|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 14, 2020 14:03:00 GMT -5
Given the obsession in the world of soccer about identifying players at young ages and deeming them worthy or not, can a story like Joe Burrow happen in soccer in America.
Joe Burrow basically went from obscurity, a multi sport athlete in highschool and a back up QB at Ohio state, to developing for a year at LSU, then getting a new offensive philosophy implemented, and then arguably proceeds to have the greatest season in the history of college football.
Is this possible in soccer? Can your rise the ranks from a nobody at 18 to being potentially the best player in your class 5 years later?
Why is there so much patience with young athletes in basketball and football and zero in soccer? Some of this is patience by "law" - can't enter the draft etc, but there are so many stories of the young under sized player growing and maturing into his body and by his senior year, he is a stud.
The many issues with college soccer is a huge aspect of this problem. The issues with no true soccer pyramid, the issues with USL being a mix of 2nd teams and pros trying to earn a spot. The issues of the MLS and the salary structure. The issue of lack of access to true professional clubs. We seem to be doing ok in hoops and football, yes other countries don't play hoops and football.
Why does soccer require identification of the best players at such a young age, and only focusing on those players. The philosophy at LSU is next man up, you never know when a player might get injured and backup needs to step in an be needed.
Focus on your entire talent pool. The other sports do. Backups learn from the starters etc, players teach other players.
We throw out the term developing etc, thank goodness Burrow was given time to develop and then he ultimately won the opportunity to show his abilities.
edit: And yes, Burrow has done nothing yet in the Pros, could be a bust, but he'll be given the opportunity to show what he can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by fridge on Jan 15, 2020 15:40:21 GMT -5
I read this yesterday and thought it was a good question. I then concluded after deep thinking (which is a relative term) that I really didn't have a good answer. After no responses from others, I decided the Q deserved some response and so here goes: I guess the only thing I would say is that Burrow was a 3 or 4 star recruit (depending on the rating entity) who chose Ohio State over Iowa State and BC. Unfortunately, he played behind two NFL caliber QBs that were more highly recruited and certainly got the benefit of the edge. And, given there is only 1 QB on the field, it is not like they could have moved him to another position to flaunt his talent nor are there many opportunities at that level to give him significant play time. I guess compared to soccer, if a kid is a great player up front, there are 3 places to play--maybe even 4 if attacking mid is considered. Further, even if there is MSL talent ahead of him, he would get in say 20 min a game and if he showed his stuff, would become a starter. So, those are my thoughts. Provocative question though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 15, 2020 16:23:14 GMT -5
I'll throw one out there -- Eddie Pope, but that was nearly 25 years ago.
Now a days would an Eddie get thrown to the wolves that is the USL vs given time with the first team and DC united?
|
|
|
|
Post by soccermama on Jan 16, 2020 17:16:05 GMT -5
Soccer in the US does not focus on development of players. The clubs will talk about development and how they work hard to implement that teaching style but overall that is not what's happening. DA for example is not developing players, they are restricting players. Kids need to play the game period. DA for example limits play. The rules prohibit any other form of soccer, No HS, No Futsal, No pick-up games etc. How is that development? Playing the game teaches the game, period.
Aside from DA, clubs put effort into what they believe is their "top talent" at U10, U11, and U12. The other players are put on what is a B team, or lower level team. These teams get less practice time than the "top" team. How is that development??? Imagine if we did that in school, imagine if we took kids that aced their math test and then put more time and effort into ONLY that group of children and then gave the rest of the developing students less qualified teachers and less time in the classroom to learn. People would not stand for it but sadly that is what's happening in soccer.
Clubs are the biggest offender because travel soccer has become a cash cow for them. If clubs truly cared about development, then all teams would be working on the same type of practice schedules, foot skill drills, tactics etc. Clubs would have all teams practice the same amount of times a week instead of giving "top" teams more practice while "lower" teams get less. Development is a process and unfortunately clubs, parents and some coaches don't trust or allow the process to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 16, 2020 17:58:56 GMT -5
Joe Burrow story could happen with a keeper, unlikely a field player comes out of "nowhere".
