I Am Mine said:

---

agracer said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

agracer said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

We have very few non 1st generation black kids playing the sport. Pay to play and the stigma that it's a Mexican or rich white kid sport.

They're wrong tho. Lacrosse is a rich white kids sport.

Oh well. I am optimistic about our future.

---

Is AAU Basketball not Pay to Play?

---

Yes. But the kids at elite level don't pay to play. The other kids are paying for it.

---

that's the same with the Academy teams for a lot of soccer clubs as well.

---

True.

I know nothing.

---

sorry, i was not trying to imply you know nothing. I just keep hearing "pay to play" is this huge problem for soccer in America but it doesn't seem to slow down the development of the best basketball players in the world in the least bit.

My nephew plays AAU and I know it's not cheap. He's all over the place playing in tournaments which his parents get to pay for...(best part, not only do they pay the team for all the tournament fees, they get to pay admission just to watch him play at whatever venue is hosting the tournament - hell the last one cost them $20/person PER DAY!!!).

Select baseball isn't free either...of course their is the minor leagues if a kid is good and no equivalent for soccer. But that's not a picnic for the minor league players who aren't paid squat if they're not a 1st round pick.

Whatever, what i stated is fact. Soccer is a year long commitment, others club teams are fall to spring commitments, they are not year long requirements. They accommodate during the fall.

Soccer is competing for football, baseball (to some degree) and basketball type athletes, not golf, swimming, gymnastics etc.

What I have stated is not 20 years ago data, its current as i see it in my kids and their friends. Yes, you can play those other sports year round, but they are not year long commitments that soccer requires. Sign up in August for the entire year as as a team. AAU basketball doesn't require that, baseball doesn't require that.

agracer said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

agracer said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

agracer said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

We have very few non 1st generation black kids playing the sport. Pay to play and the stigma that it's a Mexican or rich white kid sport.

They're wrong tho. Lacrosse is a rich white kids sport.

Oh well. I am optimistic about our future.

---

Is AAU Basketball not Pay to Play?

---

Yes. But the kids at elite level don't pay to play. The other kids are paying for it.

---

that's the same with the Academy teams for a lot of soccer clubs as well.

---

True.

I know nothing.

---

sorry, i was not trying to imply you know nothing. I just keep hearing "pay to play" is this huge problem for soccer in America but it doesn't seem to slow down the development of the best basketball players in the world in the least bit.

My nephew plays AAU and I know it's not cheap. He's all over the place playing in tournaments which his parents get to pay for...(best part, not only do they pay the team for all the tournament fees, they get to pay admission just to watch him play at whatever venue is hosting the tournament - hell the last one cost them $20/person PER DAY!!!).

Select baseball isn't free either...of course their is the minor leagues if a kid is good and no equivalent for soccer. But that's not a picnic for the minor league players who aren't paid squat if they're not a 1st round pick.

---

The difference is while they have that model in the US for AAU, there is not that model in Europe. That is why when a euro has the athelitcism to play at the NBA level, they're typically better skilled across the board. At least on offense.

"The difference is while they have that model in the US for AAU, there is not that model in Europe. That is why when a euro has the athelitcism to play at the NBA level, they're typically better skilled across the board. At least on offense."

I will contradict myself to some degree. The US tries to out athlete everything vs.skills to your point. US sports (basketball) doesn't drive skill development comparatively.

OlSarge92 said:

---

Huge difference. Basketball and baseball;; do have an off season. They work around knowing kids are playing other sports in the fall.. Its obviously all in during the winter to spring, but during the fall, they accommodate and adjust and dial back the commitment level knowing kids are playing another sport. Soccer doesn't do that, its all In year long commitment August to late Spring, with a short winter break in between Soccer doesn't accommodate anything.

---

Not really.

I have a son who plays bball and football.

Teams/clubs make it work for those who play both...but the talented players focusing on a particular sport typically play one year round.

Did you and your son sign up or AAU basketball team for the entire year staring in August? Did he commit to a team for a year long? Or did he commit to a team for the Fall, and then recommit to the team in the Spring?

That type commitment to one sport starts occurring in 7th or 8th grade for many sports. Soccer drives that commitment starting much younger, U11 and earlier. Soccer loses athletes at a younger age due to this.

