole purpose of playing sports.

Drats!!!!!!!!!! Once again I spent a good 30 mins preparing a masterpiece reply to this issue. I go to post it and it says the form is no longer available....everything lost..
It must be the HS soccer Gods conspiring against me!! But I will post this article that went with my fabulous epistle.


Soccer clubs provide assists
Teams help players improve their skills
By ANTHONY WITRADO
awitrado@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Aug. 5, 2006
Soccer is the pioneer.

People in the sport were among the first to develop club programs outside of schools. They were meant to give kids, from 8 to 18 years old in most cases, a chance to play once their school seasons ended.

Sports like basketball and volleyball followed and now have club programs more nationally renowned than those of some high schools. Today, club soccer is that kind of beast. Like the sports it preceded, playing outside of school has become an important part of kids' soccer lives, especially once they are high school age.

"From our end, it has been really important for the kids in our program," says Pete Knezic, coaching director for FC Milwaukee, one of the state's best club programs. "We go to some of the premier events, and there will be hundreds of college coaches on the sidelines. That is the big selling point for those tournaments."

And the allure of club soccer.

At the inception of this phenomenon, playing away from a school team might have been a nice way to stay sharp during the off-season. Now the emphasis has dramatically changed.

College scholarships are at stake.

Wisconsin Youth Soccer state director of leagues David Flanagan says "for the top-level player, 95 percent" of their recruitment happens during the club season. Flanagan, who had been an assistant varsity coach at Oconomowoc, has been a club coach for 16 years.

"Very few Division I coaches come to high school games because they are not seeing the competition," he says. "The big difference is in high school soccer, every coach is hiding two or three players (in the lineup) who may not be at that level. On club, you have 11 strong players and four or five subs, with no drop-off."

That plateau of talent at club showcases and tournaments, like in basketball and volleyball, is what draws college coaches. It is much more appetizing to make a single trip to see hundreds of players with next-level talent than to make several trips to see a handful of recruitable players.

Youth soccer Web sites even send out e-mails or post national tournament schedules to help college coaches plan their whirlwind tours.

The Wisconsin Youth Soccer state leagues consist of 14 games, with Premier and First divisions. The bottom two teams of the Premier division fall to the First and are replaced by the First division's top two teams, similar to European leagues. Most club seasons in Wisconsin for the elite teams last about 60 games, including leagues and tournaments.

Many clubs in Wisconsin still push kids to play at their high school since club teams shut down during the school season. However, that is not the case on the East and West coasts, where some players skip their high school season because their club commitments are year-round, according to Marti Coan, the Midwest high school girls representative for the National Soccer Coaches Association of America. She also was the girls coach at Oshkosh North for 12 years.

A major criticism of club basketball is the lack of quality coaching. The thought is the best coaches are at high schools, not on the club circuit.

The opposite is true in soccer, where club coaches are required by the United States Soccer Federation to be educated and licensed according to the level they coach at.

"Club soccer is definitely getting stronger than high school soccer because of the education and licensing," Coan says. "The better coaching is coming from club, because high schools don't require anything of their coaches."

Says Flanagan: "We're trying to teach these guys to be better prepared to deal with the complexities of soccer, fitness and even nutrition. It's a constant upgrade. We teach them that we're working with the whole kid, not a part of them."

Also unlike most club basketball teams, players usually have to pay to play club soccer, a cost that can be more than $1,000 a year for the teams that travel most - basketball teams are typically fully sponsored. There are fund-raisers, sponsors and boosters to help absorb the costs, and scholarships are available for players who qualify.

That allows players from different income brackets and backgrounds to compete against the best.

"The best players are playing with club teams against suitable competition," Flanagan says. "You're seeing what kids can do against players that are some of the best in the country."

From the Aug. 6, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Having a "good" high school coach doesn't mean you have more top level players. He can be Lippi, Capello or Scolari but he won't make more players more serious or more ready to be a top level talent. I know some high school coaches who are very good but that doesn't equate to more top level players to play with.

Being able to play both club and high school at the same time is not an answer because, physically and psychologically, the better players will not be 100% when they arrive to training. Again, the club environment should be the best with the best at 100%.

The point is, again, development to be a better soccer country! The best players playing as much as possible to give the United States a chance to improve on the world stage.

Maybe an average MLS player like Brian Kelly, who represented his country at some point at the youth level, would have been more prepared to ever make an actual impact at the full National Team level, where it counts, and help achieve a result if he used 3-4 months for four years playing a higher level year-round. If youth National Team players are giving 3-4 months to high school then maybe that explains our stellar history.

There's just no way soccer within the educational system, high school AND college, helps the development of players. Too many restrictions of 1) time allowed to play and matches and 2) the amount of top level players.

Beezer,

If a player like Brian Kelly wants to make an impact on the full National Team level, or on the major professional level, perhaps the best path would have been to sign with Sunderland or FC Cologne right out of high school? Pretty difficult for an 18-year old American kid to say not to full rides from UVA, Notre Dame and Duke.

Perhaps Chico and purple would like to enter back into the discussion on the merits of higher education?

