# Why such large rosters?



## Savage (Aug 1, 2020)

So my daughter is still young (beginning 9th grade this year) and we have time before we get serious about recruiting.  But, one question has been nagging at me for a long time.  Why do so many programs maintain such large rosters?  Most rosters are 25-30 and some are more than 35.  Precious scholarship money and playing time has to be dividend up amongst the players.  I would think that such a huge roster would be recipe for a bad dynamic.  If I am a coach, I keep a roster of the best 20-25 I can recruit and divide the precious scholarship money and playing time amongst less players and use that as part of my recruiting pitch.  I can still instill a sense of competition amongst 20-25 when I have only 11 players on the field. 

I cannot think of a benefit to having a roster of more than 25 and I think I would make that a key criteria when evaluating the soccer programs.

What am I missing?


----------



## espola (Aug 1, 2020)

Savage said:


> So my daughter is still young (beginning 9th grade this year) and we have time before we get serious about recruiting.  But, one question has been nagging at me for a long time.  Why do so many programs maintain such large rosters?  Most rosters are 25-30 and some are more than 35.  Precious scholarship money and playing time has to be dividend up amongst the players.  I would think that such a huge roster would be recipe for a bad dynamic.  If I am a coach, I keep a roster of the best 20-25 I can recruit and divide the precious scholarship money and playing time amongst less players and use that as part of my recruiting pitch.  I can still instill a sense of competition amongst 20-25 when I have only 11 players on the field.
> 
> I cannot think of a benefit to having a roster of more than 25 and I think I would make that a key criteria when evaluating the soccer programs.
> 
> What am I missing?


Not all of them are getting any athletic scholarship money.


----------



## Dargle (Aug 1, 2020)

Savage said:


> So my daughter is still young (beginning 9th grade this year) and we have time before we get serious about recruiting.  But, one question has been nagging at me for a long time.  Why do so many programs maintain such large rosters?  Most rosters are 25-30 and some are more than 35.  Precious scholarship money and playing time has to be dividend up amongst the players.  I would think that such a huge roster would be recipe for a bad dynamic.  If I am a coach, I keep a roster of the best 20-25 I can recruit and divide the precious scholarship money and playing time amongst less players and use that as part of my recruiting pitch.  I can still instill a sense of competition amongst 20-25 when I have only 11 players on the field.
> 
> I cannot think of a benefit to having a roster of more than 25 and I think I would make that a key criteria when evaluating the soccer programs.
> 
> What am I missing?


The size of the roster doesn’t really impact how many players get a share of the scholarship money.  Most get none at all, especially on a larger roster.  College sub rules allow more players to get playing time, but in large rosters many of those players are mostly practice players.


----------



## Frank (Aug 1, 2020)

A couple of reasons. 1) injuries are far more prevalent in college, 2) they have them for four/five years so it takes time for younger players to gain the physical maturity it takes to consistently compete against 21-23 year olds, and 3) these are college kids so year to year a bunch just quit Or don’t make grades midway well after a school is allowed to recruit. There are many more reasons, but here are a few.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Aug 1, 2020)

You need more than 22 just to be able to scrimmage in practice.  Injuries can sideline 4-5 players.  Players don’t pan out.  Freshman are playing with players 3-4 years older and can need time to develop.  Some players don’t make grades.  There is a lot more to consider than club soccer.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Aug 2, 2020)

The team consists of grey and red shirts that are eligible to practice but not play or run the risk of burning a year of eligibility.  Then there’s scholarship players, non-scholarship players and walk-one.  Coaches have to build the their rosters to be able to practice starters vs scout team... usually grey shirts, red shirts and walk-ons but sometimes starters will get demoted to scout team. There’s a limited number of scholarships for each team and that money only gets divided among players on scholarship.  If your not on scholarship, you’re paying for your own tuition, room and board but you’re allowed to have a job as opposed to players on scholarship.


----------



## espola (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> The team consists of grey and red shirts that are eligible to practice but not play or run the risk of burning a year of eligibility.  Then there’s scholarship players, non-scholarship players and walk-one.  Coaches have to build the their rosters to be able to practice starters vs scout team... usually grey shirts, red shirts and walk-ons but sometimes starters will get demoted to scout team. There’s a limited number of scholarships for each team and that money only gets divided among players on scholarship.  If your not on scholarship, you’re paying for your own tuition, room and board but you’re allowed to have a job as opposed to players on scholarship.


Some of those players may still have a scholarship, but it's not from athletic grant-in-aid budget and they don't lose it if they get cut from the team.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Aug 2, 2020)

espola said:


> Some of those players may still have a scholarship, but it's not from athletic grant-in-aid budget and they don't lose it if they get cut from the team.


