Starting, Bench-Sitting, and Questioning the Status Quo

wolf2.0 wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

No. They really aren't. Sometimes they are but I think you've just betrayed your whole mindset right there.

Like a previous poster said, there's always rec if you want equal playing time.

There are a multitude of reasons why some players sit the bench continually:

- Missing practices regularly.
- Lack of effort at practices.
- Going through a slump (happens to pro players too).
- Not as effective as other players ahead of them in their position(s).

When 14 players 'get it' and develop well within a system but 2 do not, the whole system can't be changed because of the 2. The 2 need to find a new home if they can't raise their level. Believe it or not, when 14 do well and 2 can't keep up, it's neither the fault of the 14 or the coach, some players are just out of their depth and that isn't instantly obvious when the kid tries out for the team.

Not all players develop at the same rate or equally over time. Sorry, but there's no room in competitive soccer for the 'no child left behind' philosophy. It dumbed down our education system where everything has to be aimed at the lowest achieving students, we can do without that in competitive sports.

02Dad wrote:

wolf2.0 wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

No. They really aren't. Sometimes they are but I think you've just betrayed your whole mindset right there.

Like a previous poster said, there's always rec if you want equal playing time.

There are a multitude of reasons why some players sit the bench continually:

- Missing practices regularly.
- Lack of effort at practices.
- Going through a slump (happens to pro players too).
- Not as effective as other players ahead of them in their position(s).

When 14 players 'get it' and develop well within a system but 2 do not, the whole system can't be changed because of the 2. The 2 need to find a new home if they can't raise their level. Believe it or not, when 14 do well and 2 can't keep up, it's neither the fault of the 14 or the coach, some players are just out of their depth and that isn't instantly obvious when the kid tries out for the team.

Not all players develop at the same rate or equally over time. Sorry, but there's no room in competitive soccer for the 'no child left behind' philosophy. It dumbed down our education system where everything has to be aimed at the lowest achieving students, we can do without that in competitive sports.

Absolutely agree... Well said.

silentparent wrote:

02Dad wrote:

wolf2.0 wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Do you play for a coach where the same kids sit on the bench at the beginning of each game? By U10, starter vs bench sitter lines have been drawn by many coaches, not because it is smart, not because it is best, but rather because it is the status quo.

I realize that my post today might be greeted with a bit of ridicule. People tend to ridicule any idea that challenges conventional thinking. But I hope that you think about contemplate my proposal for a no-kid-left-behind-in-U11 (a.k.a. the No Bench Revolution) before commenting.

Before you think that my motivation might be bitterness or a knee-jerk reaction to personal events, let me assure you that it is not. My daughter is, for better or worse, a permanent starter in today’s system, on a team destined for Lake Highlands D1. My conclusions are not in relation to her but rather a product of years of observation. I have enjoyed many years of youth soccer, I had vivid experiences regarding starting vs bench with my older kids, and I have had several years to consider this specific issue before writing my post today.

I believe the perma-Starter-vs-Bench status quo is wrong. I believe all kids in pre-teen / early teen / going-through-puberty age brackets (U10 - U13) should start in at least half their team’s games. The full-time-off-the-bench formula starts in U10. The formula is flat wrong, but most coaches and parents endorse and propagate the system. We live in a new hyper-competitive youth development time and some things have gone awry: There simply should be no full-time bench-sitters this soon.

Humans are too smart and too self-aware, even at 10. When Brittney becomes a bench-sitter, she realizes what it means soon enough, because the clues that starting matters are numerous. Coaches talk about who starts and the importance of starting. Britt’s parents talk about trying harder, so that she will start. Kids on the team pick up on the messages and start to act differently, subtly but differently, between each other. It matters in today’s system, with coaches following the status quo, and Brittney’s confidence will surely erode over time. She will begin to play like she is a substitute of whom less is expected.

Yet, if a coach decided to buck the trend, it is very feasible — even easy — to implement a policy where everyone starts, just not every game. Eleven start with only 15 or 16 players on the team, making the math easy enough, if coach simply writes the starting line-up on an index card before each game and saves his cards. Coach could even use starting-this-week as motivation to drive personal best effort during practice.

