High School Soccer-do we need it?

[Sportsaholic94]

Good points and good additions. This years Rush has many players going on to play also. LRFC doesn't even have a team. The Comets broke up so probably not many from them. The lighting should have quite a bit though. Other than those main clubs there is probably a few here and there

[soccerfiend]

Also, Reese Shaffer from Rush, came out last year and plays at Delta State. As far as I know, LRFC had Will Hidalgo and Madison Smith go on to play in college from last year's class.
Sevenof400 has 2 posts from last year that summarize Arkansas kids playing college soccer. Already there lists kids playing in state and Over there lists kids playing out of state. However, it lists their high school, not their club team, so you would have to know that if you wanted to compare how many kids were playing in college from a particular club in a given year. Still, he did a nice job of compiling info from multiple sources. 

Last year the players from the rush that went on to play college were:

Ben Bartnicke
Kyle Moore
Gregory Gandy
Mat Brockway
TJ Tapley

This years team has many players going to play in college.
Who all from the 92 west side team went to play other than John?

I'm pretty sure the keeper from that team, I can't remember his name but a short athletic kid, is playing college soccer in the Carolina's somewhere. Also don't forget that the Heverling kid that graduates from Central this year and has signed with UCA was a forward with that '93 Rush team.
By my count that's 8 of 11 starters from that team that are playing college soccer. Pretty impressive

[PressBox-81]

no the short athletic goalie (Brooks) did not make the team at Landers College in South Carolina.

[LRfan]

no the short athletic goalie (Brooks) did not make the team at Landers College in South Carolina.

Cody Brooks played for LRFC his senior year.

[soccerfiend]

no the short athletic goalie (Brooks) did not make the team at Landers College in South Carolina.

Cody Brooks played for LRFC his senior year.

That's right. I forgot about that but I do remember now following the LRFC team's progress at Regionals and being surprised that he/they gave up an average of 5 or 6 goals a game. 8 in one game I think.
And the Weber kid played keeper for the Rush 93s  I believe although I think  he was 15/16 at the time playing u18 if I remember some discussion on this forum correctly.
Since he's signed with UAB I guess technically still 8 of 11 from that team playing college including three D1s.
How does that compare to Hewlit's team that did so well for years as far as producing college soccer players from one team?

[LRfan]

no the short athletic goalie (Brooks) did not make the team at Landers College in South Carolina.

Cody Brooks played for LRFC his senior year.

That's right. I forgot about that but I do remember now following the LRFC team's progress at Regionals and being surprised that he/they gave up an average of 5 or 6 goals a game. 8 in one game I think.
And the Weber kid played keeper for the Rush 93s  I believe although I think  he was 15/16 at the time playing u18 if I remember some discussion on this forum correctly.
Since he's signed with UAB I guess technically still 8 of 11 from that team playing college including three D1s.
How does that compare to Hewlit's team that did so well for years as far as producing college soccer players from one team?

My own opinion is that just about any decent club soccer player (plays soccer as their primary sport year round) can play in college somewhere if they really want to. The minority will be able to make a DI or DII roster, but there are plenty of DIII and NAIA opportunities at good academic schools. I think the most impressive thing about RUSH getting so many kids into college soccer the last couple of years is not that so many Arkansas kids from one club were afforded the opportunity to play in college, but that they kept the kids' passion for the sport so strong that they wanted to take it to the next level.

[hogbert]

oh please...

[soccerfiend]

oh please...

Why are you such the jealous bitter type. I think that anyone or any organization in our state that is developing soccer talent and about giving kids opportunities to play should be recognized.
Seems you have a hard time with that.

[SirSoccer]

we need to get a Rush Jersey with Hogbert on it.

[hogbert]

I'll take a #1, black with those neat stripes.

[LRfan]

I'll take a #1, black with those neat stripes.

I would just stick with the LRFC jersey. You already have it and we know it fits.

[SirSoccer]

How's HS season going for everyone. 

[hogbert]

nope, Fulham's my club.

[soccerfan1]

nope, Fulham's my club.

You sure know how to pick 'em....
Choose the club team that submits fewer players to the collegiate level
And a Premier League team that isn't ahead of any team of major importance.

[offside]

Soccerfan1, I don't think being a fan of a Premiere League team that has consistently offered American players a chance is bad thing at all.  And since Fulham has been in the Premiere League they have staved off relegation and almost won the Europa League.  Fulham may not be a top tier team (they probably lack a billionaire owner) but the side currently sits in 10th place on the table.   They may not be your top team but every American should at least support FulhamAmerica.

And while I believe the Rush, as a national organization, offers more benefits to players (especially in small states like Arkansas) LRFC has proven to have produced some excellent Arkansas club teams.  LRFC has some outstanding coaches and helped developed some remarkable youth players.

[capn4lf]

Whoa whoa whoa Offside.  You sound like a reasonable human being.  Your kind ain't welcome on this board.

[Lowguards]

I don 't think "signed" is the correct word. None of the players moving on to DI programs will receive athletic scholarship monies, at least not in their first year. All of these players will be attending these institutions on their own dollar. That's not to say they won't earn scholarship money in the future.

Will Hidalgo walked on at SLU last season. He played a lot, and he may have earned a partial scholarship. The same is true for Kyle Moore at UCA. I would guess that Taylor Hart is on partial money.

These local players are good players, just not good enough to earn scholarship money as 18 year olds.

Heverling will walk on at UCA next year. Weber will do the same at UAB. Both have the potential play, sparingly, as freshmen. If they stick with it, they might sign in the future.

[LRfan]

I don 't think "signed" is the correct word. None of the players moving on to DI programs will receive athletic scholarship monies, at least not in their first year. All of these players will be attending these institutions on their own dollar. That's not to say they won't earn scholarship money in the future.

