# POLL - College athletes - young stars or no?



## Supermodel56 (Aug 18, 2019)

Several recent threads have been about parents having big dreams for their young stars while parents of college athletes saying the young stars rarely make it... so I thought it'd be interesting to take this poll to help give the other parents some perspective.

If you DD/DS is playing or have committed to play at the collegiate level, etc... Would you say they were considered top players or dominating players during 9v9 and below? (U13)  

Include as many details as you want, especially if they're Boys/Girls, D1/D2/D3, and at what age did they really start showing their potential... were they generally on top teams/big clubs the whole time or play for smaller clubs?


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Aug 18, 2019)

11v11 started at U11 for us.   She starred U9 and below like all club kids.  Average to above average u10 to u14.  Then moved to defense and that was when she started to differentiate herself.  U14 to U15 was a star but still at the same smaller club.  Changed clubs and moved to the DPL then the DA. Best thing ever for her.  Found a group of like minded girls.  Really got a lot better and starred again by U17.  It was really the last two years that she developed the most.  Committed D1 summer after Junior year.  Currently riding the pine in college as a freshmen redshirting due to ACL/meniscus surgery in Feb.  Future? Unknown but I am betting on her!


----------



## CaliKlines (Aug 18, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> If you DD/DS is playing or have committed to play at the collegiate level, etc... Would you say they were considered top players or dominating players during 9v9 and below? (U13)
> 
> Include as many details as you want, especially if they're Boys/Girls, D1/D2/D3, and at what age did they really start showing their potential... were they generally on top teams/big clubs the whole time or play for smaller clubs?


Started out with a very small club (North County Pacific), but the team was almost immediately picked up by good sized regional club (SoCal Infinity), and then, after a couple of seasons, the entire club was absorbed by a large ECNL club (Strikers FC). Eventually she moved to a mega club (Legends) for a greater challenge with like minded players at U14. That Turned out to be the best move ever...

She was never considered a dominant player, but a very controlled, calm midfield with good vision and soccer IQ. Received attention from D3 schools during 8th grade while playing up 2 years at Surf Cup. Committed in Nov of sophomore year of high school to a top 25 D1 college. Started 3 of the last 4 matches as a freshman, including NCAA Sweet 16 match vs. UCLA.


----------



## Zerodenero (Aug 18, 2019)

CaliKlines said:


> Started out with a very small club (North County Pacific), but the team was almost immediately picked up by good sized regional club (SoCal Infinity), and then, after a couple of seasons, the entire club was absorbed by a large ECNL club (Strikers FC). Eventually she moved to a mega club (Legends) for a greater challenge with like minded players at U14. That Turned out to be the best move ever...
> 
> She was never considered a dominant player, but a very controlled, calm midfield with good vision and soccer IQ. Received attention from D3 schools during 8th grade while playing up 2 years at Surf Cup. Committed in Nov of sophomore year of high school to a top 25 D1 college. Started 3 of the last 4 matches as a freshman, including NCAA Sweet 16 match vs. UCLA.


Cali-

Regardless of the many years of me and a few others giving u grief about your endless pom-Pom $hizz....with complete sincerity, i’m 100 stoked for u/your DD.

Enjoy these final, precious, soccer moments while u can. For the soccer phase of our DD’s lives eventually ends, sooner than we think.

Best to you/your DD.

ZD


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 18, 2019)

Zerodenero said:


> Cali-
> 
> Regardless of the many years of me and a few others giving u grief about your endless pom-Pom $hizz....with complete sincerity, i’m 100 stoked for u/your DD.
> 
> ...


Zero, how ‘bout you?  Would love to hear the story...


