My daughter's ECNL club turned down a chance to play DA and I'm really glad they did because her high school team is the two time defending state champ and quite frankly, it is much more fun for her.

Found this article interesting in how it's causing issues with some of the Nation's top players since they're not allowed to play both DA and high school:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/16/us-soccer-girls-development-academy-effect-high-school-soccer/

OBTW, her team is really good, 12/18 players are committed to D1 (7 in power 5 conferences)

It'll do the same thing to girls HS soccer that the DA has done to boys HS soccer - your most talented one or two kids will walk the halls of the schools but never play with their friends they go to class with each day wearing their school colors. On a couple of occasions, the kids who get burnt out by the grind of DA will quit for their senior years and play HS ball.

I'm admittedly biased, but I wish the Fed would find a way to work HS soccer into their grand development scene somehow. Provide access to cheaper, HS-centric coaching licenses, invest in local fields that could then be partially public-access, etc. They won't ever do it, but it sure would be awesome.

I think DA has a place because for a lot of schools, soccer is an afterthought. I went to a 5A HS that only cared about football. We weren't taught very much by our soccer coach, but a few guys had enough talent to get on with big club teams and get scholarships on their way to the MLS.

I agree with that. Like I said, I would love to see the USSF invest in HS soccer programs as a way of building the foundations of the sport across the country.

To add on a bit, I'd sell this to the Fed as a missing out on untapped/unidentified talent perspective. There's tons of kids who never get in front of the eyes of their scouts because of geography/money/etc. Investing in HS coaching and programs increases the odds that these kids will make it on their radar. Admittedly, HS is pretty late for them to make an impact at the national level, but it's better late than never, which is what they currently see.

The results have varied around the country honestly, ECNL still provides a path for many and they embrace HS soccer comparatively.....there has been some blow back in some areas on the DA demand on training time and there were a handful of defections this spring in the Houston area. Right now it's mostly how it's marketed. There will be girls that attend traditionally strong high school programs that will always want to be a part of that arena. the Houston area hasn't embraced DA on the girls side (whether that be due to which clubs applied for the slots or the logistics is up for debate) I can see a path that has compromise but with all the egos involved I fear it will be a wedge in the system.

Comes off as a money grab to me by DA to add girls. They sell it on the boys side as a path to play pro NOT as a path to college. ECNL/High School is the path for girls to go to college; don't think the 'pro' element is even really a thought on their end, at least not from the girls' parents I know.

I think the flip of this is why clubs are adding ECNL for boys (name doesn't stick in my head); I think my son's club is going to end up adding this next year; so they can play at a 'higher' level and still play for their school.

Private schools already take this approach with their coaches for many sports. Public schools (probably) won't ever follow suit because they want all their coaches to be full-time employees and teach classes as well.

jeffk said:

---

Private schools already take this approach with their coaches for many sports. Public schools (probably) won't ever follow suit because they want all their coaches to be full-time employees and teach classes as well.

---

Yeah I know. A bunch of parents at my kids' HS tried to replace our coach, but ran into that rule. It's a stupid rule, IMO. There is no reason in the world that the coaches should have to be teachers anymore them custodians, bus drivers, repairmen, etc.

Well, agree to disagree there, I guess. In my opinion, school sports are an extension of the campus culture (including academics) and as such coaches need to have a connection to their players that goes beyond just what happens on the field/court. (And I realize I'm most likely not going to change your mind on this, just clarifying my position.)

That said, school administrators and athletic directors absolutely need to do a better job hiring, supporting and training coaches for all sports who will help to better develop their players' skills in that particular sport.

At the university level, there is now a growing partnership between the NCAA and USSF on the mens side. The move to a fall/spring season is being strongly considered and it will be done in connection with USSF and in recognition of the unique value that university soccer provides the US. By improving training methods and how the season unfolds the US will have an additional player pipeline above the more limited pro track. And having players with university-level education will be beneficial for several reasons.