OlSarge92 said:

---

Did you and your son sign up or AAU basketball team for the entire year staring in August? Did he commit to a team for a year long? Or did he commit to a team for the Fall, and then recommit to the team in the Spring?

That type commitment to one sport starts occurring in 7th or 8th grade for many sports. Soccer drives that commitment starting much younger, U11 and earlier. Soccer loses athletes at a younger age due to this.

---

Do you have real evidence or is just anecdotal evidence.

All sports lose athletes throughout the process of aging and growing.

My daughter is on her 3rd year of select, and the only kid that they have lost to the sport is an elite tennis player. We did lose a few on the first signing day, but honestly these girls weren't serious about the sport and play rec but still play.

Maybe my anecdotal evidence is different than yours, or it's different for girls because of no football?

There are obviously exceptions for those elite athletes that will play both/everything.

But it's really besides the point how often they re-commit. If they want to play at a high level, they have to be involved year round. It's just the way it is these days. Otherwise, you have 'part-timers' trying to compete with/against players who've done nothing but one sport since they're 4 years old.

Not saying I like it. But that's they way it is.

I think its much different for girls, much more socially acceptable. I also had a daughter that played soccer (she is going to be a sophomore). She had Level 10 ball skills, level 3 athleticism (just subjective conjecture). She just wasn't quick or fast enough comparatively. She now plays basketball, better for skills (she's tall, and much quicker on the court than the field).

Many girls dropped out as you would expect for other sports that they just were better at or liked better, but I see the best female athlete staying in soccer comparatively. (fast, quick). Other sports are losing out to soccer.

Women's softball and basketball have their own cultural problems (totally different topic), even at the high school level.

Of course, i mean no disrespect to other opinions...maybe I am dead wrong. I am really just pissed and ranting about it, makes me mad to see US soccer in the current state.

Entourageag07 said:

---

Clint Dempsey Story

Clint Dempsey Story #2

One case everyone interested in this topic should study is that of Clint Dempsey. I played against Clint in high school during his time at Nacogdoches. You knew then that he was destined for greatness as he was a man amongst boys at that level. The two articles above shed some light on some of the details that made him our greatest player ever:

1. He grew up playing in the local Mexican leagues against men twice his age. Here he learned true game toughness and how to be creative by trying new things in a comfortable setting.

2. His family was able to get him into the Dallas Texans Club (the team covered his dues and travel costs) where he received top level coaching all the way through high school.

3. He had to overcome adversity numerous times in his life. I won't spoil the articles but he is the opposite of the typical rich kid whose parents paid for them to play on a club team. He was no stranger to adversity and it shaped him as a player.

The articles cover more but think about the contrast between him and some of our current players. Then think about how many talented East Texas (and other small town areas) kids follow a similar path, but never get noticed the way Clint did because they weren't able to get in with a top club, play in national tournaments, and get scouted by top college and pro coaches. I know this because, like Clint, I drove from Longview to Dallas to play for the Dallas Comets to try to make a career (or at least a scholarship) out of playing the game. Of course, I had none of the experience, intangibles, talent, and natural desire that Clint had so I ended up attending A&M and not playing college soccer (best decision for me) despite having multiple scholarship offers.

Until we establish a scouting/youth system that allows an equal shot to every kid in this country, you're only seeing a small sample size of what this country has to offer. This before we even get into conversations such as youth development, level of competition, fitness and nutrition training etc.

---

2 inches away from being US top goal scorer and going to his last WC.

2 inches.

Crazy.

That's my nickname for him. 2 inches.

yes, agree.

It may be coachspeak but if he believes this, this is scary.

MLS players in mid season who started:
Steffen
Nick Lima
Aaron Long
Will Trapp
Christian Roldan
Paul Arriola
Zardes

Subs from MLS:
Altidore
Morris
Walker Zimmerman
Daniel Lovitz

Non MLS starters were in off-season:
Matt Miazga
Ream
Boyd
McKennie

Sub:
Holmes

So he is saying that 11 of the 16 that played aren't fit, despite it being in the middle of their season??

And the player that looked his best is in the offseason and in his first game for the US.

salloh_tamu said:

---

Berhalter sucks.