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 19, 2019)

CaliKlines said:


> Started out with a very small club (North County Pacific), but the team was almost immediately picked up by good sized regional club (SoCal Infinity), and then, after a couple of seasons, the entire club was absorbed by a large ECNL club (Strikers FC). Eventually she moved to a mega club (Legends) for a greater challenge with like minded players at U14. That Turned out to be the best move ever...
> 
> She was never considered a dominant player, but a very controlled, calm midfield with good vision and soccer IQ. Received attention from D3 schools during 8th grade while playing up 2 years at Surf Cup. Committed in Nov of sophomore year of high school to a top 25 D1 college. Started 3 of the last 4 matches as a freshman, including NCAA Sweet 16 match vs. UCLA.


Pretty awesome! Was she a bigger player to be playing two years up or was it her skill (both?) that stood out?


----------



## CaliKlines (Aug 19, 2019)

Approximately 5’6” and 105 lbs as an 8th grader. She had the ball handling skills enough to hang with the 10th graders. It was more about the mental part of it to convince herself to compete with the older girls.


----------



## Janie270 (Aug 19, 2019)

Can we re-phrase this and say the last year my child was dominating?  He was a superstar until u12 or so and then just a really good player among many other good players as he got older.  He'd still "dominate" if he played lower levels from u13-u18, but was good enough to play/start with other DA players, get recruited, but was also clearly a level below those going in to national team camps. My spouse and I were just reminiscing about the days where our son would score five goals a game and we'd have to tell him to stop scoring.  His last year with the DA he scored twice.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 19, 2019)

Janie270 said:


> Can we re-phrase this and say the last year my child was dominating?  He was a superstar until u12 or so and then just a really good player among many other good players as he got older.  He'd still "dominate" if he played lower levels from u13-u18, but was good enough to play/start with other DA players, get recruited, but was also clearly a level below those going in to national team camps. My spouse and I were just reminiscing about the days where our son would score five goals a game and we'd have to tell him to stop scoring.  His last year with the DA he scored twice.


Thanks for posting... you make a great point and I’m sure a lot of families can relate - competition gets a lot stiffer as you get older.   Curious, did he get recruited D1?  What contributed most to him dominating as a younger? Size? Speed? Skill?

What made it more challenging as he got older?


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 19, 2019)

Thats actually a good question too - what types of players and key character traits did you all see move towards the top as they got older?

For example, let’s say size/strength, speed, skills, strong leg/shooting, IQ, etc... what would you say is most critical?


----------



## Soccer43 (Aug 19, 2019)

Key traits:  passion for the game and high soccer IQ


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 19, 2019)

Soccer43 said:


> Key traits:  passion for the game and high soccer IQ


On the passion part - that sure as heck explains why everyone is so hell bent on not burning the kids out young... 

Re: high soccer IQ - what does this look like?


----------



## espola (Aug 19, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> On the passion part - that sure as heck explains why everyone is so hell bent on not burning the kids out young...
> 
> Re: high soccer IQ - what does this look like?


I'll assume you are not being facetious -- A player who is always open when his teammates have the ball, or who is always in position to play defense when the opponents have the ball.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 19, 2019)

espola said:


> I'll assume you are not being facetious -- A player who is always open when his teammates have the ball, or who is always in position to play defense when the opponents have the ball.


Not at all, much appreciated sir.


----------



## Janie270 (Aug 19, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Thanks for posting... you make a great point and I’m sure a lot of families can relate - competition gets a lot stiffer as you get older.   Curious, did he get recruited D1?  What contributed most to him dominating as a younger? Size? Speed? Skill?
> 
> What made it more challenging as he got older?


Skill.  He's a great athlete and was dribbling the ball at 2 at his brother's games.  He loved the praise people gave him so he just kept practicing, all on his own.  Did 100 juggles at age 6.  Played a year up on a team that won state and was center mid.  As he got older his athleticism advantage went away, other kids were clearly more talented, he's not huge.  He knew he wasn't going to be a pro and wanted a real college experience so he's not playing next level. Could have been a low D1 bench player I'd imagine or played on most D2 or D3.  If he wasn't DA probably wouldn't have been recruited because to me he just looks like every other player out there.  Moments of brilliance, but many moments of average or where his biggest contribution is he moved the ball in two touches.

