Quote:


Sure, this decision will affect a very small number of individual players, and high schools as a whole, but certain high schools will feel it hard. This also means that a few more kids will be able to make their high school teams, which is great, but it also signals that those who play on high school teams are incapable of playing at a higher level. It makes achievement in soccer too elite, so elite, that it's offputting...

...If the problem really is a lack of development in high school programs, why can't the solution be to improve the high school programs? Not cut them out of the picture? This looks more like a turf war instead of what's good for our players (code word "player development").




JayJay,

A very well thought-out post! Along with some other things that got me digging around over the last day or two, it got me to thinking as well.

U.S. Soccer bills itself as "the governing body of soccer in all of its forms in the United States." However, how true is this, actually? How much influence does U.S. Soccer have over high school soccer programs? I didn't see the NFHS under the list of USSF affiliates. This, in turn, got me to thinking...is it a matter that high school programs are deemed inferior and those who choose high school aren't good enough to play at the next level--or is it a matter that those players, in that context, simply aren't under U.S. Soccer's control, but under the influence of programs and coaches who don't answer directly to U.S. Soccer and thus aren't held accountable to U.S. Soccer's methods and goals?

Just talking out possibilities at the keyboard, but it's my nature to look at all things from all angles, even the ones that aren't always politically correct...there are a lot of motives and angles in between "what's best for player development" and "turf war," and sometimes it's between the lines that you will find the nearest thing to truth.

I've got good news and bad news...