Some further discussion on this issue-
http://www.soccercoachinginternational.com/index.php?page=forum&forumpage=showtopic&tid=1872

higher education is wonderful—for those who want/need it—but it is NOT a universal need of all—many young athletes in europe go straight into "pro" sports at high school ages—as an educator i have watched way too many young people suffer under our universal "norm" of what every single young person should do while ignoring that one thing those young people KNEW they wanted in life—from sports to art to working on cars—i think the false sports/acadmic connection in higher ed is wrong also—again—the two have nothing to do with each other—using sports to lure people into higher ed hurts both education and sports—

william faulkner, f. scott fitzgerald (to name a couple) both dropped out of higher ed because it was wasting their time—they KNEW they were writers—

Beezer, I appreciate your perspective and am certainly glad that you have joined this forum. Really good discussions!

Having a "good" high school coach doesn't mean you have more top level players. He can be Lippi, Capello or Scolari but he won't make more players more serious or more ready to be a top level talent. I know some high school coaches who are very good but that doesn't equate to more top level players to play with.

Does having a “good” college coach make more players more serious or more ready to be a top level talent? Do you think Clint Mathis and Josh Wolff became “more serious or more ready to be a top level talent” by playing at the University of South Carolina? How about Clint Dempsey at Furman University, Oguchi Onyewu at Clemson University, or Boyzz Khumalo at Coastal Carolina University?

Does having a “good” club coach make more players more serious or more ready to be a top level talent? How many South Carolinians play professionally? There are a couple of handfuls concerning men’s players. How about women? Any ladies from the Palmetto State in a professional league? Are there any prospects of a viable professional women’s soccer league? Isn’t college soccer for females kind of the end-all unless you are good enough to play at the National Team level? Again, how many and who are from S.C.? How many are from anywhere? Are the “club coaches” responsible for this achievement? High school coaches? Collegiate coaches?

Being able to play both club and high school at the same time is not an answer because, physically and psychologically, the better players will not be 100% when they arrive to training. Again, the club environment should be the best with the best at 100%.

Best for who? The 50 or so players state-wide capable of this level of play? How about the other 5,000 high school players? Should soccer just stop because they aren’t included in “the best”? I know plenty of club soccer teams that are “club” in name only, but they certainly do not constitute “the best” players or coaches.

I agree to some extent, but this is the United States and things are different here – for better or worse. This isn’t a Third World country where soccer is the “great escape”. The educational system is where the majority will realize that escape and collegiate soccer can be a means to achieve that end. Now then, it’s a much better proposition for women’s soccer, because of the extra scholarships available, but it’s also the plateau for women’s soccer – there’s not much after that in this country and if it is, then it’s for a very small number.

The point is, again, development to be a better soccer country! The best players playing as much as possible to give the United States a chance to improve on the world stage.

In my opinion, you are talking about 1% of the soccer players in this state – and anywhere else for that matter. Is the goal of every “serious soccer player” to achieve a National Team or Regional Team status? I think not – at least not in my experience of being involved in soccer in this state the past 30 years. Most of them want to make themselves better so that they can help their teams – club, high school, six-a-side, 3v3, etc., be the best they can. By becoming their best individually, they make the whole that much better. Can individual acclaim come from this measure? Absolutely! Maybe that player gets to play college soccer at a DIII school, while concentrating on academics and soccer as an a-side. Perhaps they realize that at the DII or NAIA level where soccer/academics co-exist. Or, for the few an opportunity exists at the D1 level where that student-athlete has actually been recruited to continue their soccer experience.

Maybe an average MLS player like Brian Kelly, who represented his country at some point at the youth level, would have been more prepared to ever make an actual impact at the full National Team level, where it counts, and help achieve a result if he used 3-4 months for four years playing a higher level year-round. If youth National Team players are giving 3-4 months to high school then maybe that explains our stellar history.

My thoughts are that if Brian Kelly was truly good enough to make the leap to the National Team level, then he should have pursued another avenue to attain that goal. Do what Danny Karbassiyoon and Jonathan Spector did and that was to showcase their talents at “elite level” camps and to perform well enough to sign professional contracts with Arsenal and Manchester United, respectively.

There's just no way soccer within the educational system, high school AND college, helps the development of players. Too many restrictions of 1) time allowed to play and matches and 2) the amount of top level players.

I agree there are too many restrictions – well stated. But, you have to crawl before you walk and the United States may have reached adolescence in the soccer world (men’s team anyway, the women’s squad has been an “old lady” for years . :D

>>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—<<

Please don't be sorry...you're trying to raise points in an interesting discussion. School lunch (and breakfasts) are government-subsidized activities for some portion of our children -- just as education is -- and just as high school sports are. That's the analogy. I understand that you might not like the analogy...and I understand that an analogy isn't the same thing as a "model" in which all aspects of a relationship are tested; but the simple fact is that many justify schools providing meals as linked to education -- and the argument is similarly made that you can link exercise and education.

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

You're having fun with me, right? Universal public education doesn't run counter with to the concept of equalizing the playing field by allowing the poor the same privilege of choosing their schools as we currently allow the rich. Any good Marxist should understand that!

>>[purpleandyellow] william faulkner, f. scott fitzgerald (to name a couple) both dropped out of higher ed because it was wasting their time—they KNEW they were writers—<<

Okay...this is fun...I love anecdotal stuff. Bill Gates also dropped out. He did okay.

So did Fred and Tony; the two guys that asked me last night for a dollar so that they could buy some wine before bedding down at the mission. I guess they'd have told me that they KNEW that education was a waste of time for them as well.