I have younger kids and still see the U littles at tournaments or when my son refs.  I'm convinced that most the "great" u littles are kids that know how to do a cut back and move laterally.  That just takes some kids longer than others.  Puberty is the great equalizer.


----------



## espola (Aug 19, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Not at all, much appreciated sir.


There are other little things, like figuring out how your opponent is going to move and anticipate it.  For example, people who are strongly right-footed are more likely to turn the ball to their left when turning around after receiving a pass upfield, so he can keep his right foot in control of the ball.  You can be there waiting for him.


----------



## eastbaysoccer (Aug 19, 2019)

At U9 we knew our kid was pretty good.  super aggressive, willful, and used her skill and IQ to be successful on the pitch. 
Realized at U10 small club wasn't providing the challenges needed to get better so transferred over to ECNL club where she was always in the top three conversation on her team.  Did all that PDP/ODP/US training stuff and now starts in D1 program in top 6 conference.   So in the end we were correct in our assessment of her at age 8.


----------



## Soccer43 (Aug 19, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> On the passion part - that sure as heck explains why everyone is so hell bent on not burning the kids out young...
> 
> Re: high soccer IQ - what does this look like?


Understanding the game beyond technical skills - reading the field, anticipating actions before they happen, knowing strategy, thinking ahead two or three passes, seeing the plays unfold in your head then putting them into action, surprising your opponents, knowing the best decisions by seeing the bigger picture on the field, moving into space, playing off the ball, etc


----------



## mirage (Aug 20, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Several recent threads have been about parents having big dreams for their young stars while parents of college athletes saying the young stars rarely make it... so I thought it'd be interesting to take this poll to help give the other parents some perspective.
> 
> If you DD/DS is playing or have committed to play at the collegiate level, etc... Would you say they were considered top players or dominating players during 9v9 and below? (U13)
> 
> Include as many details as you want, especially if they're Boys/Girls, D1/D2/D3, and at what age did they really start showing their potential... were they generally on top teams/big clubs the whole time or play for smaller clubs?


With all due respect, my sense is the your survey and the questions you are asking for misses the mark.

There are early bloomers and late bloomers.  For every early bloomer that stayed strong and dominated into older, there's late bloomer that sat on the bench early on but became great as older.  In other words, its data but for data sake and there are too many independent variables that do not get addressed; hence, hard to generalize the outcome.

My observation is that there are 3 key elements to any child becoming a successful college/pro player in any sports.

1) The genetic lottery - cannot trivialize this point.  Not just fast or big, but agility, quickness and brains.  There are born-with attributes and characteristics that pre-sort where any person will be capable of as an adult.  God given, if you'd like....

2) Desire and willingness - gotta want to be the best and willing to work for it.  No different than a master craftsman or any domain expert in any given field.  Got be willing to prioritize the sport above and beyond almost all other things in life to some extent.  Even if one has hit the genetic lottery, the lack of desire and willingness can derail any thoughts of playing on beyond today.

3) Picking the right sport of the right person - if one is 6-6, soccer probably isn't the right sport but perhaps being a pitcher in baseball or basketball player or even football player.  If one is lucky enough to have the first element, then the chances are he/she is probably pretty good at almost all sports.  That said, then one has to maximize what one excels at.  Steve Nash loves and played soccer but was a an NBA player.  Andrew Luck was a center mid but became NFL QB (Colts).  Joe Montana played basketball and was offered a scholarship at NC State but played football (arguably the best ever QB).  There are other stories alike.

Also the survey only allows the taker to select 1 year for being dominate.  Most dominate players are that way for multiple years and not just 1 or 2. 

For the record, my older kid is playing soccer in college (3rd year) and younger is a senior in HS with no desire to play in college soccer.  Both were raised the same way and played soccer since u6, but the older kid is 5-11 and built like an athlete (with all the attributes suited for possession style soccer) and the younger is 5-9 built very stocky but lacks agility and quick reflexes compared to the older.  The younger never showed the same amount of desire or willingness either.

