Too many teams???

Just as the younger academy players have refused to pay the high prices by moving to and forming teams at a less cost! Plano and arlington teams are going to need to do the same!

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:Select = LH
Rec plus = plano, arlington
Rec = Rec

The only issue is some parents pay select money for rec plus teams to big clubs. That's on the parents. There are other options.

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:Select = LH
Rec plus = plano, arlington
Rec = Rec

The only issue is some parents pay select money for rec plus teams to big clubs. That's on the parents. There are other options.

If all of Plano and Arlington are Rec+, then I suggest you throw in LH D3 and some of D2 into that category, especially since I've seen plenty of these "Rec+" teams hand the higher ups more than a few losses and plenty of ties.

1more_dd_dad wrote:When are there too many teams in an organization to accurately judge the direction of the clubs, philosophies and training/playing style. I was looking at some of the player looking post and still noticed club teams forming at the older ager groups. Thought this was interesting:

Liverpool:48 Boys Teams, 68 Girls Teams. 116 DFW Teams

Dallas Texans:61 Boys Teams, 51 Girls Teams. 112 DFW Teams

Solar:51 Boys Teams, 60 Girls Teams. 111 DFW Teams

So just out of curiousity, with the pro club affiliations of each of the three listed, do they adopt that clubs overall play style? With that many teams and coaches, can you have a common carriculum coached by all coaches on all teams, is that even the goal? I'm still in shock at just the sheer quantaty of teams............

P.S. Not bashing the clubs at all, just looking for insight and opinions.

The question (”Too many teams???”) implies that there is a correct number and that some person(s) on a soccer forum is capable of determining what is the right number for each Club. When deciding on the best place for your DD to play concentrate less on the Club and more on the coach. If your DD becomes the next Alex Morgan she will likely give the credit to a coach or coaches not a Club. Coaches make the difference good or bad they put the fun into the game or suck it out, players who aren’t having fun quit. The best coaches will tend to rise to the top; the successful Clubs know this and recruit them that’s what makes a Club successful.

If you are just looking at this from a financial prospective, select soccer is a poor road to a useful college education for even many elite soccer players. Many will chase the college scholarship dream and the best will end up paying select fees and travel costs amounting to 1/3 to 1/2 of what they receive from their college scholarship. Sounds like a good deal, until the kid finds out that the college funnels athletes into useless athlete cluster majors to keep them eligible. A quote from a recent study on athlete cluster majors:

Often only a small percentage of non-athletes majored in programs popular among athletes. Take Texas A&M, where 37 percent of men's basketball and football players majored in agricultural leadership and development, compared to less than 1 percent of non-athletes.

The focus is simply to keep the big-time athletic prospects on the field, said Jason Lanter, a psychology professor and president of the Drake Group, which helps "faculty and staff defend academic integrity in the face of the burgeoning college sport industry."

"The coach says, 'I don't care, make them eligible,' " said Lanter of some coaches' attitudes toward academics.

The result is that players spend their time on campus, and maybe get a degree, but it's in a field that doesn't interest them and presents little future opportunity, Lanter said.

Peter Finley, a professor at Nova Southeastern University, who has conducted studies of clustering, said athletes "become a pawn," Finley said. "They're there to play the sport and major in eligibility."

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:Select = LH
Rec plus = plano, arlington
Rec = Rec

The only issue is some parents pay select money for rec plus teams to big clubs. That's on the parents. There are other options.

Exactly. Your setup above and the words of Gunner are as close to a "correct" system as I've seen mentioned on this forum in a while. Although I also think PSA falls into the rec plus category; and it definitely needs some work to be more true to this nature. Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

Driftingwolf:

"But the original question is not about ROI, right?

Since you insist on talking about money, I hate to admit that I agree with you largely.

I never see this spending as investment. It's just a cost I pay for my DD to play and enjoy soccer and get active and healthy.

Why not rec? We averagely have only half of the team showing up for practice that practices and games have become no fun to my DD. We actually have a pretty strong base. The players who are interested get better and better, the ones who are not start hindering the team progress. But with rec, you can't drop them, can you? Even if we can, where do we recruit the good ones?

The clubs provide a platform for those who want to a little seriously. More teams is better cause it serves kids at different levels.

It's a service. We have to pay for it. I have no idea if the price is justifiable. Then again, I see it as a cost, not investment. Like we go to a restaurant, I will go if I can afford it or feel like I have to for whatever reasons."

