|
Post by methuselah on Mar 2, 2015 18:56:55 GMT -6
A reply by usasoccerboy in the reclassificaiton/4 division thread got me thinking. But I my thoughts are a little off the main topic of that thread so I figured a dedicated thread might be in order. This was usasoccerboy's reply:
usa: I don't have a disagreement with a proposal about relegation/promotion (other than the fact that I don't thnk it's ever going to happen). But there is something in the paragraph that triggered an opinion that I've had for a long time regarding something that is often overlooked. It is this two sentence section: "With more divisions, means more weaker games until the end of the playoffs. We need stronger competition to win the championship . . . "
It's always been my contention that soccer skill in and of itself is not the major drawing card of high school soccer. It's more the school spirit, the students, the colors, the mascots, the camaraderie among classmates, the stadiums with long histories, the parents and grandparents, etc. In short, its the high school part of high school soccer.
Because, lets be honest, if what we're interested in is just pure soccer skill, there are a lot of other places where we can find more of that - clubs, colleges, MLS, dozens of international leagues leading right up to things like EPL and the other big European leagues. (This is not a new observation of mine, I remember thinking much the same thing in discussions of local rec baseball leagues v. travel teams that drew kids who traveled for an hour or more one way for practices. It was always my contention that if you are just looking for flat out technical play you'd go to a lot of other places for you baseball first).
Sure, you need a certain level of competence and skill but I don't think a nip and tuck game between say an 8 and 9 seed is inherently less exciting than one between a 1 and 2 seed.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Mar 2, 2015 19:15:41 GMT -6
I agree. I think it is much more about the experience for most kids.
Honestly there is a good deal of that in club. It's not all about developing skills and getting better. It's also about the friendships that develop, the trips, going through all emotions with that group.
I remember a graduated college player telling my daughter that the things you remember after it's done aren't as much the championships or the losses but the fun times with your team and all the personalities.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by usasoccerboy on Mar 2, 2015 19:39:39 GMT -6
A reply by usasoccerboy in the reclassificaiton/4 division thread got me thinking. But I my thoughts are a little off the main topic of that thread so I figured a dedicated thread might be in order. This was usasoccerboy's reply: usa: I don't have a disagreement with a proposal about relegation/promotion (other than the fact that I don't thnk it's ever going to happen). But there is something in the paragraph that triggered an opinion that I've had for a long time regarding something that is often overlooked. It is this two sentence section: " With more divisions, means more weaker games until the end of the playoffs. We need stronger competition to win the championship . . . " It's always been my contention that soccer skill in and of itself is not the major drawing card of high school soccer. It's more the school spirit, the students, the colors, the mascots, the camaraderie among classmates, the stadiums with long histories, the parents and grandparents, etc. In short, its the high school part of high school soccer. Because, lets be honest, if what we're interested in is just pure soccer skill, there are a lot of other places where we can find more of that - clubs, colleges, MLS, dozens of international leagues leading right up to things like EPL and the other big European leagues. (This is not a new observation of mine, I remember thinking much the same thing in discussions of local rec baseball leagues v. travel teams that drew kids who traveled for an hour or more one way for practices. It was always my contention that if you are just looking for flat out technical play you'd go to a lot of other places for you baseball first). Sure, you need a certain level of competence and skill but I don't think a nip and tuck game between say an 8 and 9 seed is inherently less exciting than one between a 1 and 2 seed. There is little to no difference between skill level in club vs. school. I know people like to go on and on about this, but each has something that the other does not offer. Sure, with club, you may be able to pool the best players from a local area and even recruit some that live more than an hour away to your team, but you do not have the local interest where the non related fan shows up at your game out of interest. School does generate that spirit you refer to. So there are benefits to playing both systems.