Imagine how much better off your team would be if you developed 16 kids who all passionately believed they were starters and impact players. I believe it would be better for the coach, better for the parents, better for the kids, better for the team, better for recruiting, and better for player development. No kid is left behind in the No Bench Revolution. If one kid is not cutting it, the coach needs to step up and have the honest discussion with the parents, not keep them on the pine until he has ruined her soccer for life. With such honesty and frankness, the girl could find a team or a sport before she sits around mulling her failure for a year or two. She may leave soccer but enjoy lacrosse if her confidence is intact.

There is little downside to this idea, other than coaches setting the expectation straight with his parents and players, and planning the line-ups. Yet the vast majority of coaches in North Texas follow the flawed thinking inspired by professional sport. Professional soccer only allows 3 substitutions per game so the decision on one’s starting eleven is crucial. But there is no reason that a U12 coach must follow suit.

My older kid was a permanent starter on defense her first year of select and truly excelled. The team allowed far less than one goal per game, Then, coach decided our team was not producing enough goals and he moved my kid to be a winger, initially coming off the bench. His idea was that she had the speed and talent to pull off the move and I went along. What he and I didn’t realize that six months of coming-off-the-bench would damage her confidence as badly as it did. Bench-sitter thinking resulted in her not playing the same. She lost her swagger and never became the starting winger. Today, she is a decent player, still quick and skilled, but her soccer trajectory was cut in half by the mental aspects of the starter-or-not status quo.

If a coach were wise, he would realize that damning certain kids to the confidence-zapping bench before they hit puberty is wrong. Damning a kid to the bench because they are smaller and have a late birthdate in the August-July cycle is also wrong. A wise coach could easily make many, consistent public statements that his or her team has no bench players but rather 100% starters who simply rotate which games they start. A wise coach could easily manage the situation so that every kid starts more than half the team’s games. A wise coach could make it easy for a kid to communicate to him and therefore ensure she starts when she has grandparents or out-of-town family coming to her game — that kid would be happy and confident to invite her loved ones. Such a wise coach would have 16 players to count on and not just 11. Such a wise coach would not have to jump through hoops to find empty promises to keep bench kids paying up and on the team. Such a wise coach would not have to worry about ‘upsetting the apple cart’ when he decides not to start a player who has been a perma-starter forever.

Parents can decide to have this conversation with coaches. It makes sense for everyone, including the stars of the team, to have the best team possible.

Yes, a day will come when the insidious starting issue will become front and center again for your daughter. The transition to high-school soccer is the most likely event. The first three questions a high school coach asks when discussing a kid is “what team is she on”, “what position does she play”, and “does she start”. But if you played for a wise coach who implemented NBR, the answer to the last question would be yes.

The No Bench Revolution program would work. And it would be a great recruiting tool as the 02 class heads into the final months before Lake Highlands Qualifying Tournament. The benefits include:
+ Not hard to manage for the coach, because starting line-ups are decided before the game, not during the heat of the contest,
+ Some kids play much better when starting than when coming off the bench — you would discover better overall team play,
+ The team would avoid all bench-player-can’t-contribute mentality,
+ Intra-player relationships would not get hosed up by starter vs bench player cliques / hard lines we see today,
+ The coach would avoid parents of starters going crazy if their kid sits at the beginning of one game… even the true stars would begin some games on the sideline,
+ The team would develop better for the long run, not just one day’s result,
+ The program would keep everyone happier and the team healthier.

Some will say that not starting your best possible line-up might result in a loss once is a while. I agree that there is always a slight risk, but learning to come back from behind is an important lesson during development as well. It seems wise to build a great team of 16 interchangeable and valuable players. I want to see every Brittney have every opportunity to succeed at soccer and have confidence in life. It really is not about winning 3-1 vs 5-0, yet how often do we see a coach ranting about giving up one goal in an otherwise simple win.

What do you think? Do you think a No-Bench Revolution can work in North Texas and spread to the rest of the country? If so, parents will have to be the one’s that start the NBR. We do ultimately pay the checks and the customer is always right.

No. They really aren't. Sometimes they are but I think you've just betrayed your whole mindset right there.

Like a previous poster said, there's always rec if you want equal playing time.

There are a multitude of reasons why some players sit the bench continually:

- Missing practices regularly.
- Lack of effort at practices.
- Going through a slump (happens to pro players too).
- Not as effective as other players ahead of them in their position(s).

