The CardBoard
MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! (/thread-15207.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - FarmBoy - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 04:29 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:It's been debated ad nauseum, but the US soccer developmental system is based on soccer, as other sports, not being a future job for the kids.  The academies of most European clubs would kill their age-group counterparts in the U.S., because at age 12 or 13, those kids play soccer and train 4-6 hours a day, and go to school for 4-6.  That leads to a level of expertise that the American system just can't match.

What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics. Maybe tennis? And those are still relatively niche sports. If you look at baseball, basketball, and football, I'm not aware of development programs for kids that do year round training like that. Maybe I'm on the outs. What about hockey?

It seems that the investment in soccer player development is way ahead of what we do in the US for our pro sports.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Mick - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 07:30 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=18334.msg217812#msg217812 date=1512948561]
It's been debated ad nauseum, but the US soccer developmental system is based on soccer, as other sports, not being a future job for the kids.  The academies of most European clubs would kill their age-group counterparts in the U.S., because at age 12 or 13, those kids play soccer and train 4-6 hours a day, and go to school for 4-6.  That leads to a level of expertise that the American system just can't match.

What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics. Maybe tennis? And those are still relatively niche sports. If you look at baseball, basketball, and football, I'm not aware of development programs for kids that do year round training like that. Maybe I'm on the outs. What about hockey?

It seems that the investment in soccer player development is way ahead of what we do in the US for our pro sports.
[/quote]

The investment in volleyball is substantial, both for boys and girls.  As of 7/31/17, the U. S. Men's team was ranked #2 in FIVB, #2 in the world.  Starting at about age 13, the best male players can get on national (three levels) and regional (three more levels) teams.  They train and work on skills during the late spring (after HS ball) and summer, take August off (but typically play beach volleyball) and start again in September for the fall/winter season.  My son played eleven months a year starting at about age 14.  Most of the better players hone their skills in beach doubles tournaments year round.  Beach play builds muscles, speed, strength, agility, coordination, cross-training of volleyball skills (there's only two people on court, so you do everything) and teamwork.  There's a reason why the SoCal and Hawaiian kids dominate, particularly at a young age.

The coaches graduate and stay in the sport, raising a new generation.  There are large regional tournaments and several national tournaments for the boys, and it's about 6x that for girls.  The club directors and coaches take it very seriously, much more seriously than high school.  My son, for example, played as much time in his main position in one weekend tournament as he did in his JV volleyball team the entire season.

Soccer is even more competitive.  The better players -- meaning anyone who ends up playing D1 soccer -- don't play for their high schools -- ever.  They just play for their competitive club teams.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - BostonCard - 12-10-2017

Hopefully we will hold our lead in national championships for more than a few hours.  In fact, I hope we build on it with wvb for 116, and never look back.

BC

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - FarmBoy - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 08:26 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18334.msg217836#msg217836 date=1512959442]
[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=18334.msg217812#msg217812 date=1512948561]
It's been debated ad nauseum, but the US soccer developmental system is based on soccer, as other sports, not being a future job for the kids.  The academies of most European clubs would kill their age-group counterparts in the U.S., because at age 12 or 13, those kids play soccer and train 4-6 hours a day, and go to school for 4-6.  That leads to a level of expertise that the American system just can't match.

What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics. Maybe tennis? And those are still relatively niche sports. If you look at baseball, basketball, and football, I'm not aware of development programs for kids that do year round training like that. Maybe I'm on the outs. What about hockey?

It seems that the investment in soccer player development is way ahead of what we do in the US for our pro sports.
[/quote]

The investment in volleyball is substantial, both for boys and girls.  As of 7/31/17, the U. S. Men's team was ranked #2 in FIVB, #2 in the world.  Starting at about age 13, the best male players can get on national (three levels) and regional (three more levels) teams.  They train and work on skills during the late spring (after HS ball) and summer, take August off (but typically play beach volleyball) and start again in September for the fall/winter season.  My son played eleven months a year starting at about age 14.  Most of the better players hone their skills in beach doubles tournaments year round.  Beach play builds muscles, speed, strength, agility, coordination, cross-training of volleyball skills (there's only two people on court, so you do everything) and teamwork.  There's a reason why the SoCal and Hawaiian kids dominate, particularly at a young age.

The coaches graduate and stay in the sport, raising a new generation.  There are large regional tournaments and several national tournaments for the boys, and it's about 6x that for girls.  The club directors and coaches take it very seriously, much more seriously than high school.  My son, for example, played as much time in his main position in one weekend tournament as he did in his JV volleyball team the entire season.