One thing that I have learned at coaching schools is that it is not beneficial for teams to start and stop playing and then start back up again. I see that we go from club in the fall, to High School in the winter, and then back to club in the spring. The fall and spring club teams can be different so this ability for good players to work to be a good team that plays with tactical awareness, that by the time they approach playing well, the season is done. The coaches at the USSF coaching schools want good players to advance further by learning how to play organized "good" soccer, but instead, at the high school and even the college level, as soon as players get to this point, where the team is gelling, playing in a system where each player understands the role of the surrounding players, the season ends. This is a reason why I think the USA suffers as a whole against world competition as our development system is weak. We play in a system that is geared to American seasonal sports; whereas soccer is year round. We need players that can play in all sorts of environments, cold and hot weather, as well pitches. Diversity is not only the key to life, but with soccer development as well. So, my beef is not with high school vs. club, but with how we develop or more so, how we hamper the development of our players with the contingencies the governing systems put in place for player development. It is bad enough now that we have no college programs in our state, but we also do not have the system in place that national coaches want to take interest in the state of Louisiana. Sure, we have those good exceptions like Jason Garey and Kreis, but those are too few compared with other states. Know this, the USSF has none to little respect for Louisiana. That is why they do not let us have games for senior national teams for the fans to go see and they hold little to no professional coaching clinics in our area. We need to change that attitude for the people in Chicago and USSF.
My interests lies in generating the best soccer players the country and state can produce. So, I see a system where we dilute the talent pool of good teams to play and spend a good deal of time of playing schools that are totally different in class. There is no benefit for a good team to play a school and beat them 8-0. It doesn't help the weaker team either.
In a relegation system, the weaker teams sit in the bottom division and have something to play for - to get out of the bottom division. There you may have those schools who do not take soccer seriously or are just beginning their programs. In the upper system, you get what the national coaches wanting to see, good players on good teams playing other good players and good teams. I have seen in the past, good teams play good teams at the beginning of the season, then they get to district and play inferior teams, and then by the time playoffs come around, they play a minnow, and then if they are lucky, play 2 good teams in the semis and finals. That is not enough for good teams to advance further and play better soccer in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Mar 2, 2015 20:07:28 GMT -6
A reply by usasoccerboy in the reclassificaiton/4 division thread got me thinking. But I my thoughts are a little off the main topic of that thread so I figured a dedicated thread might be in order. This was usasoccerboy's reply: usa: I don't have a disagreement with a proposal about relegation/promotion (other than the fact that I don't thnk it's ever going to happen). But there is something in the paragraph that triggered an opinion that I've had for a long time regarding something that is often overlooked. It is this two sentence section: " With more divisions, means more weaker games until the end of the playoffs. We need stronger competition to win the championship . . . " It's always been my contention that soccer skill in and of itself is not the major drawing card of high school soccer. It's more the school spirit, the students, the colors, the mascots, the camaraderie among classmates, the stadiums with long histories, the parents and grandparents, etc. In short, its the high school part of high school soccer. Because, lets be honest, if what we're interested in is just pure soccer skill, there are a lot of other places where we can find more of that - clubs, colleges, MLS, dozens of international leagues leading right up to things like EPL and the other big European leagues. (This is not a new observation of mine, I remember thinking much the same thing in discussions of local rec baseball leagues v. travel teams that drew kids who traveled for an hour or more one way for practices. It was always my contention that if you are just looking for flat out technical play you'd go to a lot of other places for you baseball first). Sure, you need a certain level of competence and skill but I don't think a nip and tuck game between say an 8 and 9 seed is inherently less exciting than one between a 1 and 2 seed. There is little to no difference between skill level in club vs. school. I know people like to go on and on about this, but each has something that the other does not offer. Sure, with club, you may be able to pool the best players from a local area and even recruit some that live more than an hour away to your team, but you do not have the local interest where the non related fan shows up at your game out of interest. School does generate that spirit you refer to. So there are benefits to playing both systems.
