Are Central Arkansas soccer clubs meeting expectations?

[michu]

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/61614/give-parents-their-moneys-worth.html#reply

Attached article provides some great questions parents need to be asking when deciding on a soccer club.

Do parents have certain expectations and are those expectations being met? Or do most parents still not understand the game/process and hope the club knows what they are doing?

As we see more parents who grew up playing the game, we will start to see more of these questions being asked.

Parents spend a ton of money on youth soccer, so are you getting your money's worth?

[LR_Dad]

I am around quite a few soccer parents who aren't happy with the club situation in Central AR.  However, there's not much you can do about it.  I've made it clear in other posts that i believe Rush has a great model.  With that said, I've never been involved with the club. 

You basically have BB's and AU.  AU is the "easy" option, but only because they have no real competition.  Nothing is going to change at AU.  They are what they are, and if you don't like it your children will likely end up finding other extra curricular activities in which to participate.  I'm not sure what to say about the BB's.  They still have parents coaching most of those teams so hard to consider them a serious club for older players.

If Rush could develop a legitimate presence in Little Rock, that might help matters. 

[Lionheart88]

I think that for 90%+ of parents, the existing structure is fine.  They're there to get their kids some exercise, a fun time, and make friends.  Of the remaining 10% or so who see soccer as a pathway to college scholarships or even more, most of them would be better served chilling out and letting their kids have fun.  But for the very small percentage of kids with a legit shot to play college ball, they might be underserved by your average club, where half the coaches are just the dad who was talked into holding a clipboard this season.

[LR_Dad]

I disagree with your 90% comment, but i guess it's possible I'm just around the 10%.  The same argument is always marched out about the parents that need to "chill out".  Interestingly enough, the kids are the ones who are tired of getting their brains beat in by other clubs.  Go figure.  They aren't having fun.

That attitude is a great example of what's wrong with Central AR soccer.  If you speak up about the obvious problems, you're just a parent that needs to "chill out".

[Laird Williams]

May I agree with both of you? Here's my dilemma: I think Lionheart is correct, mostly. The problem is we do have that 10% or so who aren't getting what they deserve. Surely we can do better.

[forumfan]

Soccer in Arkansas is tough because the population is small.  Because of this, there really is no choice.  In more populated areas of the country, choices are being made by parents and by clubs on where players play which ultimately, for the most part, steers parents and players to the experience they want to get out of soccer.  In Central Arkansas, there are so few choices that the goals and dreams of both players and parents vary too much to form a high performing team that has competition for all places.  In my humble opinion, the number or types of clubs won't overcome the population challenge.

[Laird Williams]

Then why do we occasionally put together teams that can compete at a high level? It's doable.

[Lionheart88]

I disagree with your 90% comment, but i guess it's possible I'm just around the 10%.  The same argument is always marched out about the parents that need to "chill out".  Interestingly enough, the kids are the ones who are tired of getting their brains beat in by other clubs.  Go figure.  They aren't having fun.

That attitude is a great example of what's wrong with Central AR soccer.  If you speak up about the obvious problems, you're just a parent that needs to "chill out".

Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love more options.  I wish there's been anything besides a recreational club where I grew up, I think I could've played in college with coaches who weren't just parents that drew the short straw(of course I do, right?  lol).  But I think that most folks aren't that serious about it.  I've played, coached, and refereed at several levels (rec, classic, and high school, though I haven't done all three things at all three levels), and even though high school is a significantly more competitive league than rec, I find that not that many high school players have the desire to play at the next level, even very good ones.  At least for the folks I know, soccer is mostly something kids do for fun, not because they plan on playing professionally one day.  Most of them don't even consider one day playing for a college, much less professionally.  But it could be I just don't know the people you do.

[CAS]

Couple of conversations with friends about Little Rock soccer. This assessment correct?
ASC is a rec club.
Arkansas United run by group of parents that don't understand the game.
Rush relatively new to the area.
Bluebirds for the rich kids.
YMCA also a rec club.

[michu]

That attitude is a great example of what's wrong with Central AR soccer.  If you speak up about the obvious problems, you're just a parent that needs to "chill out".

The parents that need to chill out are the crazy side line parents. We need more parents speaking out about the obvious problems and there are a ton of them. Club soccer is a service, but most parents simply don't understand the service. Now we are seeing more parents who grew up playing the game or who currently follow the game and these are the parents asking the questions. Parents are paying alot of money, especially as the players reach the classic age groups, so clubs need to be held accountable.

[michu]

Then why do we occasionally put together teams that can compete at a high level? It's doable.

