Meathead Dazzler | Page 8 | Syracusefan.com

Meathead Dazzler

As a soccer parent myself I hate the pay to play system. To many potential kids miss out.
I also think the elite club system is bad for the game. It's all about winning, kids are pegged into positions and never develop beyond that. I've seen coaches scream at and pull kids from games for making a simple mistake. To me this impedes proper development. Best way to learn at the youth level is to make mistakes. See what works vs what doesn't. I think this is why the USMNT struggles internationally there is just no creativity in the game. Until that changes they will never compete against the power teams.
Not to many options locally but my kids play on a non travel club team. Focus is on development learning the game playing all positions and being encouraged to try new things even in game.
The only unfortunate thing for me is that both of mine that play are goalies. I've determined you have to have a screw loose somewhere to be a goalie in any sport.
 
Who pays for that "development" system? The US is not 1970-80's USSR or modern day China where the government is heavily involved in sports programs, nor should it be.

Plus, the argument doesn't stand up when you look at the women's side - we have arguably the best women's program in history and it uses the same pay-to-play travel systems as the men's. Where we have a difference with most countries is the popularity of the sport. Football, basketball and baseball still dominate the landscape and still pull the most talented kids at the elementary level. Soccer is still not a big deal in Texas other than a "spring" activity, but even then 7-on-7 Spring football leagues are growing leaps and bounds, again pulling the more talented kids away from soccer. Years ago, there were proclamations on this very board that stated soccer would overtake football in 10 years. 3-4 more years before that deadline approaches, and it's still not close to taking over football.

A big factor why the US women's team has dominated is that most of the rest of the world has only recently started to care about (invest in) their women's program (in the past decade).

Many of the large, wealthy, professional teams in Europe (e.g. Chelsea, Man City, Paris St. Germaine, etc.) now have women's teams. These women use the same world class facilities and amenities the best men's players in the world get (much better than many of the North American pro league).

Some of the best American players (Alex Morgan) no longer play in the North America league and this will certainly impact US dominance in the decades to come.

The only reason there are no pay to play issues in football is that a kid has to play on his high school varsity team - it is the entry level development system. I know 7v7 is quickly gaining popularity; this could start to pull football into a pay to play model.

Basketball (travel/AAU), hockey (travel/juniors), lacrosse (club/travel), soccer (club/travel), baseball (club/travel) all have pay to play in various forms that weed out children at various levels. IMO, soccer does it far too early in a boy's development.

The biggest impact I think pay to play will have is that high school sports could go the way of the dodo. As more college/pro sports care less about scholastic competition, and quality coaching goes travel/pay to play, the quality will suffer.

Pyscho parents will still care. I wouldn't be surprised to see school administrators look at the cost (both financial and headaches dealing with douchey parents) and make cuts.

Edit - We are one of the only countries in the world that uses scholastic sports to develop professional athletes. Almost every other country segregates sports from school and provides some type of infrastructure to develop its athletes.
 
I don't agree with it being the exception to the rule. As someone was involved on a board of a youth sports organization for years, one thing parents do is prioritize sports, and they or their coaches find ways to pay for participation. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My point is when you have to get creative to try and include quality players because their family can't afford the buy-in, the system itself is flawed.

Goes the same for the rich guy who pays extra so his son that isn't very good can take a jersey and get hoyed in every match for garbage time... A team slot that should go to a better player.

When player merits are based on $$ their family can pay, the problem is systemic. It's a cottage industry.
 
I'd send my kids to that stuff, if they wanted to. But to get $$ for college? Goodness no. They're kids. They want to get better? Absolutely.

There are 9.9 schollies available for D1 soccer. Is that about 2 kids a year,(per school)that get a scholly?
Soccer, like all the NCAA Olympic sports, is allowed to give partial scholarships so they'll give out halves and quarters so more than just 2 new players can get one each year. They're called "equivalency sports" by the NCAA. You're usually allowed to give out as many partials as you want so long as their sum does not exceed the total set for the sport. Only D-1A football and the D-1 M&W basketball teams have to give full scholarships to any player getting one. They're called "headcount sports."
 
To me, the problem working against the US's being good in soccer like Europe and Latin America is that our best athletes at just about every level from 5-year-olds to pros play other sports.

I posted this idea on our board and all the soccer aficionados agreed with my point. Just about every college football program has had a prototypical "3rd Down Back" in their history that their fans fondly remember. He's the one who would wreak havoc on the linebackers when he would run a wheel route coming out of the backfield. If he was able to catch the pass, it was a guaranteed 1st Down. Great, almost perfect, combination of speed and strength. Well, in the rest of the world, he plays forward in soccer.
 
Soccer, like all the NCAA Olympic sports, is allowed to give partial scholarships so they'll give out halves and quarters so more than just 2 new players can get one each year. They're called "equivalency sports" by the NCAA. You're usually allowed to give out as many partials as you want so long as their sum does not exceed the total set for the sport. Only D-1A football and the D-1 M&W basketball teams have to give full scholarships to any player getting one. They're called "headcount sports."
My point was that i couldnt put dreamed of scholarship $$ as a driving factor. Just not as much available as some may think. If the kid has dreams of playing in college? Sure.