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 16, 2020 22:29:57 GMT -5
Soccer in the US does not focus on development of players. The clubs will talk about development and how they work hard to implement that teaching style but overall that is not what's happening. DA for example is not developing players, they are restricting players. Kids need to play the game period. DA for example limits play. The rules prohibit any other form of soccer, No HS, No Futsal, No pick-up games etc. How is that development? Playing the game teaches the game, period. Aside from DA, clubs put effort into what they believe is their "top talent" at U10, U11, and U12. The other players are put on what is a B team, or lower level team. These teams get less practice time than the "top" team. How is that development??? Imagine if we did that in school, imagine if we took kids that aced their math test and then put more time and effort into ONLY that group of children and then gave the rest of the developing students less qualified teachers and less time in the classroom to learn. People would not stand for it but sadly that is what's happening in soccer. Clubs are the biggest offender because travel soccer has become a cash cow for them. If clubs truly cared about development, then all teams would be working on the same type of practice schedules, foot skill drills, tactics etc. Clubs would have all teams practice the same amount of times a week instead of giving "top" teams more practice while "lower" teams get less. Development is a process and unfortunately clubs, parents and some coaches don't trust or allow the process to happen. A lot of what you say is true, but it can be hard to strike a balance for parents. Our club stopped the difference in training days between top teams and lower teams in the younger than high school ages. Some parents love it. Some parents were miffed. They did not want to pay the higher fees that training more days came with or they did not want to commit to more days. I was glad that they stopped it, but I think there should be a moment of honesty between the parents and the club about the time commitment and the desire of the players and family to meet it. If you don't want to train 3 days per week then it should be ok to let a great player play on the lower team if that is what they want to do. As for DA and not letting the kids do futsal and pick up games I can tell you that people do it anyway. There is a place where my kids have played pick up and there are Tophat and AU DA players playing there. No one cares. They are goofing around and having fun and do all kinds of trick plays and it is a blast. As for DA and high school I am all for making them do either or. People should not play both concurrently as it is definitely an injury risk. There are DA players that quit every spring so they can play high school and the clubs take them back in the fall and there are the waivers as well. I totally understand why they want the players with them for 10 months. It is the player and the families who agree to it. As for limiting playing time, I agree with you that the substitution rules are dumb and do limit development. Honestly even ECNL, NPL and other leagues that have more limiting rules than the college game are stupid IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by justwatching on Jan 17, 2020 11:16:46 GMT -5
I started writing a response to this question a few times and stopped and started because I didn't want to sound too negative about this topic but I decided to go ahead and put my thoughts out there...
I'm not sure I agree or follow some of the analogies/similarities that people are trying to make here. First, with Joe Burrow. By no means did he come out of nowhere. He was a 3 or 4 star recruit out of high school I'm pretty sure. He signed with Ohio State, one of the country's football powerhouses. He obviously, got better over the years he was in school from his freshman year to senior year just as most in collegiate sports do. Maybe you can say his trajectory in improvement might have been slightly steeper than a lot of the other players but he came in as a high level player and left as a higher level player... I say that to say he wasn't some "B" level kid that all of a sudden became "elite" because some coach took the effort to develop him or he grew into his body. If a school is giving him money it is in their best interest to coach them up as much as possible in order to get a good return on their investment. Youth sports and scholarship receiving collegiate athletes are very different dynamics. Now that's not to say you don't get walk-ons from some school to become an elite player because that happens too but I would argue that in those cases the schools did exclude them from consideration. That player just decided to try on their own dime and time to play and were able to make it. They had to come in and show they could hang enough in order to have the same resources available to them (coaches, weight room, film study, etc.) but I would be willing to bet those scholarship kids ahead of them still got preferential treatment in all those areas including playing time because there was a monetary investment made with them. That walk-on wasn't there with the hopes he would develop into a star. The program needs those kids to fill in sometimes and keep the team functional. They mainly help develop their investments (scholarship players) in practice ("practice dummies") so they can perform in games. Maybe that got off topic slightly but I just think it is a reach to say Joe Burrow was someone who came from nowhere that schools allowed to develop into a good QB.