You occasionally see decent teams from our area due to a parent or coach doing a good job of recruiting at the younger age groups. This town has some talent, but it's spread over several clubs. Typically the success is in the younger classic age groups, but development (for most, but not all) ends around the time kids hit high school. 

[michu]

In order for us to ever see any consistency in player and team development in this town, then all the  committed kids need to be playing together no later than U11. They need to have quality coaching, proven curriculum, and the right environment. That currently doesn't exist.

[michu]

Couple of conversations with friends about Little Rock soccer. This assessment correct?
ASC is a rec club.
Arkansas United run by group of parents that don't understand the game.
Rush relatively new to the area.
Bluebirds for the rich kids.
YMCA also a rec club.

Last rant of the day.

Local clubs seem to do a good job of introducing the game to kids at the younger age groups (4-7). However, it gradually becomes a nightmare afterwards. They don't have player development curriculum, a defined club playing style, quality coaching support, and most importantly, they don't know how to create the right environment, especially for the older age groups. Clubs in our region are merging players and resources to create quality programs. Lobos Rush in Memphis and TSC Hurricane in Tulsa are great examples.
Our local clubs think they are doing it right, but they couldn't be more wrong.

CAS, I would tend to agree with your assessment. I think rec clubs are great and needed, but rec clubs that claim to be full service clubs... not good.

[forumfan]

I disagree with the assessment of Arkansas United.  Have spent a few years with the club, never had parental involvement, always had professional coaches and I personally think Justin Hawkins is quality (I wish he could coach all of the teams).  The challenge is (a) the limited number of players in Arkansas who want to play competitively,(b) because of limited number of competitive teams, the need to travel far (e.g. no home RPL games) to play other competitive teams which (c) further exacerbates (a).  I agree there are exceptions.  But they are few and far between and, again, in my opinion, have little to do with club structure or number of clubs or club approach and more to do with population.

[Laird Williams]

Here is a great discussion by Michu and Kickabout on this topic:

http://www.fearlessfriday.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=136132.msg3032352#msg3032352

Which I hope they might resurrect here. Forumfan, I agree with you on much of what you say about AU, and I would rather address the positives about all of these clubs than the negatives. They all do some things extremely well.

It bugs me, though, to hear anyone say, essentially, we don't have enough kids with high aspirations to concern ourselves with.  We do, and we do them a disservice in thinking that way.

AU is, in fact, thinking about this issue. I just don't believe they can achieve a higher level of play for our local kids alone. It will take a joint effort. And I believe a joint effort is possible. I know of several folks (kids, parents, coaches) inside all of the clubs in question who would love to see that happen - and would help make that happen. We can do this.

Heading to Tulsa for a showcase - a wet one. Catch you good folks later.

[michu]

I disagree with the assessment of Arkansas United.  Have spent a few years with the club, never had parental involvement, always had professional coaches and I personally think Justin Hawkins is quality (I wish he could coach all of the teams).  The challenge is (a) the limited number of players in Arkansas who want to play competitively,(b) because of limited number of competitive teams, the need to travel far (e.g. no home RPL games) to play other competitive teams which (c) further exacerbates (a).  I agree there are exceptions.  But they are few and far between and, again, in my opinion, have little to do with club structure or number of clubs or club approach and more to do with population.

Arkansas United do have licensed coaches coaching their classic teams, but do all those coaches share the same philosophy and play a similar style? Is there a consistant player and team development structure within their classic age groups?

You are correct in the fact that they don't have parents coaching classic teams, but they do have parent board members making soccer decisions. That is what people mean when they refer to Arkansas United being a club run by parents.

I have been told the club has many quality coaches including Justin, but the club lacks structure and the ability to consistently develop regional level players.

It's possible to have a quality club regardless of population.

[michu]

Radical change is needed for this community to ever become relevant. Memphis and Tulsa have made the necessary changes and the players are the benefactors. It's all about the money and not the kids in this town. It's going to take the decision makers deciding to put the players at the top of the pyramid and not their respected clubs. It's that simple.

[CAS]

Lots of money being made in club soccer but it's not being allocated properly. Nothing worse than a club that cost bunch of money, coaches who make a bunch of money, and players who don't get much in return.

[forumfan]

Ok, I am seeking enlightenment.  I'm curious what leads to the conclusion that Little Rock soccer is currently "all about the money." 

[michu]

Ok, I am seeking enlightenment.  I'm curious what leads to the conclusion that Little Rock soccer is currently "all about the money."

Lots of money is being generated at the club level, but it's not being allocated properly. The first thought our local clubs have when discussing the possibility of merging is how it will effect their bottom line. Should be how it will effect players.