Kyle Heise: I was wondering when someone would raise the US Women's team in the context of world-class soccer and how poorly the United States does. Sometimes it seems a little misogynistic around here...

I have not a clue as to the degree soccer will grow a spectator-oriented competitive sport in 20 years. I will say, however, that Philip Anschutz is a pretty smart guy -- I wouldn't bet against him.

These are all the teams that played in the recent National Championship. It would be interesting to know how many played year-round club ball, while forsaking HS ball. There were at least 3 teams that played year-round, no HS ball and won their respective titles. It just is a question as to how far you want to go as a club team. If you have played together from a very young team, and added good players along the way and have continued to improve, I think playing HS ball can prove to be a detour on your journey to a Regional title or beyond.
Pennsylvania-East
boys
u15 - FC DELCO Hammerheads
u18 - FC DELCO Crunch
u19 - FC DELCO Black IV

girls
u14 - Hershey Attack
u17 - Spirit United Gaels

Maryland
boys
u14 - Bethesda Road Runnrs
u16 - B'more Casa Mia Bays
u17 - Bethesda United

New Jersey
girls
u15 - PDA Pride
u18 - PDA Wildcats

Massachusetts
girls
u16 - FC Gtr Boston Bolts

Virginia
girls
u19 - Chantilly Inter Milan

Michigan
boys
u14 - Michigan Wolves
girls
u14 - Michigan Hawks Blk 92

Illinois
boys
u15 - Chicago Magic
u18 - Chicago Magic
girls
u15 - Eclipse Select
u17 - Eclipse Select
u18 - Eclipse Select
u19 - Eclipse Select

Ohio-North
girls
u16 - Internationals

Wisconsin
boys
u16 - FC Milwaukee

Missouri
boys
u17 - Scott Gallagher

Kentucky
boys
u19 - Javanon

South Texas
girls
u14 - Dallas Texans 92 Red
u15 - Dallas Texans 91 Red
u18 - Dallas Txns 88 Red N
u19 - Sting Dallas Royal

South Texas
boys
u14 - Dallas Texans Red
u17 - Solar 89 SC
u18 - Dallas Texans Red

Oklahoma
boys
u15 - Tulsa SC 91
girls
u16 - Edmond SC 90 Black

Georgia
boys
u16 - Concorde Fire Elite

Texas-North
girls
u17 - Dallas Texans 89 Red

California-South
boys
u15 - So Cal United
u16 - Rampage FC
u17 - Arsenal FC
u19 - Arsenal FC
u14 - Valley United Blast
girls
u14 - ISC Strikers
u18 - San Diego Surf

New Mexico
boys
u18 - Classic Bandoleros

Florida
boys
u19 - Weston FC

Washington
girls
u15 - Crossfire Premier

Colorado
girls
u16 - Real Colorado Nat'l
u19 - Colorado Rush Nike

California-North
girls
u17 - Mustang Blast

FYI....that Duke education has landed Brian Kelly on Wall Street, with the investment firm Goldman Sachs. He's currently pulling down 10x what he made as a player in MLS.

>>[Beezer] Being able to play both club and high school at the same time is not an answer because, physically and psychologically, the better players will not be 100% when they arrive to training. Again, the club environment should be the best with the best at 100%.

The point is, again, development to be a better soccer country! The best players playing as much as possible to give the United States a chance to improve on the world stage.<<

I get it now. You want to put kids into a system and tell them what to do and what not to do (e.g., when to practice, how much to practice, and the like.)

I'm coming from it completely differently. I'd rather there be choice out there and have the individuals involved make the decision so as to optimize what they want out of soccer.

Your system might work better for your goal of making the United States men's team more competitive in the World Cup...I don't know.

Top-down societies, and systems, always seem better on paper than they actually do in real life. Millions of kids and parents, making millions of decisions to optimize their life and their experience within the framework of choice, tends to operate more successfully in most realms. Maybe soccer just isn't one of those...

Chico,
But to be a real winner in club soccer, you cannot allow choices and decisions to be made by mere players/parents. This sport of soccer is not a democracy. As the good Nazari has said-

"We have a lot of volunteers with good hearts," Nazari says. "But soccer people have to make soccer decisions. It is a huge mistake some clubs make that because the parents pay the money, they know the game.Standing around watching your son or daughter play the game does not make a parent a soccer person, just as standing in an operating room doesn't make someone a surgeon. I don't go to our parents and tell them how to run their businesses," he says. "The decisions have to be soccer decisions, not politically correct decisions."

i guess the only thing left now to find out is what college did paulo freire play soccer for. . .

setting aside that i may have been called a BAD marxist—i sincerely believe, all, that soccer and sports matter way too much to be a carrot, a lure—i also KNOW that an education matters too much to be taken lightly or given lip-service just so johnny or jane can play soccer in HS or college—

and since this is scsoccer.com and not scschols.com—i am making the case that disassociating sports from schools would benefit SPORTS—and i stand firmly by that assertion—

kyle—i think the elite element in club is due to the outlet of HS soccer—without HS sports, i think that would dissipate—but i could be wrong—

thanks, chico, for the topic!—although you do realize that now that you have mentioned gates this thread is being monitored. . .

Dear Bill Gates,

Please send me some money so I can build nice soccer fields for the youth of South Carolina.