Also, with the school comparison someone made to youth sports and how clubs separate A, B, C, etc. level kids. Schools do this all the time with AP, "Advanced", "Accelerated", or whatever and no one complains. I actually think if that were not the case and your little Suzy was acing everything that was given to her without trying but little Billy was still working on 1+1 so to make sure Billy was still getting "developed" the school leaves Suzy and Billy in the same class and let them do the same work. To me when this happens if it is school or sports at least one of these people suffer (often times both). Suzy is now not being pushed at her level so Billy can improve or you push Suzy and Billy gets even further behind. Neither situation is fair to the other. If they have to do group work (which is what happens on a soccer field etc.) now they are both frustrated because Billy can't keep up and Suzy is needing to slow down. These kids in school get different teachers, right or wrong. Those teachers have different qualifications/specializations. So why should it be different when you have a group of high level kids and a group of low level kids in sports?
So what's best to help both levels? Teach to the top, bottom, or middle... Or do you separate according to current level?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 17, 2020 11:37:32 GMT -5
Yes, Burrow was a 3 start player recruited out of high school. During the game they said Nebraska where his fathers and brothers attended didn't want him. I've seen different metrics, but rivals had him as the 24th ranked player in his class at qb. Its worth noting Lamar Jackson was in his graduating class. essentially in soccer terms, he's not sniffing the national team.
Trevor Lawrence next year will be the heisman favorite and more than likely play for a national title again and then will be the first pick in the draft.
Prior to last season, Joe Burrow was mid 2nd/3rd day pick. He had an average season last year with LSU, was considered to be physically limited at QB.
He just went on to win the heisman, national championship and will be the first pick in the draft. He led the most prolific offense in the history of college football.
Yes, he wasn't a nobody going into college like some others have been - he was recruited, but failed to break through at Ohio state, and was looked over. Point is as well, he was given a platform to prove his value and the coaching staff believed in him to carry the team. I just find it extremely hard for a kid to rise the ranks in soccer and then be given a platform to show his value. If US soccer doesn't scrimmage Stanford does Jordan Morris never get the attention he deserved.
I just think football and basketball is loaded with kids that have been told they weren't good enough, sat the bench, had to grind it out, maybe go to smaller schools to show their value -- kids were allowed to mature and grow into their body. The physical prowess required for these sports is some what different, but boys become men after college.
Soccer writes kids off at this age, other sports embrace them.
|
|
|
|
Post by justwatching on Jan 17, 2020 11:48:32 GMT -5
But how is it that other sports embrace the kids that are "too small" or "not good enough" if they are benched and then go to a smaller school? It's no different than saying to a kid you are too small to play DA or not athletic enough to be at AU so they go to a smaller club that offers SCCL or NL or GA Soccer or whatever and then still become a good player. If Joe Burrow transferred from Ohio State to GA Southern you would have never of heard of him. So I don't see the difference in approach. Being a part of certain programs gives you high visibility and exposure. Not being in those programs limits you. Some times you get lucky like you mentioned Stanford scrimmaging the National Team and can be noticed but 9 times out of 10 those kids that ended up in a small D2 or D3 school for sports like football and basketball will never be given a shot. Just like if you are not in the "right" program for soccer no matter how good you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 17, 2020 14:04:32 GMT -5
But how is it that other sports embrace the kids that are "too small" or "not good enough" if they are benched and then go to a smaller school? It's no different than saying to a kid you are too small to play DA or not athletic enough to be at AU so they go to a smaller club that offers SCCL or NL or GA Soccer or whatever and then still become a good player. If Joe Burrow transferred from Ohio State to GA Southern you would have never of heard of him. So I don't see the difference in approach. Being a part of certain programs gives you high visibility and exposure. Not being in those programs limits you. Some times you get lucky like you mentioned Stanford scrimmaging the National Team and can be noticed but 9 times out of 10 those kids that ended up in a small D2 or D3 school for sports like football and basketball will never be given a shot. Just like if you are not in the "right" program for soccer no matter how good you are. You make an excellent point about exposure and being at a high visibility program. |
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 18, 2020 8:36:44 GMT -5
I think they call it the combine? It is amazing when they list where prof football players went to C. And half the time you have never heard of those schools or they never went to C. At all.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on Jan 19, 2020 20:35:59 GMT -5
Older example but Cobi Jones did not receive a single D1 offer to play soccer in college, walked on at UCLA and went on to become a USMNT legend
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jan 19, 2020 20:36:47 GMT -5
Maybe Jimmy Garoppolo is good example.