High school can't really work this way since it's pretty disruptive to have players play for two different teams over the course of a season. There are definite benefits for younger players to be in a single system during the pre-18 years. Tough get a development program in place that involves splitting time between coaches, etc. Other countries have finally caught up with and are surpassing the US when it comes to player development and they're using the same methods as on the mens side. The US did have a pretty big advantage with soccer as a high school sport when other countries had very little to offer, but that's changed in a pretty material way.

jeffk said:

---

Well, agree to disagree there, I guess. In my opinion, school sports are an extension of the campus culture (including academics) and as such coaches need to have a connection to their players that goes beyond just what happens on the field/court. (And I realize I'm most likely not going to change your mind on this, just clarifying my position.)

That said, school administrators and athletic directors absolutely need to do a better job hiring, supporting and training coaches for all sports who will help to better develop their players' skills in that particular sport.

---

In theory I agree. In reality, it seems like it just doesn't work out that well.

Everything just ends up revolving around football. We hire a bunch of football coaches based on their football coaching skills and put them in the classrooms even though many of them aren't good teachers. We also take those sames football coaches and put them in charge of other sports (soccer, baseball, tennis) because they played that sport growing up even though some of them don't really know much about coaching that sport.

I understand the idea behind the rule. I just think we have tried it for a while and it doesn't work well. There just doesn't seem to be enough people that can do both the coaching and the teaching at a high enough proficiency for it to work well.

I wonder if you will get quality select coaches to coach for what stipends are. When I coached for 7 years I'm not sure you would get many quality coaches that would come do this plus their regular job for the amount I was getting paid for the coaching portion. All the time that that they would have to spend outside their normal job I'm just not sure it would improve things most places.

I say hire the best math teachers to teach math, best English teachers to teach English, the best bus drivers to drive buses, etc. that you can. Coaches should be no different.

Should we make the lunch lady be a teacher too?

If I had to guess, a bunch of teachers got angry that football coaches were getting paid so much. So they lobbied whoever they needed to make them be teachers too.

What you described definitely occurs. Results and situations vary widely depending on where you are and, to a great extent, the quality of campus/district leadership doing the hiring. In my 12 years teaching and coaching around Houston, I saw a pretty steady improvement in the quality of coaching and teaching from coaches. It's tougher to hide poor teachers than it was 15 years ago (thankfully) and there multiple moving pieces that are making districts decide to strengthen their soccer programs (often at the expense of their football programs actually). It's far from perfect, but it is improving in a lot of places and I don't think you're going to speed up that process by hiring club coaches to coach the local HS team with a $750 a year stipend.

My direct experience in this is over 15 years old and it will still be a while before my kids go through it, so I am glad to hear it is improving.

Quote:

---

Everything just ends up revolving around football. We hire a bunch of football coaches based on their football coaching skills and put them in the classrooms even though many of them aren't good teachers. We also take those sames football coaches and put them in charge of other sports (soccer, baseball, tennis) because they played that sport growing up even though some of them don't really know much about coaching that sport.

---

I think you'd be surprised how many coaches are coaching football because they have to while their "other sport" is their real passion and what they know best.

Certainly, though, I do agree the ratio skews well towards football-oriented coaches. But I would posit that it is, at least in some cases, a much deeper problem than hiring decisions...I know many examples where a school wants someone that knows tennis or soccer or whatever and they simply can't find someone interested in the job. You can't hire someone who doesn't want the job.

My dad came out of retirement to bail out a high school's non-football sport; his best friend just did the same. And I'm talking about large, suburban high schools that are very competitive in these sports; not some inner city school that can barely pay for jerseys.

My hope is that as soccer becomes more popular, a more widely, seriously followed sport, and the younger generation begins careers, that there is a larger body of candidates for coaching jobs.

That's far from the entirety of the problem, but it is a serious challenge.

Lots of good conversation and insight!

The thing that still frustrates the heck out of me(I work in the sport on the sanctioning body side of things), is the way the whole Girl's DA went down. I think most would agree that ECNL was leading the way, and though not perfect, doing a very good job, and U.S. Soccer felt they needed a piece of the pie. ECNL invited them in for a meeting in Houston at the ECNL event there, after U.S. Soccer had already made the announcement, with zero communication to ECNL. C. Lavers and his Board sat down with A. Heinrichs and Staff, for meaningful conversation, try to discuss working together, and basically Heinrichs and staff smugly and arrogantly said "thanks but no thanks" and "are you done yet," and walked out, leaving us in the position we are in today.