When 14 players 'get it' and develop well within a system but 2 do not, the whole system can't be changed because of the 2. The 2 need to find a new home if they can't raise their level. Believe it or not, when 14 do well and 2 can't keep up, it's neither the fault of the 14 or the coach, some players are just out of their depth and that isn't instantly obvious when the kid tries out for the team.

Not all players develop at the same rate or equally over time. Sorry, but there's no room in competitive soccer for the 'no child left behind' philosophy. It dumbed down our education system where everything has to be aimed at the lowest achieving students, we can do without that in competitive sports.

Absolutely agree... Well said.

sigh, part 2. the point was to allow kids to start. not play extra minutes or upsurp others. but to use it as a motivating tool.

Marvelousmar wrote:I don't recall anywhere where he mentioned equal time. He mentioned changing who starts. I thought it was just an idea that he floated to raise discussion. It may not work but it is an idea. Let's take basketball for an example how many different starting line-ups did the Mavs have this season. Let's take my favourite team in the world the Gunners, what has their starting line looked like each week. It's about being able to have a mindset that allows you to be a "bench player" (not a big fan of that description) that is able to perform when called upon. Does that work if never given the chance to start? How will the person playing behind operate if placed in that role without ever having that role. Now the statement that sport doesn’t mirror life. Well I have to disagree. Most of my life lessons were from playing sport. How to handle success and how to handle failure. The benefits of working hard and being awarded for hard work. (This can still happened in Deep Thoughts world) Playing time is still earned. Working as a team. Understanding that within a group there are stars, 5% working bees (75%) and the rest. the 75% and the rest battle up and down while the 5% tends to maintain their quo. Every now and then a 75% tries to get into the 5% party and succeeds. The 5% watch them closely to see if they can send them back to the 75%. Same as life, work, school and socially. I think I learned more from sports then my 5 years in University in which I received two degrees. ( I wasn't a slow learner) I also graduated at the top of my class so I did study. (just suck at grammar everyone has their cross to deal with) I just enjoyed sport more.
Where I will agree with most on this topic and probably disagree with Deep Thoughts is this No Child left behind and everyone can learn non-sense. This creates an education system that I can’t stand. My wife is a school teacher so I think I can speak on it. When visiting some of her students I am somewhat applaud. The theory sounds good and has failed because in life, there is a little bit of Darwinism that exists. What it has done is bring the higher achievers down to the lower achievers and brought the lower ones up a little. Under NBR we would have to be careful not to do the same hence, the concept in my mind of still having the better players play more and start more. But having the carrot out there for those on the cusp of making it into that role is not always a bad thing, it like everything just needs to be appropriately managed. That’s going to take work by coaches and teams if that was something they believed in. (oh no who would want that.)

Marvelousmar wrote:The starting plan is not about feelings for me as much as it is about keeping DD's loving what they are doing and not doing anything to ruin it. It's not easy finding the happy medium.

ballhead wrote:

Marvelousmar wrote:The starting plan is not about feelings for me as much as it is about keeping DD's loving what they are doing and not doing anything to ruin it. It's not easy finding the happy medium.

You say the starting plan is not about feelings, then go on to say that its about keeping your dd loving what they are doing.

How is that anything but feelings?

All teams should figure out what works for them. That's why these plans that get created, like "NBR" or posts a few months back demanding an option period for select contracts, etc. don't work.

Again, finding a team and a coach that fits your kid is the most important thing you do. If you do it right in the early years, the later years are so much smoother, because everyone knows what to expect.

deepthoughts wrote:It does come full circle. I assumed when I wrote the idea that it would be ridiculed by many, and so it is.

The idea, the goal, was that there should not be such a rift between kids damned to the near permanent bench and those that start. There are obviously plenty of parents that don't care and bask in the sunlight of their starter's success, enjoying the fact that they can gloat. There are others that can't fathom the idea that a team of 16 good interchangeable players can ever be developed by a dedicated and sincere coach. These probably don't want it to happen, for it would upset their own kid's apple cart a bit, threatening their personal status quo. Yet what I normally see are a few clear starters and then shades of grey between the majority of the squad, not 11 clear haves and 5 clear have-nots.

I was not at all saying that some kids will flunk out of select soccer -- of course some will -- but I suggested that they should be told by coaches before the coach rips the kid's confidence out of them with 18 straight months of bench-sitting while collecting her parent's funds.

