Starting, Bench-Sitting, and Questioning the Status Quo

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

Stick to the facts please and leave that ridiculous ECNL example where it belongs. I put forth no conspiracy theory. I simply implied most of the paying parents won't truly know who has paid what. Is that true or false?

Maybe you should consider that just because you've never personally seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just humor me, and SUPPOSE you happened upon a club with multiple teams and multiple players that rarely played in games. Given your inside understanding of the club's business model, what would be your explanation for what you saw?

Stick to the facts? Exactly what "facts" are you putting forth? What's ridiculous about the ECNL example? I simply took your words about big clubs and coaches standing, etc.

No need to humor you, you're doing that yourself. You're guessing the coach's motivation about your "budget players" and expressing it as fact. I've simply chosen, based on my own experience to take a different approach.

As I said previously, I believe it happens, its just not as prevalent as you present it. You've created this business model, from nothing but your conjecture, that coaches are rewarded for signing players that won't play to pad their own pocket, or option 2, simply to pad the club's pocket. The turmoil that the unhappy parents create on their team is worth all those big bucks!

I can only draw from my own experience and knowledge, you choose to pull your facts out of the air and off this board.

If your way works for you, its a great life.

We've had a great run, its too bad yours has not been so. It unfortunate for you and your dd.

LOL. You're a funny guy and you're right I am having a chuckle on all this. Your personal digs have no relevancy and I've been around long enough not to swing on every low ball. (BTW - the DD is doing great and I'm having a ball in case you truly were concerned).

Your misrepresenting what I said doesn't hide the fact you still didn't provide any factual evidence that # of players has no bearing on anything for a team, coach or club. Please repost for me where I said anything about how prevalent the "budget player" is in NTX.

As long as the system is pay to play the number of paying players will always be a huge factor. Yes - I absolutely believe that some handle it more ethically than others. Your whole argument has been that because you've personally never seen a player shafted it must not happen. It's Pollyannish.

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

Stick to the facts please and leave that ridiculous ECNL example where it belongs. I put forth no conspiracy theory. I simply implied most of the paying parents won't truly know who has paid what. Is that true or false?

Maybe you should consider that just because you've never personally seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just humor me, and SUPPOSE you happened upon a club with multiple teams and multiple players that rarely played in games. Given your inside understanding of the club's business model, what would be your explanation for what you saw?

Stick to the facts? Exactly what "facts" are you putting forth? What's ridiculous about the ECNL example? I simply took your words about big clubs and coaches standing, etc.

No need to humor you, you're doing that yourself. You're guessing the coach's motivation about your "budget players" and expressing it as fact. I've simply chosen, based on my own experience to take a different approach.

As I said previously, I believe it happens, its just not as prevalent as you present it. You've created this business model, from nothing but your conjecture, that coaches are rewarded for signing players that won't play to pad their own pocket, or option 2, simply to pad the club's pocket. The turmoil that the unhappy parents create on their team is worth all those big bucks!

I can only draw from my own experience and knowledge, you choose to pull your facts out of the air and off this board.

If your way works for you, its a great life.

We've had a great run, its too bad yours has not been so. It unfortunate for you and your dd.

LOL. You're a funny guy and you're right I am having a chuckle on all this. Your personal digs have no relevancy and I've been around long enough not to swing on every low ball. (BTW - the DD is doing great and I'm having a ball in case you truly were concerned).

Your misrepresenting what I said doesn't hide the fact you still didn't provide any factual evidence that # of players has no bearing on anything for a team, coach or club. Please repost for me where I said anything about how prevalent the "budget player" is in NTX.

As long as the system is pay to play the number of paying players will always be a huge factor. Yes - I absolutely believe that some handle it more ethically than others. Your whole argument has been that because you've personally never seen a player shafted it must not happen. It's Pollyannish.

We can go on and on, but its pointless.

I never said that the number of players has no bearing on the club. It certainly does. That's irrefutable. More players equals more dues. What I did say was that in the two clubs that I am very familiar with, there is no relationship to the number of players and the coaches salary. I'll go further and say that in those two clubs, there is no relationship between the number of players on a team and any financial benefit to the coach, or an increase in stature for the coach. That comes from being successful at some level or another. More teams for the same coach? No problem, more money. More players? Show me your "factual evidence"

What "factual evidence" are YOU asking for? I've said repeatedly that its my experience. You've said "I believe".

Your whole argument is "I believe it is so, so it must be so".

ballhead wrote:We can go on and on, but its pointless.

We can agree on that and leave it right there.

This was just side banter within the context of deepthought's original post, which I thought had a ton of merit and was worth the discussion.

Even pros are subs.

DT4L wrote:Even pros are subs.

