Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ForCuseSake, post: 3045883, member: 266"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?