No, the original question was not about ROI, but it does always enter into the equation since so much is spent on select soccer. I think the discussion has naturally moved in that direction.

But I do empathize with you on your rec experience. I wish I had a dollar for all of the similar stories like this I've heard. Local rec leagues have become largely irrelevant. They are a good avenue for exposing the very young players to the sport, but not much else. But moving into a league like PSA, a coach can form his own team and even drop the players (parents) who don't make the practices or put in the effort. This is part of what makes it a "rec plus" system.

Again, I don't mean to be a trumpeteer for all things PSA because there is lots of room for improvement in their setup. But it is the closest we currently have to a middle ground in my opinion.

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

I think the local rec associations could follow more of a PSA model after 4th grade. It's done in other parts of the country where the local association sponsors travel teams at a fraction of the cost of club soccer here. There are tryouts, better training, a higher commitment level, etc. A friend of mine from one of those areas also thinks it helps keep the private clubs in check with regards to fees.

Of course, the rec associations would have to step up and the clubs would throw a fit. I was encouraged by a thread a few weeks ago that alluded to PYSA starting something until I saw what it was really about.

txtransplant wrote:

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

So from my statement you somehow concluded that I would prefer a system similar to eastern bloc countries? Ease up on the caffeine, Transplant.

What I have suggested for local rec ending at 4th grade is already happening. By around 5th grade, the majority of rec teams fall apart. This is the time when most children start to hone in on their few favorite sports instead of doing all of them. If parents had a better choice between the lacadaisical nature of local rec leagues and the extremes of select play, I honestly believe it would completely end local rec beyond that age. Why not allow rec to be an introduction to soccer, rec-plus to be for those who want to continue playing without commitments scribed in blood, and select to be for kids who love the sport to the point that they really want to commit to soccer only and not much else?

Gunner9 wrote:I think the local rec associations could follow more of a PSA model after 4th grade. It's done in other parts of the country where the local association sponsors travel teams at a fraction of the cost of club soccer here. There are tryouts, better training, a higher commitment level, etc. A friend of mine from one of those areas also thinks it helps keep the private clubs in check with regards to fees.

Of course, the rec associations would have to step up and the clubs would throw a fit. I was encouraged by a thread a few weeks ago that alluded to PYSA starting something until I saw what it was really about.

Absolutely excellent ideas above.

JustaSport wrote:

txtransplant wrote:

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

So from my statement you somehow concluded that I would prefer a system similar to eastern bloc countries? Ease up on the caffeine, Transplant.

What I have suggested for local rec ending at 4th grade is already happening. By around 5th grade, the majority of rec teams fall apart. This is the time when most children start to hone in on their few favorite sports instead of doing all of them. If parents had a better choice between the lacadaisical nature of local rec leagues and the extremes of select play, I honestly believe it would completely end local rec beyond that age. Why not allow rec to be an introduction to soccer, rec-plus to be for those who want to continue playing without commitments scribed in blood, and select to be for kids who love the sport to the point that they really want to commit to soccer only and not much else?

I am all for differing levels of development. But to no longer make a sport available to those who just want to play for fun is wrong. We have beer leagues for adults so why aren't we allowed to have a fun league for kids? Maybe so many kids drop out because of parental attitudes like this. "If you aren't going to take it seriously and train five days a week and practice your skills two hours a day, then you aren't going to play."

I have coached rec teams for years. If my girls are having fun, that is all that matters. There are post game snacks and cupcakes at practice and year end sleepovers. We wear tie-dyed socks and silly patterned shorts because we can. At $75 a season, all I hope is that they walk away with their money's worth in fun. And when I see the girls in the summer and their parents ask me "Are you going to coach again?" that makes me feel good, because I'm fostering love in a sport that I grew up playing and love.

Does that mean I take the same attitude with my oldest in select? Hell no. But just because a kid may not be the best at a sport, doesn't mean they can't love it or shouldn't play. That is what rec leagues are all about.

During the spring season there were several what I would call "formed rec teams" playing in PYL, particularly in the U10-U13 age range. These were mostly knowledgeable rec coaches who had a good core group of players and wanted to freedom to let go of those who weren't reasonably committed to the team while adding other talented rec. kids. PYL does a good job of separating these teams from the stronger club teams and will be better able to do so as the word spreads. Fees are affordable at $750 per team. We find PYL to be a level above PSA in many areas, making this a good option for those in between Rec and expensive clubs.