Based on this discussion, once a kid is damned to the bench, it is becoming clear that a parent should consider moving them to another team unless you know you have a truly unusual and competent coach. I suspect that there are a few coaches that see the value of the idea, but it is probably less than 10%. I know there are parents that see it too, but it will also be the minority, scoffed at by the one's that can't stop gloating about their kid who was fortunate enough to be born in August, September, or October.

Marvelousmar wrote:I don't recall anywhere where he mentioned equal time. He mentioned changing who starts. I thought it was just an idea that he floated to raise discussion. It may not work but it is an idea. Let's take basketball for an example how many different starting line-ups did the Mavs have this season. Let's take my favourite team in the world the Gunners, what has their starting line looked like each week. It's about being able to have a mindset that allows you to be a "bench player" (not a big fan of that description) that is able to perform when called upon. Does that work if never given the chance to start? How will the person playing behind operate if placed in that role without ever having that role. Now the statement that sport doesn’t mirror life. Well I have to disagree. Most of my life lessons were from playing sport. How to handle success and how to handle failure. The benefits of working hard and being awarded for hard work. (This can still happened in Deep Thoughts world) Playing time is still earned. Working as a team. Understanding that within a group there are stars, 5% working bees (75%) and the rest. the 75% and the rest battle up and down while the 5% tends to maintain their quo. Every now and then a 75% tries to get into the 5% party and succeeds. The 5% watch them closely to see if they can send them back to the 75%. Same as life, work, school and socially. I think I learned more from sports then my 5 years in University in which I received two degrees. ( I wasn't a slow learner) I also graduated at the top of my class so I did study. (just suck at grammar everyone has their cross to deal with) I just enjoyed sport more.
Where I will agree with most on this topic and probably disagree with Deep Thoughts is this No Child left behind and everyone can learn non-sense. This creates an education system that I can’t stand. My wife is a school teacher so I think I can speak on it. When visiting some of her students I am somewhat applaud. The theory sounds good and has failed because in life, there is a little bit of Darwinism that exists. What it has done is bring the higher achievers down to the lower achievers and brought the lower ones up a little. Under NBR we would have to be careful not to do the same hence, the concept in my mind of still having the better players play more and start more. But having the carrot out there for those on the cusp of making it into that role is not always a bad thing, it like everything just needs to be appropriately managed. That’s going to take work by coaches and teams if that was something they believed in. (oh no who would want that.)

ballhead wrote:
My goodness, you can certainly come across as pompous. Your approach seems to be "I've come up with this really great plan, and those that agree with it are wise and those that are against are "gloating" about their kid's position on the team over those in another.

ballhead wrote:
If the kid sits on the bench for 18 months and doesn't play, who's at fault for that? Any parent that would allow it to happen to their kid doesn't deserve to have kids.

ballhead wrote:
I have never seen a team like you describe that has 11 starters that start every single game, no matter what and some that don't ever start, no matter what.

ballhead wrote:
From my experience, most teams have a large segment that starts most every game. Then there is a second segment that is perhaps more fluid, starts most of the time, maybe plays different positions, depending on the situation, and then a small 3rd segment that rarely, if ever, starts. Movement between the second and third segments occurs, but it may be over a longer period of time as players ebb and flow.

ballhead wrote:
There is also a consistent claim on this board about players on teams that are there simply to generate cash flow. It may happen, but I've never seen it. Most of the clubs I'm familiar with (really only the large ones, the smaller clubs may operate differently) set the coaches pay, and then its divided amongst the players. The expense falls on the parents, not the coach. He doesn't make more money if he has more players. The club might, but not the coach.

Most coaches don't want the headache of another set of parents of a player he doesn't ever plan to play.

Sometimes its the exact opposite. Every year, our team ends up with 2 or 3 players that have been told they won't make the team, but continue to show up at practice over and over trying to catch on. Sometimes the parents basically plead for a spot for their dd, because "this is where she really wants to be, she's set her heart on it". Probably more like her parents have set their heart on it.

Some clubs are run better than others. Some coaches are better than others, but the broad strokes that are painted on this board are ridiculous.

