Class of 2016 Recuiting

Discussion in 'Women's College' started by Soccerhunter, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    #1 Soccerhunter, Dec 20, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013
    While this thread should remain dormant for about another year, I wanted to note that the trend to earlier and earlier recruiting continues at am embarrassing pace. The 2016 class who are now not even half way through their high school freshman year (we're talking 14 and 15 year olds) are committing at a discernible pace.

    For the 2012 class and earlier I can identify no high school freshmen who were committed in late December.
    For the 2013 class I spotted 2, and the 2014 class I can find 5 (by digging through old notes)
    ....... Until the 2015 class it did not occur to me to look at this issue. So....
    For the 2015 class I find that 15 girls had committed by this date in December.
    And now, the 2016 class now has more than 40 names committed including 2 consensus top-ten players and 10 with national youth team experience.

    The trend is clear.

    And then I spotted an 8th grader committing about a month ago for the class of 2017!

    In a year from now there will be about 500 2016 players committed, and it will be appropriate to start ranking colleges then. Talk to you in December 2014......
     
  2. That West Coast Guy

    That West Coast Guy New Member

    May 8, 2013
    The 2016 girls are sophomores now, not freshmen. Are your comparative data for 2012 - 2015 as of the those classes' sophomore year (which would be comparable) or freshman year?
     
  3. Soccerhunter

    Soccerhunter Member+

    Sep 12, 2009
    Yikes! This goes to show what being too busy and getting up too early can do to one's clear thinking. (Some days I need a good editor/proofreader.) I got myself on the wrong side of the split years. (In other words, classes span calendar years and I momentarily got into addled thinking of the wrong end of that span.) You are right about the years, but the trend still is obvious.

    So here is the raw data as I have it.

    I was not interested in this issue enough to keep any specific records of dates until the 2015 class. (I had been looking at names only.) However, I have come across old notes that indicate that, for the 2013 class there were apparently a commitment in June of 2010 and in August of 2010. (There may have been more, but nothing I can find.) I also found notations that indicate that there were 5 commitments for 2014 before 8/31/11.

    For the class of 2015, I show 7 commitments before 8/31/12, and another 8 between 8/31 and 12/21 2012. This makes a total of 15 commitments by that 12/21 date.

    I have better data for the class of 2016 and even began recording some names of NT players in late September. (Also I know of three more 2016 recruits, but am waiting to find more confirming data.) I show the following:

    2016 CLASS
    BY DATE TOTAL COMMITS
    11/12/12 -1 Commit
    2/15/13 -3 Commits
    3/12/13 -4 Commits
    4/30/13 -5 Commits
    6/30/13 -6 Commits
    8/19/13 -7 Commits
    8/27/13 -9 Commits
    9/3/13 10 Commits
    9/11/13 11 Commits
    9/23/13 20 Commits (2 of 9 NT experience) (total: 5 of 20 US NT experience)
    10/2/13 23 Commits (1 US NT, 1 other (non-US) NT out of 3)
    10/17/13 24 Commits
    10/31/13 28 Commits (1 US NT experience - Maddy Hairston, MD)
    11/11/13 29 Commits
    12/1/13 33 Commits (1 US NT experience - Madison Gozales, Santa Clara)
    12/10/13 35 Commits (1 US NT experience - Lynsee Voss, San Diego)
    12/19/13 37 Commits


    So by December 21 or thereabouts:

    For the 2013 class I find 2 commitments by 12/21/10 (Both committed in summer after freshman year.)
    For the 2014 class I find 5 commitments by 12/21/11 (Committed by end of summer after freshman year)
    For the 2015 class I find 15 commitments by 12/21/12 (7 committed by end of summer after freshman year)

    For the 2016 class I find 37 (or 40) by 12/21/13 (9 committed by end of summer after freshman year)

    Sorry for the confusion. I hope that this simply makes my point about the trend without out the distracting reference to high school class.
     
    centerback repped this.
  4. Soccer2345

    Soccer2345 Member

    Jan 6, 2014
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Why is womens soccer so early when men's soccer recruiting is so much later
     
  5. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Men don't commit early if they are good. They want to play in the professional Development program and go pro.

    There is currently no equivalent on the womens side.college is the top rung of the development ladder for girls.

    Horan is the only exception I can think of.
     
  6. HouseofCards

    HouseofCards Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    Supply and demand. There are more women's programs and less players, so the competition to get the players is more fierce. On the men's side, the player pool is bigger and there are less programs, so you can find quality players later in the process.
     