(We'll see if he's really listening!)

i havnt read all these post from end to end.i may have missed something.here is my short answere to the whole school thing and hurst can back me up on this knowing where i come from on this.it is from the the girls side i speak.
there are kids out there that play a sport in school not because they are the best player or that their team is any good.they do it to be a part of something and to represent their school.is that so bad?

I have a lot of respect for soccer40's daughter. The best player her age in the state, playing on arguably the worst 4A high school team in the state. She runs around the hallways of her school trying to get 10 other girls to come out for the team. Yeah....that's loving the game.

>>[2004striker] Chico,
But to be a real winner in club soccer, you cannot allow choices and decisions to be made by mere players/parents. This sport of soccer is not a democracy. As the good Nazari has said-

"We have a lot of volunteers with good hearts," Nazari says. "But soccer people have to make soccer decisions. It is a huge mistake some clubs make that because the parents pay the money, they know the game.Standing around watching your son or daughter play the game does not make a parent a soccer person, just as standing in an operating room doesn't make someone a surgeon. I don't go to our parents and tell them how to run their businesses," he says. "The decisions have to be soccer decisions, not politically correct decisions."<<

Thank you, thank you, thank you -- a post about clubs!

I actually agree with what he's saying...within the context of club play. In other words, I absolutely want my kid to play at a club where soccer decisions for the club and for the teams of the club are made by soccer professionals and not by parents.

At the same time, there is high school, state select, region teams, national teams, etc.

Now -- do I support a club that says "You can't play high school soccer and play on one of our teams." Believe it or not -- yes -- as long as that isn't the only club around. That's why choice is so important; there needs to be other clubs available that offer other alternatives as well.

Getting to the bottom line of this, however -- from my limited observation, it is a rare, rare player who doesn't benefit from more time on the ball. If as a player you're going to give up two hours a day of practice with your high school, it seems to me that you better have some great training/practicing lined up a lot of days a week. Easier said than done -- at least in South Carolina.

Dear Mr. Gates,
I have used your products for many years. They are the BEST! I am not so crass as to ask for money to build soccer fields. I only need $351.74 to make my car payment now, and about $7,500,000.85 for a Coke and a pack of crackers and some other assundry items, which you can send next week by certified check.
Thanks

>>[purpleandyellow] setting aside that i may have been called a BAD marxist—i sincerely believe, all, that soccer and sports matter way too much to be a carrot, a lure—i also KNOW that an education matters too much to be taken lightly or given lip-service just so johnny or jane can play soccer in HS or college—<<

Actually, this is a great point. You've persuaded me. From a sports-perspective, you're absolutely right. I came up playing football and was shocked when I began understanding this whole high school/club duality thing in soccer. But the more I think about it, the cleaner the soccer approach is.

>>and since this is scsoccer.com and not scschols.com—i am making the case that disassociating sports from schools would benefit SPORTS—and i stand firmly by that assertion—<<

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I find the school stuff so interesting I looked at it from that perspective instead of the sports perspective. You're absolutely right -- wrong message board for that.

>>thanks, chico, for the topic!—although you do realize that now that you have mentioned gates this thread is being monitored. .<<

Actually, it was Beezer and you who started all of this -- thank you for raising it -- the most interesting thing on here for a while! [But then again, I'm a sucker for school-related stuff.]

>>[Hurst66] I have a lot of respect for soccer40's daughter. The best player her age in the state, playing on arguably the worst 4A high school team in the state. She runs around the hallways of her school trying to get 10 other girls to come out for the team. Yeah....that's loving the game. <<

I don't have a clue as to who is soccer40's daughter; but unless she plays for Orangeburg-Wilkinson, she does not have "bragging rights" to the worst 4A girls team in the state.

[Note: I spent a lot of my youth in Orangeburg -- so this is said with both shame and affection.]

Okay...one more aside...I can't help it...with the Fed bowing to pressure on interest rate hikes but incipient yet persistant long-term inflation occurring there's not much to do but optimize relatively short-term yields. I promise to try my best not to go off-subject again.

I once heard a debate regarding who helped humanity more; Mother Teresa or Bill Gates. This was some number of years ago [before the Gates Foundation really started making an impact] and I still thought that the debater who chose Gates won the debate.

I love that passion of soccer40's daughter! I am not at all advocating there is anything wrong at all with high school soccer. It is a tremendous outlet for those who want to participate in a high school sport, and have a ball doing it. Those memories of playing your cross-town rivals and the bus rides out of town and the trouble you can get into with your coach, and the friendships made......all these high school memories will last forever. My one and hopefully only point, is that by training and developing with your club team year-round, without the separate coach and another system of play and another system of development; has proven to produce very strong club teams, that compete successfully regionally and nationally, if thats what you want.

here is a job for you chico.
in the spring when school soccer starts up, you keep up with the wins and losses of the 4a schools and we will see who is the worse.the bigger question will be did any of these kids get anything out of playing for their school.the answer may not be the one that this thread got started for but i bet it will be "yes".my daughter played jv the last 2 years and will be a 9th grader this year so she can enjoy the butt whoopings.its not for the lack of trying or for the lack of heart of these kids.when you have a team that not only did no one else ever play club soccer<no one else has ever played soccer.most of these kids cant afford to play club soccer.there was a day when sports were free except for a physical.
IT WAS CALLED SCHOOL SPORTS.
i guess what i am trying to say in all this is,
you shouldnt compare the 2.if a kid wants to do both then do it.if they dont think school ball is up to their ability then they can stay at home in the spring.