Will Hidalgo walked on at SLU last season. He played a lot, and he may have earned a partial scholarship. The same is true for Kyle Moore at UCA. I would guess that Taylor Hart is on partial money.

These local players are good players, just not good enough to earn scholarship money as 18 year olds.

Heverling will walk on at UCA next year. Weber will do the same at UAB. Both have the potential play, sparingly, as freshmen. If they stick with it, they might sign in the future.

Maybe they aren't on scholarship, but considering there is a maximum of about 9 scholarships to be divided up between 20 to 30 players, not too many kids are getting substantial money. However, once your foot is in the door, you have just as much of a shot to play as anyone else there. That is ultimately the goal. I suspect hardly any of these boys playing soccer in college are doing it for the money. I bet if you ask them, the dream they are working so hard for is to play the game that they love at the next level, not to get 1/6 to 1/3 of their school costs paid for. It would have been a heck of a lot easier to take an ACT course, boost their score a few points and get some academic money. However, if you prefer, could one say committed rather than signed.

[hogbert]

Soccerfan1, I don't think being a fan of a Premiere League team that has consistently offered American players a chance is bad thing at all.  And since Fulham has been in the Premiere League they have staved off relegation and almost won the Europa League.  Fulham may not be a top tier team (they probably lack a billionaire owner) but the side currently sits in 10th place on the table.   They may not be your top team but every American should at least support FulhamAmerica.

And while I believe the Rush, as a national organization, offers more benefits to players (especially in small states like Arkansas) LRFC has proven to have produced some excellent Arkansas club teams.  LRFC has some outstanding coaches and helped developed some remarkable youth players.

Soccerfan1, I don't think being a fan of a Premiere League team that has consistently offered American players a chance is bad thing at all.  And since Fulham has been in the Premiere League they have staved off relegation and almost won the Europa League.  Fulham may not be a top tier team (they probably lack a billionaire owner) but the side currently sits in 10th place on the table.   They may not be your top team but every American should at least support FulhamAmerica.

And while I believe the Rush, as a national organization, offers more benefits to players (especially in small states like Arkansas) LRFC has proven to have produced some excellent Arkansas club teams.  LRFC has some outstanding coaches and helped developed some remarkable youth players.

This.

[Lowguards]

I don 't think "signed" is the correct word. None of the players moving on to DI programs will receive athletic scholarship monies, at least not in their first year. All of these players will be attending these institutions on their own dollar. That's not to say they won't earn scholarship money in the future.

Will Hidalgo walked on at SLU last season. He played a lot, and he may have earned a partial scholarship. The same is true for Kyle Moore at UCA. I would guess that Taylor Hart is on partial money.

These local players are good players, just not good enough to earn scholarship money as 18 year olds.

Heverling will walk on at UCA next year. Weber will do the same at UAB. Both have the potential play, sparingly, as freshmen. If they stick with it, they might sign in the future.

Maybe they aren't on scholarship, but considering there is a maximum of about 9 scholarships to be divided up between 20 to 30 players, not too many kids are getting substantial money. However, once your foot is in the door, you have just as much of a shot to play as anyone else there. That is ultimately the goal. I suspect hardly any of these boys playing soccer in college are doing it for the money. I bet if you ask them, the dream they are working so hard for is to play the game that they love at the next level, not to get 1/6 to 1/3 of their school costs paid for. It would have been a heck of a lot easier to take an ACT course, boost their score a few points and get some academic money. However, if you prefer, could one say committed rather than signed.

A fully funded DI program has 9.9 scholarships. Those scholarships are split up among 20 or so players. Divided equally, and we all know it doesn't work like that, each player would receive a half scholarship.Obviously, the better players are on bigger amounts. College coaches use scholarships to attract players. Scholarship amount is directly related to value, or at least the coach's perceived value. All of these players would love to get 1/3 or 1/6 of their school paid for because they are good at soccer, because they are valuable to the team (in the eyes of the coach). Let's not call it signed or committed. Let's say walking on.

I say none of these clubs (Rush, LRFC, Comets, Ft. Smith) are developing college level soccer players. These players pay money to play soccer for almost 10 years. Then, they pay to play soccer in college for 4 more years. Basically, the players these clubs produce are not valuable / good enough to be rewarded by college coaches.

Club soccer needs high school soccer. It's where these kids shine.

[Sportsaholic94]

Lowguards, how exactly do you know whether and of these kids are getting money or have gotten money? Instead of shotting down our kids who get to play at big time schools, but don't we praise it. It's rare that D1 players come out of Arkansas. Let's appreciate the ones that do. And for the ones that might not be getting money, you don't know what the situation is. Some might have full rides academically do there is no need for athletics. Others might have gotten in on the process so late that there is no money left. Don't be so quick to judge

[soccerfan1]

Offside and Hogbert, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to hate on Fulham by any means. Just showing the fact that either way you look at it Rush DOES develop more kids into players that are ready to play at the college level. You can look down on Rush or Matt Mittelstaedt all you want, but at the end of the day it's true. If you were to compare the most talented players in each club right now, without a doubt Rush would win.
My analogy with Fulham was just my way of saying, while LRFC may produce some solid players those players aren't up to the standard as the best players in Rush. Likewise, Fulham does have a solid team being in the middle of the pack, but they don't produce the same caliber of player as does Chelsea, Arsenal, or either of the Manchester clubs.

[hogbert]

Oh, ok. You must be right. 

[Lowguards]

I don't mean to judge this specific group of players. I applaud their willingness and desire to take a shot. My critique is of the club system that promotes itself as an avenue to college soccer. Club coaches drag players to showcase events, on their own buck, with promises of college exposure. In the end, the kids aren't good enough to earn scholarships. However, the true soccer junkies make their own contacts, sell themselves, and find a place to play at the next level. After all that, the club coaches use these stories (player A playing at school X) as a way of justifying their product.