Soccer is even more competitive.  The better players -- meaning anyone who ends up playing D1 soccer -- don't play for their high schools -- ever.  They just play for their competitive club teams.
[/quote]

Mick,

I'm sure as a parent, you have more direct experience, but my sister's daughter recently committed to the Naval Academy and her next daughter is being recruited by Stanford and other top program. They play a lot, no doubt, and it's year round, but I don't get the impression it's 4-6 hours a day of training. it sounds more like 2-3 hours of practice with tons of tournaments.

Still, volleyball is not in the group of top american sports I was thinking of like basketball, football, and baseball.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Mick - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 08:36 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18334.msg217842#msg217842 date=1512962778]
[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18334.msg217836#msg217836 date=1512959442]
[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=18334.msg217812#msg217812 date=1512948561]
It's been debated ad nauseum, but the US soccer developmental system is based on soccer, as other sports, not being a future job for the kids.  The academies of most European clubs would kill their age-group counterparts in the U.S., because at age 12 or 13, those kids play soccer and train 4-6 hours a day, and go to school for 4-6.  That leads to a level of expertise that the American system just can't match.

What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics. Maybe tennis? And those are still relatively niche sports. If you look at baseball, basketball, and football, I'm not aware of development programs for kids that do year round training like that. Maybe I'm on the outs. What about hockey?

It seems that the investment in soccer player development is way ahead of what we do in the US for our pro sports.
[/quote]

The investment in volleyball is substantial, both for boys and girls.  As of 7/31/17, the U. S. Men's team was ranked #2 in FIVB, #2 in the world.  Starting at about age 13, the best male players can get on national (three levels) and regional (three more levels) teams.  They train and work on skills during the late spring (after HS ball) and summer, take August off (but typically play beach volleyball) and start again in September for the fall/winter season.  My son played eleven months a year starting at about age 14.  Most of the better players hone their skills in beach doubles tournaments year round.  Beach play builds muscles, speed, strength, agility, coordination, cross-training of volleyball skills (there's only two people on court, so you do everything) and teamwork.  There's a reason why the SoCal and Hawaiian kids dominate, particularly at a young age.

The coaches graduate and stay in the sport, raising a new generation.  There are large regional tournaments and several national tournaments for the boys, and it's about 6x that for girls.  The club directors and coaches take it very seriously, much more seriously than high school.  My son, for example, played as much time in his main position in one weekend tournament as he did in his JV volleyball team the entire season.

Soccer is even more competitive.  The better players -- meaning anyone who ends up playing D1 soccer -- don't play for their high schools -- ever.  They just play for their competitive club teams.
[/quote]

Mick,

I'm sure as a parent, you have more direct experience, but my sister's daughter recently committed to the Naval Academy and her next daughter is being recruited by Stanford and other top program. They play a lot, no doubt, and it's year round, but I don't get the impression it's 4-6 hours a day of training. it sounds more like 2-3 hours of practice with tons of tournaments.

Still, volleyball is not in the group of top american sports I was thinking of like basketball, football, and baseball.
[/quote]

Well, you mentioned gymnastics as a mainstream sport, which is why I included volleyball.  And during the season, the average (with tournaments) is probably four to five hours per day.  Some of the tennis and golf academies in the U.S. are probably closer to the 4-6 hours per day.  But the focus is on competition, not learning of skills.  It really bugged me that some so-called elite volleyball programs focused on the competition; I always thought the skills training was lacking.

Same is true for soccer.  Here's an old article, but a very good one that supports your assertions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - 81alum - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 07:30 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics.
My daughter was up to 26 hours a week in gymnastics at level 9 at age 13, having started out at about 6 hours a week at level 4 at age 4.  It goes up a bit more from there for the level 10s and elites (Olympians.)  She was competing nationally but quit due to injury and coaching changes before starting high school. 

Yes, gymnastics probably comes closest to European youth soccer in that it takes very young kids, drills them for very long hours, and produces competitors at a very high level internationally. 

All that said, I don't think we would do it again.  It is simply too imbalanced a lifestyle for a kid.  My daughter got many things out of the experience, but made many sacrifices.  Too many, in retrospect.  And of course there was not going to be a lucrative soccer contract at the end of it!

She took up running in high school and was able to be an athlete while having a much more balanced life.  A very good decision, as it turned out.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - FarmBoy - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 09:13 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18334.msg217836#msg217836 date=1512959442]
What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics.
My daughter was up to 26 hours a week in gymnastics at level 9 at age 13, having started out at about 6 hours a week at level 4 at age 4.  It goes up a bit more from there for the level 10s and elites (Olympians.)  She was competing nationally but quit due to injury and coaching changes before starting high school. 