Athletic scholarships are tied to the team... it can be rescinded at the coaches discretion.  Academic scholarships are based on your grades, you have to maintain a certain gpa to remain eligible for which ever academic scholarship was awarded to the you.  There’s also financial aid assistance, work study and grants but that falls under non-scholarship.


----------



## espola (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Athletic scholarships are tied to the team... it can be rescinded at the coaches discretion.  Academic scholarships are based on your grades, you have to maintain a certain gpa to remain eligible for which ever academic scholarship was awarded to the you.  There’s also financial aid assistance, work study and grants but that falls under non-scholarship.


There are also special scholarships at many schools that are awarded based on ethnic background, parents' occupations, physical disability, place of residence, competitive examinations and/or interviews, etc, etc, etc.  Some of those special awards are so high they would be illegal if they came through the athletic department.


----------



## Footy30 (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Athletic scholarships are tied to the team... it can be rescinded at the coaches discretion.  Academic scholarships are based on your grades, you have to maintain a certain gpa to remain eligible for which ever academic scholarship was awarded to the you.  There’s also financial aid assistance, work study and grants but that falls under non-scholarship.


Family member was on a full ride for D1 school, partied too much so grades were crap so she lost scholarship and was sent back home to Cali.


----------



## espola (Aug 2, 2020)

espola said:


> There are also special scholarships at many schools that are awarded based on ethnic background, parents' occupations, physical disability, place of residence, competitive examinations and/or interviews, etc, etc, etc.  Some of those special awards are so high they would be illegal if they came through the athletic department.


Dartmouth, for example, has some Native-American admissions and scholarship programs dating back to its founding as a school for those living out in the wilderness and also for residents of Wheelock, Vermont, dating back to when the whole town (at that time just some lines on a map) was donated to Dartmouth to support the college in its early days.


----------



## Ellejustus (Aug 2, 2020)

Footy30 said:


> Family member was on a full ride for D1 school, partied too much so grades were crap so she lost scholarship and was sent back home to Cali.


I heard from a friend that said her dd showed up to her first fall college workout ((signed as 8th grader)) and failed the tests.  Puked, got sick and needed an extra day to feel better.  33 other players past all the test.  The girl called her mommy that night ((dad was pissed because she didn't listen to her old man about going to camp in shape)) and wanted to come home.  Anyway, she quit the team next day but stayed at the school somehow. She had a 25% deal because her grades were insane.  Party girl got straight As all the time somehow too.  Going to graduate in 2022.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Aug 2, 2020)

Footy30 said:


> Family member was on a full ride for D1 school, partied too much so grades were crap so she lost scholarship and was sent back home to Cali.


My cousin went from full ride to partial bc he lost his starting position due to injury.  It sucks but it happens.  Diff sport but they all operate the same.


----------



## Ellejustus (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> My cousin went from full ride to partial bc he lost his starting position due to injury.  It sucks but it happens.  Diff sport but they all operate the same.


I played one year of college ball ((all conference first team)) and two years of big time adult league hoops.  One of my college roommates was all world small college baller one year and then tore his ACL the next year.  I never saw again.  I guess he was a true D1 prospect as a Jr in HS and tore his left ACL.  He sat out Sr year and then had a season to remember as Fr in college.  Then he tore his right ACL and it was over.  I heard he quit college and got into sales.


----------



## dad4 (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> The team consists of grey and red shirts that are eligible to practice but not play or run the risk of burning a year of eligibility.  Then there’s scholarship players, non-scholarship players and walk-one.  Coaches have to build the their rosters to be able to practice starters vs scout team... usually grey shirts, red shirts and walk-ons but sometimes starters will get demoted to scout team. There’s a limited number of scholarships for each team and that money only gets divided among players on scholarship.  If your not on scholarship, you’re paying for your own tuition, room and board but you’re allowed to have a job as opposed to players on scholarship.


Are schools pretty clear about where they imagine you fitting in?

Some kids might be delighted with practice squad and admission to their dream school.  Others would be crushed to find out they aren't fully on the team.


----------



## Simisoccerfan (Aug 2, 2020)

The scholarship offer is the thing that tells you where you fit in. One your kid starts playing there talent will tell.


----------



## Ellejustus (Aug 2, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Are schools pretty clear about where they imagine you fitting in?
> 
> Some kids might be delighted with practice squad and admission to their dream school.  Others would be crushed to find out they aren't fully on the team.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Aug 2, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Are schools pretty clear about where they imagine you fitting in?
> 
> Some kids might be delighted with practice squad and admission to their dream school.  Others would be crushed to find out they aren't fully on the team.


