High School vs. Club: Putting Players at Peril (Part I)

Some interesting reading I found on SoccerAmerica.com

By Chris Hummer

The annual tug-of-war between club and high school soccer in many states has been around since the first days "travel" club soccer was invented and became a year-round option for players. Since then, it only seems to be getting worse, especially as more "showcase" travel events and elite leagues crop up and place additional demands on the upper-echelon players.

It’s not just the elite players either. Just about all players good enough to make their varsity teams also play for clubs, and are obligated to do everything they can to attend tournaments with at least some promise of college exposure. And of course, ODP doesn’t sit idle for anyone either.

The result for many players is they play nearly seven days a week for at least three months straight each high school season – on top of their already nearly year-round, four or five days a week club schedule.

The players can hardly be blamed for wanting to play as much as they can. After all, it is the world’s most popular sport, and the most successful players in the world all have stories about having played sun up to sun down when they were young.

But those players never had to deal with the over-scheduled, win-at-all-costs, and uniquely American world of organized soccer. And in that world – this world - it sometimes seems like no one wants to “give in” for the benefit of the players’ health and/or long-term goals, and by "no one" I mean coaches with big egos.

Even where you find a coach doing the right thing for one player’s team, the odds are not very good for any player to have a coach like that on both “sides” of the high school vs. club conflict that “get it”.

The result? Pretty much every player ends up paying the price at some point for the ego of an adult who is supposed to be putting the players first, but can’t stop treating their role as a youth coach as if they’re really only one or two career steps away from coaching in the Champions League.

The coaches who “get it” are the ones who accept the fact that their players are playing for two teams, and find a way to manage the conflicts to the best of their ability given the situation they’re given – always erring on the side of the players’ health and/or long-term goals.

On the other side are the coaches who do not “get it.” They pretend their players only play for them, run their players as hard as they can, and talk about how other coaches don’t know what they’re doing. All the while, they are ignoring reality and what’s best for the young athletes they are responsible for.

Why they do this is more of a mystery, but I’m sure the excuse of needing to win is used quite a bit. They’ll rarely admit that sometimes less is more – like running less at practices when kids are already playing seven days a week -- can actually improve the chances of winning in games.

This doesn’t mean the “ego coach” or the “get it” coaches in either case aren’t good at the three things most people use to measure whether or not a coach is “good.” Coaches with huge egos who forget to put the players first come in all shapes, sizes, and experiences. They may still run a world-class training session, teach technical or tactical skills like nobody’s business, or have the tactical prowess to out-coach someone else in a game.

Or not.

Parents aren't immune to fault here either, but it’s hard to blame them when their kids are the ones saying they want to play, or when they don’t understand how to recognize a good or bad coach.

Look for Part II of "High School vs. Club Soccer," in which Chris Hummer lists 10 common mistakes coaches make and how to avoid them, in the next Youth Soccer Insider.

(Chris Hummer, a longtime player, coach, and soccer business executive, is the editor of the PotomacSoccerWire.com, where this article first appeared. Hummer, who has a USSF B license, is the assistant director of coaching for youth club FC Virginia and head coach of the Potomac Falls High School Girls team in Sterling, Va.)

Please share your thoughts!

I know many players who just quit club so they can be more involved wit school activities, not to mention earn a few bucks. I know a D1 U19 player that felt like he had to quit because he worked and the parents of the other players complained that he wasn’t at every practice and started games.

He shouldn't have to quit soccer all together just play soccer at a less of a committment level team like a d2 or a d3 or the other plano leagues. He should be able to make 2 x a week though for practice out of 5 days during the week...maybe he just needed to find a team that was a better fit as things changed for him.

kickback49 wrote:
He shouldn't have to quit soccer all together just play soccer at a less of a committment level team like a d2 or a d3 or the other plano leagues. He should be able to make 2 x a week though for practice out of 5 days during the week...maybe he just needed to find a team that was a better fit as things changed for him.

Why do you think DII or DIII has less of a commitment level? I should let it go, but that statement is just dumb as DI only demands 100% participation? What are you saying??.