Pros probably operate closer to the model deepthought was suggesting. Not the part about every player is mandated to start some arbitrary % of games, but the part about permanent subs/permanent starters being sub optimal for maximum development of the whole team. You hit a slump as a pro or someone shows up better than you in training you will lose some starts to other talented players. The more depth and talent on the team, the more the coach has to encourage the competition and reward the starts based on performance. If they don't - starters get complacent and the bench loses motivation. If they go overboard the other direction, starters can't maintain chemistry and confidence knowing they'll be yanked for any bad game. The best coaches know how to find the right balance.

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

ballhead wrote:
I've heard it, and I imagine it happens, but not to the extreme some of you people would like to believe.

How do you know which players are "cash flow" players? Are these players that the coach has proclaimed as "cash flow" players, or is it more likely that in your estimation they don't belong on the team, so they must have been signed as "cash flow"?

I've been exposed to all the myths (and the facts) of club soccer at all levels: from the team, to the club, to the league. The only thing I haven't done is referee.

I'm intimately familiar with how two of the large clubs work, and there is absolutely no relationship between the number of players on a team and the coaches pay. Not sure about the other large clubs, but I doubt it.

But it really makes for great reading, doesn't it?

I have no idea which players are budget players and you'd never hear me refer to any child as such. My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway.

I do know a big club team manager on a very successful team refers to players as budget players. The club's profit motive is paying parents. Paying parents fuel these clubs via teams, and teams have budgets. Those budgets are impacted significantly based on #s of players. The big club coach/mgr figure head has an incentive to maximize revenue inputs and spread costs.

There may not be any DIRECT formal relationship to a coach's pay, but I'm interested to hear what facts you have to support your claim it has no bearing on anything. Salary isn't the only means to providing incentive. I can't imagine a coach producing decent results but with track record of not getting anywhere near full rosters is going to have the same big club standing as the coach with similarly decent results but track record of max paying parents.

If there was no $$ incentive to carry full rosters seems like you'd rarely see clubs carrying multiple players that rarely get on the field. Wait...you probably haven't seen that happen in all your years either.

All that has become clear here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If your "big club team manager" friend refers to players as "budget players" he's an ass.

You stated: "My understanding is at big club only the coach, mgr and possibly a few other well connected parents know who is truly paying what on any given team anyway." So does your conspiracy theory go as far as using "budget players" (who are only there for the money and don't play) just to make a better financial deal for the star players?

Do all the ECNL teams carry 26 players? They are the club's top teams and coaches, so it would seem, if your theory is correct they would all be at 26, right?

Stick to the facts please and leave that ridiculous ECNL example where it belongs. I put forth no conspiracy theory. I simply implied most of the paying parents won't truly know who has paid what. Is that true or false?

Maybe you should consider that just because you've never personally seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just humor me, and SUPPOSE you happened upon a club with multiple teams and multiple players that rarely played in games. Given your inside understanding of the club's business model, what would be your explanation for what you saw?

Stick to the facts? Exactly what "facts" are you putting forth? What's ridiculous about the ECNL example? I simply took your words about big clubs and coaches standing, etc.

No need to humor you, you're doing that yourself. You're guessing the coach's motivation about your "budget players" and expressing it as fact. I've simply chosen, based on my own experience to take a different approach.

As I said previously, I believe it happens, its just not as prevalent as you present it. You've created this business model, from nothing but your conjecture, that coaches are rewarded for signing players that won't play to pad their own pocket, or option 2, simply to pad the club's pocket. The turmoil that the unhappy parents create on their team is worth all those big bucks!

I can only draw from my own experience and knowledge, you choose to pull your facts out of the air and off this board.

If your way works for you, its a great life.

We've had a great run, its too bad yours has not been so. It unfortunate for you and your dd.

LOL. You're a funny guy and you're right I am having a chuckle on all this. Your personal digs have no relevancy and I've been around long enough not to swing on every low ball. (BTW - the DD is doing great and I'm having a ball in case you truly were concerned).

Your misrepresenting what I said doesn't hide the fact you still didn't provide any factual evidence that # of players has no bearing on anything for a team, coach or club. Please repost for me where I said anything about how prevalent the "budget player" is in NTX.

As long as the system is pay to play the number of paying players will always be a huge factor. Yes - I absolutely believe that some handle it more ethically than others. Your whole argument has been that because you've personally never seen a player shafted it must not happen. It's Pollyannish.

We can go on and on, but its pointless.

I never said that the number of players has no bearing on the club. It certainly does. That's irrefutable. More players equals more dues. What I did say was that in the two clubs that I am very familiar with, there is no relationship to the number of players and the coaches salary. I'll go further and say that in those two clubs, there is no relationship between the number of players on a team and any financial benefit to the coach, or an increase in stature for the coach. That comes from being successful at some level or another. More teams for the same coach? No problem, more money. More players? Show me your "factual evidence"

What "factual evidence" are YOU asking for? I've said repeatedly that its my experience. You've said "I believe".