[Lowguards]

Offside and Hogbert, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to hate on Fulham by any means. Just showing the fact that either way you look at it Rush DOES develop more kids into players that are ready to play at the college level. You can look down on Rush or Matt Mittelstaedt all you want, but at the end of the day it's true. If you were to compare the most talented players in each club right now, without a doubt Rush would win.
My analogy with Fulham was just my way of saying, while LRFC may produce some solid players those players aren't up to the standard as the best players in Rush. Likewise, Fulham does have a solid team being in the middle of the pack, but they don't produce the same caliber of player as does Chelsea, Arsenal, or either of the Manchester clubs.

Better players? Neither club has quality players. Again, nothing against the class of 2012, but all the clubs in the state are producing walk ons.

[LRfan]

I don 't think "signed" is the correct word. None of the players moving on to DI programs will receive athletic scholarship monies, at least not in their first year. All of these players will be attending these institutions on their own dollar. That's not to say they won't earn scholarship money in the future.

Will Hidalgo walked on at SLU last season. He played a lot, and he may have earned a partial scholarship. The same is true for Kyle Moore at UCA. I would guess that Taylor Hart is on partial money.

These local players are good players, just not good enough to earn scholarship money as 18 year olds.

Heverling will walk on at UCA next year. Weber will do the same at UAB. Both have the potential play, sparingly, as freshmen. If they stick with it, they might sign in the future.

Maybe they aren't on scholarship, but considering there is a maximum of about 9 scholarships to be divided up between 20 to 30 players, not too many kids are getting substantial money. However, once your foot is in the door, you have just as much of a shot to play as anyone else there. That is ultimately the goal. I suspect hardly any of these boys playing soccer in college are doing it for the money. I bet if you ask them, the dream they are working so hard for is to play the game that they love at the next level, not to get 1/6 to 1/3 of their school costs paid for. It would have been a heck of a lot easier to take an ACT course, boost their score a few points and get some academic money. However, if you prefer, could one say committed rather than signed.

A fully funded DI program has 9.9 scholarships. Those scholarships are split up among 20 or so players. Divided equally, and we all know it doesn't work like that, each player would receive a half scholarship.Obviously, the better players are on bigger amounts. College coaches use scholarships to attract players. Scholarship amount is directly related to value, or at least the coach's perceived value. All of these players would love to get 1/3 or 1/6 of their school paid for because they are good at soccer, because they are valuable to the team (in the eyes of the coach). Let's not call it signed or committed. Let's say walking on.

I say none of these clubs (Rush, LRFC, Comets, Ft. Smith) are developing college level soccer players. These players pay money to play soccer for almost 10 years. Then, they pay to play soccer in college for 4 more years. Basically, the players these clubs produce are not valuable / good enough to be rewarded by college coaches.

Club soccer needs high school soccer. It's where these kids shine.

Offside and Hogbert, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to hate on Fulham by any means. Just showing the fact that either way you look at it Rush DOES develop more kids into players that are ready to play at the college level. You can look down on Rush or Matt Mittelstaedt all you want, but at the end of the day it's true. If you were to compare the most talented players in each club right now, without a doubt Rush would win.
My analogy with Fulham was just my way of saying, while LRFC may produce some solid players those players aren't up to the standard as the best players in Rush. Likewise, Fulham does have a solid team being in the middle of the pack, but they don't produce the same caliber of player as does Chelsea, Arsenal, or either of the Manchester clubs.

Better players? Neither club has quality players. Again, nothing against the class of 2012, but all the clubs in the state are producing walk ons.

So, the measure of a quality player is not if the kid is good enough to play on the college team, but rather only if he gets one of the 9.9 scholarships divided between many players? The 2011 mens soccer rosters from some DI schools show... UAB 25 players, SLU 25 players, UCA 36 players, Bradley 29 players, Missouri State 29 players. I agree with you that the 9.9 scholarships are almost certainly not spread out evenly across the board. To get some relatively poor kid from Jamaica or Central America, likely a full scholarship would be offered. That even increases the number of kids on the team that are getting no money to start. If the NCAA allowed 30 scholarships for DI mens soccer and virtually everyone on the team got a full ride, would they then be better soccer players? DI football has a limit of 63 full scholarships I think. The 2011 Razorback football roster listed about 80 players. The vast majority of these kids got full rides. If the NCAA cut back football scholarships to 20, what would happen to the number of "walk-ons" vs. full scholarship athletes on the team? This is largely a numbers game. I believe that the measure of the quality of a player is whether or not they get to actually play on the college team.

As for the value of high school vs. soccer, I agree that right now high school soccer is important. Look at the player bios from most college soccer rosters and you will see that high school achievements are listed at least as prominently as club achievements. Both are important, though. No players could make it to the next level if they just played their sport 3 months a year. The current system also exposes kids to different coaching styles, which is a good thing.

[Sportsaholic94]

Like I asked you before... How do you know none of these kids aren't getting money? You don't

[LRfan]

Like I asked you before... How do you know none of these kids aren't getting money? You don't

Correct. Only the athlete, their parents and their circle of friends knows that for sure. However, my argument is that on the boys side it doesn't matter. If a boy is playing on a DI team or even a good DII team they are a pretty darn good soccer player. That is the true measure of their talent, not the size of their soccer scholarship as an entering freshman. There just isn't that much money to go around for mens soccer.