So if a parents think about their kid in these terms objectively, and if the kid these elements, then at least for soccer, I'm convinced that there's a school out there (D1~NAIA) the child can be a part of the varsity program.  The harder part is where does the educational quality fit in the whole scheme of things.  In other words, is soccer/sports more important than the quality of education, when it comes to college?  A different question...


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 20, 2019)

CaliKlines said:


> Approximately 5’6” and 105 lbs as an 8th grader. She had the ball handling skills enough to hang with the 10th graders. It was more about the mental part of it to convince herself to compete with the older girls.


Did the club ask her to play up, DD initiate it or parents asked the coach about it? Not judging, just trying to get a feel for how the politics tend to play out... I’ve been trying to be as hands off as possible, but wondering if I should be more proactive...


----------



## CaliKlines (Aug 20, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Did the club ask her to play up, DD initiate it or parents asked the coach about it? Not judging, just trying to get a feel for how the politics tend to play out... I’ve been trying to be as hands off as possible, but wondering if I should be more proactive...


The Strikers ECNL season was finished in May. (Did not qualify for playoffs). Her new team was competing in the USYS National Championships, and she was unable to be rostered until after the finals. I was speaking to the coach of the older team (within the same new club) at a practice, and it was his suggestion to have her guest at Surf. I had encouraged her to guest at some other tournaments/events with a variety of teams to get her used to playing with different teams and coaches, so she was up for it.

Lots of different paths. There isn’t any one single way, other than it is very important to have a player with the desire.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 20, 2019)

mirage said:


> With all due respect, my sense is the your survey and the questions you are asking for misses the mark.


That’s a fair statement - 
 the forum only allowed me to ask one question in the poll which is why I was hoping folks would comment and elaborate since I’m sure there are a lot of unique stories...  and just to clarify, it was asking what year the player started dominating, not to choose one year they did.  Janie made a great point in also asking when they stopped - if at all... we assume that our kids should be at the top and stay that way throughout when the game changes and the competition gets a lot tougher... is that a realistic expectation?

Re: early vs late bloomers, so far it does seem like most players were dominating at some point prior to U12. Others, never at all, but just consistent throughout. I find it interesting that no one said their kid all of a sudden became a top player after U13 - which leads me to believe there’s really no such thing as the late bloomer - maybe more beneficial for boys but not girls since puberty seems to do more “harm” than good for their game.

I’m curious, was your younger dominating like your older was at the younger ages before he moved onto other sports? 

I agree a lot when it comes to fit, desire, and natural genetic/athletic/body type traits. The purpose of the poll wasn’t to determine if your kid would be able to be a college player if they had XYZ, it was to see if being a dominating player at a young age a critical factor, a contraindication, or if you were just as likely to be playing college soccer if you were a late bloomer and early talent meant nothing.  Based on the responses so far, it looks like if you’re thinking college soccer (D1-3)  for your kid, at minimum they should have demonstrated some serious talent at some point before U12.


----------



## mirage (Aug 21, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> I’m curious, was your younger dominating like your older was at the younger ages before he moved onto other sports?


Sorry if I confused you. Our younger played multiple sports but is still playing soccer and have not moved onto another sport.

The answer is no to your question.  Our younger never dominated at younger ages.  In fact he was not at all athletic and not very coordinated either.  That said, puberty has been very kind to him.  He is significantly faster, leaner and far more coordinated than he ever was.  Still, not much as his older brother, but has many other characteristics and attributes that far exceeds his older sibling.



Supermodel56 said:


> .....I find it interesting that no one said their kid all of a sudden became a top player after U13 - which leads me to believe there’s really no such thing as the late bloomer - maybe more beneficial for boys but not girls since puberty seems to do more “harm” than good for their game.
> 
> ......Based on the responses so far, it looks like if you’re thinking college soccer (D1-3)  for your kid, at minimum they should have demonstrated some serious talent at some point before U12.