Pitchmon wrote:

kickback49 wrote:
He shouldn't have to quit soccer all together just play soccer at a less of a committment level team like a d2 or a d3 or the other plano leagues. He should be able to make 2 x a week though for practice out of 5 days during the week...maybe he just needed to find a team that was a better fit as things changed for him.

Why do you think DII or DIII has less of a commitment level? I should let it go, but that statement is just dumb as DI only demands 100% participation? What are you saying??.

We've been on both ends and have to say it depends on the coach and team. There are many times I shake my head because the core group of our old rec team had more of a drive to play, not give up and win than many club teams. Matter of fact, that team tended to get worked up if scored on and would almost immediately run the ball back down the field and score while the other team was still doing their victory dance.
We have 2 new coaches at Bishop Lynch that are bringing value to the table and are actually improving most of the girl's game. They have a lot of building/rebuilding to do, but heading in the right direction. Over all, the team has an incredibly good outlook and don't give up. They are winning games this year and the losses have been close. Even the loss against Ursuline was considered a moral "win" since everyone had predicted a 10-0 loss. About 1/2 of the girls play club. Some have retired from club and a few have only played rec. Good motivation and good coaching is working.

Pitchmon wrote:

kickback49 wrote:
He shouldn't have to quit soccer all together just play soccer at a less of a committment level team like a d2 or a d3 or the other plano leagues. He should be able to make 2 x a week though for practice out of 5 days during the week...maybe he just needed to find a team that was a better fit as things changed for him.

Why do you think DII or DIII has less of a commitment level? I should let it go, but that statement is just dumb as DI only demands 100% participation? What are you saying??.

I think that's what he is saying.

While I don't think the D2, D3 kids work less hard while on the field or are any less passionate about the game, the objectives/demands are just different. Anyone would be hard-pressed to debate that the time, emotional and particularly the financial commitment are apprecialbly greater for D1 (especially ECNL, Premier League, Regionals) teams.

In the case of my dd's team, we just don't have an off-seson. In observation of the high school season, our kids had a whoppin' 3 week break from club play (even dating back to u11, I believe this is the longest break this team has ever had). Starting Sun, we'll be practicing club 2x/week for the remainder of the HS season. With 7 ECNL games scheduled right smack in the middle of the HS season, we really have no choice. Additionally, our team practices 3x/wk during the full year (not just 2x, as most seem to).

Playing at the D2/D3 level is still a big commitment....but to contend that it's equal to that of (especially top) D1 teams is just not a well-grounded argument.

socrocks wrote:While I don't think the D2, D3 kids work less hard while on the field or are any less passionate about the game, the objectives/demands are just different. Anyone would be hard-pressed to debate that the time, emotional and particularly the financial commitment are apprecialbly greater for D1 (especially ECNL, Premier League, Regionals) teams.

In the case of my dd's team, we just don't have an off-seson. In observation of the high school season, our kids had a whoppin' 3 week break from club play (even dating back to u11, I believe this is the longest break this team has ever had). Starting Sun, we'll be practicing club 2x/week for the remainder of the HS season. With 7 ECNL games scheduled right smack in the middle of the HS season, we really have no choice. Additionally, our team practices 3x/wk during the full year (not just 2x, as most seem to).

Playing at the D2/D3 level is still a big commitment....but to contend that it's equal to that of (especially top) D1 teams is just not a well-grounded argument.

I would argue the REQUIRED committment level is a product of the players ability and the talent level they are at vs. their peers. In other words, if a true D-I player were playing on a D-III team, they are going to get a pass on alot of things because of what they bring to the team in terms of winning games. They don't have to do what a true D-III player has to do. If a D-III player screws around, they will get cut outright (they can be replaced) if the coach doesn't want to put up with it, or pushed out at try out time.

That's why grade scandals in HS sports involve star players. Who cares if the sub is ineligible? If your good enough, the system will forgive/fix your shortcomings. Same for college & pro. Do boosters give $s to the walk on subs? No. Did Jimmy Johnson cut Ken Norton, Jr. for dozing off in a team meeting? No. He cut a backup linebacker. You can't even remember his name.