[Centralsoccer]

Lowgaurds,
I've followed this forum for a couple of years and you finally motivated me to post. I won't quote your posts from this thread or the College Signings thread. I'm sure most folks have read them. You implied in some of your earliest posts that players noted on the forums as signed with D1 schools this year hadn't actually done so because the respective programs had nothing on their websites. Has nothing to do with whether they have signed or not. By comparison, UAB for instance, has played three games of their spring season so far. None of those game results or highlights are on the website. Does that mean that UAB is being untruthful about those games taking place and that they haven't actually played them since they're not posted? More likely some busy administrative assistant hasn't taken the time to update the site don't you think?
I'm not certain what your motivation is for questioning these signings, questioning whether or not there is scholarship money or not, calling these guys walk ons, making blanket statements about playing time and their abilities, basically attempting to diminish the accomplishments of these young men.
With the exception of Taylor Hart I know each of these young men, as well as several others in the state who are signing this year, and their circumstances personally. I know the soccer recruiting process personally. I know that with several of these there is financial assistance involved. I know that some is athletic but also that there are creative ways within the rules to assist these kids financially without using a portion of those 9.9 scholarships. A true full ride in soccer is essentially nonexistent without using some of those creative avenues. The current trend is actually to take scholarship percentages from many older players to offer and entice younger guys to sign. You obviously have done some research but are using that information to draw conclusions that are quite simply false. Posts attempting to diminish the accomplishments that players have made shouldn't be put up at all but especially not if they are rooted in speculation and guesswork.
I know for a fact, not speculation or  conjecture, that several of these young mean are receiving aid that was at least assisted by their respective  future soccer programs if not offered outright through athletic sholarship money. I know for a fact that several of these young men have signed. All of these young men should be congratulated and supported for their hard work and accomplishments  so I dont want to single one person out or give specific details but let me give you one brief example using Hunter Weber. I'm aware that he received multiple offers on all levels of college soccer. He narrowed his choices to UAB and the University of KY.  He chose UAB because of it's position as a perrineal top 25 program and was told that the freshmen that will be competing for the starting position all are starting on equal ground and each will have an opportunity to win the job.  UAB will start a freshman or redshirt freshman keeper this year. He is receiving aid at UAB. He signed with UAB. I signed the papers as well. I'm his father.

[Lowguards]

I don 't think "signed" is the correct word. None of the players moving on to DI programs will receive athletic scholarship monies, at least not in their first year. All of these players will be attending these institutions on their own dollar. That's not to say they won't earn scholarship money in the future.

Will Hidalgo walked on at SLU last season. He played a lot, and he may have earned a partial scholarship. The same is true for Kyle Moore at UCA. I would guess that Taylor Hart is on partial money.

These local players are good players, just not good enough to earn scholarship money as 18 year olds.

Heverling will walk on at UCA next year. Weber will do the same at UAB. Both have the potential play, sparingly, as freshmen. If they stick with it, they might sign in the future.

Maybe they aren't on scholarship, but considering there is a maximum of about 9 scholarships to be divided up between 20 to 30 players, not too many kids are getting substantial money. However, once your foot is in the door, you have just as much of a shot to play as anyone else there. That is ultimately the goal. I suspect hardly any of these boys playing soccer in college are doing it for the money. I bet if you ask them, the dream they are working so hard for is to play the game that they love at the next level, not to get 1/6 to 1/3 of their school costs paid for. It would have been a heck of a lot easier to take an ACT course, boost their score a few points and get some academic money. However, if you prefer, could one say committed rather than signed.

A fully funded DI program has 9.9 scholarships. Those scholarships are split up among 20 or so players. Divided equally, and we all know it doesn't work like that, each player would receive a half scholarship.Obviously, the better players are on bigger amounts. College coaches use scholarships to attract players. Scholarship amount is directly related to value, or at least the coach's perceived value. All of these players would love to get 1/3 or 1/6 of their school paid for because they are good at soccer, because they are valuable to the team (in the eyes of the coach). Let's not call it signed or committed. Let's say walking on.

I say none of these clubs (Rush, LRFC, Comets, Ft. Smith) are developing college level soccer players. These players pay money to play soccer for almost 10 years. Then, they pay to play soccer in college for 4 more years. Basically, the players these clubs produce are not valuable / good enough to be rewarded by college coaches.

Club soccer needs high school soccer. It's where these kids shine.

Offside and Hogbert, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to hate on Fulham by any means. Just showing the fact that either way you look at it Rush DOES develop more kids into players that are ready to play at the college level. You can look down on Rush or Matt Mittelstaedt all you want, but at the end of the day it's true. If you were to compare the most talented players in each club right now, without a doubt Rush would win.
My analogy with Fulham was just my way of saying, while LRFC may produce some solid players those players aren't up to the standard as the best players in Rush. Likewise, Fulham does have a solid team being in the middle of the pack, but they don't produce the same caliber of player as does Chelsea, Arsenal, or either of the Manchester clubs.

Better players? Neither club has quality players. Again, nothing against the class of 2012, but all the clubs in the state are producing walk ons.

So, the measure of a quality player is not if the kid is good enough to play on the college team, but rather only if he gets one of the 9.9 scholarships divided between many players? The 2011 mens soccer rosters from some DI schools show... UAB 25 players, SLU 25 players, UCA 36 players, Bradley 29 players, Missouri State 29 players. I agree with you that the 9.9 scholarships are almost certainly not spread out evenly across the board. To get some relatively poor kid from Jamaica or Central America, likely a full scholarship would be offered. That even increases the number of kids on the team that are getting no money to start. If the NCAA allowed 30 scholarships for DI mens soccer and virtually everyone on the team got a full ride, would they then be better soccer players? DI football has a limit of 63 full scholarships I think. The 2011 Razorback football roster listed about 80 players. The vast majority of these kids got full rides. If the NCAA cut back football scholarships to 20, what would happen to the number of "walk-ons" vs. full scholarship athletes on the team? This is largely a numbers game. I believe that the measure of the quality of a player is whether or not they get to actually play on the college team.