WB '99

I think everyone should worry less about who is leading the way and should figure out what they are best suited and prepared to do to promote a common goal of promoting and developing soccer in the United States. (I don't mean that a criticism of saying ECNL was doing well at "leading the way.")

Until they drop the competitiveness and worry about best leveraging what each organization/body/group can offer and figure out how to best connect it all together, the system as a whole will never work as well as it could.

U.S. Soccer or whoever can't keep letting their pride get in the way. High school might be limited in what it can offer but it shouldn't just be tossed in the trash by those in other organizations. Etc.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. U.S. Soccer (IMHO) should've come in and said "what can we do to help bridge things," but instead, they created a big wedge between multiple soccer groups and themselves with the DA.

WB '99

aTmAg said:

---

If HS's want to "save" HS soccer (it will be around forever in some form.. just he quality will be poor), then they should allow schools to hire coaches that are NOT teachers. Select coaches could coach the HS team for a little extra cash (about the same amount of bonus pay for HS coaches). They'd show up in the morning before school, coach the team, and then head to their normal day job.

---

I'm a Head Soccer Coach at a high school in the metroplex. I have high a USSF License (higher than a lot of select coaches I know) and am not coaching Select Soccer right now.

It's ignorant and wrong to assume that public school coaches are inadequate because they are also full time teachers.

ScottishFire said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If HS's want to "save" HS soccer (it will be around forever in some form.. just he quality will be poor), then they should allow schools to hire coaches that are NOT teachers. Select coaches could coach the HS team for a little extra cash (about the same amount of bonus pay for HS coaches). They'd show up in the morning before school, coach the team, and then head to their normal day job.

---

I'm a Head Soccer Coach at a high school in the metroplex. I have high a USSF License (higher than a lot of select coaches I know) and am not coaching Select Soccer right now.

It's ignorant and wrong to assume that public school coaches are inadequate because they are also full time teachers.

---

I'm not saying all HS coaches. If a teacher is the best applicant then, by all means, hire him/her. I'm saying that there is no reason to FORCE schools to only consider teachers for coaching jobs.

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Private schools already take this approach with their coaches for many sports. Public schools (probably) won't ever follow suit because they want all their coaches to be full-time employees and teach classes as well.

---

Yeah I know. A bunch of parents at my kids' HS tried to replace our coach, but ran into that rule. It's a stupid rule, IMO. There is no reason in the world that the coaches should have to be teachers anymore them custodians, bus drivers, repairmen, etc.

---

Actually, isn't it state law that coaches must be certified teachers? i know Dallas ISD ran into this several years ago when they discovered some asst coaches (in several sports) were working at the schools as hall monitors or in-school suspensions monitors.

Quote:

---

then they should allow schools to hire coaches that are NOT teachers.

---

That's probably not going to happen nor should it happen. I've been around HS athletics for over 3 decades. During that time, I've spent considerable time around select leagues -- mostly basketball -- and I can tell you that the WORST HS/Jr. hi coaches in schools are better than the BEST select coaches. I'm speaking of overall coaching and teaching ability. Yes, there are some exceptions and yes, sports like soccer, tennis, gymnastics, etc. are going to have poorer sport specific coaches at schools that don't put a value on those sports. But there is no reason why there can't be good quality soccer, etc., coaches in high schools now when school districts want them.

Instead of telling schools to hire select coaches, tell the select coaches to go get a teaching certificate and coach soccer at schools that want soccer coaches. The schools will say it isn't that they don't value soccer but that they don't have many coaches that excel in coaching that sport. The coaches must understand that except for 6A and some 5A head football and many head boys basketball coaches (maybe a dozen or two girls basketball coaches as well), the high school coach WILL coach at least 2 sports. Want to change that? No problem -- get 2K people at your soccer game and soccer will become king. There are more than twice the number of soccer games as football games so even 2K will compare favorably against whatever football (other than the Allens and Southlakes, etc.) can provide.

Good luck!

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

then they should allow schools to hire coaches that are NOT teachers.