One thing that I have learned at coaching schools is that it is not beneficial for teams to start and stop playing and then start back up again. I see that we go from club in the fall, to High School in the winter, and then back to club in the spring. The fall and spring club teams can be different so this ability for good players to work to be a good team that plays with tactical awareness, that by the time they approach playing well, the season is done. The coaches at the USSF coaching schools want good players to advance further by learning how to play organized "good" soccer, but instead, at the high school and even the college level, as soon as players get to this point, where the team is gelling, playing in a system where each player understands the role of the surrounding players, the season ends. This is a reason why I think the USA suffers as a whole against world competition as our development system is weak. We play in a system that is geared to American seasonal sports; whereas soccer is year round. We need players that can play in all sorts of environments, cold and hot weather, as well pitches. Diversity is not only the key to life, but with soccer development as well. So, my beef is not with high school vs. club, but with how we develop or more so, how we hamper the development of our players with the contingencies the governing systems put in place for player development. It is bad enough now that we have no college programs in our state, but we also do not have the system in place that national coaches want to take interest in the state of Louisiana. Sure, we have those good exceptions like Jason Garey and Kreis, but those are too few compared with other states. Know this, the USSF has none to little respect for Louisiana. That is why they do not let us have games for senior national teams for the fans to go see and they hold little to no professional coaching clinics in our area. We need to change that attitude for the people in Chicago and USSF.
My interests lies in generating the best soccer players the country and state can produce. So, I see a system where we dilute the talent pool of good teams to play and spend a good deal of time of playing schools that are totally different in class. There is no benefit for a good team to play a school and beat them 8-0. It doesn't help the weaker team either.
In a relegation system, the weaker teams sit in the bottom division and have something to play for - to get out of the bottom division. There you may have those schools who do not take soccer seriously or are just beginning their programs. In the upper system, you get what the national coaches wanting to see, good players on good teams playing other good players and good teams. I have seen in the past, good teams play good teams at the beginning of the season, then they get to district and play inferior teams, and then by the time playoffs come around, they play a minnow, and then if they are lucky, play 2 good teams in the semis and finals. That is not enough for good teams to advance further and play better soccer in my opinion.
It's like you know me Have we met? Cause you're talking my language friend.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Mar 2, 2015 20:57:11 GMT -6
That is because you speak Futbol. It is a foreign language my friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 9:07:03 GMT -6
A reply by usasoccerboy in the reclassificaiton/4 division thread got me thinking. But I my thoughts are a little off the main topic of that thread so I figured a dedicated thread might be in order. This was usasoccerboy's reply: usa: I don't have a disagreement with a proposal about relegation/promotion (other than the fact that I don't thnk it's ever going to happen). But there is something in the paragraph that triggered an opinion that I've had for a long time regarding something that is often overlooked. It is this two sentence section: " With more divisions, means more weaker games until the end of the playoffs. We need stronger competition to win the championship . . . " It's always been my contention that soccer skill in and of itself is not the major drawing card of high school soccer. It's more the school spirit, the students, the colors, the mascots, the camaraderie among classmates, the stadiums with long histories, the parents and grandparents, etc. In short, its the high school part of high school soccer. Because, lets be honest, if what we're interested in is just pure soccer skill, there are a lot of other places where we can find more of that - clubs, colleges, MLS, dozens of international leagues leading right up to things like EPL and the other big European leagues. (This is not a new observation of mine, I remember thinking much the same thing in discussions of local rec baseball leagues v. travel teams that drew kids who traveled for an hour or more one way for practices. It was always my contention that if you are just looking for flat out technical play you'd go to a lot of other places for you baseball first). Sure, you need a certain level of competence and skill but I don't think a nip and tuck game between say an 8 and 9 seed is inherently less exciting than one between a 1 and 2 seed. There is little to no difference between skill level in club vs. school. I know people like to go on and on about this, but each has something that the other does not offer. Sure, with club, you may be able to pool the best players from a local area and even recruit some that live more than an hour away to your team, but you do not have the local interest where the non related fan shows up at your game out of interest. School does generate that spirit you refer to. So there are benefits to playing both systems.