[CAS]

Got one club generating bunch of cash, but no idea what they are doing. Another club charging kids ridiculous cash to play and paying staff coaches stupid salaries. The other clubs don't have much of a classic program. What do they all have in common?

[michu]

Got one club generating bunch of cash, but no idea what they are doing. Another club charging kids ridiculous cash to play and paying staff coaches stupid salaries. The other clubs don't have much of a classic program. What do they all have in common?

It's easy to sit here and break down each club and describe what we feel they are doing wrong. We need our local clubs to look around our region and see what is happening. Again, Memphis and Tulsa are great examples. Our local clubs that think they can get the job done on their own is either naive, arrogance, or both.
We do have one club that can at least explain their process from start to finish, but we need all of our local talent together and part of the process in order to see results.

[Laird Williams]

Got one club generating bunch of cash, but no idea what they are doing. Another club charging kids ridiculous cash to play and paying staff coaches stupid salaries. The other clubs don't have much of a classic program. What do they all have in common?

If it's not less than the sum of their parts, then I'm stumped.

[Lowguards]

One thing they all have in common? Critics.

[Laird Williams]

Lowguards, perhaps you and I see the central Arkansas situation in similar terms. A couple of years ago, in another thread, you wrote:

"....None of these local teams have won a prestigious tournament. None have produced players that travel with [a] Region III team on international trips. . . .[including] the two LR clubs that duke it out on this board from time to time. Do you know why? You're going to hate this answer. They're not good enough."

True then and true today. Separately, none of our central Arkansas clubs can (or have yet to) collect enough talent to compete outside of our local compass. But I happen to believe that we could do that, if these, not two, but SIX local clubs (Rush, AU, BB, ASC, Riverside, Bryant) could find a way to support that goal, should any of them share in that ambition. If any two got together it might be enough to affect a change. Some believe it is a simple question of numbers. Too few kids / too many clubs, etc. I see a few folks here suggest that there are simply two few competitive kids in central Arkansas.

Central Arkansas's population is somewhere around three-quarters of a million people. De Queen, Arkansas, population roughly 7,000, has won multiple state championships. Green Forest, Arkansas, population about 3,000, is the current state champ in their division. Player numbers are not the problem. It is something else.

Another real world example: A local coach, 24 months ago, this month, expressed adamantly that our central Arkansas's '00 class would simply never be able to compete with the Comets 00 Premier Black team: they were simply too good. Within 9 months, there existed a central Arkansas '00 team that could compete with them. (Here's a bonus: the magnificent coach of that Comets Premier '00 Black team, Greg Shultz, loved it, for he, too, wants to see Arkansas raise its presence and believes it can.)

Central Arkansas can compete, absolutely. We have tremendous resources at our fingertips. If I have a criticism, it is that we are not attempting build something our most competitive kids could benefit from--and would flock to. I am not delusional on this point, for as I said the other day, I know several coaches around central Arkansas, spread across several of our local clubs, who agree.

But, Lowguards, I am not trying to be critical. I hope it is clear that, rather, I am optimistic that central Arkansas can raise its game--I have no doubt that we can--without doing the slightest injury to any of our families who prefer a more local, recreational approach to sport. The merit there is obvious as well.

[michu]

One thing they all have in common? Critics.

We need more critics to influence some change. Should parents just sit around, smile, and act like everything is glorious? This is the perfect forum to discus these problems. We need more parents participating in these discussions and we need local club leaders to read it.

[Lionheart88]

Lowguards, perhaps you and I see the central Arkansas situation in similar terms. A couple of years ago, in another thread, you wrote:

"....None of these local teams have won a prestigious tournament. None have produced players that travel with [a] Region III team on international trips. . . .[including] the two LR clubs that duke it out on this board from time to time. Do you know why? You're going to hate this answer. They're not good enough."

True then and true today. Separately, none of our central Arkansas clubs can (or have yet to) collect enough talent to compete outside of our local compass. But I happen to believe that we could do that, if these, not two, but SIX local clubs (Rush, AU, BB, ASC, Riverside, Bryant) could find a way to support that goal, should any of them share in that ambition. If any two got together it might be enough to affect a change. Some believe it is a simple question of numbers. Too few kids / too many clubs, etc. I see a few folks here suggest that there are simply two few competitive kids in central Arkansas.

Central Arkansas's population is somewhere around three-quarters of a million people. De Queen, Arkansas, population roughly 7,000, has won multiple state championships. Green Forest, Arkansas, population about 3,000, is the current state champ in their division. Player numbers are not the problem. It is something else.

