Why such large rosters?

[espola]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.