I guess the question is will ECNL/GA go play D3 or Juco? Those ECNL/GA parents were promised D1. The ROI on club soccer is bad already but to incur the expense of ECNL or GA just to go play at some obscure D3 or at the community college down the street doesn't seem to mix. Plus.. (its true don't tell me its not) where are the bragging rights and flex for the ECNL/GA parents if they can't say Sally isn't D1 Power5? Think this really impacts ECNL/GA
College Roster Caps
- Thread starter Scrag75
- Start date
Yeah, I'm with you. I won't pretend to be versed on it but this sure seems like a mess. I like kids having some kind of an option but kids need to drop the social media bullshit and really commit the way I perceive coaches committing to them.I hate the portal.
Yea i think that is where the perception is off. The way the old system was the coaches had all the power. If they benched the player they were trapped. Won't play but can't go anywhere else. The ultimate grounding. Plus if your coach quit or was fired and a new coach comes in and doesn't value you... you are screwed with no way out other than to quit. I don't know that most of the players actually felt the coaches were committed to them other than the starters and super subs. Now.. players have the power. Don't like your playing time or position? Join the portal, roll the dice and go on to the next coach. Seems like the trend in most of our social structures now where the old establishments power is being taken away and the individual is gaining for better or for worse.
I certainly see that side of it, but I also think players know going in that playing time isn't guaranteed and you base your decision on where you think you can get 60-70 minutes if that's your priority. Maybe I'm too much of a romantic and it's naive to think most of these coaches have best intentions. 'Pick the school first' led every conversation I ever had with my kid. You might like your coach that leaves. You might hate your coach that stays. You might hate your teammates (which is more prevalent than I thought). You might play a lot or your bad team or your team may be great and you play very little. Some last minute senior or grad transfers in after you've been promised the starting XYZ spot, etc.
I think players have to be accountable, too, but I guess it's enough of a risk to put your name out there and not get swooped up. I don't imagine too many are welcomed back into the house after you turned in your key and said you wanted out.
I don't know what line they fed you, but no one ever promised me D1. They told me that most, but not all, of their seniors will play in college somewhere. That's it.
Way it is explained here is: If you want D1 you have to go ECNL/GA. If you are good with D2-Juco DPL/ECRL is enough. While it may not be "guaranteed" most ECNL parents I know expect D1 offers.
Smart coaches and great advice
dk_b
GOLD
Interesting thread.
Small Rosters - that's bad, particularly on the women's side. In theory, small rosters are great b/c playing time is maximized. But the reality is that small rosters create injury risk, no matter how fit nor how good the trainers are, and then go from small to thin very quickly.
Huge rosters - also bad, in my opinion. There is no reason to emulate football and have waves of players who are capable players but never or rarely see the feel. That said, the players can choose to some degree unless a coach radically changes her or his approach after a player commits (seldom the case. I remember UCLA's initial 2020 commit (we knew her well). YNT level player. Unless you are from NorCal and have kids of similar age, you may not know who this player is. By the time they started their first year, the class was enormous - many YNT players and others to round it out. While the first player might have been bummed, I think Cromwell's track record showed large rosters so there was no surprise).
Transfer Portal - I get why people dislike the portal but the public story about why a player might consider transferring is hardly ever told. And that applies to 90-minute P5 (or maybe now P4?) full-ride players who still choose to leave.
Small Rosters - that's bad, particularly on the women's side. In theory, small rosters are great b/c playing time is maximized. But the reality is that small rosters create injury risk, no matter how fit nor how good the trainers are, and then go from small to thin very quickly.
Huge rosters - also bad, in my opinion. There is no reason to emulate football and have waves of players who are capable players but never or rarely see the feel. That said, the players can choose to some degree unless a coach radically changes her or his approach after a player commits (seldom the case. I remember UCLA's initial 2020 commit (we knew her well). YNT level player. Unless you are from NorCal and have kids of similar age, you may not know who this player is. By the time they started their first year, the class was enormous - many YNT players and others to round it out. While the first player might have been bummed, I think Cromwell's track record showed large rosters so there was no surprise).
Transfer Portal - I get why people dislike the portal but the public story about why a player might consider transferring is hardly ever told. And that applies to 90-minute P5 (or maybe now P4?) full-ride players who still choose to leave.