---

I'll pass judgement on him after the gold cup. I want to see the first team in the knockout rounds and see if they've gelled together at all. Anything less than a final appearance is a failure in my eyes with the teams involved. Mexico is missing 6 or so players but they're still the best team in the competition.

I like the idea of our team playing the way he wants but I have some serious concerns about his system being too hard to implement at the international level. He did a fine job at Columbus given the ownership situation there but he also chose his players and had them for 9 months a year. You can get intricate with systems when you have that much time. He has these guys together a few weeks a year...

OregonAggie said:

---

salloh_tamu said:

---

Berhalter sucks.

---

I'll pass judgement on him after the gold cup. I want to see the first team in the knockout rounds and see if they've gelled together at all. Anything less than a final appearance is a failure in my eyes with the teams involved. Mexico is missing 6 or so players but they're still the best team in the competition.

I like the idea of our team playing the way he wants but I have some serious concerns about his system being too hard to implement at the international level. He did a fine job at Columbus given the ownership situation there but he also chose his players and had them for 9 months a year. You can get intricate with systems when you have that much time. He has these guys together a few weeks a year...

---

Are the U-17s playing his system? U-20s? U-23s? Or something similar?
It seems to me to configure the system to the players, but I just find people for a living so I don't know.

Hahaha


I just sell drugs for a living and play a lot of FIFA 19!

I don't believe the U20s we're playing Berhalter's system and I think that's important to do.

OregonAggie said:

---

Hahaha


I just sell drugs for a living and play a lot of FIFA 19!

I don't believe the U20s we're playing Berhalter's system and I think that's important to do.

---

Isn't that the point of the GM, to have a consistency at all levels?

Hell, southlake carroll elementary schools are playing the same offense as the high school.

It's a difficult problem to solve as well, just due to the sheer size of the country. There is no way to say this without sounding uncaring, but the one poster's sons and his friends quitting soccer are not something we need to look into solving. People get weeded out, that's part of the development process.

We need the previously mentioned increase in scouting and just overall access to organized soccer outside of big metro areas. We need to continue the spending increase for youth level coaching, so those young players are getting quality training.

Someone mentioned it earlier, but give Earnie Stewart and Berhalter credit, they are trying to establish an identy for US Soccer. Currently, all the youth teams are playing a version of what the Mens team is trying to do. At MLS clubs where player development is emphasized, they are also playing in their clubs system., These things are all important, and much more so than getting a kid to "play because its cool".

You missed the point at least I was getting at. If US soccer was weeding them out, I would agree. Problem is, they weed themselves out, or they are never involved to begin . That is US soccer's problem. If soccer becomes more of a cultural fit "because its cool" it only helps to fix this self weed out, increase the pool.

What you state sounds like a repeat of the last 20 years, which hasn't done anything but regression. Maybe this next generation will break that, time will tell.

OlSarge92 said:

---

You missed the point at least I was getting at. If US soccer was weeding them out, I would agree. Problem is, they weed themselves out, or they are never involved to begin . That is US soccer's problem. If soccer becomes more of a cultural fit "because its cool" it only helps to fix this self weed out, increase the pool.

What you state sounds like a repeat of the last 20 years, which hasn't done anything but regression. Maybe this next generation will break that, time will tell.

---

Don't you think there's kids in other countries that "weed themselves out"? I'm not trying to sound like an ass but it seems you look at your experience as being the widespread problem with US Soccer when it was probably just your problem.

OlSarge92 said:

---

You missed the point at least I was getting at. If US soccer was weeding them out, I would agree. Problem is, they weed themselves out, or they are never involved to begin . That is US soccer's problem. If soccer becomes more of a cultural fit "because its cool" it only helps to fix this self weed out, increase the pool.

What you state sounds like a repeat of the last 20 years, which hasn't done anything but regression. Maybe this next generation will break that, time will tell.

---

I think its clear you don't have a concept of how countries and teams develop their infrastructure in soccer.

Honestly I'm kind of meh about this. I hate the idea of turning soccer into an all in 24/7 environment for u11s just so we can have a good USMNT. I'd rather people play for fun and enjoy the game. Not go at it with the mindset of it paying college or becoming a professional.