Sometimes if a D1 doesn’t know your value, you can always go the “prove them wrong route” which is JUCO.  Some ppl look down on that route but that’s another ave to take.  May not be what you wished for but if you can ball out at the JUCO level the D1, D1AA, NAIA, D2 coaches will seek you out.


----------



## Footy30 (Aug 2, 2020)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> My cousin went from full ride to partial bc he lost his starting position due to injury.  It sucks but it happens.  Diff sport but they all operate the same.


Oh man, injuries are the worse...  yes you're right they all operate the same. My cousin came home, got her act together was offered another great opportunity but her dad said nope she blew it, so she ended up going to the local university and playing for them, still not a bad gig but definitely not the dream she had for herself. The family was divided on how the whole situation was handled to say the least haha... me? I stayed the hell out of it. Hope your cousin still enjoyed his sport and college experience. 

@Ellejustus  glad it worked out for both girls! too bad the 1st girl couldn't play after all, but a least she still stayed in school.


----------



## gkrent (Aug 5, 2020)

Savage said:


> So my daughter is still young (beginning 9th grade this year) and we have time before we get serious about recruiting.  But, one question has been nagging at me for a long time.  Why do so many programs maintain such large rosters?  Most rosters are 25-30 and some are more than 35.  Precious scholarship money and playing time has to be dividend up amongst the players.  I would think that such a huge roster would be recipe for a bad dynamic.  If I am a coach, I keep a roster of the best 20-25 I can recruit and divide the precious scholarship money and playing time amongst less players and use that as part of my recruiting pitch.  I can still instill a sense of competition amongst 20-25 when I have only 11 players on the field.
> 
> I cannot think of a benefit to having a roster of more than 25 and I think I would make that a key criteria when evaluating the soccer programs.
> 
> What am I missing?


I can tell you from a GK standpoint that there should be at least 3 on a roster.  4 to be extra comfortable.  I've seen all keepers get injured on both a 2 and 3 person keeper roster and the coaches had to have "try-outs" to see which field player would be in the net during season.  

Injuries and illness are taken much more seriously in college and a minor sprain that might not sideline a youth player would keep a collegiate player out until cleared.


----------



## espola (Aug 5, 2020)

gkrent said:


> I can tell you from a GK standpoint that there should be at least 3 on a roster.  4 to be extra comfortable.  I've seen all keepers get injured on both a 2 and 3 person keeper roster and the coaches had to have "try-outs" to see which field player would be in the net during season.
> 
> Injuries and illness are taken much more seriously in college and a minor sprain that might not sideline a youth player would keep a collegiate player out until cleared.


My older son was a goalkeeper for a while in youngers, and he loved dribbling out of the box, especially in indoor soccer.  Then on his best older teams (16 to 20 more or less) he was backup keeper and occasional starter.  In his two seasons of high school he had a 0.00 GAA (parts of two games where the starting keeper got hurt).  My second son filled in as keeper a practice one time, broke his thumb, and never played keeper again.


----------



## Mystery Train (Aug 5, 2020)

dad4 said:


> Are schools pretty clear about where they imagine you fitting in?
> 
> Some kids might be delighted with practice squad and admission to their dream school.  Others would be crushed to find out they aren't fully on the team.


Exactly.  That's why most of the coaches my daughter spoke with (who were serious about recruiting her) tried to be very clear about where she fit in.  I say "tried" because the good, honest ones will always tell you that they can't predict those things with much precision.  One coach made a point of telling her about kids that he recruited who he was sure were going to be superstars who flamed out and kids that he recruited for bench depth who ended up being studs.  He explained that he's not recruiting her for what she is right now, but what he thinks she can be.  But that always comes with the caveat that they are all bench players until they earn their playing time.  She had another coach who said that she had to work on some significant areas of her game, but if she continued to develop he could see her competing for a starting spot by her junior year.  But until then, he viewed her as a solid character addition for the team culture and bench depth.   She accepted an offer with a different school where the coach said she would compete for starts as a freshman, and the coach expected significant playing time and production from her and, "All that depends 100% on what you do _after_ you get here."  