While there are a few D-II/III teams that create the kind of committment level socrocks is talking about with his DD's team, I can assure you a true D-I player even in that environment won't be required to toe the line like a true D-III player would.

JeffM wrote:

socrocks wrote:While I don't think the D2, D3 kids work less hard while on the field or are any less passionate about the game, the objectives/demands are just different. Anyone would be hard-pressed to debate that the time, emotional and particularly the financial commitment are apprecialbly greater for D1 (especially ECNL, Premier League, Regionals) teams.

In the case of my dd's team, we just don't have an off-seson. In observation of the high school season, our kids had a whoppin' 3 week break from club play (even dating back to u11, I believe this is the longest break this team has ever had). Starting Sun, we'll be practicing club 2x/week for the remainder of the HS season. With 7 ECNL games scheduled right smack in the middle of the HS season, we really have no choice. Additionally, our team practices 3x/wk during the full year (not just 2x, as most seem to).

Playing at the D2/D3 level is still a big commitment....but to contend that it's equal to that of (especially top) D1 teams is just not a well-grounded argument.

I would argue the REQUIRED committment level is a product of the players ability and the talent level they are at vs. their peers. In other words, if a true D-I player were playing on a D-III team, they are going to get a pass on alot of things because of what they bring to the team in terms of winning games. They don't have to do what a true D-III player has to do. If a D-III player screws around, they will get cut outright (they can be replaced) if the coach doesn't want to put up with it, or pushed out at try out time.

That's why grade scandals in HS sports involve star players. Who cares if the sub is ineligible? If your good enough, the system will forgive/fix your shortcomings. Same for college & pro. Do boosters give $s to the walk on subs? No. Did Jimmy Johnson cut Ken Norton, Jr. for dozing off in a team meeting? No. He cut a backup linebacker. You can't even remember his name.
While there are a few D-II/III teams that create the kind of committment level socrocks is talking about with his DD's team, I can assure you a true D-I player even in that environment won't be required to toe the line like a true D-III player would.

Was it former Aggie great John Roper?

LonDrew wrote:

JeffM wrote:

socrocks wrote:While I don't think the D2, D3 kids work less hard while on the field or are any less passionate about the game, the objectives/demands are just different. Anyone would be hard-pressed to debate that the time, emotional and particularly the financial commitment are apprecialbly greater for D1 (especially ECNL, Premier League, Regionals) teams.

In the case of my dd's team, we just don't have an off-seson. In observation of the high school season, our kids had a whoppin' 3 week break from club play (even dating back to u11, I believe this is the longest break this team has ever had). Starting Sun, we'll be practicing club 2x/week for the remainder of the HS season. With 7 ECNL games scheduled right smack in the middle of the HS season, we really have no choice. Additionally, our team practices 3x/wk during the full year (not just 2x, as most seem to).

Playing at the D2/D3 level is still a big commitment....but to contend that it's equal to that of (especially top) D1 teams is just not a well-grounded argument.

I would argue the REQUIRED committment level is a product of the players ability and the talent level they are at vs. their peers. In other words, if a true D-I player were playing on a D-III team, they are going to get a pass on alot of things because of what they bring to the team in terms of winning games. They don't have to do what a true D-III player has to do. If a D-III player screws around, they will get cut outright (they can be replaced) if the coach doesn't want to put up with it, or pushed out at try out time.

That's why grade scandals in HS sports involve star players. Who cares if the sub is ineligible? If your good enough, the system will forgive/fix your shortcomings. Same for college & pro. Do boosters give $s to the walk on subs? No. Did Jimmy Johnson cut Ken Norton, Jr. for dozing off in a team meeting? No. He cut a backup linebacker. You can't even remember his name.
While there are a few D-II/III teams that create the kind of committment level socrocks is talking about with his DD's team, I can assure you a true D-I player even in that environment won't be required to toe the line like a true D-III player would.

Was it former Aggie great John Roper?

Gig em'