JustaSport wrote:Driftingwolf:

"But the original question is not about ROI, right?

Since you insist on talking about money, I hate to admit that I agree with you largely.

I never see this spending as investment. It's just a cost I pay for my DD to play and enjoy soccer and get active and healthy.

Why not rec? We averagely have only half of the team showing up for practice that practices and games have become no fun to my DD. We actually have a pretty strong base. The players who are interested get better and better, the ones who are not start hindering the team progress. But with rec, you can't drop them, can you? Even if we can, where do we recruit the good ones?

The clubs provide a platform for those who want to a little seriously. More teams is better cause it serves kids at different levels.

It's a service. We have to pay for it. I have no idea if the price is justifiable. Then again, I see it as a cost, not investment. Like we go to a restaurant, I will go if I can afford it or feel like I have to for whatever reasons."

No, the original question was not about ROI, but it does always enter into the equation since so much is spent on select soccer. I think the discussion has naturally moved in that direction.

But I do empathize with you on your rec experience. I wish I had a dollar for all of the similar stories like this I've heard. Local rec leagues have become largely irrelevant. They are a good avenue for exposing the very young players to the sport, but not much else. But moving into a league like PSA, a coach can form his own team and even drop the players (parents) who don't make the practices or put in the effort. This is part of what makes it a "rec plus" system.

Again, I don't mean to be a trumpeteer for all things PSA because there is lots of room for improvement in their setup. But it is the closest we currently have to a middle ground in my opinion.

Try dropping a 10 years old from a rec team yourself.

In my opinion any kid should be able to play a decent role in a bottom division rec team. Many can't.

Why?

Their parents......(I am sure you heard similar stories too).

Yet, they still register their kids season after season.

Somewhat like parents pay select cost year after year?

Now let me give you my DD's story in her very short club training experience.

5:30-7:00pm, Dallas

Track evaluation -

50mx2
100mx2
400m
1mi

Not a single girl whined, cried or quit. To surrounded my DD with those 02 girls, priceless. I don't promise I will think the same next year this time though.

Again, I agree that we could've achieved the same goal at a much lower cost.

JustaSport wrote:

txtransplant wrote:

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

So from my statement you somehow concluded that I would prefer a system similar to eastern bloc countries? Ease up on the caffeine, Transplant.

What I have suggested for local rec ending at 4th grade is already happening. By around 5th grade, the majority of rec teams fall apart. This is the time when most children start to hone in on their few favorite sports instead of doing all of them. If parents had a better choice between the lacadaisical nature of local rec leagues and the extremes of select play, I honestly believe it would completely end local rec beyond that age. Why not allow rec to be an introduction to soccer, rec-plus to be for those who want to continue playing without commitments scribed in blood, and select to be for kids who love the sport to the point that they really want to commit to soccer only and not much else?

Mid-cities rec league alone has 87 girls teams in the U13 thru U16 age groups.

If those figures are correct the answer to the topic qusetion is NO. There are a alot of kids playing soccer.Rather it be ECNL, LHGCL, PPL,REC there are levels for everyone.One thing for sure on the qustion of cost is that if there are fewer choices the rates for true "select" teams would go up.
Coach to parent " Hey if little Susie whats to be the best this is your only option" IE pay up

Drifting Wolf:

"Try dropping a 10 years old from a rec team yourself.

In my opinion any kid should be able to play a decent role in a bottom division rec team. Many can't.

Why?

Their parents......(I am sure you heard similar stories too).

Yet, they still register their kids season after season.

Somewhat like parents pay select cost year after year?

Now let me give you my DD's story in her very short club training experience.

5:30-7:00pm, Dallas

Track evaluation -

50mx2
100mx2
400m
1mi

Not a single girl whined, cried or quit. To surrounded my DD with those 02 girls, priceless. I don't promise I will think the same next year this time though.

Again, I agree that we could've achieved the same goal at a much lower cost."

Dropping a 10 year old from a team is not any fun. I've done it on a few occasions, but it has always been because their parents would not get them to the practices. If a girl wants to play on my team, she must show up or her parents need to simply let me know she'll need to miss. This is a good life lesson and definitely represents one of the primary problems with most rec programs: Lack of commitment/effort from the players all directly attributable to inconsiderate or indifferent parents.