As for the value of high school vs. soccer, I agree that right now high school soccer is important. Look at the player bios from most college soccer rosters and you will see that high school achievements are listed at least as prominently as club achievements. Both are important, though. No players could make it to the next level if they just played their sport 3 months a year. The current system also exposes kids to different coaching styles, which is a good thing.

The MVC and Conference USA only allow 22 players to dress for games. And most coaches only use 15 players in a given game. At UCA, that's 14 players who don't even get a jersey on game day, and another 7 that spend 90 minutes hanging out on the bench. You're right, the true measure of a player is their breaking in to the top 15 (hopefully, 11). Those top 15 will be on scholarship. Kyle Moore broke in to the top 11 for a very poor UCA team last year (that's a shot a UCA, not the player). Hidalgo did the same at SLU. For this, he should be rewarded. If they don't give him a scholarship it's because they think they will find a better player. These coaches are charged with winning games, and they have to attract (and keep) players that will help them succeed. Coaches don't give full scholarships to players from third world countries because they are poor, they give these players full scholarships because they think said players will help their programs win games. When the stud from the Texans Academy team, with a 28 ACT, and middle class parents, rejects UCA's 3/4 scholly offer, the coach has to go abroad. The players in his backyard aren't good enough ( in his eyes) to help them win games.

Again, I don't mean to criticize any of the current players. Theirs are simply the names for 2012 version of the bigger question: Are AR clubs truly creating next level caliber players? Why are college coaches inviting AR players to walk on, but not investing scholarship dollars in to them?

I think these clubs try to show their value when they brag about players moving on to the college game. If these players aren't valuable to their college coaches ( they're walk ons at the end of the day), how valuable are the clubs ( in terms of player development) to the players?

[arksoc]

Since this discussion started around high school soccer, are those of you who are critical of the clubs ability to develop college players suggesting that the high schools are doing a better job? Surely not. With perhaps a (very) rare exception, players in Arkansas are not developing significantly in their soccer skills through high school soccer. Let's be honest, they're bringing the skills they develop through club and putting them to use for their high school teams.

That being said, I think there is absolutely a place for high school soccer in Arkansas. It's hard to see how more kids playing soccer than otherwise would and more fans watching isn't a good thing, regardless of the level of play. Arkansas soccer is what it is right now. Let's celebrate the progress and the victories and keep working to make both club AND high school soccer better. To me it's not as much about where we are but about progress. What do we really gain by minimizing the accomplishments and ambition of the kids just because thing's are not where we'd all like them to be?

[Lowguards]

What accomplishments? None of these local teams have won a prestigious tournament. None have produced players that travel with Region III team on international trips. The only two AR products that have ( John L. and Wes C.)  are from Westside and Ft. Smith respectively, not from 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.

The players mentioned earlier in this thread are all hardworking, dedicated young men. They should be praised for that as these qualities will make them successful men. The players are all, obviously, very passionate about the sport. And for that, I truly respect them. I used the names of current players because I wanted to explore the end results of club soccer in the state of AR. Honestly, I did not expect a reply from a parent. I congratulate your son and I truly wish him the best. I apologize for anything that resembled an attack.

My posts were not an attempt to criticize or demean individual  players, but rather a move to question the club game. What does the club game really do for youth soccer players? Is it worth it? Why?

[Sir Alex]

Just out of curiosity, how many of the players on the Springdale HS team play club soccer?  Whereever  they are getting their development is the place to go?  From top to bottom they have the best individual players in the state.

[soccerfiend]

I think there are points that we can all agree on
-High school soccer is fun and entertaining, makes the game accessible to more players, it allows more fans to participate in more spirited ways.
-For more talented club players their skills typically diminish during high school season at least partly due to lesser coaching at most high schools.
-Player development is enhanced by participating in club soccer.
-A player in Arkansas who plays high school soccer only has very little chance to play beyond high school
-If a player has a desire to develop to a higher level club soccer provides the opportunity for that higher level through better competition, more intense and specific training opportunities and typically better coaching
-College coaches will not be coming to Arkansas high school soccer games.
-Kids do have the opportunity to play in front of college coaches at showcases and other club events

I think we should probably compare soccer and how many kids go on to play in college in relation to the total number of players with other sports as well. How many boys play High School football in our state? How many go on to play in College? How many each year sign at the highest level? How about baseball (high school and club)? Basketball? How many sign with high level D1 colleges out of our state? How do those compare per capita with Soccer?

[arksoc]

Lowguards, I would consider an "accomplishment" anything that moves things in the right direction. If we have more kids playing college soccer somewhere (D1, D2, NAIA, wherever), then that's a win. If we have more kids getting selected for a regional pool at ODP camp, that's a good thing. If we have more college soccer programs, no matter the level, springing up around the state, that's a good thing. It's not just about winning a prestigious club tournament. The sheer lack of numbers participating in our state make it pretty challenging to put together an entire team that can compete consistently at a high level against teams from some other states that benefit from greater numbers. I don't think anyone is refuting your "not good enough" assertion. A few are. Most are not there yet.

My response is not as a parent but as someone who wants to see us get better in the state and who doesn't see the point in going on about how bad club soccer is. I have no individual player in this discussion to defend. Soccer in Arkansas, at any level, is not as strong as in other places. That's a given. But let's just not kid ourselves into thinking that because club soccer isn't producing a bunch of players that play at D1 schools right now, that there is no need for it and that then somehow high school soccer is going to get it done.

There's no room to go into it here, but if you check the numbers (ODP advancement, victories at regional competitions, etc.) I think you'll see that we're getting better. That's my point.  I don't necessarily disagree with you, certainly not on all points. I just don't see how criticizing what we do have moves us forward.