Maybe for girls but not for boys, as you so noted.  For boys it can makes fast kids slower, shorter kids taller or faster kids even faster and so on. 

I do disagree with the statement that a player most likely needs to be dominate before U12 for boys, as puberty is a huge part of change.  There are plenty of examples that show non-dominate players that make it big on the boys side all sports.

Since the forum is mostly populated with girls parents these days, the impression you've reached is no surprise.  Just want to add clarification point how different the genders are when it comes to transitioning from childhood to adulthood in terms of sports.  Its not to say that there aren't similarities - there are - but the differences are greater.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 21, 2019)

mirage said:


> Sorry if I confused you. Our younger played multiple sports but is still playing soccer and have not moved onto another sport.


Are you thinking he's going to play soccer in college?




mirage said:


> I do disagree with the statement that a player most likely needs to be dominate before U12 for boys, as puberty is a huge part of change.  There are plenty of examples that show non-dominate players that make it big on the boys side all sports.


I agree with you - for boys it really could go either way.  From everyone I've talked to re:girls, puberty has generally had a negative effect - it's just a matter of to what degree - but I could be wrong. Too bad the poll doesn't let you ask/link multiple questions...

For the 20% parents responding that their kid never really dominated - I'm curious what position, gender, division they ended up playing in college... do those kids ever end up playing D1?   I should probably just create a legitimate survey and look at all the different factors... would be really interesting to see!


----------



## mirage (Aug 21, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Are you thinking he's going to play soccer in college?


As I've indicated in the original post, no.  The younger kid has no interest in playing soccer for college.  He says he'll continue to play via college club team or intramural for fun.  He's very well balanced, personable kid with smarts so its all good. We're just working the last mile to get his SAT score at or over 1500.



Supermodel56 said:


> .....I'm curious what position, gender, division they ended up playing in college... do those kids ever end up playing D1?...


As my final note, its always interesting to read many on this forum equate college soccer to D1, or at least focus solely on D1.  Frankly, I believe, its misguided to view it that way.

While many of the top schools are D1, they are also D2 and D3.  And depending on how important academic quality of the institution is a factor, NCAA D1~D3 are a dependent variable.  In other words, think of it this way.  A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major.  Which would you pick?  Taking nothing away from CC, UofC has a significantly higher stature when transitioning to working career.

There are other D3 schools that are similar or better (MIT, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon and so on) so its a matter of the right fit and priorities of the player and the family.  And don't forget NAIA either.  If the objective is to play, then the division shouldn't matter as much as playing or not playing.... what do you think??


----------



## Zerodenero (Aug 21, 2019)

mirage said:


> As I've indicated in the original post, no.  The younger kid has no interest in playing soccer for college.  He says he'll continue to play via college club team or intramural for fun.  He's very well balanced, personable kid with smarts so its all good. We're just working the last mile to get his SAT score at or over 1500.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Truth right here


----------



## Supermodel56 (Aug 21, 2019)

mirage said:


> As my final note, its always interesting to read many on this forum equate college soccer to D1, or at least focus solely on D1.  Frankly, I believe, its misguided to view it that way.
> 
> While many of the top schools are D1, they are also D2 and D3.  And depending on how important academic quality of the institution is a factor, NCAA D1~D3 are a dependent variable.  In other words, think of it this way.  A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major.  Which would you pick?  Taking nothing away from CC, UofC has a significantly higher stature when transitioning to working career.
> 
> There are other D3 schools that are similar or better (MIT, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon and so on) so its a matter of the right fit and priorities of the player and the family.  And don't forget NAIA either.  If the objective is to play, then the division shouldn't matter as much as playing or not playing.... what do you think??


I totally agree, the only reason I use D1 is because I'm generally assuming if your player can play at the D1 level, D2/3/NAIA should be an option for them... but yes, the school should be a right fit for the kid's career, academic, and social goals.


----------



## Justafan (Aug 22, 2019)

mirage said:


> A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major.  Which would you pick?


Give me U of C even without the soccer.


----------