Another real world example: A local coach, 24 months ago, this month, expressed adamantly that our central Arkansas's '00 class would simply never be able to compete with the Comets 00 Premier Black team: they were simply too good. Within 9 months, there existed a central Arkansas '00 team that could compete with them. (Here's a bonus: the magnificent coach of that Comets Premier '00 Black team, Greg Shultz, loved it, for he, too, wants to see Arkansas raise its presence and believes it can.)

Central Arkansas can compete, absolutely. We have tremendous resources at our fingertips. If I have a criticism, it is that we are not attempting build something our most competitive kids could benefit from--and would flock to. I am not delusional on this point, for as I said the other day, I know several coaches around central Arkansas, spread across several of our local clubs, who agree.

But, Lowguards, I am not trying to be critical. I hope it is clear that, rather, I am optimistic that central Arkansas can raise its game--I have no doubt that we can--without doing the slightest injury to any of our families who prefer a more local, recreational approach to sport. The merit there is obvious as well.

In DeQueen and Green Forest, all the talent plays together because it's the only game in town.  By comparison, there's 21 schools in Pulaski county and many more in the surrounding area that offer soccer.  There's what, at least a half-dozen clubs?  The players are split up all over the place.  3 guys might play together for AU in the fall while they play at LRCA, Catholic, and CAC in the spring.  Or maybe Maumelle's high school team has players that spent their fall time at AU, Lakewood, Maumelle, and Bluebirds.  Sure, the Little Rock area could put together a team that would blow any 4A or 5A team out of the water.  They might have more than one current high school team that could right now, such is the nature of 7A.  But there's no reason to expect all the good soccer players to go to one school or one club, dispersal of talent is just a fact of life.

[Lowguards]

Dequeen and Green Forest are both champions in their respective classifications. 4A, I think. Which means that they are earning those results against schools of similar student enrollment. The current 7A champion is Bentonville. Bentonville is also the high school with the largest student enrollment. Their size (and the advantages gained due to this disparity) is a topic discussed in other forums on this site. Posters say that because Bentonville has more kids to choose from they are able to select the bigger, stronger, flat out better athletes - center midfielders, quarterback, swimmer, etc... And their current run of state championships is used to support this point. I'm not sure if they play against one another, but I'd bet that if they played a series of 10 games Bentonville would win the majority of those games. Bentonville (probably - honestly, I'm not sure) cuts kids that would make the Dequeen team. Their larger number of players available (due to student population) allows them that luxury.

If Arkansas could send teams to tournaments to play against teams with a similar population then I'd like our chances. But, if the AR teams are competing against teams from larger markets (can I use that word there?) then we (or I guess I) have to expect results similar to the Dequeen vs. Bentonville series.

Perhaps a better example would have been to ask how small countries like Uruguay, Holland, Portugal, or Belgium that consistently do well against the larger countries in the world of international soccer - I say that in the least jerkish way possible. But then we get in to the discussion of cultural differences, which is actually very interesting.

When I said that the local players aren't "good enough" that wasn't meant to insult or disrespect those players in any way. Those kids are playing soccer, a game that I personally think is the best game on Earth. Honestly, having 4 (or more) local clubs is a good thing. It means that more kids are playing soccer. Shouldn't the goal of the clubs be to promote soccer in the community? Improvement in the level of play should happen at all clubs. The coaches should be charged with stepping up their trade. Rather than try to assemble a team of the best players in our metro area (which is still smaller than other metros in Region III) , these coaches should teach the game to all of the kids. If the coach is receiving a paycheck then he/she should be responsible for teaching the game to all of the players.

And I don't think the parents should simply do nothing. I think the parents should encourage their kids to give their best - whatever that may be - to the game. If a parent from Dequeen wants his/her son/daughter to be in a bigger soccer environment then they should move to Bentonville. And if a parent in Little Rock wants their child in an environment like those found in bigger areas then they should move to a bigger area. And if a parent wants to make sure their child's college is paid for then they should invest all the money spent to play club soccer (we all know it's expensive) in to a 529 college fund.

[Lionheart88]

Dequeen and Green Forest are both champions in their respective classifications. 4A, I think. Which means that they are earning those results against schools of similar student enrollment. The current 7A champion is Bentonville. Bentonville is also the high school with the largest student enrollment. Their size (and the advantages gained due to this disparity) is a topic discussed in other forums on this site. Posters say that because Bentonville has more kids to choose from they are able to select the bigger, stronger, flat out better athletes - center midfielders, quarterback, swimmer, etc... And their current run of state championships is used to support this point. I'm not sure if they play against one another, but I'd bet that if they played a series of 10 games Bentonville would win the majority of those games. Bentonville (probably - honestly, I'm not sure) cuts kids that would make the Dequeen team. Their larger number of players available (due to student population) allows them that luxury.