[offside]

I appreciate Lowguards thoughtful participation.  I always dig passionate soccer people. 
Many of the young men Lowguards referred to actually had more than one D1 opportunity.  Most had significant interest from DII, DIII, and NAIA schools.

Back to D1... Take a school like Akron or any top 20 D1 program.  Even at these elite programs many players on the roster are not receiving athletic money their freshman year.   I suppose you can say those not receiving money are "walking-on" but I promise there are thousands of college bound soccer players that only dream of being able to walk-on at Akron.  My point is roster spots on ANY D1 soccer team are highly coveted positions.  There just aren't that many.  And most players who earn a spot on the roster can eventually earn some athletic money but not much.   Even great players on top 20 D1 teams have to find other ways to pay for their education. 

It's my opinion there are recent Arkansas club players who could have seen significant playing time on top 20 soccer youth clubs.  I don't want to leave players out but Taylor Hart, John Lung'ago, William Hidalgo, Kyle Moore, Hayden Heverling, Hunter Weber, Jack O'Connor (and others) could have all made elite club teams.  They just didn't live in Dallas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc.   They didn't get quite the exposure of players on big clubs that are consistently watched by top college programs and pro scouts. 

Finally, there are some great high school programs.  But the fact is club soccer consistently offers better coaching and higher-level play...especially in Arkansas.  You take a good U17 or U18 from the Rush, LRFC, NWA Lighting and you find these teams are made-up of the best players from several high schools.   For example the recent 93 and 94 Rush Boys teams had players from Catholic, Central, Conway, Bryant, PA, Cabot, etc.

It is what it is.  High School soccer is a blast and is highly competitive.  But the caliber of play does not compare to club.  And high school soccer does not develop players like club. 

And club can certainly improve too.

[LRfan]

What accomplishments? None of these local teams have won a prestigious tournament. None have produced players that travel with Region III team on international trips. The only two AR products that have ( John L. and Wes C.)  are from Westside and Ft. Smith respectively, not from 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.

The players mentioned earlier in this thread are all hardworking, dedicated young men. They should be praised for that as these qualities will make them successful men. The players are all, obviously, very passionate about the sport. And for that, I truly respect them. I used the names of current players because I wanted to explore the end results of club soccer in the state of AR. Honestly, I did not expect a reply from a parent. I congratulate your son and I truly wish him the best. I apologize for anything that resembled an attack.

My posts were not an attempt to criticize or demean individual  players, but rather a move to question the club game. What does the club game really do for youth soccer players? Is it worth it? Why?

So you are not satisfied with the results of club soccer. What is your solution? Play high school all year long? That's realistic. Actually, for any perceived shortcomings in the caliber of college soccer players produced by Arkansas, you must blame the high school programs as well as the club programs since virtually all high school age soccer players in Arkansas that go on to play in college  play high school and club ball.

I do not know any club that promises kids that they will get them DI scholarships. On the contrary, good club coaches try to give them a realistic expectation of what level they could compete at in college and then do everything that they can do to help the kid get that opportunity if that is what they want.

Yes, it would be great if Arkansas soccer had the number of quality athletes and coaches as other states like Texas or Illinois or California, but it doesn't. But the soultion is not to throw up your hands, criticize other people's efforts and give-up.

[Lowguards]

I'm not dissatisfied with the results of club soccer. I question whether those results are being represented honestly. As clubs tout the number players that have moved on to the next level, I interpret that as subtle promise. And honestly, it annoys me to read/hear about coaches and clubs discrediting each other and the high school game in effort to show their dominance.

Before we pat a club coach on the back for a job well done, I think we should examine the quality of their work. Their product is soccer players. These players have names, but I didn't use them in an attempt to belittle the careers. My argument is centered around coaches work, not these individual players.

I use the scholarship model as a way to measure their success. I keep coming back to college coaches because they are a third party, non parent, club, or high school coach, that gets to impartially judge players. When a college coach sits down with his 9.9 scholarships and tries to devise a plan for building a successful team, he has to consider player ability. He has to award his better players with larger amounts. Yes, players receive academic money, leadership scholarships, and several types of aid, but the coach has to throw some money at the kids to let him know he is valuable. Akron's 2012 class includes 4 former member of the U17 team. Certainly all four of those players are not on full scholarships, however, they're receiving more than a couple thousand dollars (tuition is nearly $15,000). I have doubts about the amounts AR kids are receiving at their respective schools. This is not an attack on the players of 2012. It's a response to the club coach (in 2013) that tells me how great he (or his club is) and offers these players as proof.

[soccerfiend]

Amount of college scholarship money is an invalid measure.  There is no way to know if a player is getting athletic money and no way to know how much. There are multiple variables in how much scholarship money recruits are offered at every school. In state or out of state? Are they getting Lottery money? Are they getting academic money and if so how much? Etc etc. If a coach has an in state kid who is getting a chunk of academic money he doesn't have to offer his athletic money...just an opportunity to play that not that many kids get.
There are a limited number of college  positions available across the country even when you consider all levels of play. It is an accomplishment to be on a college soccer roster period regardless of whether you are getting athletic money or not. If you consider the perennial top 25 teams in each division with each team carrying 25 - 30 players that's 650 -  750 players in the entire country that have an opportunity to play at the highest level in their division.  It was mentioned in an earlier thread that UAB has been in the top 25 14 out of the last 16 seasons. A player who is one of 25 or so players from around the world that gets an opportunity there...well...thats a big deal for a player from any state.  SLU hasn't had recent success but has a history of 9 national championships. NC State isn't highly successful but is in the ACC for goodness sakes ( yes I'm aware John has transferred). In this area an opportunity to play at Tulsa, SMU, UAB,Creighton those are huge since they're highly successful year after year and in our region.
By the same token an opportunity to play college ball on any level is not something that every kid gets. In fact, the vast majority don't. This is a much better measuring stick than the complete unknown of scholarship money. You can't gauge success using a complete unknown as the measure. You can definitely gauge success based on kids getting the opportunity to play soccer in college and every one of our kids that get that opportunity should be congratulated and applauded. Never questioned and the accomplishment diminished for our own use to prove a point. And if we agree that play beyond high school and club is not a given, that it is indeed an accomplishment, then it's completely valid for an individual or organization to site the fact that kids are  moving on to college play as a measure of that particular programs success as well.