Perhaps Fred and Tony graduated with a BA in Psych and a BS in Econ (respectively).. and then worked as waiters trying to pay off their $80,000 in loans. Only to succumb to the debt collectors and eventually take up "residence" in your town.

Yay Devil's Advocate!

Edit: Whoa.. looks like I'm a whole page behind

Whats up wid dat?

Unfortunately the law discussed does not prevent the HS or club coach from being an a*****e and prevent the kid from playing because of his "lofty" ideals. Truth is we should have the best interest of the kid in mind, this does not happen all the time.

Someone educate me. Overseas adolescences play club sponsored ball..but they also have "school" teams. Yes/No?

I think they just have club teams, no school teams. This is the website for the FC Belvedere who came to CESA in 2004 and scrimmaged some teams from Columbia and Greenville. The club history tells how they operate. They were very talented.
http://indigo.ie/~bvr/

I don't know if it is fair to compare us with other states unless our demographics and socio-economics are similar. Wasn't there a discussion not too long ago concerning why soccer is not as big here as other places? California is not a football state like SC. I'm of course talking about high school. That makes a difference. You wouldn't talk about soccer in Valdosta, GA...football is king. People move to Valdosta so that their child can play high school football there. Look at Byrnes High school...a team that went 9-27 (or something like that) in the past two seasons, but whose football team is playing on ESPN this year.

I just think that SC is making great strides in promoting soccer in the state, but we have a long way to go. It is up to the coaches, players, and parents to fight for every inch of soccer recognition and promotion in this state. We need to go and beat down the corporate doors for sponsorship and not take NO for an answer. In addition to that, we need to promote the sport more. There are shirts, hats, etc. with such and such footbal or baseball pride on them. We need to see more with soccer pride in our community. There is definitely interest out there, but we need to get people involved. How we do this is the question.

Does high school soccer hurt? Only if there is no feeder system. No clubs surrounding your high school will damage your high school program. Clubs help build it. Paying soccer coaches decently for their time, effort, and licenses, in the high school ranks, would help validate the sport more.

Just a few crazy thoughts...as always.

>>[soccer40] here is a job for you chico.
in the spring when school soccer starts up, you keep up with the wins and losses of the 4a schools and we will see who is the worse.<<

Actually, we can look at last year and see who was worse. Let's say that your daughter played for...oh, I don't know...Rock Hill. Rock Hill went 3-12 last year. Orangeburg Wilkinson went 0-9. Heck...Rock Hill is far from the weakest 4-A school in the state -- according to the rankings there are 8 other teams below it including three teams that didn't win a game.

Bottom line: any school that wants to claim the title of the worst 4-A program is going to have to go through Orangeburg-Wilkinson to do it.

>>the bigger question will be did any of these kids get anything out of playing for their school.the answer may not be the one that this thread got started for but i bet it will be "yes".my daughter played jv the last 2 years and will be a 9th grader this year so she can enjoy the butt whoopings.its not for the lack of trying or for the lack of heart of these kids.when you have a team that not only did no one else ever play club soccer<no one else has ever played soccer.most of these kids cant afford to play club soccer.there was a day when sports were free except for a physical.IT WAS CALLED SCHOOL SPORTS.<<

With a high school participation fees and the like, it seems as if the days of free anything are over.

I am surprised about the "can't afford it" argument in terms of club ball. There are coaches (many times parents) who typically are willing to give of their time. T-shirts don't cost very much and typically you can find a sponsor for those. Is it that people can't afford it -- or is it that people don't care enough to do anything about it?

>>i guess what i am trying to say in all this is,
you shouldnt compare the 2.if a kid wants to do both then do it.if they dont think school ball is up to their ability then they can stay at home in the spring.<<

Amen.

Kyle:

I agree:
1) Same applies with college and club coaches not being able to "make" better players
2) Yes, for the top 50 players. And, yes, the norm can keep going for the rest where elite development isn't needed
3) It's also with women's soccer, that's why we have been caught and Region and National level metings are expressing concern.
4) The United States has to change it's need for the educational system if it wants to produce top players. And yes it is for a small number and that's the elite I'm referring to.
5) Again, I am talking of the 1% and, yes, the rest can do whatever.
6) Brian Kelly, full agreement.
7) I'm tired of crawling before walking, to be honest. That's been our excuse since 1990 World Cup.

Great dialog!

chico,
maybe we can line up a rh-ow game.atleast someone will get a win.or maybe not.as far as the cant afford it. there are kids whos family cant afford playing on a club no matter what anyone says.sometimes parents give time that is unwanted.im not sure what you mean about the t-shirt deal.
maybe i am just a little dumb but i know you are not comparing club fees that people are willing to pay to a t-shirt with ricky bobby on the back.
i can say one thing about rh.they have a coach that tries and cares for the girls more than anything.

Beezer,
I concur.
The top 1% of the state's players should not be vilifiled for not playing High school. And, wasn't it the high school league that kept players from doing both club and school until just recently?

what is the reason this 1% is not playing soccer at school.
is it because there is something better or something else in the best interest of the player.is it because they are still at the age to play club both seasons.or is it that they just dont want to.i have no problem with any of this and from what i learned this year doing it all can be hard on a player.there are kids that have never played and they can hurt you.
i have a problem when people put school ball down and act like it is beneath them to play.

kdlsc, I believe it's safe to say that the S.C. High School League was looking after its best interests in regards to "Dual Participation" ... But, this issue was decided in 2003 and has been in existence for four seasons in regards to prep soccer with little or any problems reported publicly on this website.