2 star in high school and attended Eastern Illinois and basically unranked in high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by baller84 on Jan 19, 2020 23:43:39 GMT -5
Soccer in the US does not focus on development of players. The clubs will talk about development and how they work hard to implement that teaching style but overall that is not what's happening. DA for example is not developing players, they are restricting players. Kids need to play the game period. DA for example limits play. The rules prohibit any other form of soccer, No HS, No Futsal, No pick-up games etc. How is that development? Playing the game teaches the game, period. Aside from DA, clubs put effort into what they believe is their "top talent" at U10, U11, and U12. The other players are put on what is a B team, or lower level team. These teams get less practice time than the "top" team. How is that development??? Imagine if we did that in school, imagine if we took kids that aced their math test and then put more time and effort into ONLY that group of children and then gave the rest of the developing students less qualified teachers and less time in the classroom to learn. People would not stand for it but sadly that is what's happening in soccer. Clubs are the biggest offender because travel soccer has become a cash cow for them. If clubs truly cared about development, then all teams would be working on the same type of practice schedules, foot skill drills, tactics etc. Clubs would have all teams practice the same amount of times a week instead of giving "top" teams more practice while "lower" teams get less. Development is a process and unfortunately clubs, parents and some coaches don't trust or allow the process to happen. Our experience has been quite different. What you describe is not the case everywhere. I suggest you do some club research. As for DA, you have a point. At the very least they should have mandatory 1st and 2nd team matches at every age group every weekend, on the basis of their rules to not allow players to play anywhere else. The fact they don't shows a level of incompetence that makes you wonder what else they've been missing. |
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Jan 21, 2020 13:47:11 GMT -5
But how is it that other sports embrace the kids that are "too small" or "not good enough" if they are benched and then go to a smaller school? It's no different than saying to a kid you are too small to play DA or not athletic enough to be at AU so they go to a smaller club that offers SCCL or NL or GA Soccer or whatever and then still become a good player. If Joe Burrow transferred from Ohio State to GA Southern you would have never of heard of him. So I don't see the difference in approach. Being a part of certain programs gives you high visibility and exposure. Not being in those programs limits you. Some times you get lucky like you mentioned Stanford scrimmaging the National Team and can be noticed but 9 times out of 10 those kids that ended up in a small D2 or D3 school for sports like football and basketball will never be given a shot. Just like if you are not in the "right" program for soccer no matter how good you are. You make an excellent point about exposure and being at a high visibility program. I've actually seen college camps say 'DA and ECNL over here.. everyone else over there'.. Wanna guess where the head coach was? Unless you're that rare monster player who just happens to not be able to make it to one of those programs, you are getting overlooked - a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 21, 2020 13:51:21 GMT -5
If you play SCCL Shhh!
|
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 21, 2020 13:59:14 GMT -5
We recently had an ECNL player return to our very average NL league team after playing Tophat and Concord ECNL for 3 seasons. Girls.
Her mother commented that she was surprised that her d was not starting after starting at ECNL clubs. Go figure. How could that be?