There is a club, coach, and team for every type of player with every level of income. You just have to spend some time to find it.

deepthoughts wrote:

ballhead wrote:
My goodness, you can certainly come across as pompous. Your approach seems to be "I've come up with this really great plan, and those that agree with it are wise and those that are against are "gloating" about their kid's position on the team over those in another.

Sorry, perhaps I misread a few people's comments and intent. I am not trying to demand one-way-or-else in this debate: it is a simple debate. I do find it curious that there is so much opposition to the idea that a great, interchangeable parts team can ever be built. Everyone seems to think its impossible -- and many cling to the idea of starter vs bench player is a hard-line gap. I do see, based on your experience, that this is not your situation and therefore, you are fortunate.

I don't think I've seen anyone say it wouldn't be a great idea to have a team of 16 great interchangeable players, or are clinging to the idea that bench players should stay just that. You seem to be suggesting that the way to accomplish that dream team is to FORCE the team to start less proficient players.

ballhead wrote:
If the kid sits on the bench for 18 months and doesn't play, who's at fault for that? Any parent that would allow it to happen to their kid doesn't deserve to have kids.

I suspect over the next few years, you will see this phenomenon in practice if you keep your eyes open. You may amend your thoughts that hundreds of parents don't deserve to have kids. A lot of players ride the bench on a permanent basis by U12 or U13.

My eyes are pretty wide open, and I spend more time than you can imagine watching youth games that my daughter isn't a part of. If a parent signed a second contract with a team that didn't play her for an entire year, the responsibility belongs on that parents shoulders. Again, often the parents are so driven by ego and bragging rights that they want the player on a team where she really doesn't belong. Sometimes they leave her there for the same reason. Would the child be better served if the coach wouldn't allow her to return, probably. But sometimes that's tough when she and her parents want her to stay. Would it surprise you that its not uncommon for a coach to tell a player that if she returns she may not get much playing time based on her abilities compared to the other players. I know for a fact it happens, but changing teams can be a very emotional event for a young girl.

ballhead wrote:
I have never seen a team like you describe that has 11 starters that start every single game, no matter what and some that don't ever start, no matter what.

I have see many, not in academy where the ease-of-change keeps coaches more dedicated to fair time played, but most definitely in the brave new world of contracts and select. I have seen games where kids never enter the game once, or play less than 5 minutes in total. I promise you it happens far more often than you believe today.

I've seen the same thing from time to time, based on what's happening on the field in a given game. If its a tight game and their backs are against the wall, some players don't get as much time, or any time for that matter. That is not the same thing as I've seen described here where in virtually every game, the same 11 players start and play virtually the entire game, and 5 that rarely, if ever, get off the bench for the entire season. Does it happen? Maybe, but perhaps not to such a degree as has been presented. Here again, these broad strokes and generalities kill the argument.

ballhead wrote:
From my experience, most teams have a large segment that starts most every game. Then there is a second segment that is perhaps more fluid, starts most of the time, maybe plays different positions, depending on the situation, and then a small 3rd segment that rarely, if ever, starts. Movement between the second and third segments occurs, but it may be over a longer period of time as players ebb and flow.

The reality of parental politics takes hold soon enough. I believe many people should buckle their seat belts. There will always be kids who play a huge amount of time that are just better politically connected than others and not because they have much better skill. If you have not yet seen this, consider yourself fortunate.

If your dd is not playing because she's not politically as connected as another, and its keeping her on the bench, then she's on the wrong team. However, you're making the presumption that the coach doesn't see something you don't and is playing her for that reason. You've determined her playing time is political. Things are not always as they appear.

ballhead wrote:
There is also a consistent claim on this board about players on teams that are there simply to generate cash flow. It may happen, but I've never seen it. Most of the clubs I'm familiar with (really only the large ones, the smaller clubs may operate differently) set the coaches pay, and then its divided amongst the players. The expense falls on the parents, not the coach. He doesn't make more money if he has more players. The club might, but not the coach.

Most coaches don't want the headache of another set of parents of a player he doesn't ever plan to play.

Sometimes its the exact opposite. Every year, our team ends up with 2 or 3 players that have been told they won't make the team, but continue to show up at practice over and over trying to catch on. Sometimes the parents basically plead for a spot for their dd, because "this is where she really wants to be, she's set her heart on it". Probably more like her parents have set their heart on it.