Kyle... with all due respect... not all coaches in SCHSL have embraced this rule.... The rule allows the player to dual participation, but one can only dual participate if the HS coach allows them to play HS.

Kyle,
You are exactly right. The schsl was looking after "it's best interest" for over 30 years by NOT allowing dual participation.

I would like to say that I personally have seen a good working relationship with the coaches I have dealt with.

I have a hypothetical question for you...

Season begins and you are setting up for your opening tournament.... The club coach comes to you and says 3 of your starters and 2 bench players will be attending a tournament where they will be seen by college coaches. (remember that spring is the season that colleges can see players)
What would your answer be?

Change the tournament to in-season? would it be different?

If the schsl was so open to dual participation , why did it takes years and years to get it allowed?

How can a change in the rules NOT be a sign that they're open to dual participation?

Perhaps it's because "soccer people" in SC finally started making demands. I highly doubt the HS league turned away effort after effort by club/HS coaches..for thirty years. Just because they hate soccer.

If we're going to be so cynical about all this.. let's try a little perspective and look at our own "involvement" or lack there of.

>>[kdlsc] And, wasn't it the high school league that kept players from doing both club and school until just recently?<<

Actually, if you look back on this message board, you'll see quite a few complaints about some specific well-known club coaches that forbade their players from playing school soccer. So I think it cut both ways.

I agree that different high school coaches handle dual participation differently with some seemingly embracing it and others raising obstacles; but on the whole it seems to me to be one of the advantages South Carolina has and I see more coaches on both sides encouraging it.

>>[soccer40] far as the cant afford it. there are kids whos family cant afford playing on a club no matter what anyone says.sometimes parents give time that is unwanted.im not sure what you mean about the t-shirt deal.
maybe i am just a little dumb but i know you are not comparing club fees that people are willing to pay to a t-shirt with ricky bobby on the back.<<

I apologize that I wasn't clear. Here's what I'm wondering. If you took the club fees to $0, could you get a club team created in your area for at least one team (a U18G recreation or classic team, for example)?

Here's a "club fee" breakdown. The SCYSA will allow clubs with less than 100 people (you don't get a vote, but that's not a big deal), so the SCYSA isn't going to get in the way. You can have all volunteers in the club, so there are no salaries. The T-shirt reference was meant that you don't have to spend a lot of money on a uniform -- the Aiken Fire used T-shirts at this years regionals and it was the players in the T-shirts you noticed, not the T-shirts themselves. Thus, the only "club fees" would be associated with SCYSA registration and league participation -- so you're talking $10-$20 per player -- and quite often you can find a sponsor to pay that couple of hundred bucks.

Now...I'm not trying to downplay the fact that it's a tremendous amount of work for some volunteers...all I'm really asking is if people cared enough to do this then could you draw enough players or are the "club fee" costs really the issue or is it that kids/parents just don't care enough? I'm just wondering -- club costs and getting more kids playing soccer are interests of mine.

i think i have mentioned this before—but part of my reasoning has grown from teaching a soccer player from london—he gave me the impression that in england the school-sports connections do not exist—maybe i am wrong about that—he also strongly associated that concept with the US alone—and he made some good arguments in an education course that the connection was ill-founded—

i also need to add that my daughter LOVES her high school team, her high school teammates, and representing her school—it is clearly a different feel in some ways than her club experience—although she has a bond with the club group that is much deeper than friendship—as well as having incredible relationships with several club coaches who will be important in her life for years to come—i don't want to sound as if i am trashing the value of high school sports—i simply am suggesting that it is a poor dynamic for sport and school—not necessarily for the players and coaches—

and, chico—i am bleeding out my eyes from the strain of NOT continuing on the school stuff—i could discuss such all day!—i was joshing a bit—but thought the soccer folk here may not enjoy those topics as much as you and i—:)

Quote:

---

Season begins and you are setting up for your opening tournament.... The club coach comes to you and says 3 of your starters and 2 bench players will be attending a tournament where they will be seen by college coaches. (remember that spring is the season that colleges can see players)
What would your answer be?

---

If it was going to conflict with a high school preseason tourney I'd say no.

As for the spring being the time when college coaches see players, what the heck is the big deal about club soccer in the fall then? I thought that was for the college exposure. If the player is good enough and has good enough grades (often overlooked by parents), then college soccer will be an option.

Its another No-brainer!
If the HS coach has the best interests of the players and their futures, he should obviously let them go without a question. The college coaches do attend the bigger tournaments. A HS preseason tourney does not count in the standings. All you are concerned about is doing well in your region.

I do not agree with all your comments regarding the Spring... As a matter of fact the Palmetto Cup is the only opportunity where in state schools actually go to games to look at players.

It stands to reason that in the fall when you have the college season in full swing the number of times you are able to see players is severely reduced. Thus the reason why Score at the Shore has grown in popularity with coaches because of the timing. After that only major tournaments are the attraction CASL, Disney, etc..

The problem is that most everywhere soccer is a fall sport in HS (which is mostly the reason why regionals and nationals are played in the spring). If your club team wanted to participate in showcase tournament the spring would provide more opportunities to be seen. This is after (I agree with you) you have done all the proper marketing to get on the radar screen.