Yes, gymnastics probably comes closest to European youth soccer in that it takes very young kids, drills them for very long hours, and produces competitors at a very high level internationally. 

All that said, I don't think we would do it again.  It is simply too imbalanced a lifestyle for a kid.  My daughter got many things out of the experience, but made many sacrifices.  Too many, in retrospect.  And of course there was not going to be a lucrative soccer contract at the end of it!

She took up running in high school and was able to be an athlete while having a much more balanced life.  A very good decision, as it turned out.
[/quote]

This is good perspective to hear. My daughter is training 9 hours a week as a 7 year old at level 3. Apparently her peers at some other gyms are training 15-20! That sounds like madness to me. We're trying to decide how far down the rabbit hole we should go wtih this. She loves it, but it's starting to feel too consuming.



Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - 81alum - 12-10-2017

(12-10-2017, 09:30 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=18334.msg217850#msg217850 date=1512965630]
[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18334.msg217836#msg217836 date=1512959442]
What mainstream sports in the US have this level of development investment at that same age? The only one I can think of is gymnastics.
My daughter was up to 26 hours a week in gymnastics at level 9 at age 13, having started out at about 6 hours a week at level 4 at age 4.  It goes up a bit more from there for the level 10s and elites (Olympians.)  She was competing nationally but quit due to injury and coaching changes before starting high school. 

Yes, gymnastics probably comes closest to European youth soccer in that it takes very young kids, drills them for very long hours, and produces competitors at a very high level internationally. 

All that said, I don't think we would do it again.  It is simply too imbalanced a lifestyle for a kid.  My daughter got many things out of the experience, but made many sacrifices.  Too many, in retrospect.  And of course there was not going to be a lucrative soccer contract at the end of it!

She took up running in high school and was able to be an athlete while having a much more balanced life.  A very good decision, as it turned out.
[/quote]

This is good perspective to hear. My daughter is training 9 hours a week as a 7 year old at level 3. Apparently her peers at some other gyms are training 15-20! That sounds like madness to me. We're trying to decide how far down the rabbit hole we should go wtih this. She loves it, but it's starting to feel too consuming.
[/quote]
Lots of ex-gymnasts do track or diving.  My daughter became a terrific hurdles runner--vaulting is great training for sprinting.  Her friend became a great pole vaulter.  Gymnastics segues nicely into more reasonable sports.  Not sure if diving is really more reasonable :)

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Stymie - 12-11-2017

My youngest daughter went from gymnastics to diving to trampolining.  She started gymnastics when she was 4 and we were living in San Jose.  She got picked early at the place where Amy Chow trained by the Eastern European coaches to undergo "elite" training which she hated.  All she wanted to do was jump up and down (she started doing this at age 9 months, rather than walking).  She hated routine and discipline and still does at age 20.  She is smallish but strong as an ox.  Someday she will find a sport that suits her, but it is up to her now.

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - 81alum - 12-11-2017

Quote:“Walking back in the locker room it sinks in you’re no longer part of this program,” said Hilliard-Arce, who is expected to a high pick in the upcoming MLS draft. “I started weeping. Leaving something so dear to me will be tough.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/10/college-cup-three-peat-for-stanford-mens-soccer-team/

College sports are so bittersweet.  This really was a band of brothers, winning three in a row, and six graduate. 

Doing a 3-peat in as competitive a sport as men's soccer is one of the most remarkable accomplishments for Stanford team sports ever.  I just checked to see how often we have had three-peat champions in other sports.  We did it in men's swimming 85-86-87, men's tennis 88-89-90 and 95-96-97-98, women's cross country 2005-6-7, women's swimming 1992-3-4-5-6, women's tennis 1986-7-8-9-90-91 and 2004-5-6.  So a six-peat, five-peat, and four-peat are in the bank in other sports. 

But each of these other "team" sports are of the sort where a handful of individuals can win the championship through the accumulation of individual wins. 

Men's soccer is the first sport where the game itself is a team game that has ever three-peated in Stanford history.  The water polo teams have come close, but have not quite three-peated (yet).

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - M T - 12-11-2017

Women's water polo has won the NC five of the last seven years, but not a 3-peat.


Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - Spiny_Norman - 12-12-2017

I hear they are reporting in England that Stanford won the national collegiate football championship. Which I guess is true (in England).

Re: MSoc: Stanford 1 Indiana 0 (2OT) - 115! - cardfan77 - 12-12-2017

With the back-back-back championships, should we expect another top recruiting class like last year?  Anyone knows who is being recruited or interested in Stanford