US soccer coach is psychic!!!

[Big RR]

Meade--

If real football allowed for only 11 +3 in one game, thousands of parents, grandparents and old aunties would be getting the coach fired tomorrow.

Except for the crack about "real" football, I can't disagree. Also, high is supposed to be about teaching the game and its strategy and should be welcoming to all, being part of a team to just sit on the bench doesn't achieve this objective.

[Sean]

Sean--see this link http://www.livestrong.com/article/42481 ... gulations/

I can't vouch for the site but it appears US high schools still allow unlimited substitution. Not sure about kid club teams.

Cheers Big RR.

That link is mental! High school kids playing 80 min games... halves or quarters... unlimited subs... maximum 11 players (it would seem that the minimum is 7)... that's just taking the piss!
Would I be right in saying that high school kids in the US are 16-18 yrs old? Surely they don't need to be mollycoddled with "everyone gets to play" and "we're all winners" at that age...


And don't get me started on the whole "home team must wear white jerseys and socks" bullshit...

[Big RR]

High school age is probably 14-18 give or take a year.

As for mollycoddling, no they don't need that; but then high school sports are supposed to be about teaching the game, not preparing kids for the pros.

[Big RR]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken (and it may have been recently changed, US NCAA (college) soccer rules permit unlimited (or nearly unlimited) substitutions as well. Not sure why.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I can think of one good reason for home team wearing white jersey. It saves money - the school only ever needs to provide two uniforms - home and away. There can be no clash of the away team colours with the home team's. Say the visitors play in navy blue - and the home in black - too much confusion and extra money spent in uniforms (perhaps with parents having to pay?).

[Sean]

High school age is probably 14-18 give or take a year.

As for mollycoddling, no they don't need that; but then high school sports are supposed to be about teaching the game, not preparing kids for the pros.

I reckon that's why the game won''t take off in the US... In other countries, players are signed with a professional club by the age of 14...

[Big RR]

I presume they do not play professional soccer at the age of 14; what are they singed by the clubs to do?

[Econoline]

If anyone's interested in a LOOONG discussion on the topic, you might want to check out this Freakonomics podcast:

Why America Doesn’t Love Soccer (Yet)

...or read the full transcript here.

The episode tries to answer a few questions:
1. Why doesn’t America love soccer the way the rest of the world does?
2. Would that change if the U.S. ever managed to win a World Cup?
3. Is No. 2 possible without No. 1?

P.S. Yes, yes, Meade, I do realize that their headline should have said "the U.S.A." instead of "America".

[MajGenl.Meade]

One of the ABC World Cup commentators, noting that the referee of the Colombia/Greece match is a citizen of the USA, announced the fact in this fashion:

"Here's the first American to appear in the World Cup and it's the referee..."

Apparently he overlooked the entire Brasilian team in the first match on Thursday.... not to mention Chile and Mexico on Friday

[Sean]

I presume they do not play professional soccer at the age of 14; what are they singed by the clubs to do?

They start off in the youth side, move on to the reserves and if they make the grade they should find themselves on the fringes of the first team squad by about age 17 (sometimes even 16).

[rubato]

"... Surely they don't need to be mollycoddled with "everyone gets to play" ... "

The point of HS and college intra-mural sports is for people to be able to participate and get the benefits of the exercise and the experience; not to emulate professional sports. The 'professionalization' of children's sports is pointless.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

...The 'professionalization' of children's sports is pointless.

yrs,
rubato

I'm interested to know what you mean by that Rubato...

Why do you see playing by the actual rules of the game as professionalisation and why do you believe it to be pointless?

[rubato]

The 'actual rules of the game' are whatever the participants agree them to be at the time. And so they can choose rules which are different from the professionals because they are not professionals and have different goals. Why pay for HS sports if they only exist for the elite few rather than inspiring a wider range people to be physically active? There are 'club sports leagues' for youths who are elite athletes in soccer and which are paid for by their parents. My nephew played for one such league until he went to college.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

For some people, playing sports in high school or college is just a sideline and a way to remain physically active while enjoying the game, for others, especially at the collegiate divisions 1 and 2 levels, it is an attempt to learn the intricacies of the game in advance of a professional career. One can validly argue whether educational institutions should act as sports academies (in addition to their academic missions) but this is indeed what they have become. In such cases, working with the elite players to so prepare them, is part of the school's mission, in the same way as offering advanced academic classes only to the academic "elite" is in line with the schools' academic mission.

IMHO, competitive sports can teach students a lot, and should be played, as much as practical, according to the same rules of the sport as professionals observe. Of course, this can sometimes be impractical as many high schools (and some colleges) would be unable to field a team capable of playing at these levels, or remaining in proper condition to do so (so high school gymnastics is practiced and scored quite differently from international competitive gymnastics, e.g.), and sometimes the length of games (like 9 innings of baseball) makes full games difficult to hold, or the equipment is too expensive to risk the breakage (like allowing metal instead of wooden bats in high school and college), or even the professional rule is not all that great (compare NCAA riles for OT in American football games vs those of the NFL in American football, neither are really satisfactory), but insofar as it is possible, we should try to hold to most of the same standards as the professional do. And of course, intra mural sports can be introduced for fun at less stringent rules.

Now why US colleges and high schools (and most US club soccer I am aware of) allows this different substitution is unknown to me. It may be for quite practical reasons, or it might be steadfastly holding on to the "way it's always been done" for no other reason but that. But absent a practical compelling reason to deviate from the general professional rule, IMHO those rules should be observed.