So dual participation is only good if there is no conflict, when the conflict arises then what takes precedent? That is my only question.


Lastly, with some of the schools the give and take you discuss can work, with others it does not.

Kyle,
My comments were made in response to the hypothetical put forward by futbol that a preseason tournament was conflicting with a high level club tournament. I most definitely am serious, that as a coach, I would be supportive of my players to attend the club tournament. Not to be seen by out-of-state coaches, but to play with their club team on their quest to develop into a team that would challenge at Regionals.
And just to clarify my statement regarding the rest of the high school season, region play is the only determining factor for the playoffs. Those games carry the highest degree of importance, and if the club team conflicted with one of those, then as a coach, I would have more of a problem.
Additionally, a club coach of a high profile team will not, and probably should not, accept that a player wants to stay home and play in a high school preseason tournament.

futbol,

Many....I would argue most, of the South Carolina D1 & D2 coaches attend the Viking Cup as well. I've seen coaches speak with players at this event.

Why do you need to go to Disney? To be seen by out-of-state college coaches? How many of our kids are playing out-of-state? (Chico....time for this research exercise again). I know there is a young lady at Villanova, but let's look at the best players over the past few years.

Boys: Goose, Geathers....playing in-state.

Girls: Bolt, Ficklen, Mattern, Mouton.....playing in-state.

Kyle is right. The player reaches out to the school (attend the school's summer camp, ask the coach to see you play at HS play-off game or a club match). Make the initial contact yourself, don't expect the college coach to discover you out of the blue because you are at WAGS or Disney.

Not trying to pull off a 'Chico research project', but a quick look at some D1 women's rosters reveal the following out-of-state players:

Charlotte (3)
Hailey Beam, Riverside/Texas Tech
Lindsey Beam Ozimek, Riverside/Clemson
Sara Jane Harris, Dorman/USC

Davidson (3)
Isabel Carlton, Ashley Hall
Bevin English, Bishop England
Loring Ward, Academic Magnet

East Carolina (1)
Patty Pierce, A.C. Flora

Kentucky (1)
Laura Speer, Dutch Fork

Villanova (1)
Nicole Coia, St. Joseph's

Western Carolina (1)
Kelly Gulledge, Summerville HS
Natasha Moore, Hillcrest HS -- completed her eligibility in 2005

Let me throw my two cents in.....My experience has been that the club team has more problems/difficulties/issues with my son playing high school ball than the other way around. I know someone will throw up the 30 year arguement but I am dealing in the here and now. The high school coach left any playing decision up to the player with no ramifications. I am all for year round club soccer but why is it that the club's can't offer more practices than the current 2 nights a week. I believe high schools offer better conditioning and more touches on the ball due to the additional practices. Why can't clubs offer it. I am a parent and i am willing to drive, my son is itching to practice more but what would the club charge for this kind of service?

hurst... I agreed with Kyle on the marketing/radar screen discussion - you do not do this, you willnot be succesful.

I know of some players that went out-of-state (some of the aiken fire and old GFC come to mind)... but your comment is a double edge sword...

If I stay in-state you will only be seen by in-state, If I go to one of the Elite camps you will be seen by a few more out-of-state coaches (and at least I cannot afford every single SC school camp). But you will not get the broader chance unless you attend a big tournament (say the Jefferson Cup) AFTER you have done all your homework.

The truth is that most kids that play in SC schools that are from out-of-state, where "found" because of their involvement with ODP, Region tournaments and nationals (notice SPRING).

But the key as Chico likes to say is CHOICE. The more exposure the greater the choices. Coaches recruit many more players than they will take because, the more recruits you have the better choices you can make. The same has to be said for the player - the more exposure you have the more choices you have. The caveat is the player must be capable.

Lastly you state to have them see you at a HS playoff - no guarantee that the rest of the HS team will cooperate to get to the playoffs - or a club match.... Club matches are in the fall and the availability of the coach is severely reduced. This is my argument, I work closely with the schools and realize strongly that the school spirit aspect is a key ingredient to teenage life.... All I ask is either work with the player in the give and take scenario or move the sport to the fall.

Are those bombs disguised as footballs I see coming my way????


USMNT2014... I disagree strongly with those club coaches that prevent the players from enjoying HS. Work with each other

practices- with the exception of some schools the quality is not there for the technical or tactical, it is for the physical.

And the last time I discussed for the younger ones practice more than 2 nights parents flipped out (again not all but some - and ussually not a problem with older High level players). In a team sport one dissent and you have problems

futbol,
I always thought boys HS soccer would be better served in the fall. I'm sure it's not a problem on the 3A and 4A front. For the smaller schools, are there still a lot of boys that play both HS football and soccer?

kyle,
Jenny Hasik from Spring Valley is the goalkeeper for Queens.
http://www.queens.edu/athletics/wsoccer/hasik.asp

Also futbol,
Good point about the school having to be a fit and the player having to be "capable". South Carolina has enough D1 & D2 schools that offer competitive programs. If you go out of state you are risking losing in-state scholarship/grant money. We all know there is not a lot of true "athletic" money out there for soccer.

five poor practices a week v. 2 or 3 high-quality practices a week?—that is the reality now in most of SC—many high school practices are ultimately detrimental to good soccer—as are many high school matches—a few players are lucky to have high quality in both—i suspect that those are some of our best SC players—but as i have told my players a 1,000,000 times—practicing BADLY is worse than doing nothing—very few high school soccer programs place a high premium on the coach's credentials when hiring for soccer—i can't imagine any of our clubs doing that for their coaches—

>>[Kyle Heise] Dual participation is a give-and-take between the high school program and the club program with a player in the middle. Choices have to be made by all parties and if there are some repercussions that go along with those decisions then I say, "welcome to life".<<

Amen.