One thing that I have learned at coaching schools is that it is not beneficial for teams to start and stop playing and then start back up again. I see that we go from club in the fall, to High School in the winter, and then back to club in the spring. The fall and spring club teams can be different so this ability for good players to work to be a good team that plays with tactical awareness, that by the time they approach playing well, the season is done. The coaches at the USSF coaching schools want good players to advance further by learning how to play organized "good" soccer, but instead, at the high school and even the college level, as soon as players get to this point, where the team is gelling, playing in a system where each player understands the role of the surrounding players, the season ends. This is a reason why I think the USA suffers as a whole against world competition as our development system is weak. We play in a system that is geared to American seasonal sports; whereas soccer is year round. We need players that can play in all sorts of environments, cold and hot weather, as well pitches. Diversity is not only the key to life, but with soccer development as well. So, my beef is not with high school vs. club, but with how we develop or more so, how we hamper the development of our players with the contingencies the governing systems put in place for player development. It is bad enough now that we have no college programs in our state, but we also do not have the system in place that national coaches want to take interest in the state of Louisiana. Sure, we have those good exceptions like Jason Garey and Kreis, but those are too few compared with other states. Know this, the USSF has none to little respect for Louisiana. That is why they do not let us have games for senior national teams for the fans to go see and they hold little to no professional coaching clinics in our area. We need to change that attitude for the people in Chicago and USSF.
My interests lies in generating the best soccer players the country and state can produce. So, I see a system where we dilute the talent pool of good teams to play and spend a good deal of time of playing schools that are totally different in class. There is no benefit for a good team to play a school and beat them 8-0. It doesn't help the weaker team either.
In a relegation system, the weaker teams sit in the bottom division and have something to play for - to get out of the bottom division. There you may have those schools who do not take soccer seriously or are just beginning their programs. In the upper system, you get what the national coaches wanting to see, good players on good teams playing other good players and good teams. I have seen in the past, good teams play good teams at the beginning of the season, then they get to district and play inferior teams, and then by the time playoffs come around, they play a minnow, and then if they are lucky, play 2 good teams in the semis and finals. That is not enough for good teams to advance further and play better soccer in my opinion.
Only thing I would disagree with is that there is a difference in skill between a typical hs team and a typical club team.
The speed of play in decent level club ball is much higher than hs.
With a handful of exceptions, the talent pool is diluted among most hs teams. And it is very difficult for the top players on average hs teams to get better. (This is the USSF's biggest criticism of hs soccer and the biggest argument they make for the Development Academy system.)
That said, there are merits to high school soccer. The local derbies, school pride, etc. This is how 'futbol' works in the rest of the world. Futbol is very grassroots and local at its core. If you live in Liverpool, you aren't going to be a Man United fan. Just not gonna happen.
The negative side to hs soccer is the short season and the fact that there are talented players on weak or average teams. And the fact that hs in general is not conducive to developing the top players.
For the very best players, I've always believed that by your junior or senior year, you are essentially playing 'down'. Now that's less true if you play for St. Paul's. But even in that case a top player would need to be challenged outside of the normal hs season and environment.
Elsewhere in the world by the time a player is 16/17, if they are good they start training with older and better players.
I think that's why many players stagnate developmentally at 17 or 18. It's okay to stay in your age group but you also need to stray from your comfort zone and begin to play with and against better, more experienced players.
|
|
|
Post by shreve/magnet pops on Mar 4, 2015 1:51:40 GMT -6
Two biggest development issues in the state: BOYS ONLY!
1. Lack of college soccer programs! Lsus killed its program, lsua started one, Centenary? Anyone i am missing. Any d1, d2, or naia programs? How about strong juco college programs? 2. TOPS program for students. Where can a boy soccer kid use this tuition credit at in LA- the ones mentioned above. So, out of state is a reality IF you want to play in college. It's hard for a kid/ family to take on out of state tuition & move from home to continue your playing days. A big one for my family coming in 2 years. Free education or soccer out of state - take on debt???
