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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
MA gda
Collapse
X
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostMajority 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI 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 ?
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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostAt 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.
BTW- if a kid is 100% focused on soccer, they should not be in school to begin with.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostShouldn'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.
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
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostNo. 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
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostIt'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.
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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View Postcant 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 !!
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWrong 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostProblem 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
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostPeople 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWhat the hell are you talking about?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWhile 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.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
stars da
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostAs long as stars have SM coaching their Academy teams, it will be looked at as a sub-par program. #clueless
- Quote
Comment
Comment