  7. centerback

    centerback New Member

    Nov 28, 2011
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    What is amazing to me is the number of girls who are committed before they are technically able to converse with the coaches unless on campus to face to face meeting. How confident are these students (and coaches) of the fit over 4 years? It would be interesting to look at the transfer rate by school along with the early commit rate.
    I am not sure many sophmores have had the chance to visit enough schools to determine their "final" choice college.
     
  8. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's crazy, and it's the parents' fault.
     
  9. centerback

    centerback New Member

    Nov 28, 2011
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    For everyone's sake, we need to push for a slow down...having been through the transfer process once before(as a parent), it is incredibly challenging to the student...let alone the student athlete.
     
  10. justahick

    justahick Member

    May 30, 2013
    There are really no rules about when player are allowed to talk to coaches. The rules prohibit coaches calling/emailing players early, they do not prohibit players calling coaches.

    Most (non athletes) don't spend much time thinking about college choice until the summer before senior year. They then end up with about 8 months to make their decisions. As parents of an athlete, we knew our D would be making a decision earlier so we made sure we started visiting schools during soph. year. By fall of Junior year we had spent more time on more campuses with her than we ever did with our older, not recruited college freshman.

    My gut feeling is that the transfer rate for early commits is not significantly different that it is for non athletes. Most kids do not have the experience to evaluate their options in such a drastic life change.
     
  11. justahick

    justahick Member

    May 30, 2013
    For my D, she was very happy to be done with the process early. She didn't enjoy the stress of showcasing (either at tournaments or at camps) and has been much happier playing since she committed. She also was very happy to be free of the application crunch stress that he older brother went through.

    Of course things are all rosy now, and they might change once she gets there, but I honestly don't believe another 12 month would have made any significant difference in her ability to make a choice.
     
  12. upprv

    upprv Member

    Aug 4, 2004
    I disagree with blaming the parents. If we are assigning blame, the lion's share goes to the coaches who are offering that early. (And they know who they are....look at who has the earliest commitments.) The parents don't know enough to understand that during the recruiting process they are in the driver's seat to delay the commitment. If my DD was a top freshman in the country and Anson offered, would I be able to tell him that "heck no my kid is 15, give her time to grow up and develop a bit as a person before she makes a decision of this magnitude" or would my kid and I freak out that we may lose this opportunity of playing at UNC and commit? Certainly we would hope parents would understand that they control their product but I completely understand the fear of losing the opportunity that may not come around again (UNC will just go get a commit from the next player in line.) So while certainly the parents COULD stop the process, the schools offering scholarships so early could stop it a lot easier.

    It's been the same blue blood schools offering early scholarships for years, and then as more and more schools need to keep up to secure top kids.

    But regardless of where the blame lies, the NCAA could solve it easily. Set a recruiting calendar.
     
  13. 2-Timer

    2-Timer Member

    Jul 1, 2013
    North Texas
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Just starting the process with my youngest. Thought I might have some inside wisdom since we just finished everything with my other daughter, but new schools, new club, new trainer and everything is different. The tough part which just seems unfair to the kids is a real example. She has some interest in 4 schools of the same conference because of a degree program those 4 offer and their proximity to home. Two of those schools are recruiting and starting to get verbal commits from 2016's and claim they are about booked for 2015's. The other 2 are just starting their 2015 class and may not even have a commit yet and will not start their 2016's until next year. So 4 schools from the same conference and 2 of them will be done with a certain class before the other 2 even start. Not that much difference in the actual standing year to year in the four - just 2 different strategies. Very difficult for the player to work through that. I wish the schools were giving set periods to make offers, but that would give the advantage to the player and that doesn't seem to be their concern.
     
  14. RUBlind

    RUBlind Member

    Nov 8, 2011
    Seems as if many of these coaches recruiting motto is "You snooze, you lose".
     
  15. Enzo the Prince

    Sep 9, 2007
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    So, what is the actual problem that needs to be fixed that some of you are complaining about?

    Does anyone have hard numbers that indicate women's soccer players transfer or drop out at significantly higher rates than non-athlete students? It seems like there is an assumption that this is the case. Because if not that - then what?
     
  16. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    You can get a sense by reading up on GSR, FGR , and APR as they relate to the general student population. Figures are available for school and sport.