If a soccer club was $400(what we pay for middle school football) No biggie. If its like our $3k winter baseball? I absolutely would take offense. Besides being expensive, there is a predatory element to it. Many parents will fork out that $$, based on good intentioned false hopes. Just like the "recruiting" services will charge a couple grand, and argue to "think about all the scholarship $$", as a sales pitch. Very often, its not realistic, buy theyll still take your $$.

I understand that their is no other option, for some sports, and that stinks.
 
How did the post about making fun of the Dazzler turn into one about soccer?

34ikux.jpg
 
To me, the problem working against the US's being good in soccer like Europe and Latin America is that our best athletes at just about every level from 5-year-olds to pros play other sports.

I posted this idea on our board and all the soccer aficionados agreed with my point. Just about every college football program has had a prototypical "3rd Down Back" in their history that their fans fondly remember. He's the one who would wreak havoc on the linebackers when he would run a wheel route coming out of the backfield. If he was able to catch the pass, it was a guaranteed 1st Down. Great, almost perfect, combination of speed and strength. Well, in the rest of the world, he plays forward in soccer.

This is spot on. I wonder if the popularity of soccer is on the rise due in thanks to cord cutters, you tube, and footballs concussion perception.

My 10 year old has been asked to “pay to play” and we’re trying to figure it out. It’s a tough call.
 
To me, the problem working against the US's being good in soccer like Europe and Latin America is that our best athletes at just about every level from 5-year-olds to pros play other sports.

Actually, lots of kids play youth soccer well into modified years in junior high and that number is only going up due to ongoing concusion concerns by parents with american football.

This is spot on. I wonder if the popularity of soccer is on the rise due in thanks to cord cutters, you tube, and footballs concussion perception.

My 10 year old has been asked to “pay to play” and we’re trying to figure it out. It’s a tough call.

That is the rub... to be a tier 1 athlete in the sport, you have to go the pay-to-play route.

A lot of parents and families simply won't do it - the time commitment with weekend tournaments after weekend tournaments as much as the significant financial outlay.

It's the main reason the talent pool gets culled and kids move on to other sports.
 
Actually, lots of kids play youth soccer well into modified years in junior high and that number is only going up due to ongoing concusion concerns by parents with american football.



That is the rub... to be a tier 1 athlete in the sport, you have to go the pay-to-play route.

A lot of parents and families simply won't do it - the time commitment with weekend tournaments after weekend tournaments as much as the significant financial outlay.

It's the main reason the talent pool gets culled and kids move on to other sports.
Unfortunately, some of those parents dont realize that girls soccer is the most concussed high school sport.


Ohh. And Adazzio blows!
 
To me, the problem working against the US's being good in soccer like Europe and Latin America is that our best athletes at just about every level from 5-year-olds to pros play other sports.
Actually, lots of kids play youth soccer well into modified years in junior high and that number is only going up due to ongoing concussion concerns by parents with american football.
Your highlighting missed the most important part of my statement. The problem is not that we don't have the numbers playing soccer, it's that our best athletes are still playing football and basketball. There should be no question in anyone's mind that affluent parents are taking their sons out of football while the less-affluent are still playing. But that's what those who closely follow soccer will tell you is the problem. Here soccer is a game for the rich. In the rest of the world it's a game for the poor. Until schools obsess over 5-star soccer players from Texas and Florida like they do football players now, we will always be an at-best second-tier soccer country.
 
Your highlighting missed the most important part of my statement. The problem is not that we don't have the numbers playing soccer, it's that our best athletes are still playing football and basketball. There should be no question in anyone's mind that affluent parents are taking their sons out of football while the less-affluent are still playing. But that's what those who closely follow soccer will tell you is the problem. Here soccer is a game for the rich. In the rest of the world it's a game for the poor. Until schools obsess over 5-star soccer players from Texas and Florida like they do football players now, we will always be an at-best second-tier soccer country.

Good post - all true, I think... I just think it’s not quite that drastic. We have a lot of people, one of the richest countries in the world, very diverse, etc. We lag the world - but we’ve half-arsed it since forever and still are top 30.

A half turn from football, cord cutting providing more access to the world game, a bit more of an on ramp to good coaching for less money (somehow) and it might mean more Pulisics
 
I'd send my kids to that stuff, if they wanted to. But to get $$ for college? Goodness no. They're kids. They want to get better? Absolutely.

There are 9.9 schollies available for D1 soccer. Is that about 2 kids a year,(per school)that get a scholly?
Well, for many kids, it covers what academics and financial don't cover. For us, here is the deal, but it depends on how my son does freshman year. The starting keeper gets a full ride, with athletic cover what merit and need based do not.
He is the presumptive starter as a sophomore, for 3 years. So, if all goes to plan, he will pick up about $100k in athletic money, over that time.
Our investment in him in much less.
 
this also means that 2-3 other goalies on the team are getting zero?
 
So sick of these Pajama Boys not understanding the game of FOOTBALL. It is literally a war and you’re teammates need to depend on you every Saturday when you go into battle. CTE just another name for being a crying snowflake imo.
War
 
So sick of these Pajama Boys not understanding the game of FOOTBALL. It is literally a war and you’re teammates need to depend on you every Saturday when you go into battle. CTE just another name for being a crying snowflake imo.
CTE
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,142
Messages
4,682,922
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
947
Total visitors
1,014


Top Bottom