But for every negative story I've heard about a bad rec team, coach, or parents... there seem to be 100 about negative situations in academy/select soccer. This forum is a testament to that. You won't find a TXRecSoccer.net forum out there with people bashing rec teams, coaches, and players; right?

my2cents wrote:

JustaSport wrote:

txtransplant wrote:

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

So from my statement you somehow concluded that I would prefer a system similar to eastern bloc countries? Ease up on the caffeine, Transplant.

What I have suggested for local rec ending at 4th grade is already happening. By around 5th grade, the majority of rec teams fall apart. This is the time when most children start to hone in on their few favorite sports instead of doing all of them. If parents had a better choice between the lacadaisical nature of local rec leagues and the extremes of select play, I honestly believe it would completely end local rec beyond that age. Why not allow rec to be an introduction to soccer, rec-plus to be for those who want to continue playing without commitments scribed in blood, and select to be for kids who love the sport to the point that they really want to commit to soccer only and not much else?

Mid-cities rec league alone has 87 girls teams in the U13 thru U16 age groups.

That's amazing. I'm impressed. I wonder what they are doing differently (if anything) to keep the program going as the girls get older.

JustaSport wrote:

my2cents wrote:

JustaSport wrote:

txtransplant wrote:

JustaSport wrote:Local rec leagues should only run through 4th grade in my opinion, at the most.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you think every child should know exactly what sport they want to "specialize" in by the age of 9 or 10? Every kid should either be discovered or weeded out by the fourth grade? Are we a communist nation now, because I could swear that's exactly how the eastern block countries used to do it and the Chinese still do.

God forbid a kid decides they want to try something new at the ripe old age of 11 or 12.

So from my statement you somehow concluded that I would prefer a system similar to eastern bloc countries? Ease up on the caffeine, Transplant.

What I have suggested for local rec ending at 4th grade is already happening. By around 5th grade, the majority of rec teams fall apart. This is the time when most children start to hone in on their few favorite sports instead of doing all of them. If parents had a better choice between the lacadaisical nature of local rec leagues and the extremes of select play, I honestly believe it would completely end local rec beyond that age. Why not allow rec to be an introduction to soccer, rec-plus to be for those who want to continue playing without commitments scribed in blood, and select to be for kids who love the sport to the point that they really want to commit to soccer only and not much else?

Mid-cities rec league alone has 87 girls teams in the U13 thru U16 age groups.

That's amazing. I'm impressed. I wonder what they are doing differently (if anything) to keep the program going as the girls get older.

Mid-Cities is like a central mall where lots of stores are paying rent to be inside. Mid-cities consists of several local soccer associations banding together to form a league with several divisions (A thru X).

(BAYFA) Birdville Area Youth Futbol Association

(BESA) Bedford-Euless Soccer Association

(CFBSA) Carrollton Farmers Branch Soccer Association

(CSA) Colleyville Soccer Association

(CYSA) Coppell Youth Soccer Association

(DNT) Denton Soccer Association

(EMSA) Eagle Mountain Soccer Association

(GLASA) Greater Lewisville Area Soccer Association

(GSSA) Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association

(HUSA) Hurst United Soccer Association

(KSA) Keller Soccer Association

(LCSA) Lake Cities Soccer Association

(NFWASA) North Fort Worth Alliance Soccer Association

(TCRSA) Trophy Club Roanoke Soccer Association *New Name - Greater Northwest Soccer Association

(TCYSA) The Colony Youth Soccer Association

JustaSport wrote:Drifting Wolf:

"Try dropping a 10 years old from a rec team yourself.

In my opinion any kid should be able to play a decent role in a bottom division rec team. Many can't.

Why?

Their parents......(I am sure you heard similar stories too).

Yet, they still register their kids season after season.

Somewhat like parents pay select cost year after year?

Now let me give you my DD's story in her very short club training experience.

5:30-7:00pm, Dallas

Track evaluation -

50mx2
100mx2
400m
1mi

Not a single girl whined, cried or quit. To surrounded my DD with those 02 girls, priceless. I don't promise I will think the same next year this time though.

Again, I agree that we could've achieved the same goal at a much lower cost."