The good ones will lay out a couple different scenarios, and tell you which one they think is most realistic.  We learned that it's not really in the coaches' best interests to snowball the player about playing time to get them to commit, because then they're wasting their own time and resources if they do.  The bad ones will be very vague and keep stalling for more time to "talk it over with the other coaches," or "need to see a little more," even after they'd seen her play in many games and worked with her in camps in person.   We learned those were red flags that they were trying to keep her on the burner as a 2nd option while pursuing a higher priority prospect.  We much preferred a coach who ghosted her or simply said, "No thanks," to one who kept her on a string or made non-specific promises about playing time.     

College coaches understand that it's a huge gap between a 17 year old boy or girl club superstar and a 20 year old man or woman with 2 years of college soccer and physical maturation under their belt.  There are so many variables which can derail them between their college commitment and their first real contribution on the field for their team, so that's why character is such a big deal to them in the recruitment process.  It also depends on the school.  The top 1% schools like Stanford, UCLA, UNC, FSU, etc., are getting national team prospects, so those conversations are obviously a little different.  But most schools are looking for diamonds in the rough.  Tim Ward said that he recruits a player's ceiling and potential, and that's like playing the stock market.  A smart investor buys stock not because of the growth a company has already had, but because they think there's a lot more growth to be had, and that takes time.


----------



## Footy30 (Aug 5, 2020)

espola said:


> My older son was a goalkeeper for a while in youngers, and he loved dribbling out of the box, especially in indoor soccer.  Then on his best older teams (16 to 20 more or less) he was backup keeper and occasional starter.  In his two seasons of high school he had a 0.00 GAA (parts of two games where the starting keeper got hurt).  My second son filled in as keeper a practice one time, broke his thumb, and never played keeper again.


haha I skimmed this post and read that your son had a* 0.00 GPA* instead of GAA and thought wow.... why are you throwing your son under the bus like that... then went back and re-read it.. doh!


----------



## eastbaysoccer (Aug 5, 2020)

Coaches add lots of players because they can. 

the amount you receive for the most part is proportional to how much the coach thinks you will play.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Aug 5, 2020)

Mystery Train said:


> Exactly.  That's why most of the coaches my daughter spoke with (who were serious about recruiting her) tried to be very clear about where she fit in.  I say "tried" because the good, honest ones will always tell you that they can't predict those things with much precision.  One coach made a point of telling her about kids that he recruited who he was sure were going to be superstars who flamed out and kids that he recruited for bench depth who ended up being studs.  He explained that he's not recruiting her for what she is right now, but what he thinks she can be.  But that always comes with the caveat that they are all bench players until they earn their playing time.  She had another coach who said that she had to work on some significant areas of her game, but if she continued to develop he could see her competing for a starting spot by her junior year.  But until then, he viewed her as a solid character addition for the team culture and bench depth.   She accepted an offer with a different school where the coach said she would compete for starts as a freshman, and the coach expected significant playing time and production from her and, "All that depends 100% on what you do _after_ you get here."
> 
> The good ones will lay out a couple different scenarios, and tell you which one they think is most realistic.  We learned that it's not really in the coaches' best interests to snowball the player about playing time to get them to commit, because then they're wasting their own time and resources if they do.  The bad ones will be very vague and keep stalling for more time to "talk it over with the other coaches," or "need to see a little more," even after they'd seen her play in many games and worked with her in camps in person.   We learned those were red flags that they were trying to keep her on the burner as a 2nd option while pursuing a higher priority prospect.  We much preferred a coach who ghosted her or simply said, "No thanks," to one who kept her on a string or made non-specific promises about playing time.
> 
> College coaches understand that it's a huge gap between a 17 year old boy or girl club superstar and a 20 year old man or woman with 2 years of college soccer and physical maturation under their belt.  There are so many variables which can derail them between their college commitment and their first real contribution on the field for their team, so that's why character is such a big deal to them in the recruitment process.  It also depends on the school.  The top 1% schools like Stanford, UCLA, UNC, FSU, etc., are getting national team prospects, so those conversations are obviously a little different.  But most schools are looking for diamonds in the rough.  Tim Ward said that he recruits a player's ceiling and potential, and that's like playing the stock market.  A smart investor buys stock not because of the growth a company has already had, but because they think there's a lot more growth to be had, and that takes time.