That's the kind of thing that really turns me off about recruiting and college soccer.
You have players that have spent 10+ years of their life trying their hardest to be the best.
But there's so many slimeballs involved + with their hands out.
My dd and a few others were getting a looksee from AC back in 2017. However, AC picked players like Lauren Isackson to fill open roster spots instead of others who actually played high level soccer. Large roster is a big red flag and that makes some of us to shake our freaking brains. Not easy to get into UCLA with just excellent grades. My buddy's son had 4.7 and was denied entry.
LMFAO! How hilarious is it that nobody in UCLA's media program has gone back and removed this. She's still there!
dk_b
GOLD
Not really the point I was making. However, Cromwell didn't add a player like that to fill any roster spots because the roster spots were pretty much endless. If she carried 40 players and wanted to make it 41 to "accommodate" an arrangement, she could have done so (though I think in 2017, it was more like adding her made it 28 on paper and part of why it was not noticed is that 27 or 28 or 30 players did not move the needle). She clearly trended to carrying a large roster of actual players - when my kid played at UCLA in her soph year, I was amazed at the # of players in warm-ups and none of them was this person or someone like that. It was not actually a surprise as she was increasing roster sizes from 2017 (with this player included) but to see it in person was something else. Going back to look at her rosters, those early-commit 2020s did not have that info but by the time they were Jrs and Srs in HS, their class had ballooned and her rosters had really increased. And b/c this was a group that was recruited under the old rules, despite being great players, there was not as much flexibility to decommit as one might think. Additionally, even if they found themselves one of a class of 11 or more, they were all good so the probably assumed that they would be high rotation players (not all were, of course).
As for your buddy's son, yeah, a lot of really good, capable students get rejected from the top schools. And that's a bummer for him. I hope he landed at a school he loves. That's what I hope for all the kids. (My identical twins had identical transcripts other than the social security numbers. When they applied to schools, there were some that ONLY looked at grades - no test scores, no essays, no letters of rec, no activities, etc. And despite having IDENTICAL grades in IDENTICAL classes, the admission decision was not always the same. My point? It's often random w/o any great conspiracy behind the decisions)
I saw UCLA and jumped at the point I've been trying to make for 6 years
It was wrong for her and others like her to offer roster spots to fake soccer players. That was my point and I wonder why her rosters kept getting bigger? Her pal Jorge was taking in $200,000 per deal. Anyway, roster spots should be going to real soccer players.One might think with a roster of jersey numbers going from 00-28... and then there's #41? LOL... it's almost like she was trying to get caught.I saw UCLA and jumped at the point I've been trying to make for 6 years
My brother was an All-American Water Polo GK for the mighty Bruins in the 60s. He found out about this scam, and it broke his heart. Our beloved State University "giving away" roster spots as favors and with no flavors in return? Oh please, who the hell believes that crock of you know what. Big time side hustles for kickbacks all the while our dd's work their asses off to get into a Big U. Pay for Play is fucking over everyone.
A roster of 32-35 students likely includes some who will never play in a game anyway.
Same here, but those are minimum standards.
You're probably right that a lot of parents hear the minimum standard and expect D1 offers.
But that's on them. It's easy enough to go to your club's website or commitment night and find out where the older girls are going.
Well, if you never play, no one sees your number...
My experience so far. 10-15% of the roster is hurt at one time or another. 5-10% of the roster quits or transfers out during the year. You may start with 30, but you end up with 24 really quickly. Season ends, 7 graduate, you are down to 22 players, with only 19 that can play in the winter/spring with injuries. Plus if you have 3-4 goalkeepers, they aren't playing any other positions, so possible you end up with 16 field players. Makes spring games difficult.
They talk about cutting rosters, but of the 30 on a roster, I'd guess 10 aren't getting any money. They will be there no matter what. So really only keeping 20 players happy. We just might see schools only giving out 8-12 of the 14 scholarships that they have, with the chances at full rides even slimmer.
They talk about cutting rosters, but of the 30 on a roster, I'd guess 10 aren't getting any money. They will be there no matter what. So really only keeping 20 players happy. We just might see schools only giving out 8-12 of the 14 scholarships that they have, with the chances at full rides even slimmer.