Your whole argument is "I believe it is so, so it must be so".

I have multiple kids in select soccer. Over the last 6 years, my kids have played for a total of 8 clubs so I think I have seen quite a variety of team cost structures.

From what I have seen, the cost structures basically break down into two categories.In one structure, all of the parents are charged a set amount, regardless of how many players are on the team. The coach is paid a base salary based on a certain number of paying players. If he has more paying players than budgeted, he gets some or all of the extra money. If he has less (possibly because he exceeded the budgeted number of scholarship players), he is paid less. Clearly in this structure, the coach benefits by adding players.

In the second category, the club requires the team to collect a certain amount of money, regardless of the number of players on it. If there are fewer paying players, the parents have to pay more money to get to the required threshold than they would if they added paying players. The coaches salary doesn't change, just the amount the parents pay. In this model, it would seem like the coach doesn't directly benefit from adding players. However the coach can benefit indirectly by adding players because it lowers the total cost to the parents enough so that he can add more scholarship players. I have a bb currently playing for a team using this structure. His fees are about the same as those of my other kids but his team has 21 rostered players. So even though the coach doesn't see any extra money from the extra players, he is benefiting by carrying quite a few scholarship players on this team.

Most of the larger clubs we have played for used the second method.

deepthoughts,

I have waited all week to set aside some time to read through this. Unfortunately, I could only make it to page two so forgive me if my point has been made. I have not copied your original post in the interest of page space.

You make excellent points on self esteem, youth development, and illustrating the fact that the ntx soccer machine is largely broken. I do not agree with bench sitting at this age, having to go to academy at 5 to “keep up”, playing 11 v 11 at 9, and win at all costs. Unfortunately, your premise of the revolution is awfully narrow. You mention the “coach” 27 times in your essay.

Consider that for every coach, there are theoretically 14 players and 28 parents. Each coach coaches multiple teams. Each player/parent/coach/club has varying situations and objectives. The dynamics at play here are huge and you have considered very few.

Here’s an example of how deep it goes.

I have kids in select, academy, and rec. I coach a 5 year old rec team. We have 8 players and 4 play on the field. We have 4 good players and 4 players that should consider trombone. I make no lineup. The kids that start each game are the kids standing closest to me when it is time to take the field b/c I’m lazy. We have lost every game. At practice this week a parent said “can I make a suggestion?” “Just once, could we have the 4 best players on the field together”? That’s 5 year old rec!

Although, I did say I don’t agree with bench sitting at this age, I do believe in starters and subs. My 02 dd gives 100% at practice and has earned the privilege to start and play on game day. However, it has been my observation that most coaches manage their players very poorly in the game. The bench players sit for 20-25 minutes and come in in a group to finish the half and game.

It is my opinion that there should be starters and subs, but the rotation and play time more equally balanced.

Now I don’t want to be a naysayer here. It is annoying when people find all the wrong in a new idea.

So how do you start a revolution? In the words of Arlo Guthrie..
“You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both xxxx and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.”

So, to start based on this philosophy, I think you and your starter dd should sponsor a sub. Your dd will start 5 games and her backup will start 5 games. (Equal playing time of course, you can’t have your dd go in after the 1st minute). If you have some success at that; you are happy, dd, is happy, coach is happy, then possibly another starter on your team will sponsor a sub. If that works out, then your coach’s other teams may try it. If that works out, then possibly other teams in your club with try it. If that works out, other teams in your league will try it. And before you know it, you have revolutionized ntx soccer!

bobmac15

Anyone who quotes the great Arlo has my vote as the next CEO for ntx soccer. As I see it what is wrong with ntx soccer is this:

"I didn't get nothin, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage"

Bierluva wrote:What nobody has brought up is the fact that NTX is playing 11v11 at the age of 10. From what I researched... no one else does it... in the world. That would stop most of your "benching". With smaller sided games, you would have more teams, more playing time, smaller rosters, etc... the ages of 10-13 are very important in terms of technical development and most important, confidence building. Not only confidence in yourself, but in game time situations with the ball. These kids are going through puberty and go through a very awkward stage where their bodies grow at crazy rates and add hormones into it as well. They are going to be emotional wrecks anyway. Why not build their confidence and technical skills on smaller fields like everyone else does and minimize the bench player problem.
It really comes down to researching the right coach and not just running to big or "more established" clubs... there are some coaches that are pushing for the smaller format at these ages and are fighting the NTX uphill battle...

South Texas is 8v8 until u-13 it is a much better situation for everyone involved. Moved to North Texas and thought this is so backwards for an area that claims to be a soccer mecca.