[builtolast]

Rush and LRFC get some of the best players from the state to join their programs.  It seems to me that they are "all star teams".  Its simple, they have better players than high school teams so they produce better play than high school soccer.  Its not the genious of some coach or his program, its just getting better players together on one team.  The competition is what develops players, not the coaches. 

It seems that this thread has coined high school coaches as the reason for the "poor" soccer in high school matches when really they just don't have the technical ability on their roster to play possession soccer.   I could name some schools that move the ball nicely who have coaches that will tell you they don't know the game.  I could name some schools that have great coaches but play direct soccer because they don't have the technical ability. 

This very topic makes the sport, the people within the organizations mentioned, and the players/parents that compete seem like a bunch of stuck ups....period.  This attitude pushes people from the sport.  This very thread makes high school soccer seam less appealing which has hurt the sport.  High school players read this forum and I am sure that a bunch of them have already started to question the value of their time in high school soccer... you know, the kids that can't afford to pay to be apart of some of the "top notch teams".  Are we really trying to grow the game?  Doesn't seem like it to me.

[Rey Pygsterio]

I really like what the above post is saying.

I think high-school soccer is as important as any element in the country in growing the game. It takes soccer to small towns that might not otherwise be interested and pulls in new players and fans.

High school soccer must stay and co-exist with club soccer. We are the ones who have it right -- not Europe.

And regardless of what it does to soccer, we should always put the kid first and not the game.

[offside]

Some of the hating on club soccer is absurd.

How about a high school football player who lives in metro Little Rock or NWA and his parents make sure they live in Bentonville, Fayetteville, Conway, or Cabot.  Or maybe the parent can afford to send their son to Pulaski Academy or Shiloh Christian.  The player will have remarkable facilities, a full staff of coaches, trainers, the best equipment.
And lets go further.  Because the parent has the money they sign their son up with a personal trainer or send them to D1 for specialized strength training and speed training.  And they pay to send their son to two or three football camps.  I could go on.

It doesn't mean there aren't great football players in these smaller rural towns but (in general) they will miss out on some development opportunities that their peers living in metro LR or NWA.

Are all the opportunities available to the Bentonville, Cabot or PA football players devaluing the game for players at poorer schools in rural Arkansas?  Maybe in some instances.  But there's no denying the athletes who have the better facilities and more varied training opportunities are benefiting.

It's the same way with soccer.

Club soccer is far from the ideal system but if you love the game it sure is great to be able to play for a good club team.  And what a difference to have the benefit of varied training opportunities and several coaches (often college coaches).  Are all these coaches outstanding?  Of course not.  Some suck.  But I promise you there are some very good club coaches.

My kids love playing high school soccer.  But it's their club experience (that lasts much of the year) that has been a force in taking their game to higher and higher levels.

Clint Dempsey played high school soccer. But during the rest of year his parents drove him more than two hours to play club soccer.  His parents didn't have money.  They were simply committed to using their time and limited resources to make sure Clint had every opportunity to develop into the best player he could be.  They were wise enough to know relying solely on high school soccer was not in the best interest of the their son.

There may come a time when some Arkansas players could have the opportunity and may choose to play club soccer instead of high school soccer.  But this wouldn't mean the end of high school soccer. 

Ya'll be cool... it's going to be alright.

[GenesisGuzman16]

From a player's point of view, I see both of them as great opportunities to just get soccer spread. Of course, some things could change.

ODP
A great program. I can't really say that I've participated, but they do produce quality players. We have 2 or 3 from the El Dorado Boys Team that frequently go to ODP camps. The only problem I see with ODP is cost and location. Money is always a problem, especially now-a-days. And with the current location usually in Little Rock, most players aren't able to make a trip. It doesn't mean that they're not capable or able to compete with the best, it's just that they can't make a trip. It is very troublesome. I would love the opportunity to try and see where I stand with the best but my parents and I can't provide the money for it.

Club
Club soccer is always a good way to spend the fall. You get a good year of soccer out of it. Club soccer is a bit more affordable with people because it is no more than an hour or less from where you live. I play for El Dorado United. Not big on the Club Soccer scene but it makes way. Club soccer is another way of players getting to play soccer year round. I love it. Even if we don't win any games or go to major tournaments, etc., it gives us more experience in the game.

High School
High School soccer is always great. But it does make it harder on a player if his/her community does not offer it. Sometimes high school soccer isn't the best but it is a growing sport in communities everywhere. I know a few towns around El Dorado that just offered soccer for the first time. Norphlet's coed team and Warren got a Boys/Girls team and others did too. It's a huge step for soccer when other towns and districts want to see where soccer can take them. It lets students feel more comfortable at school. And Football programs let their players play soccer instead of going to Off Season Training. I know of a few 6A schools that do that.

I'm a sophomore at El Dorado High School and it was a relief to me when I first moved to Arkansas 4 years ago that they offered soccer in high school. Only because I really love the sport. I have a role model to keep me going. And sometimes you don't need club soccer, ODP/Academy, or even high school soccer to be good.