DeQuen has won in 4A and 5A, and they're tied with Morrilton for smallest public school in 5A.  Green Forest is a big 3A school playing in 4A because we don't have divisions below 4A in soccer.

And I don't think the parents should simply do nothing. I think the parents should encourage their kids to give their best - whatever that may be - to the game. If a parent from Dequeen wants his/her son/daughter to be in a bigger soccer environment then they should move to Bentonville. And if a parent in Little Rock wants their child in an environment like those found in bigger areas then they should move to a bigger area. And if a parent wants to make sure their child's college is paid for then they should invest all the money spent to play club soccer (we all know it's expensive) in to a 529 college fund.

You realize how absurd that is to ask of most people, right?  Very, very few people in the state of Arkansas can pick up the family and move halfway across the state  (or farther) so that their kid can go to a school or club with a better program in their chosen sport.

[Lowguards]

I agree that my suggestion of picking up and moving to another city or state (for the purpose of sport) was ridiculous.

Not to be too philosophical: But is it more ridiculous than expecting the same athletic environment at a 4A school that is offered at the largest 7A schools? Or expecting the club soccer scene in LR to offer the same environment found in Dallas?

[michu]

Dequeen and Green Forest are both champions in their respective classifications. 4A, I think. Which means that they are earning those results against schools of similar student enrollment. The current 7A champion is Bentonville. Bentonville is also the high school with the largest student enrollment. Their size (and the advantages gained due to this disparity) is a topic discussed in other forums on this site. Posters say that because Bentonville has more kids to choose from they are able to select the bigger, stronger, flat out better athletes - center midfielders, quarterback, swimmer, etc... And their current run of state championships is used to support this point. I'm not sure if they play against one another, but I'd bet that if they played a series of 10 games Bentonville would win the majority of those games. Bentonville (probably - honestly, I'm not sure) cuts kids that would make the Dequeen team. Their larger number of players available (due to student population) allows them that luxury.

Perhaps a better example would have been to ask how small countries like Uruguay, Holland, Portugal, or Belgium that consistently do well against the larger countries in the world of international soccer - I say that in the least jerkish way possible. But then we get in to the discussion of cultural differences, which is actually very interesting.

When I said that the local players aren't "good enough" that wasn't meant to insult or disrespect those players in any way. Those kids are playing soccer, a game that I personally think is the best game on Earth. Honestly, having 4 (or more) local clubs is a good thing. It means that more kids are playing soccer. Shouldn't the goal of the clubs be to promote soccer in the community? Improvement in the level of play should happen at all clubs. The coaches should be charged with stepping up their trade. Rather than try to assemble a team of the best players in our metro area (which is still smaller than other metros in Region III) , these coaches should teach the game to all of the kids. If the coach is receiving a paycheck then he/she should be responsible for teaching the game to all of the players.

DeQueen's soccer success is due to it's large Hispanic population. I saw them play in state championship game a couple of years ago and they would have won against most teams in Arkansas regardless of classification. Just a guess, but I bet that Green Forest team is also made up mostly of Hispanics.

Smaller countries have success because they have strong development systems in place. That is my point in this discussion. We need a club that can actually develop players and teams. Our local clubs have nothing in place and it's the reason why we see a limited number of kids playing college soccer and our teams not having success outside Arkansas.

Having a bunch of rec clubs is great when it comes to introducing kids to the game, but we need a place to accommodate the 10% who want the game to be more than an activity.

[LR_Dad]

If we're talking about Classic in Central AR, I believe more than 10% of those families desire a better "product".  Rec is already in place for the parents and kids that just want to play and get some exercise. 

[Laird Williams]

Dequeen and Green Forest...are earning those results against schools of similar student enrollment...Perhaps a better example would have been to ask how small countries like Uruguay, Holland, Portugal, or Belgium that consistently do well against the larger countries...

...When I said that the local players aren't "good enough" that wasn't meant to insult or disrespect those players in any way...

...Shouldn't the goal of the clubs be to promote soccer in the community?...

...if a parent wants to make sure their child's college is paid for then they should invest all the money spent to play club soccer (we all know it's expensive) in to a 529 college fund.

Last thing first: that made me laugh and I agree. I am not dreaming of my kid riding to college on a sport, any sport, particularly soccer.

It is so easy to take things to extremes, and I see that I didn't help with my last post: I confused things by referencing high school teams when talking about club teams. My apologies, and yes, the smaller countries example is a better one, and I am not offended by your correction.

And I didn't think you were being critical a couple of years ago, I was just pointing to a condition that I thought we might be able to agree on. If it sounds like I am advocating a one-club condition here in central Arkansas, I am not: having multiple options for our kids is great; I agree with that too.