I don't have a problem, US Soccer has a problem, results speak for total failure. They seem destined to continue down the same failed path.

Really? It's clear you have reading comprehension issue, drawing conclusions of what I understand.

The reality is US Soccer is the entity that doesn't "have a concept of how countries and teams develop their infrastructure in soccer."

They suck at it as the results show.

US soccer is still a disaster and just as corrupt as it's ever been. Anyone arguing otherwise is delusional.

Why can't we just put our best kids over in Europe when they are like 12 and let them grow up in real systems?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Why can't we just put our best kids over in Europe when they are like 12 and let them grow up in real systems?

---

Our kids can't go over there until 18.

I think the development issue is a valid point... and I'll admit it could be the bigger factor.

But as far as the choice of what kids do with their time, soccer has an uphill battle in the US. In other countries, soccer is the #1 sport and it's lapping the field. There are financial and cultural reasons why kids would quit soccer (or more importantly, never start) in the US that wouldn't happen in these other countries.

I agree that the push for year-round is affecting all sports, but I think it's affecting soccer more than other sports. Kids/parents are willing to do extra for football because they might get a scholarship for college, might make the glitz and fame of the NFL... but even if all of that fails, they'll still be a BMOC in HS. Same is true for basketball... and both sports started in colleges and have fed the notion of student-athlete that is a uniquely American concept. High school culture revolves around football or basketball and that makes them attractive options.

On the other hand, baseball's story in the US is closer to that of soccer abroad... clubs of grown men turning into professional teams, so there is hope for soccer to find a place, but it starts with popularity/fun of the sport. Call me crazy, but I think part of baseball's success is that old-man softball is such a big thing. There's a lot of dads who love to play catch with their sons. There's far fewer dads willing to kick a ball around with their sons.

I'd bet a coke that a good number of volunteer coaches in kid rec leagues are woefully incompetent in their soccer skills. I certainly am, but when I put my son in his first league this fall, I'll step up and volunteer if they need volunteers... Why not kill two birds with one stone? I'd love to see USSF (or someone) create a rec league program where dads learn with their kids. In the Army we called it "train the trainer". Make it a fun way for parents to interact with their kids and I bet popularity of the sport would grow.

Regardless, I think there needs to be some out of the box thinking on how to get adults to like soccer. It's a chicken-egg problem, for sure, but I think if more parents saw soccer as a worthwhile, fun sport then it would cure a lot of ills.

Pulisic has lobbied for that to change. Not sure what it would take, but it would definitely benefit us.

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/christian-pulisic-usmnt-world-cup

About halfway into the article, he discusses how lucky he was to have a Croatian passport as well and an American passport....and how much that meant to his development. He credits it more than anything, regarding his development.

That's an interesting point.

I read an article about Iceland, and the system they put in place, which turned their team around. One of the points they made, was that there wasn't kids' dads coaching the team; instead, all coaches were licensed.

That makes some sense, especially at the rec level. But in America, we still have many many more kids being coached by licensed coaches, than they have in Iceland. So why aren't we developing through to the Int'l level?

My take, is that there is no consistency. What is our identity? What does US Soccer teach in U10, that's carried through to the US Men's team? Nothing. We just hope talent rises through the ranks and then try to use them. It's a hodge-podge of a system.

I've not played club soccer nor have my clubs played club soccer but from my observations I see two big hurdles:

Coaching:
* lack of trained coaches at the youth level to really train soccer skills
* hard to balance development vs winning at the club level due to $$$$

Geographical
* lack of academies - Not all MLS clubs have academies set up yet
* geography - Texas is twice the size of Germany, three times the size of England. Even if you have 4 academies, it still hard to account for the entirety of Texas.

I think you're right on as far as development is concerned. I suppose where I'm coming from is that soccer is a popular option at age 6, but many of the parents are disengaged because it's not a sport that they're as familiar with as other sports. I'd focus the super young rec leagues on having a fun family experience. Shoot there's a lot of moms out there who did play soccer... take advantage of that and have mom-son rec opportunities where the little boys get to play with their mommies. I think something needs to be done to drum up enthusiasm from parents. Grow popularity of the sport and then yes, as the cream rises to the top we desperately need a consistent development strategy.