Research their Starting Lineups a few years back to confirm if their starting lineup were littered with underclassmen or not.  That should give you a good idea if someone is full of it or not lol


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Aug 5, 2020)

Mystery Train said:


> Exactly.  That's why most of the coaches my daughter spoke with (who were serious about recruiting her) tried to be very clear about where she fit in.  I say "tried" because the good, honest ones will always tell you that they can't predict those things with much precision.  One coach made a point of telling her about kids that he recruited who he was sure were going to be superstars who flamed out and kids that he recruited for bench depth who ended up being studs.  He explained that he's not recruiting her for what she is right now, but what he thinks she can be.  But that always comes with the caveat that they are all bench players until they earn their playing time.  She had another coach who said that she had to work on some significant areas of her game, but if she continued to develop he could see her competing for a starting spot by her junior year.  But until then, he viewed her as a solid character addition for the team culture and bench depth.   She accepted an offer with a different school where the coach said she would compete for starts as a freshman, and the coach expected significant playing time and production from her and, "All that depends 100% on what you do _after_ you get here."
> 
> The good ones will lay out a couple different scenarios, and tell you which one they think is most realistic.  We learned that it's not really in the coaches' best interests to snowball the player about playing time to get them to commit, because then they're wasting their own time and resources if they do.  The bad ones will be very vague and keep stalling for more time to "talk it over with the other coaches," or "need to see a little more," even after they'd seen her play in many games and worked with her in camps in person.   We learned those were red flags that they were trying to keep her on the burner as a 2nd option while pursuing a higher priority prospect.  We much preferred a coach who ghosted her or simply said, "No thanks," to one who kept her on a string or made non-specific promises about playing time.
> 
> College coaches understand that it's a huge gap between a 17 year old boy or girl club superstar and a 20 year old man or woman with 2 years of college soccer and physical maturation under their belt.  There are so many variables which can derail them between their college commitment and their first real contribution on the field for their team, so that's why character is such a big deal to them in the recruitment process.  It also depends on the school.  The top 1% schools like Stanford, UCLA, UNC, FSU, etc., are getting national team prospects, so those conversations are obviously a little different.  But most schools are looking for diamonds in the rough.  Tim Ward said that he recruits a player's ceiling and potential, and that's like playing the stock market.  A smart investor buys stock not because of the growth a company has already had, but because they think there's a lot more growth to be had, and that takes time.


Great post. Thank you for sharing that!


----------



## SD_Soccer (Aug 5, 2020)

Mystery Train said:


> Exactly.  That's why most of the coaches my daughter spoke with (who were serious about recruiting her) tried to be very clear about where she fit in.  I say "tried" because the good, honest ones will always tell you that they can't predict those things with much precision.  One coach made a point of telling her about kids that he recruited who he was sure were going to be superstars who flamed out and kids that he recruited for bench depth who ended up being studs.  He explained that he's not recruiting her for what she is right now, but what he thinks she can be.  But that always comes with the caveat that they are all bench players until they earn their playing time.  She had another coach who said that she had to work on some significant areas of her game, but if she continued to develop he could see her competing for a starting spot by her junior year.  But until then, he viewed her as a solid character addition for the team culture and bench depth.   She accepted an offer with a different school where the coach said she would compete for starts as a freshman, and the coach expected significant playing time and production from her and, "All that depends 100% on what you do _after_ you get here."
> 
> The good ones will lay out a couple different scenarios, and tell you which one they think is most realistic.  We learned that it's not really in the coaches' best interests to snowball the player about playing time to get them to commit, because then they're wasting their own time and resources if they do.  The bad ones will be very vague and keep stalling for more time to "talk it over with the other coaches," or "need to see a little more," even after they'd seen her play in many games and worked with her in camps in person.   We learned those were red flags that they were trying to keep her on the burner as a 2nd option while pursuing a higher priority prospect.  We much preferred a coach who ghosted her or simply said, "No thanks," to one who kept her on a string or made non-specific promises about playing time.
> 
> College coaches understand that it's a huge gap between a 17 year old boy or girl club superstar and a 20 year old man or woman with 2 years of college soccer and physical maturation under their belt.  There are so many variables which can derail them between their college commitment and their first real contribution on the field for their team, so that's why character is such a big deal to them in the recruitment process.  It also depends on the school.  The top 1% schools like Stanford, UCLA, UNC, FSU, etc., are getting national team prospects, so those conversations are obviously a little different.  But most schools are looking for diamonds in the rough.  Tim Ward said that he recruits a player's ceiling and potential, and that's like playing the stock market.  A smart investor buys stock not because of the growth a company has already had, but because they think there's a lot more growth to be had, and that takes time.


My daughter’s coach was very clear with where he saw her fitting in on the team. She was a freshman starter and he had told her he saw her competing for a starting spot but she had to come in and earn it. She talked with players on the team who played a lot and players who did not, and he was honest with where he saw all players. I suspect most coaches are pretty honest (acknowledging they sometime have players exceed expectations and some not perform as expected). If they are not honest, their reputation will get around and they likely won’t be very successful or last very long.


----------