What I hope to see is someway for us to unite the kids/families that do want to achieve at as high a level as possible--in our region (not the world cup).

-------

Thus, LR_Dad, I agree with you.

And I don't mean to suggest anything that would harm any of our clubs. On the contrary, I believe if we could achieve greater results outside of central Arkansas it would do more for promoting soccer in our community than any other thing we could possibly do.

[Lowguards]

Spare me the Hispanic kids are better than white kids explanation. Dequeen and Green Forest could not compete with the 7A schools (made up club players, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever). A couple years ago Conway hosted a tournament and Dequeen made the trip over to central AR to compete against the larger schools. The central AR kids, as critical as we may be of their level, were superior technically and most notably tactically to the Dequeen team. Most games were won, or lost if you support Dequeen, by a 3 or 4 goal margin.

"Development" - The magic word in club soccer. Coaches use that word to explain or justify anything, especially losses. It's ok to lose, because the kids are "developing." We're teaching them to play "the right way." An even broader question would be "what's the right way?" A survey of world football (international and club) would reveal that there are a bunch of ways to win games. At the local level, the clubs may have different approaches but as long as they are promoting soccer in the communities I see it as a success. Sure it could be considered recreational. And if everyone involved (parents included) are having fun, then I don't think that's an inaccurate description, or a bad thing.

Sure, the coaches and systems in foreign countries might have stronger development protocol in place. But it's 2014, almost 2015, a local coach get online and do research or attend a seminar and have access to the all the training methods used abroad. The Dutch are famous for the training and development. They don't keep it a secret. They sell it to anyone who will buy it. What these academies have that LR doesn't is large numbers of kids that will give anything to make the squad. Emerson Hyndman (the US youth international that's now at Fulham) just did an interview in which he discussed the differences that he sees in the English youth academy system vs. the US (he's from FC Dallas) - kids totally shattered after being cut vs. just going with flow in the US.

If the sole purpose of club is to land kids college scholarships then perhaps the LR metro only needs one team. But what about the kids that enjoy the friendships, or the competition, or they just like to have an active lifestyle?  I think judging the value of a club by how many players end up on college rosters is a bit shortsighted - again, not to be rude. There are several players in LR, each year, that have chance to play college soccer.These might be small schools with limited options for majors, not so strong academics, low acceptance rates in to grad schools, etc.. Quite a few of them pass on those opportunities because they feel that a much larger university might offer them the academic opportunities that will benefit them later in life.

I like the idea of multiple clubs because it means that more kids are learning about the game. And personally, I don't feel comfortable deciding which one is "right." Regarding development, I think that multiple teams/clubs will help in that aspect as well. Four teams, for example, means at least 4 players (certainly more) at each position. As these four teams play one another the players will be challenged be the best at their position - every game. The coaches will be challenged to provide training and game plans that will help them win - every game. That's how we get a competitive environment that rivals the bigger areas (or even Europe).

If we pick a team of the best u13s and say "you've made it" our talent pool will be seriously depleted. What happens with the starting forward moves or decides he doesn't want to play anymore? What if 3 or 4 kids from the top team make the same decision? It happens. Do we then go the 2nd team for replacements? But those kids have been receiving 2nd level coaching and playing in 2nd tier tournaments, so those players won't be able to play/contribute on the top team. That leaves those top players in the same predicament we say they are in now - to be honest.

[Lowguards]

Everyone on this thread cares about soccer in Central Arkansas, and that's a really good thing!

[Lionheart88]

I don't think anyone is arguing that DeQueen's (or anyone else's) Hispanic kids are better, but the rate of participation in soccer is much higher.  DeQueen travels with around forty boys(and leaves a IV squad just as big at home), and there's not a lot of drop-off when they sub out the starters.  They can sub 7 players at a time four times and still have an unused player or two on the bench.  I've seen plenty of teams just as skilled hang with them for thirty, forty, even sixty minutes, but their  two dozen or so players wear down before DeQueen's horde.  And this against schools with significantly more warm bodies in the halls.  Soccer in DeQueen is popular and well-attended the way American football is in most of the rest of the state, and the numbers on the team reflects it.  That, more than individual skill of players, is the where the "cultural difference" really comes into play.

[Laird Williams]

Wow on DeQueen. That's fabulous.

Lowguards, you are content with the status quo around central Arkansas, it seems. That's fine. I trust, though, that you won't mind if others around here strive for a bit more.

[LR_Dad]

Bingo Laird....there are several people that are content.  Yet if you want something more from your club they get defensive.  I'm not sure why that is.  I have my theories, but they're not important. 