Dropping a 10 year old from a team is not any fun. I've done it on a few occasions, but it has always been because their parents would not get them to the practices. If a girl wants to play on my team, she must show up or her parents need to simply let me know she'll need to miss. This is a good life lesson and definitely represents one of the primary problems with most rec programs: Lack of commitment/effort from the players all directly attributable to inconsiderate or indifferent parents.

But for every negative story I've heard about a bad rec team, coach, or parents... there seem to be 100 about negative situations in academy/select soccer. This forum is a testament to that. You won't find a TXRecSoccer.net forum out there with people bashing rec teams, coaches, and players; right?

Ok, understood and agreed.

FWIW, we are not abandoning the rec team. I've personally invested lots of time in it. I also understood it would work out eventually(we actually have improved a lot). We are relocating, thus have an opportunity to reevaluate our soccer strategy . Some of my DD's future classmates are leaving their rec team to join the club for similar reasons, which made our decision a little easier.


The saddest part of all this experience is, had my DD not made the club team, I would still have her play rec, but not commit her to all trainings etc. I would just train her myself and drive her to the trainings/games when she wants to. Just like other parents.

If I can't fight them, join them. Right?

Last, be a little supportive and wish us luck, as I am about to write the check!

I see here a re-occuring theme that one big issue in rec is player commitement. Not showing up for practice etc. So we move to select, pay, sign a contract and now we are more commited to get our kids to practice. What's wrong with that picture! And if fees were not as high as they are would we be less commited to get them there? Money not only drives the clubs............... If it were free would you take her to practice twice or three times a week, skills on Friday, games on Saturday, miss the birthday party, church event, school social, family gathering (need I go on) that we all do now in the name of commitement? But then again, we always say it is our kids commitement.

I'm surprised clubs have never approached teams hierarchically. For example, at u14 put all the best players in Pre-Academy, put the next batch in D1, put the next batch in D2, all the way down. In reality, most do it team by team or each coach on his own. The D1's have more good players, but not all of them, etc. I think this dilutes the talent pool.

So select would really be select, if the coach from the top team could pick his players from all the teams. Baseball model would work in my opinion to keep select really "select". Majors, AAA, AAA, and several A level teams. Of course, players don't pay to play. The clubs pay from the bottom up and release them when they feel they won't ever make the big leagues.

34blast wrote:I'm surprised clubs have never approached teams hierarchically. For example, at u14 put all the best players in Pre-Academy, put the next batch in D1, put the next batch in D2, all the way down. In reality, most do it team by team or each coach on his own. The D1's have more good players, but not all of them, etc. I think this dilutes the talent pool.

So select would really be select, if the coach from the top team could pick his players from all the teams. Baseball model would work in my opinion to keep select really "select". Majors, AAA, AAA, and several A level teams. Of course, players don't pay to play. The clubs pay from the bottom up and release them when they feel they won't ever make the big leagues.

So in effect you dont get to choose who coaches your DD. That does not sound like a good idea to me. Plus top team does not always equal top coach

34blast wrote:I'm surprised clubs have never approached teams hierarchically. For example, at u14 put all the best players in Pre-Academy, put the next batch in D1, put the next batch in D2, all the way down. In reality, most do it team by team or each coach on his own. The D1's have more good players, but not all of them, etc. I think this dilutes the talent pool.

So select would really be select, if the coach from the top team could pick his players from all the teams. Baseball model would work in my opinion to keep select really "select". Majors, AAA, AAA, and several A level teams. Of course, players don't pay to play. The clubs pay from the bottom up and release them when they feel they won't ever make the big leagues.

That is exactly the way a good portion of the rest of the country does select soccer. I often do wish is was more like this here.

beast wrote:

34blast wrote:I'm surprised clubs have never approached teams hierarchically. For example, at u14 put all the best players in Pre-Academy, put the next batch in D1, put the next batch in D2, all the way down. In reality, most do it team by team or each coach on his own. The D1's have more good players, but not all of them, etc. I think this dilutes the talent pool.

So select would really be select, if the coach from the top team could pick his players from all the teams. Baseball model would work in my opinion to keep select really "select". Majors, AAA, AAA, and several A level teams. Of course, players don't pay to play. The clubs pay from the bottom up and release them when they feel they won't ever make the big leagues.

That is exactly the way a good portion of the rest of the country does select soccer. I often do wish is was more like this here.

sheep