Does the National league team not care about winning? Or is ECNL just not that good anymore? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by justwatching on Jan 21, 2020 14:41:43 GMT -5
She might not be as good as the parent thought but that never happens  . This is purely speculation but considering she moved from a couple ECNL programs in the last few years she might not have been having a ton of success for a while now. This is not always the case and the player could have left for many different reasons but players who are thriving somewhere don't typically leave multiple good situations. I personally don't think this is a reflection of the level of either league or team. Players start or don't start for a lot of different reasons that don't always mimic reality, including coaching comfort and preference . Or maybe like I said earlier she just isn't as good as she once was. |
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 23, 2020 5:49:34 GMT -5
But I thought the big clubs always had massive turnover every year. Or that is what is always touted on this board. This is the excuse for not having to pay and not play for a teams spot in several leagues. We did have a girl leave last year and she is starting for an ACLN team. Go figure.....
|
|
|
|
Post by justwatching on Jan 23, 2020 9:06:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say but I assume you are responding to my response and I will attempt to decipher what you mean and reply to you. This is purely my opinion and might be off base I don't know if there is massive turnover year over year at these clubs but I would expect there to be a good amount of turnover in the U12-U14 ages (girls) as you have a lot of your top kids moving to "destination clubs" and the original kids on those teams get displaced which sends them to other big clubs top teams. In addition kids and parents are still trying to find the best fit. I would suspect that the majority of movement in the older age groups are because the kid looses interest in playing and stops or wants to stay local as opposed to being super serious and driving to a club far away. I do also think you get the occasional kids from non-ECNL/DA clubs who change their mind and say I want to try and play in college and move to an ECNL or DA team for their last couple years of high school. I'm not sure what you mean with the comment "This is the excuse for not having to pay and not play..." so I can't respond to that. I don't think it is surprising you had a girl that played on your daughter's team (I think you said your daughter's team is National League and I assume this is really Piedmont. I think the real National League is generally thought to be a "high level" league and is comparable to ECNL) and start on an ECNL team. There are plenty of kids who can do that I would suspect, just like there are a lot of good D2 kids who could start for a D1 program. Typically in my opinion it is not a matter of there not being gems on a team in a "lower" league it is the overall team depth where the biggest difference is between these teams. And that is certainly not a blanket statement that all "lower" level teams are not as good as the "higher" level teams because that is not true either. There is definitely some overlap/anomalies in all sports. You see this every year in NCAA Football and Basketball where a non-power 5 team beats a power 5 team or the occasional D2 team beats a D1 team. I assume the whole point of your comments are to say National League or rather Piedmont League is a good league that can match up with ECNL. Rather than trying to argue that point look at the places the kids that play Piedmont go on to college to play soccer and then compare it to the places ECNL kids go on the play college soccer and that should either help support or refute your argument. This does not completely speak to which is actually better on the field but it does give a really good indicator of which league colleges perceive as being better. |
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 23, 2020 15:12:17 GMT -5
Although your post is too long for me to fully comprehend due to my lack of attention span, I agree with most of what you posted. However,as good intentioned as most parents are, I think going for the bigger better team is actually hurting our daughters. In my opinion they would be better served by playing soccer with their friends, developing life long relationships, and liking soccer for more than just being on the better team. I just read an above post about a girl that played "high level" soccer in Atl and dropped out as soon as she got into a local college. If this girl changed teams to play in a super expensive travel league like ACNL, my God what a waste of money, youth and life.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 23, 2020 16:39:00 GMT -5
Piedmont league is same level as ACNL. GDA is probably higher. ACNL has not been very good since GDA. I think the top girls probably play GDA.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 23, 2020 16:41:16 GMT -5
College level soccer for girls is not very high. It is mostly boot and scoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultimatedad on Jan 23, 2020 16:44:11 GMT -5
Most ACNL girls go on to play at GA State or other local schools or drop out all together. This disproves your hypothesis about ACNL being a better league. Go figure....
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Jan 23, 2020 17:48:39 GMT -5
1. why do you keep calling it ACNL?