Soccer is becoming more popular every year and we're starting to get more kids interested in the sport.  We're getting more kids that are competitive which is great.  If we want that continue, we need to start developing stronger teams.  Maybe we won't consistently compete against teams from Dallas,etc but we should be able to consistently compete with teams from Tulsa, Memphis, and Jackson.  Those are realistic goals.

[Lowguards]

I never said that I was content with the current level of club soccer in Central Arkansas. I don't think I did, anyway. However, I don't believe club soccer is in a terrible state either. I get the feeling that all of the clubs are striving to constantly raise that level. Personally, I don't feel comfortable declaring which club is doing it the "right way" and which one is doing it the "wrong way."

My opinion is that the multi-club system is the best way for soccer to continue improving in central AR. I feel like players need more than a strong desire to play the game. Intrinsic motivation is great, but the extrinsic motivation of competition is also important in the process of developing sharp players - both technically and tactically. Like I said in an earlier, post 4 teams (or more) means that there are more players to compete against. I think in that environment the strong get stronger. I don't believe there is a magic drill that teaches players to pass and receive the ball with both feet.The kids with drive will go out on their own and practice those skills. They'll get very good at them, too. But will they able to execute when they have a defender grabbing their shirt? I think that a competitive environment, where you do it right or lose, is what ultimately teaches players to be sharp. A multi-club system gives players and coaches more chances to play well and win or play poorly and lose. And when the local teams travel to tournaments to compete against other teams (from perhaps bigger cities) they will be battle-hardened (maybe that's a bit dramatic) and ready to play, rather than learning, or developing, on the fly. Tournament fees, hotel rooms, gas, food, all of that stuff adds up to be some pretty costly lessons. Why not learn them at home and then (when it's time to travel) go win a trophy at a tournament (or show really well at a Showcase).

In a one-club system the top players make it to the top, and then what? They travel to far away tournaments to play competitive games? Sounds expensive, and exclusive. I'm of the opinion that numbers matter (I do think I differ with a few posters in this regard). I would hate to see a system in place that limits the opportunities for players because their families can't afford to pay (to play).

I think that we can all agree that the answer to the title of this thread is varying degrees of "no." What are some other ideas to help raise the level?

[michu]

Bingo Laird....there are several people that are content.  Yet if you want something more from your club they get defensive.  I'm not sure why that is.  I have my theories, but they're not important. 

Soccer is becoming more popular every year and we're starting to get more kids interested in the sport.  We're getting more kids that are competitive which is great.  If we want that continue, we need to start developing stronger teams.  Maybe we won't consistently compete against teams from Dallas,etc but we should be able to consistently compete with teams from Tulsa, Memphis, and Jackson.  Those are realistic goals.

Our close regional competitors are making changes and we are doing nothing. Tulsa, Memphis, and Jackson are moving in the right direction. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't even think we have a team playing top bracket at GIT.

[Lowguards]

What are the changes that are being introduced around the region? And how would the central Arkansas soccer scene go about implementing these changes?

An even broader question is what is the right direction?  Are we striving to participate in the top bracket at the GIT, produce college soccer players, win state championships? I proposed the multi-club approach in which parents, players, coaches, and everyone else involved demand excellence. That excellence will be easily measured as the teams and clubs compete against one another - in wins and losses. No more of this "development" nonsense to excuse losses. Make the necessary adjustments to win the game. No more of this "if we could just get 2 players from this team and 1 from that team..." Teach the kids that come to practice how to play the game.

Does it have to be a single club that achieves all of these goals? BB and AU both have teams that have won several state championships. And Rush has a few players in the college ranks. I'm pretty sure AU and BB do as well. Seems like Central AR is doing alright.

But before I'm misquoted as being "content" with the state of soccer in central AR let me say that I think those 3 clubs could do better to win more state championships and play (and compete) in higher level tournaments. The college soccer thing is tricky based on what a kid wants out of the college experience. Again, I don't feel comfortable declaring which club model is correct and which are incorrect. Does that mean if we combine all of those clubs we get all of those positive things? Maybe. Personally, I don't think so. Each of those clubs and teams have their unique approaches to the sport. Not to mention, people like to have options.

[Laird Williams]

I don't believe we do, Michu, but that may just be the circumstances of this particular month this particular year. Don't we have some teams around here that would enter the top bracket, if they were going? Lowguards, is someone advocating a one-club solution? And you sound like you coach. Are you a classic-level coach?

Anyway, there seems to be enough talk around town, from folks in several clubs, about creating a premier level platform for our most competitive kids, that it might actually happen. I understand the resistance, but I will stay hopeful. The cost of driving to Memphis shouldn't change too much, should such a thing occur.