I grew up in Jackson, ms. We had more options then here- I am not sure where they are now- but back then (87-92)- Juco- hinds, holmes, willam Carey D2-3 - millsaps, ms college, delta state NAIA- bellhaven Club- southern ms, ole miss, msu ( we played them in friendlies-)
Millsaps college alum - d3- love of the game!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 7:43:40 GMT -6
La College (d3) is the only other mens program.
I really don't get why or how Loyola, UNO or Tulane don't have mens programs. They don't have football and there's no way Tulane football makes any money.
Yes, there should be more in state options.
But keep in mind that out of state tuition doesn't apply to private colleges. (And I've heard of instate tuition for out of state athletes at some schools.)
Private schools carry a bigger price tag. But don't let that fool you. They also have a lot of latitude when it comes to financial aid. if a coach wants a player they will find the money.
|
|
|
Post by usasoccerboy on Mar 4, 2015 11:27:37 GMT -6
Back in the 80's, only Nicholls, UNO, and ULM (then Northeast) had Division I soccer programs at the Division I level. Title 9 killed those programs as schools had to balance their mens and womens programs and athletic budgets. Nicholls was a strong program and I am not as sure as how UNO and ULM were. Remember, this all occurred before the USA had made it to it's first WC in 40 years in 1990. Soccer was just a minor up and coming sport during the time of the death of soccer in the USA (1980-1990).
If just those schools had survived, I would bet they would be local powerhouse soccer programs complete with local fanfare that would attend those games and competitive players trying to get scholarships to those programs from the local high school areas.
|
|
|
Post by usasoccerboy on Mar 4, 2015 11:32:36 GMT -6
La College (d3) is the only other mens program. I really don't get why or how Loyola, UNO or Tulane don't have mens programs. They don't have football and there's no way Tulane football makes any money. Yes, there should be more in state options. But keep in mind that out of state tuition doesn't apply to private colleges. (And I've heard of instate tuition for out of state athletes at some schools.) Private schools carry a bigger price tag. But don't let that fool you. They also have a lot of latitude when it comes to financial aid. if a coach wants a player they will find the money. Tulane football is making money now that they have their own stadium. Moving to the Superdome killed the program as I would go to their games in the 70s and they would draw 50 to 60k per game. I remember seeing Heisman trophy winner Tony Dorsett play for Pittsburgh play Tulane in those days and having a very large crowd. Tulane's lack of performance and support by the student body knocked attendance down to half of what it used to be. Now that they have their own stadium, the support is returning and there are already talks that the stadium they have now needs to be increased as the attendance is a success again for the program. Don't forget, the history of Tulane is solid and Tulane not only were in the Sugar Bowls in their own stadium, but also were in the first Rose Bowl.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 15:18:52 GMT -6
La College (d3) is the only other mens program. I really don't get why or how Loyola, UNO or Tulane don't have mens programs. They don't have football and there's no way Tulane football makes any money. Yes, there should be more in state options. But keep in mind that out of state tuition doesn't apply to private colleges. (And I've heard of instate tuition for out of state athletes at some schools.) Private schools carry a bigger price tag. But don't let that fool you. They also have a lot of latitude when it comes to financial aid. if a coach wants a player they will find the money. Tulane football is making money now that they have their own stadium. Moving to the Superdome killed the program as I would go to their games in the 70s and they would draw 50 to 60k per game. I remember seeing Heisman trophy winner Tony Dorsett play for Pittsburgh play Tulane in those days and having a very large crowd. Tulane's lack of performance and support by the student body knocked attendance down to half of what it used to be. Now that they have their own stadium, the support is returning and there are already talks that the stadium they have now needs to be increased as the attendance is a success again for the program. Don't forget, the history of Tulane is solid and Tulane not only were in the Sugar Bowls in their own stadium, but also were in the first Rose Bowl. I understand. But there's a difference in attendance and actually making money. I read a while back over half of d1 football programs actually lose money. That said, I still say Tulane could and should have mens soccer. As should UNO (no football) and Loyola.
Louisiana's state colleges by and large are vastly different from the rest of the country. In most states this size (and even in larger states) there are only a couple of true D1 schools and the rest end up being d2 or d3. Wisconsin comes to mind.