2. Maybe the best Piedmont teams are equivalent to average ECNL teams, but overall they're not (remember that Piedmont lost all the teams that opted to go GDA/NPL/SCCL/DPL.. so there are teams in there that would not have made it 5 years ago)
3. Check the signees at any of the big programs.. it's HEAVILY weighted to GDA and ECNL. There are a few outliers, but it's north of 90%
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 23, 2020 18:48:40 GMT -5
Most ACNL girls go on to play at GA State or other local schools or drop out all together. This disproves your hypothesis about ACNL being a better league. Go figure.... Interestingly the drop out rate and transfer rate is very high regardless of league. Yes there are people who play at all levels that paid A LOT OF MONEY to play and travel to play against other teams "of equivalent level." Some people are upset that they paid all the money for the kid to drop out. Many high level players never even attempt to play in college too. I know a young lady who played ECNL for AFU. She did not play in college. She got recruited by a few small D1 programs and other programs but she went to Harvard. She had no desire to play college as she thought she was "too small." She was 5'2" and a little over 100 lbs. Her ECNL playing days did help her to accepted to Harvard though. Playing at a high level made her application stand out. Many top schools look for that type of excellence outside the classroom. |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jan 26, 2020 17:36:01 GMT -5
ECNL is now ACNL = Average Clubs National League
Hahahaha 😂😂👍🏻👍🏻
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Jan 26, 2020 18:01:00 GMT -5
Generally I'd say NTH GDA is tops (players flock there). But generally I'd put UFA GDA behind 2-3 of the ECNL teams based on results/age group.
GDA protects the reputation of their league by not allowing play in outside tournaments. Smart. But also very weak.
The Concorde tourney is in a few weeks. All of the GA ECNL teams will be in Houston (cough, college showcase, cough), but we will have to wait and see what NL, NPL, SCCL, SCCL-P, and Athena teams show up and how they fare head-to-head.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Jan 26, 2020 18:20:58 GMT -5
Generally I'd say NTH GDA is tops (players flock there). But generally I'd put UFA GDA behind 2-3 of the ECNL teams based on results/age group. GDA protects the reputation of their league by not allowing play in outside tournaments. Smart. But also very weak. The Concorde tourney is in a few weeks. All of the GA ECNL teams will be in Houston (cough, college showcase, cough), but we will have to wait and see what NL, NPL, SCCL, SCCL-P, and Athena teams show up and how they fare head-to-head. First, there are only really 2 age groups that will be doing that. U13 and U14. Second those small sample sizes are not representative especially as tournaments have guest players and on holiday weekends have missing players often. The debates rage on but they are not changing anything. Some teams from a certain league may represent well. For example, UFA 03 SCCL girls last year beat ECNL teams at Jeff Cup. Does that mean that SCCL is better than ECNL? No. If you really wanted to look at game results and league quality you would need to compare apples to apples. Nationwide you would need to play the top DA against the top ECNL in all age groups. Top NL and top NPL and top SCCL (or equivalent local league for other areas of the US) in all age groups. Also play the middle third against the middle third and the bottom third against the bottom third. Then you could draw conclusions. The arguments based on a tournament results every once in a while where top NL teams may play bottom or mid SCCL or NPL teams or vice versa does not help settle the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 14, 2022 15:06:29 GMT -5
Well he was almost that close to being truly on top of the world. Kid still is a baller.
Made me think about Cooper Kupp - no real legit offers out of highschool and was unrated -- one offer from eastern washington.
he went from being an nobody to NFL superbowl champ and MVP and obviously this season was remarkable as well.
This would be the equivalent of a domestic noname player making an MLS roster, and then in year 4 leading the league in goal scored or assists, winning the MLS title and having a hat trick in the final.
or that same player going off to europe with success
|
|
. This is purely speculation but considering she moved from a couple ECNL programs in the last few years she might not have been having a ton of success for a while now. This is not always the case and the player could have left for many different reasons but players who are thriving somewhere don't typically leave multiple good situations.