My dad when he was around 13 could have gone pro when he lived in Mexico. No club soccer back then. Nor was there an Academy or ODP. He dropped out of high school and his high school didn't offer soccer because it was poor. But he was a fantastic player. He still is at the age of 42. He got good because he had competition. He always tells me stories of when he played soccer with adults at 10 years old and sometimes without cleats or shoes because he was so poor. He met many famous Mexican and European soccer players when he tried out at his local Soccer Team's training ground. He made every single one. But he couldn't go to any away games because he was poor.

This story shows you that you don't always need money to get effecient experience. Just competition and drive to be the best.

[Rey Pygsterio]

Some of the hating on club soccer is absurd.

For the record, I just want to clarify that I love club soccer, too. But high-school soccer is also important and should not go away. As I said before, both must co-exist.


Clint Dempsey is a good example -- and he doesn't give shoutouts to his club team, by the way, it's always about representing the Natch.

[builtolast]

High school soccer players post to, and read the threads on this site.  Having this debate on this site is the same thing as attending half of the high school soccer practices in the state and having a "do we need high school soccer" conversation in front of the players and coaches.  It makes them feel small to know that some believe high school soccer is a waste of time and by saying it on this site, you are saying it right in front of them.  Someone needs to take this thread and delete it before more damage is done to the sport, just my opinion.

Offside:  Who is hating on club soccer?  I personally enjoy club soccer and think we should continue it and high school.  Why is it so important to some people that club soccer be recognized as the best thing ever (and not just recognized as the best, but as being so great that high school is a waste of time)?   Can't it just be enough to say that we enjoy it and not go overboard.  It almost sounds like a business with that attitude.

[Arbitro]

Someone needs to take this thread and delete it before more damage is done to the sport, just my opinion.

There has been some good discussion here, mixed in with the crap.  My main complaint is the ridiculous title.  We don't NEED any high school sport.  For that matter we probably don't need any sport at any level.  We just like them.

How about editing the title to "High School Soccer - benefits and limitations"?

[builtolast]

I agree.  And that would be a much better title if you ask me.

[offside]

Offside:  Who is hating on club soccer?  I personally enjoy club soccer and think we should continue it and high school.  Why is it so important to some people that club soccer be recognized as the best thing ever (and not just recognized as the best, but as being so great that high school is a waste of time)?   Can't it just be enough to say that we enjoy it and not go overboard.  It almost sounds like a business with that attitude.

Sigh... builtolast,  if you are referring to my comments about high school and club soccer then it doesn't seem like you are paying attention to what I am saying.
I apologize if I am off base here and I know I'm way too wordy.  To clarify, here are my basic points.

#1 - I love high school soccer.  Both my kids love playing high school soccer.
#2 - Club soccer is not the only ideal system for player development.
#3 - Club soccer has dramatically increased the soccer skill/tactics of my kids.
#4 - If you enjoy high school and would rather not play club then that's fantastic.
#5 - If you aspire to play competitive soccer after high school (college/pro) I highly recommend getting into a club environment at an early age or as soon as possible.
#6 - Where US soccer academy teams exist players will now have to choose between club and high school.  There may come a time when Arkansas players will have have to choose OR have an option to choose club instead of high school.  Or maybe play both?  This will not be the end of high school soccer just a good choice for players and families to consider.
#7 - Yes, if you truly read all the posts you will find examples of some club hating from what appear to be grownups.  I'm not entirely sure why? I don't believe club soccer will threaten high school soccer. 
#8 - For those of us with kids who are passionate about going as far as they can with the game they LOVE then yes sometimes soccer development can take on the structure of a business but my kids play a ton of pick-up soccer and high school soccer just for fun!

[Sir Alex]

The title was for discussion only and to present  a perspective on why we would continue to have high school soccer.  And it has obviously worked.  Don't hate the title, you referee.  You can't red card anyone of this site.  Lol.....  Well may be you can red card the rush guys. 

Someone needs to take this thread and delete it before more damage is done to the sport, just my opinion.

There has been some good discussion here, mixed in with the crap.  My main complaint is the ridiculous title.  We don't NEED any high school sport.  For that matter we probably don't need any sport at any level.  We just like them.

How about editing the title to "High School Soccer - benefits and limitations"?

[Arbitro]

The title was for discussion only and to present  a perspective on why we would continue to have high school soccer.  And it has obviously worked.  Don't hate the title, you referee.  You can't red card anyone of this site.  Lol.....  Well may be you can red card the rush guys. 

Someone needs to take this thread and delete it before more damage is done to the sport, just my opinion.

There has been some good discussion here, mixed in with the crap.  My main complaint is the ridiculous title.  We don't NEED any high school sport.  For that matter we probably don't need any sport at any level.  We just like them.

How about editing the title to "High School Soccer - benefits and limitations"?

I participate in a referee discussion board where the moderators can yellow or red card people for repeatedly posting inflammatory comments.  Hmmm, that might be useful here on occasion...

Some of the people here probably aren't aware that discussions like this went on more than a decade ago when high school soccer was starting in Arkansas.  There were more than a few people involved in Club soccer that were convinced that high school soccer would never grow in Arkansas because players would go with Club over high school when forced to make a choice.  Turns out they were wrong.  Most of the players wanted to play for their school teams and the Club teams had to adapt to the high school schedule.  That battle has already been fought, and high school won.

I think it is fair to say that the quality of coaching for the competitive teams from the large clubs is significantly better than almost all high school programs.  There are a few high school-only coaches that buck that trend, but very few.  High school soccer has nothing to fear from Club or Academy programs though.  A few players may leave - maybe enough to affect several school programs with a high concentration of current Club players - but the majority of school programs will continue on just fine. 

In my opinion, the only significant threat to high school soccer is economic pressure.  Will there be a time in the not-so-distant future when schools will decide they can no longer afford athletic programs that don't pay for themselves?  Will only revenue-generating programs survive?