There's really no need for 11-12 D1 football programs in this state. Granted I may be in the minority with that sentiment.
|
|
warrior16
Data Expert
Michael Stein - Volunteer Assitant
Posts: 2,169
|
Post by warrior16 on Mar 4, 2015 16:04:59 GMT -6
Could be worse. I have to watch Anthony Jennings complete passes to the ground for the next 2 years, while knowing there are probably better quarterbacks at West Monroe High School.
But yeah, the amount of D1 football programs we have is very unusual for a state our size. Not proportional at all to the rest of the country. Texas has roughly seven times our population and without checking I don't think there are many more D1 football teams there than there are here. Off the top of my head: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech, Houston, TCU, UTEP, UTSA, Incarnate Word, Stephen. F Austin.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Mar 4, 2015 16:51:06 GMT -6
There's really no need for 11-12 D1 football programs in this state. Granted I may be in the minority with that sentiment.
I don't think you'd be in the minority at all on that. I don't think there are that many fans of the american football teams at the smaller colleges even among those of us that went to one of them. Certainly the stands don't seem to be packed. Heck, in my 4 years at Nicholls I think I might have went to 1 football game. I enjoyed watching basketball games much more. And from what I understand it's not much different now. I'd think it's the same at most of the colleges in the state. Most people are LSU fans when it comes to football (Tulane still has a loyal following but nothing like in their glory days)
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Mar 4, 2015 16:55:41 GMT -6
There's really no need for 11-12 D1 football programs in this state. Granted I may be in the minority with that sentiment.
I don't think you'd be in the minority at all on that. I don't think there are that many fans of the american football teams at the smaller colleges even among those of us that went to one of them. Certainly the stands don't seem to be packed. Heck, in my 4 years at Nicholls I think I might have went to 1 football game. I enjoyed watching basketball games much more. And from what I understand it's not much different now. I'd think it's the same at most of the colleges in the state. Most people are LSU fans when it comes to football (Tulane still has a loyal following but nothing like in their glory days) Roll, Green Wave, roll them down the field!
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Mar 4, 2015 19:17:31 GMT -6
I loved the football games at NLU. Of course it was more of a social aspect. If I lived closer, I would probably go.
However, I fully get what you are saying.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by shreve/magnet pops on Mar 4, 2015 19:24:20 GMT -6
Back in the 80's, only Nicholls, UNO, and ULM (then Northeast) had Division I soccer programs at the Division I level. Title 9 killed those programs as schools had to balance their mens and womens programs and athletic budgets. Nicholls was a strong program and I am not as sure as how UNO and ULM were. Remember, this all occurred before the USA had made it to it's first WC in 40 years in 1990. Soccer was just a minor up and coming sport during the time of the death of soccer in the USA (1980-1990). If just those schools had survived, I would bet they would be local powerhouse soccer programs complete with local fanfare that would attend those games and competitive players trying to get scholarships to those programs from the local high school areas. I remember playing Nichols State! We were d3. They were d1- wow. We could Play with them. Close games! Showing my age!
|
|
|
Post by usasoccerboy on Mar 4, 2015 22:56:53 GMT -6
Where did you play shrevepops? Centenary? The Coach at EDW, Roger Bimah, was an assistant coach of Nicholls State University back in the day. His brother Lester was the Head coach.
|
|
|
Post by shreve/magnet pops on Mar 4, 2015 23:03:37 GMT -6
Millsaps Majors (87-91)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Mar 4, 2015 23:22:53 GMT -6
Forget football teams--you could ask why a state this size has so many public universities. But that's getting even farther off topic.
|
|
|
Post by shreve/magnet pops on Mar 5, 2015 0:32:50 GMT -6
Forget football teams--you could ask why a state this size has so many public universities. But that's getting even farther off topic. I agree. But- MS is worse. The lowest high school educated state in the union. Has more secondary schools than most. Makes sense right!
|
|