Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MA gda

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Majority of players getting D1 schlorships mostly come from well to do families and have access to ecnl and every extra trainings money can buy.There is nothing wrong with that ,with the exception that, their are far better players who will never get the opportunities due to costs.That is a fact.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Majority of players getting D1 schlorships mostly come from well to do families and have access to ecnl and every extra trainings money can buy.There is nothing wrong with that ,with the exception that, their are far better players who will never get the opportunities due to costs.That is a fact.
      can you tell me how you know they are far better?

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        I assume she plays because she enjoys it. D1 athletes getting athletic money are essentially pros. The top kids on the girls side with the 4yr Gtees are essentially the top free agents with no trade clauses. However if the stop wanting to play, there are significant financial consequences.

        Rec in the Op context is a mentality as in I play for fun. Not a league or a level. I happen to agree with that part of his argument.

        The GDA should be for the very best, but the lack of numbers means its really mostly filled with the good but no better than many ECNL/NPL types.

        How do you make if mostly full of the very best high potential kids ?
        Shouldn't all players play because they enjoy it and play for fun? That doesn't mean there's no/little commitment.

        Listen, I agree that GDA may require a different level of commitment. Where I disagree with the argument, is the binary step between Pro and Rec. I see it as more of a continuum. I think most would agree with this characterization.

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          At the D1/D2 levels you are getting paid to play soccer. If you don't recognize in a scholarship situation that soccer must be the top priority both of you are in for a rude awakening. Doesn't mean that the both of you can't be a realist and have secondary goals, just that at those levels when they are paying for your education and therefore they have every right to expect 100% of your kid's focus.
          Wrong again. Many players at D2 schools are not getting "paid" to play. I know for a fact that not all D2 programs fund soccer, field hockey or lax.

          BTW- if a kid is 100% focused on soccer, they should not be in school to begin with.

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Shouldn't all players play because they enjoy it and play for fun? That doesn't mean there's no/little commitment.

            Listen, I agree that GDA may require a different level of commitment. Where I disagree with the argument, is the binary step between Pro and Rec. I see it as more of a continuum. I think most would agree with this characterization.
            No. it would be nice if all players had fun playing, but its false to suggest all players play for fun. A D1 athlete on scholarship is playing for his/her education as well.

            Currently the GDA does not require a diff level of commitment and thats a problem becasue in truth it is no different to the league it is trying to differentiate itself from. It should hard to make a GDA team. its currently not.

            I get your point tho

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              No. it would be nice if all players had fun playing, but its false to suggest all players play for fun. A D1 athlete on scholarship is playing for his/her education as well.

              Currently the GDA does not require a diff level of commitment and thats a problem becasue in truth it is no different to the league it is trying to differentiate itself from. It should hard to make a GDA team. its currently not.

              I get your point tho
              It's truly unfortunate if a kid is not playing a sport because it's fun and they enjoy it. I guess we're just lucky we're not in that situation.

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                It's truly unfortunate if a kid is not playing a sport because it's fun and they enjoy it. I guess we're just lucky we're not in that situation.
                well, not to be cynical, but do you think every scholarship athlete enjoys playing the game? do you think that for some over time if becomes a necessity, a means to an end?

                I think long before College there are kids who may have enjoyed soccer at a young age who get on the treadmill and for a variety of reasons, stay on it. But its clear they dont love it.

                Unfortunate? perhaps , reality...yes.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  I dont! you miss the point. im putting in the work at a very young age so I dont have to later. i want to weed out the kids a lot earlier. Where does it say move them forward.? it doesnt. It say give them the fundamentals EARLIER form good coaches and then let the talented ones with the desire to continue move ahead.

                  Right now, its parents wallets that determine how much training kids get. that would be fine if it was private, but its often not. Its impacting other truly talented kids.
                  While I think what you are thinking would be great I actually think that it is impractical because the process really has to start around 4-5 years old before when most parents even have a clue what they are looking at. The typical response having to start so early is to widen the net and intensify the training realizing that there will be a lot of kids that drop out. Sounds great but how is it any different than what has gone on around here during the last decade. Believe it or not the coaching has gotten substantially better at the younger ages and the players are now much more technically adept than they were a decade ago. It actually is like night and day. It's pretty stark.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    cant speak for the other poster, but D1 covers a HUGE range of abilities and scholarships can also be for many things - soccer, academic, need .