As Michu has stated, other cities have figured out how to provide a platform for their most athletic, or most driven (pun intended), however you want to classify them, kids, so it must not be impossible to do. Michu mentioned Jackson. It is no bigger than we are. We can do this, without negatively impacting any of our clubs. What makes me so sure? Other communities of similar size have done it. We can do it too. And our soccer community will benefit when we do, as it will increase the ambition of our kids coming up, to achieve that new platform.

[Lowguards]

Man, I was a coach in and around Arkansas for several years. Soccer is what brought me here... a long time ago. Work and life got to be too much, so I had to put the cones and pinnies away - at least temporarily. I still watch and read as much as I can about this game though.

I apologize if my post seems argumentative or combative. I realize that I am essentially arguing with myself - one club vs. many - in this thread. I don't have a dog in the fight - club ties or a child, just friends that coach or grew up here as players.

I've gone round and round trying to figure out what would be the best solution to help smaller market teams/clubs compete against the clubs from the big cities. Talk to me in a year and I'm sure my thoughts will have changed. I'd be interested to here more about this "platform."

I really like central Arkansas, and I want to make sure that my future soccer playing kiddos have a quality sporting environment. I don't plan on moving to Dallas or Tulsa! My luck though, I'll probably have a kid that plays American football.

[Lowguards]

My real big time idea involves acquiring a major sponsor, maybe a local business. With their funding, the player fees, travel costs, etc... could be subsidized. High level soccer would be readily available for anyone interested and the "money talks" side of things would be left at the door.

[michu]

Clubs in our region are merging. The Lobos and Rush merger in Memphis was basically the numbers of Lobos and the system of Rush. TSC Hurricane in Tulsa was the merger of several clubs. Mississippi Rush (formally Mississippi Fire) was the merger of a couple of clubs, but not 100% certain. The top teams in these clubs could name their score against the top teams from AU. I use AU as an example because they are the largest club in our area.

Lowguards, your concepts are correct, but not practical in our area. Our local clubs are never going to have teams in each age group. Each clubs team is going to be made up of both classic and rec players. The training environment just doesn't work with such a wide margin between top and bottom. 

I absolutely agree that we need multiple rec clubs in the area to help grow the game, but we only have the numbers for one quality classic program. These players need to be training together on a weekly basis. That's the daily competition needed to properly develop.

Development is important, but you are so right in the fact that coaches/clubs use development as an excuse. Parents simply need to ask coach/club what the development process entails. All the local clubs can't answer the question, because they don't have a development process. They just wing it and have been doing so for years. I think these clubs have some very good coaches, but the clubs don't provide the proper direction and support.

It's going to take leaders from each club sitting down at a table discussing one question. How do we make it better? Most don't feel it will ever happen due to the unique personalities who run these clubs and I tend to agree.

So how do we make it better? We live in a town where youth soccer is stuck in 1985. The rest of the country is adapting to the changes and we continue to operate "status quo".

[michu]

My real big time idea involves acquiring a major sponsor, maybe a local business. With their funding, the player fees, travel costs, etc... could be subsidized. High level soccer would be readily available for anyone interested and the "money talks" side of things would be left at the door.

This definitely needs to be part of the equation and easily doable if we are putting a quality product on the field. All kids deserve the opportunity regardless of financial background. This could be another topic to itself.

[LR_Dad]

Clubs in our region are merging.

This is it in a nutshell.  Some of our clubs need to merge...maybe not all, but at least a couple.  AU, Westside, Rush and ASC are the clubs that could benefit the most.  Again, it doesn't have to be all of them.

[michu]

Clubs in our region are merging.

This is it in a nutshell.  Some of our clubs need to merge...maybe not all, but at least a couple.  AU, Westside, Rush and ASC are the clubs that could benefit the most.  Again, it doesn't have to be all of them.

And they don't necessarily have to merge at the younger rec age groups where these clubs typically make their money. But it does need to involve the club that has the best system in place or in our case, the one club that has a system.

[Rey Pygsterio]

In a one-club system the top players make it to the top, and then what? They travel to far away tournaments to play competitive games? Sounds expensive, and exclusive. I'm of the opinion that numbers matter (I do think I differ with a few posters in this regard). I would hate to see a system in place that limits the opportunities for players because their families can't afford to pay (to play).

Amen.

[LR_Dad]

There are already several teams that travel to far away tournaments and they are expensive.  That is a topic that deserves it's own thread. 

Every other sport has teams that are "exclusive" and yet kids keep participating.  There are Black, Blue, White, Red, etc. teams for all of the Classic age groups right now...and they are separated by ability.