---

That's probably not going to happen nor should it happen. I've been around HS athletics for over 3 decades. During that time, I've spent considerable time around select leagues -- mostly basketball -- and I can tell you that the WORST HS/Jr. hi coaches in schools are better than the BEST select coaches. I'm speaking of overall coaching and teaching ability. Yes, there are some exceptions and yes, sports like soccer, tennis, gymnastics, etc. are going to have poorer sport specific coaches at schools that don't put a value on those sports. But there is no reason why there can't be good quality soccer, etc., coaches in high schools now when school districts want them.

---

IMO, it is the opposite in soccer (especially on the girls side). The HS coaches who post on this board are the exception, in my experience, not the rule.

The reason for this, IMO, is that sports like basketball, baseball, football, etc. are popular enough in America that every random dad thinks he is an expert. While you have some dads who do know what they are doing, you'll have a bunch who do not. When a HS hires a coach from these sports, they have a large pool to chose from, and the ADs who are doing the hiring know enough about the sport to evaluate coaching talent. So they can more easily pick somebody who knows what they are doing. So a random sampling will show that a typical HS coach is better than a random sampling of dad select coaches.

Soccer is not popular enough for that yet. For example, the AD at my local HS is famous name throughout Texas and has built one of the most successful athletic programs in the state, yet even he admits that he does not know squat about soccer. These ADs can make obvious choices (such as offering former professional players or college assistants), but absent those types of possibilities, it's just a crap shoot.

I have 1 kid playing soccer in college, and 2 in HS. They have had a total of 11 select coaches. And every one of those 11 select coaches are better than our HS coaches. And it's not like my local HS teams suck. We go to the playoffs every year, been to state, etc. In fact, my local HS coach tried coaching a select team for a while, and got DESTROYED. If he didn't go 0-fer, it was pretty close.

I'll put an ECNL coach, or top classic league from Texans, Sting, FC Dallas, etc. over 90% of HS coaches every day of the week. And these coaches would be willing to coach HS, if they didn't also have to stay at the school and teach all day.

Quote:

---

Instead of telling schools to hire select coaches, tell the select coaches to go get a teaching certificate and coach soccer at schools that want soccer coaches. The schools will say it isn't that they don't value soccer but that they don't have many coaches that excel in coaching that sport. The coaches must understand that except for 6A and some 5A head football and many head boys basketball coaches (maybe a dozen or two girls basketball coaches as well), the high school coach WILL coach at least 2 sports. Want to change that? No problem -- get 2K people at your soccer game and soccer will become king. There are more than twice the number of soccer games as football games so even 2K will compare favorably against whatever football (other than the Allens and Southlakes, etc.) can provide.

Good luck!

---

I'm not saying that we TELL schools to hire select coaches. Just ALLOW them to. There is no reason that they should be limited to only the candidates with a teaching certificates. These coaches could easily coach practice in the morning, go do their real estate job from 9-5, and then coach games on Tuesday/Fridays for a few months of the year.

I think I said this earlier, but it seems as if you think that the only concern a HS coach should have is coaching their sport. There's nothing wrong with that position, that's just not the official position of public schools (at least in Texas).

Personally, I'm glad that coaches are required to teach and be on campus with their players the entire day - gives them an opportunity to get to know them better and get involved in their academic world in addition to the athletic one. I see school sports as an extension of the campus environment and I think having coaches who also teach is critical to that end. Unfortunately, you do get some people assigned to coach sports they're not adept at coaching, but that is improving in a lot of areas (larger districts especially).

jeffk said:

---

I think I said this earlier, but it seems as if you think that the only concern a HS coach should have is coaching their sport. There's nothing wrong with that position, that's just not the official position of public schools (at least in Texas).

Personally, I'm glad that coaches are required to teach and be on campus with their players the entire day - gives them an opportunity to get to know them better and get involved in their academic world in addition to the athletic one. I see school sports as an extension of the campus environment and I think having coaches who also teach is critical to that end. Unfortunately, you do get some people assigned to coach sports they're not adept at coaching, but that is improving in a lot of areas (larger districts especially).

---

I do not think that's the only concern of a HS coach (or any coach). I think coaches (both HS and select) have more influence and quality time with their players than most teachers do with their students. Teachers interact with students an hour a day for 1-2 semesters, while HS coaches interact for at least an hour a day for 3-4 years.