                    Congrats and I hope your kid does really well, but the two are not mutually exclusive. There absolutely are players with a rec mentality getting money from D1 schools to play soccer. I think you would be shocked how many !!
                    The saddest part is so many of their parents have absolutely no clue that their kids are being led like lambs to a slaughter. When you walk in the door with an athletic scholarship at a D1/D2 program they will basically tell a kid "girl/son you are here to play soccer" and they mean just that. They expect the kid to work for the education, not give soccer lip service and focus your attention on school and partying like the rest of the non athletic student body. Nothing good comes out of a situation where the expectations and realities aren't aligned.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Wrong again. Many players at D2 schools are not getting "paid" to play. I know for a fact that not all D2 programs fund soccer, field hockey or lax.

                      BTW- if a kid is 100% focused on soccer, they should not be in school to begin with.
                      That's a problem of a different sort. Who in their right mind gives something away for free when others right next to them are getting paid to do it. Never made any sense because while the commitment might not be the same as it is in a D1 program, it's certainly not nothing and certainly the expectations are more than in a D3 program where everyone has a different goal.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Problem is you're a book of 1...the world is not that black and white.

                        The issue is with the term "rec", is that it connotes a weekend warrior mentality and that only the top 1% are truly committed. It's too broad a brush. The "rec" term is generally used for town players who simply like to kick a ball around with their friends. (and you're smart enough to know this) While many of players you refer to as "rec" are not part of the <1%, most who play in college are in the top 5-10% and that requires a significant level of commitment.

                        I am the parent of a kid who has chosen not to pursue soccer as a career. In 8th grade she saw the level of commitment required for D1, and stepped off that path. (If I'm being completely honest, at first I didn't want her too, but came to see it's her life not mine) As a senior, she still trains 5+ days a week and plays for a high level club team, by her own choice. Next year she will be chasing the same NCAA dreams that others pursue, just at a different level. This commitment, though not at the level of a Duke or UNC, is more than just a passing fancy. Is it a full-time job? No. But it certainly ain't "rec".

                        AVB
                        People like you are the ones who cloud the issue. Honestly it seems as though your kid is treating soccer like it were an individual sport like mountain climbing. There is nothing wrong with climbing the mountain but at the end of the day you have to have the resources to keep finding bigger mountains and ultimately there is no real payoff other than personal satisfaction. In many respects that is the ultimate 'rec' mindset because very few are ever going to try and become professional mountain climbers and would never dream of leaving their day time job to pursue it.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          People like you are the ones who cloud the issue. Honestly it seems as though your kid is treating soccer like it were an individual sport like mountain climbing. There is nothing wrong with climbing the mountain but at the end of the day you have to have the resources to keep finding bigger mountains and ultimately there is no real payoff other than personal satisfaction. In many respects that is the ultimate 'rec' mindset because very few are ever going to try and become professional mountain climbers and would never dream of leaving their day time job to pursue it.
                          What the hell are you talking about?

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            What the hell are you talking about?
                            A hobby I think where freezing off digits, getting to the level where you need oxygen to survive and often getting to watch a teammate fall off a cliff and disappear forever and stuff, very analogous to playing soccer in the north practicing outside in January, being so high on oneself that regular air won't do and of course replacing teammates regularly until you reach the pinnacle of your game. I totallly got their message - lol

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              While I think what you are thinking would be great I actually think that it is impractical because the process really has to start around 4-5 years old before when most parents even have a clue what they are looking at. The typical response having to start so early is to widen the net and intensify the training realizing that there will be a lot of kids that drop out. Sounds great but how is it any different than what has gone on around here during the last decade. Believe it or not the coaching has gotten substantially better at the younger ages and the players are now much more technically adept than they were a decade ago. It actually is like night and day. It's pretty stark.
                              Tom Byers

                              Comment


                                stars da

                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                As long as stars have SM coaching their Academy teams, it will be looked at as a sub-par program. #clueless
                                Correction: As long as stars have JB directing their Academy teams, it will be looked at as a subpar program. He is not soccer guy who should do lacrosse.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X