Some clubs are run better than others. Some coaches are better than others, but the broad strokes that are painted on this board are ridiculous.

There is a club, coach, and team for every type of player with every level of income. You just have to spend some time to find it.

Of course some coaches do a much better job than others. I do think reading your comments that you have indeed had a fantastic experience. I wish you all the luck in riding it out the rest of the soccer journey in like fashion. I wish that soccer clubs and the soccer experience was really as pure as your experience has been.

ballhead wrote:There is also a consistent claim on this board about players on teams that are there simply to generate cash flow. It may happen, but I've never seen it. Most of the clubs I'm familiar with (really only the large ones, the smaller clubs may operate differently) set the coaches pay, and then its divided amongst the players. The expense falls on the parents, not the coach. He doesn't make more money if he has more players. The club might, but not the coach.

Most coaches don't want the headache of another set of parents of a player he doesn't ever plan to play.

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:There is also a consistent claim on this board about players on teams that are there simply to generate cash flow. It may happen, but I've never seen it. Most of the clubs I'm familiar with (really only the large ones, the smaller clubs may operate differently) set the coaches pay, and then its divided amongst the players. The expense falls on the parents, not the coach. He doesn't make more money if he has more players. The club might, but not the coach.

Most coaches don't want the headache of another set of parents of a player he doesn't ever plan to play.

You've gone all the way through and never heard the term "budget player"?

Have to agree with deepthought, seems you've had a pristine journey. It's a massive pay-to-play system. Why wouldn't big clubs incentivize coaches to have maximum paying players? I've only been around this thing a few years and seen enough to know "cash flow" players are not myth.

Of course all that is tangential to original topic. Provocative stuff deepthought. I like it.

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

02Dad wrote:
Deep Thoughts, I'm curious what you think about rec vs competitive soccer. Is there a place for both?

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

Joan Of Arc wrote:Coaches and parents together build and get what they expect. If you expect 11 full time starters with 5 full time bench players, that's what you will get. This is what most teams do now. If the coaches and parents expect 16 great players who could all start or be interchangeable, that's what they get because they would be doing things differently all year long. Expectations do become reality over time this is true. One thing about it you won't get there if you don't try to get there. I think Deepthoughts is just trying to change expectations/ status quo. Great Topic!

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

deepthoughts wrote:

02Dad wrote:
Deep Thoughts, I'm curious what you think about rec vs competitive soccer. Is there a place for both?

Of course there is room for competitive and rec soccer. Sport is great. Sport teaches lots of valuable lessons, no matter the level of competition. It can build confidence and it can be a lot of fun. However, this question seems far removed from the original topic. Perhaps you should start a separate post topic if you feel it should be discussed.

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

Stick to the facts please and leave that ridiculous ECNL example where it belongs. I put forth no conspiracy theory. I simply implied most of the paying parents won't truly know who has paid what. Is that true or false?

Maybe you should consider that just because you've never personally seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just humor me, and SUPPOSE you happened upon a club with multiple teams and multiple players that rarely played in games. Given your inside understanding of the club's business model, what would be your explanation for what you saw?

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

Stick to the facts please and leave that ridiculous ECNL example where it belongs. I put forth no conspiracy theory. I simply implied most of the paying parents won't truly know who has paid what. Is that true or false?

Maybe you should consider that just because you've never personally seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just humor me, and SUPPOSE you happened upon a club with multiple teams and multiple players that rarely played in games. Given your inside understanding of the club's business model, what would be your explanation for what you saw?

Stick to the facts? Exactly what "facts" are you putting forth? What's ridiculous about the ECNL example? I simply took your words about big clubs and coaches standing, etc.

No need to humor you, you're doing that yourself. You're guessing the coach's motivation about your "budget players" and expressing it as fact. I've simply chosen, based on my own experience to take a different approach.

As I said previously, I believe it happens, its just not as prevalent as you present it. You've created this business model, from nothing but your conjecture, that coaches are rewarded for signing players that won't play to pad their own pocket, or option 2, simply to pad the club's pocket. The turmoil that the unhappy parents create on their team is worth all those big bucks!

I can only draw from my own experience and knowledge, you choose to pull your facts out of the air and off this board.

If your way works for you, its a great life.

We've had a great run, its too bad yours has not been so. It unfortunate for you and your dd.