My daughter (the one in college) is closer to her U16-U18 select coach than any of her teachers. Even now, he travels to watch some of her games, gives her life advice, etc. We joined the team late at U16. He had been coaching some of the players since U11. He had nicknames for them that I didn't understand. I asked him about it, and in explaining to me, he opened his wallet and pulled out a picture of those players when they were U11. He just so happened keep a 6 year old picture of his team in his wallet like he was their dad. I don't even have pictures of my kids in my wallet. Just credit cards and what not. When my daughter was about 17, our team traveled over an hour away to scrimmage some other team. A couple young women showed up to watch and they had their young kids with them. It turns out, those women were former players of his who came to surprise him. He teared up when he saw them, and knew both of the young kids names by heart. You don't get that sort of relationship with players if all you do is teach the sport of soccer.

He was also an outstanding coach. He took this team from middle of the Plano league all the way to the top of classic league D1, and then encouraged my daughter to go play ECNL which she did. He is eminently qualified to coach soccer (and to influence the lives young men/women). Any HS team would be blessed to have him as their coach. But he is not qualified to teach science, math, English, etc. Rather than hire him as a coach and then force him spend the rest of the day as a mediocre teacher of a subject he doesn't know a whole lot about or have a great teacher also coach a sport they don't know a whole lot about, why not get the best of both worlds? Employ great teachers to teach and great coaches to coach? If that is one person, then great, but it shouldn't have to be.

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/clubs/youth-girls/more-large-youth-clubs-leave-girls-da-for-all-in-ecnl-status/

Turf war is escalating. If the clubs could somehow force the Fed to reevaluate their DA organization, that'd be pretty huge.

How many good soccer coaches are there around Texas that aren't school teachers, but would have the time and desire to coach at a local high school?

jeffk said:

---

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/clubs/youth-girls/more-large-youth-clubs-leave-girls-da-for-all-in-ecnl-status/

Turf war is escalating. If the clubs could somehow force the Fed to reevaluate their DA organization, that'd be pretty huge.

---

I hope the trend continues personally. As others have stated ECNL seemed to already be doing a fine job. Now some players are stuck in a situation where they have to give up High School soccer. So many won't be choosing DA over HS, they will be choosing DA at the expense of HS.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

How many good soccer coaches are there around Texas that aren't school teachers, but would have the time and desire to coach at a local high school for $1500 a year?

---

FIFY

Yes, well that too.

jeffk said:

---

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/clubs/youth-girls/more-large-youth-clubs-leave-girls-da-for-all-in-ecnl-status/

Turf war is escalating. If the clubs could somehow force the Fed to reevaluate their DA organization, that'd be pretty huge.

---

The clubs in general, and specifically some of the club representatives for the DA (just got off the phone with one who is in Dallas), have tried, and the Federation is too arrogant to admit fault or change their ways. Now look what it's getting them, and there will be more...

WB '99

Another interesting article about the DA:

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/77821/steve-gans-on-the-development-academys-flaws-the.html

from the article:

SA: U.S. Soccer launched the Girls DA in 2017 under different circumstances than the boys, including the fact the ECNL was well established, and now we've got the Girls DA competing with the ECNL for the nation's top players and clubs. This hasn't gone well so far for the DA, as some top clubs who did join the DA have already announced they're pulling out. How would you suggest U.S. Soccer go forward with the Girls DA?


STEVE GANS: The close timing of the establishment of the Girls DA and then the Boys ECNL was a little troubling to me, because without more, it kind of appeared to be two competitors matching shots across the bow, and if that was the case, then once again focus on the kids was lost in the shuffle, and the kids lose out. Now that the Girls DA is here, I would simply say that if the restriction on high school participation is an excruciating and painful one on the boys side, it is even more so on the girls side of the DA.
As on the Boys DA, I would recommend that U.S. Soccer liberalize the restriction on high school play as to the Girls DA. And as a central focus of mine during the campaign was solving the disruptive infighting between sanctioning organizations within youth soccer in America, I would suggest that the DA and the ECNL talk about where they have common ground and perhaps can come together in order to eliminate some of the confusion and alienation caused by such turf wars, and thereby put the focus back where it belongs: on the kids and on the successful development of youth players.