Joe, I couldn't agree with you more on this topic. I can't stand it when teams who regularly make the state quarterfinals, that claim they are one of the "top 8" teams in the state, play in the most watered down sectionals you would ever see. It just burns me. These are the same teams and parents of players on the teams, that NEVER see a quality opposition team in the regular season or the playoffs - yet claim they are one of "the best". But hey, when your record is 13-0 while playing patsies, you get to see your school's name in the paper because YOU, Joe, put the school in the top 10 rankings each week, despite the fact that these teams do not play anybody to get that record.
I hate to pick on New Trier, but they were 7-0 when they played Hinsdale for the first time in mid-september and were ranked #1 in the state by you and the other paper, I believe. Why? Because they won the state trophy last year? Their schedule to that point was terrible - yet they were ranked #1 and continued to be ranked in the top 10 all year even after Hinsdale beat them and while still continuing to play nobody. Why? I am sure there are better examples than New Trier for this phenomena, but at the end of the day, if you have a team with a "good" record (i.e. lose no games or only 1-2 games at mid point in the season)your strength of schedule or weakness of schedule is OFTEN overlooked by the papers and at the seeding meeting. So (i ask saracsticly) why would you play a tough schedule and get your players maybe injured or beat up, and get a 7 seed in the sectional and have to go to triple overtime every playoff game just to maybe get to the quarters, while on the other hand the New Trier's of the world don't play anybody all season or in the playoffs to get to the quarters- yet get to be ranked all season and ranked #4 at the end of the season by you????? I guess my comment to you, Joe, would be to take strength of schedule into account when ranking a team in the top 10. I know it's difficult in the beginning of the season. But by the time you get 6-7-8 games into the season, everyone that knows soccer pretty much knows who the tought teams are and who are the patsies.....

This is a bit rambling but I get worked up over this topic......It drives me crazy.

Joe-

I would hardly call Argo's schedule weak. Non conference games versus Morton, Lincoln-Way Central, Stagg, Proviso West, and Bloom are hardly "Sisters of the Blind Schools."

You are only allowed to play 16 matches with one tournament. 10 of our matches are conference games that have to be played. Lemont, a state finalist, was one of those games, in which Argo won 3-1. Other South Suburban Conference schools like Eisenhower & Bremen are good programs as well. Argo tries its best to play a tough schedule because we know we have a solid Soccer Program. Any praise and respect we receive is earned.

New Trier has to be rated in the top 10 every year because of the depth and quality of their players. The majority play on club teams.
The problem is the motivation by the HS coaches. There is none! Teamwork is not taught; Sportsmanship is not taught; Thinking on the field is not taught. Coach Fairbairn (driver's education teacher) made $119,673 in 2006. Check (thechampion.org) if you don't believe me. He doesn't want to rock any boats so it is just as easy to baby sit and rack up wins against weak teams.

I think the comments above by "Argo AD" reveal some of the issues that soccer faces at the high school level .

What do we consider a good program ???

Is it defined as one with proven leaders who have an unquestionably solid character , who show great work ethic ?
To some , that constitutes a "good" program . But don't 80% of all teachers fall into that category ?? That doesn't make them good soccer coaches any more than it makes a good Math teacher a great English teacher , or vice versa .

We don't have Biology teachers tutoring Art and Music do we ??

A soccer program at any level is a function of it's ability to teach the game , both tactically and competitively : to build on the talent available to maximize performance , and at the end of the season , show that your players have not become less effective as a result of the program's shortcomings.

I'm sorry , and no disrespect meant to those concerned , but Proviso West , Eisenhower and Bremen don't qualify as good soccer programs . I'm sorry , they just don't . If we don't recognise our shortcomings in life , how in the hell do we get better ???

Our problem at high school is that there are way too many coaches and AD's that think they have a good program , when in fact , it's mediocre at best .

To all AD's :

Do you watch soccer ?? Do you study the game ?? Have you played the sport ??? Can you judge talent ??
If not , can your soccer coach answer yes to those questions ??

I don't expect AD's to be involved at a high level in every sport , but you are the manager and you should surround yourself with people who KNOW the sport they are coaching . If they don't , then find someone who does .

It's just not acceptable any more

Joe,

Here is a question for you, and it goes along with potentially what the IHSSCA may do to spice things up for the sport as well as how one might counter-act a weak schedule. You, as well as several other newspaper reporters, constantly receive criticism for your Top 10 or Top 20 lists... However, the NSCAA has Regional and National rankings that coaches contribute to and rarely receive criticism...

What do you think about the IHSSCA coaches creating a weekly state ranking poll??? Logistically possible? Good or bad idea? Just curious on your thoughts... thanks!