[Guinevere]

I strongly disagree, BigRR (and Sean, too). The point of sport is not to teach children to become professionals, but, as rubato said, to keep them healthy and active. It's also to teach them lessons like the value of teamwork, sportsmanship, and how to balance schoolwork and sport --- but unless and until you are a professional -- especially through high school -- school should come first. Its also important to keep the competitive piece balanced with the being active/everyone gets to play piece. It's good for kids to be part of a team, and they should not be weeded out of the system at 8 or 10 or 12, just for the long-long-long-long-shot possibility that one of them may become a professional in the sport.

And I say this watching my baseball obsessed nephew, and the parents who have hounded my brother-in-law, who has been a Little League coach (and former player) for 5 years now.

I see nothing wrong with a graduated system that starts kids at lower levels of the game, letting them learn the basics, and determine if its for them or not. Little League does this very successfully -- starting with t-ball, then working up to rookie, AA, minors and majors (although the terminology is changing again). The point being 6 -year-olds don't play on a full sized field, or play full-length games, and everyone gets an at-bat. Neither do 10-year-olds. The rules change over to "real" rules soon enough (by minor leagues at least), and the games get longer, and the fields larger. By middle or high school they are in Babe Ruth and playing full-length games on full-sized fields.

But sorry, I want kids who are fit and active and can do their math homework too. Time enough for focusing more intensely on a sport at 18/college.

[Big RR]

Guin--I see no problem with ramping up to more professional-like rules as kids get older, nor do I see problems with having different rules for the pros at high school, and even college, if it makes sense, but I thought we were talking about high school and college rules, and not the pee wee leagues or whatever. I do think by college, at the very least, and even in high school, we are playing competitive sports and fielding competitive teams, and deviation from the ordinary (professional) rules of the sport if done for good and compelling reasons; these are the ranks from which our professionals and serious amateurs (such as Olympians) will be drawn, and we have to look at trying to prepare them for that as part of the reason sport is played in the school.

I was more responding to rubato's contention that high school (and I presume college) sports should not be "paid for" (at least in public schools?) if they cater to the elite performers; I completely disagree with this and think sometimes the elite performers in sports deserve the same measure extra attention as the elite academics get from the advanced classes offered as part of the curriculum. Not that I don't think sports should be balanced with academics, but if a school chooses to field a competitive team, it does no one any good to skew the rules to make the game easier absent some sort of compelling reason. Insistence on good academic performance as well? Of course. Much as a school may well insist that its elite academics also be able to demonstrate some modicum of fitness and activity as part of its mission to build graduates well poised to take on the challenges of life going forward.

So certainly, let's not refuse reasonable accommodations in the rules that make sense (for any of the reasons I posited, or any other reasons for that matter), but let's also realize that there is a big difference between competitive athletics at the elite high school and NCAA competitive levels and the intramural, sports for fun and fitness, levels. Both have there place in the educational system as it has developed in the US. Our high schools and colleges need not, and should not, become soccer (or US football or baseball or ...) academies which exist solely to train our next generation of elite or professional athletes in the sport, but fielding elite competitive teams does place on the school and university some responsibility to the players they recruit/field to take on this mantel and look out for them as they progress to the elite/professional levels and to prepare them properly.

[Guinevere]

I believe he said

"Why pay for HS sports if they only exist for the elite few rather than inspiring a wider range people to be physically active?"

I agree with that completely. Certainly, high school sports can have teams where you try out and get ranked, but there should also be teams available for anyone that is willing to make the commitment to play. If the budget isn't big enough for both, then I think you let everyone play. Elite kids can almost always go find a club to play on, it they want a more competitive, challenging experience.

And no, sports are not the same as academics nor should they be treated the same way.

But yes, I'm OK with making it harder/more competitive as you move up in age/experience, and definitely am OK with 18+ as prep for elite/pro/Olympic sports. And realistically, there are kids who will have the time, support, and resources to start playing more and more competitively well before 18. That's ok (so long as they are getting a good education at the same time) and not on my public education dollars, please.

[Big RR]

Guin--if there is a call for teams that permit everyone to play, I agree they should predominate in times of funding shortages; FWIW, I think the same of academics (even though I agree with you that they and sports should not be treated the same way). At its core, public education must serve the public and provide opportunities for all, whether sports or academics.

As for use of my public education dollars, however, I do disagree. If the budget can accommodate helping the more elite athletes gain an edge (and if the taxpayers support that as well), I see nothing wrong with committing some of my tax dollars to this end (so long as they are also getting a good academic education as you said). There are many things I pay for through my taxes that I neither agree with nor get any personal benefit from, but helping a child learn, whether it be through sports or through academics, is something I will readily agree to.

[Sean]

In other countries they manage to have 1st, 2nd, etc string teams so that everyone who wants to play can play but there is still a competitive spirit involved.
It's got nothing to do with preparing kids for the 'pros'. I was never going to be good enough to be a professional footballer yet I was able to play for the 2nd team all through 'high' school. We played ninety minute games with eleven players on each side and were restricted to three subs. We even had the offside rule!

It didn't exactly scar us for life...

[Guinevere]

And yet, despite out mental rules and mollycoddling, which team won their opening World Cup match and has three points:
Australia? Nope.
England? Nope.
USA? Yep.