The issue seems to me to focus around trust. The coach has to do the best thing for her or his team. The player has to do the best thing for the player. The coach and the player have to rely on each other to care about their secondary responsibility -- in the case of the coach the individual player's development and in the case of the player the team. The best possible situation is when both the coach and the player have a big common ground because they both care so deeply about the same set of things.

>>[Hurst66] Why do you need to go to Disney?<<

>>[futbol(soccer)] The same has to be said for the player - the more exposure you have the more choices you have. The caveat is the player must be capable.<<

The talk about "being seen" quite correctly calls out that a player has to market herself or himself to coaches. But I think that what is overlooked is that it's not enough to be seen, or to be recruited. A player has to be ready to play at the next level. And in college, that's particularly tough because each year you've got a new round of players coming at you to take your position on the team away -- you're not protected by single-year age brackets any more.

I realize that many players have a single-minded focus on getting a college coach's attention. And while marketing will help, the thing that helps the most is having the individual talent and skills that make that coach step up and take notice.

I remember two kids who were criticized on the high school thread for missing one day of a preseason tournament to play in a college showcase and one day of practice to play against Furman and Clemson -- and that was all that they missed for the entire high school season. In the case of both, they were much more interested in developing to become better players than they were in being seen by some mythical college scout. Let's face it, the decision to play against Orangeburg-Wilkinson or the decision to play against Clemson from the standpoint of becoming a better player is pretty much of a no-brainer.

Hypothetical question #2: a player is invited in the spring to play at a regional team event out of the country. It conflicts with either a high school practice or game. This regional team event will be in turn used to evaluate players for invitations to the national pool.

Should the high school coach support this? Why or why not?

I think its more of a no-brainer than in first scenario. A player of that caliber would develop more from that challenging experience than in a high school game. Those kinds of experiences not only help the player become more competitive, but also can give him/her great confidence in him/herself. Also I am not so much thinking of the player's prospective future in college ball, rather the club team's development to get to the level of winning a Regional or more. There are players who excelled tremendously at the club level, and then chose not to pursue college play, due to the particular academics they pursue. I feel the primary focus should be not on what kinds of experiences as a player should I be involved in, so that I may be seen by college coaches, but rather what kinds of expeiences will development me into a better player to help me contribute towards the successes of my club team, again looking towards a Regional title or more. If I have that focus as a player then college ball will come to me, if I so choose.
Regarding the 'myth or no-myth' of being seen/marketed by/to a college coach, the player should possess the ability to play at that level first, then put themselves in a position to be seen and observed by a college coach. Yet, I have also seen a political aspect to the marketing process. Since there are only a few who are selected to play the Div I level, sometimes HS/Club coaches do become overly political in their contacts and with their input about a particular player's abilities.

Chico .... I'll be preaching to the choir.... absolute , 100% support. Why? No brainer.... because it is in the player's best interest in developing their potential which is after all what the school is supposed to be teaching.

The only problem you run into is exactly what I was trying to state before. If that player is the "heart and soul" of the HS team, can the coach do without.

Well this is why you coach, in essence - "your best player is injured for a short period of time". Adjust, move on and do the best you can with what you have.

Look at Jamal.. Going to USC, coach puts him in a scrimmage against a lower caliber opponent in a a position he never plays at the end of a game that was already won. Overzelaous opponent goes in hard and Jamal is lost for most of the season. Did anyone worry about the fact that you may lose your star player in the game? what is the difference in the scenarios? In my opinion they are the same

Lots of times depends on the coach at both the club and the HS!

Hurst66, the bigger conflict in HS soccer in the fall is not that some players might play both sports, but that most schools share the same playing field (at least in the midlands) for the two sports.

dhunter,

Is that game field or practice field? If we don't play soccer on Friday nights....are we OK?

With Varsity, JV, B, C ,D ,E .......X,Y,Z teams Both are a problem.

I'm not speaking with any authority, but I don't believe the school districts allow both sports to share the fields. With the Columbia schools, practice fields are limited, with some teams having to use middle school playgrounds just to find enough space.

Further justification that high school and club ball can co-exist-
http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=650

From the article linked above:

"Finally, the high school team provides an atmosphere of loyalty, team and community pride and fosters a passion for the game not quite attained at the club level. There is nothing like pulling on your high school jersey to play the rival school on a Friday night."

Amen!

I will concur with that statement. Just consider the passion of this past spring's Lower-state Championship game between BC-Dreher or the Fort Mill upset of NW and its fans. But I would like to see as many clubs as possible offer supplemental training during the high school season. And the reason being that some quality club players unfortunately are saddled with very average, at best, HS coaches and teams. With their clubs offering supplemental training/instruction, these players can continue their development, even though their HS coach/team are mediocre.

I apologize if this has already been done but during some research I ran into this neat chart from the NCAA

playing in college statistics

I thought I share...

JI/Wando is a good one too!