    Here's a start.
    http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/artic...thletes-show-progress-graduation-success-rate
     
  17. Eddie K

    Eddie K Member+

    May 5, 2007
    Sorry no reference to cite but understand that the transfer rate in d1 women's soccer is highest among team sports. Simple solution would be to allow all types of contact beginning Sept 1 of Jr Year but not allow any offers of or acceptance of roster place or scholarship before that date. So 9th and 10th grade do the camps and clinics and visits and then bam! All the top d1s get their kids in Sept/Oct, the rest go in Winter and early Spring and then the D2s and 3s go thereafter. This would actually lengthen the evaluation period but then compress the commitment period to just a few months. You could maybe say Aug 1 for contacts and then Oct 1 for offers as that would benefit the recruit so they could see a game and visit in Sept before deciding/accepting. These could be official paid visits as well.

    Right now everyone is trying to get access to the kid/family in 9th and 10th grade through ID camps, visits, ODP and through the club coaches. Appointment phone calling is all the rage. Women's soccer is like the wild west of recruiting right now.
     
  18. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    That's a pretty misleading statement. It has little to do with any recruiting policies and more to do with the difference in transfer rules by sport. basketball, the other 'big' sport for women, gives only full scholarships, giving players more financial security, and basketball does not have the one time transfer exception, making transferring much harder.

    So if the goal is to cut down on transfers, give full scholarships for soccer and eliminate the transfer exception.
     
  19. Eddie K

    Eddie K Member+

    May 5, 2007
    So, you're saying committing even bigger scholarships to 9th and 10th graders and then making it harder for them to transfer once they're in college is better for the recruit? for the coach? for who?

    It seems to me it's the high profile d1 schools that can attract 9th and 10th graders to their campus for visits or "id camps" have the biggest advantage. Sometimes schools will "indirectly" convey an interest in the player through odp, club coaches, USYNT events, etc. Once the prospect gets on campus and understands how to schedule calls to the coach, the offer is extended with a timeline to commit - this squeezes out lots of other potential schools and is forcing coaches to get more creative in how they 'indirectly' convey that interest in the 15 year old....it's crazy. Throwing more money into the process with stricter rules on transferring is not the answer.
    Making everyone wait to some agreed upon later date in the Jr year to make commitments will give the prospect more time to make a decision and look at more schools. It's more fair to more college programs as well. Maybe those schools currently getting all the top recruits won't like that idea but even some of those coaches will say out loud they don't like the system of early commits and then will go host an ID camp for 9th graders the very next weekend! We can chase our tails in a debate about this but unfortunately, BS forums are just for fun...
    and btw, the transfer rate in women's soccer being higher than for other sports is anecdotal but I've heard this several places. Would love to see the real stats.
    So, bottom line - early commits: more risk, less information, more pressure, less fair = should be changed IMHO!
     
    HeadSpun and upprv repped this.
  20. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I still say this is on the parents. They need to get a grip. What matters? Their daughters' total lives or their daughters' short term soccer prospects? When their daughters are juniors or seniors, I can see a shift of decision-making from the parent to the child, but when their daughters are frosh and sophomores, "No."

    I'm being a little extreme here, I know there are grey areas, but come on, I don't buy "The devil made me do it."
     
  21. justahick

    justahick Member

    May 30, 2013
    First, I haven't seen any stats that show that athletes in general or women's soccer players specifically are transferring at any greater rate than their cohort populations.

    Second, we were never put under any pressure to commit early. We found a situation that we were happy with and we jumped on it. If we weren't happy we would have kept looking. While my wife and I were involved in the decision, the final decision was our daughter's.

    Lastly, yes some 10th graders are committing, but that number is still very small. The vast majority of commitments are happening during Jr and Sr years.
     
  22. That West Coast Guy

    That West Coast Guy New Member

    May 8, 2013
    Maybe "its on the parents", but tell me a better decision for a parent who is confronted with a decision to either support or not an offer for financial help and/or admissions office help for a great university that fulfills their daughter's needs and perhaps dreams. The parents didn't design this system that basically requires a choice between deciding early or having attractive opportunities evaporate. This is especially true for colleges that are attractive both athletically AND academically. We all hate to see the decision pressure on the young girls. We can complain about it here and would vote for a change if we had a vote. But its unreasonable to expect a parent to do anything less than optimize for their own daughter when she is presented a great solution for a big life decision in 10th grade.
     
  23. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess I'm too old and old school. Neither of my daughters played sports to the extent she would have gotten a college scholarship. I spent lots of time filling out FAFs and dealing with college loan documents. It took a long time paying off the loans. I'm an attorney, but spent most of my time as a government attorney back in the days when we weren't paid a lot of money, so we weren't poor but weren't rich either. The money I spent for my girls' education (Amherst and Colorado College) was a lot but the best I've ever spent and I never had regrets. I think it's terrible that parents have their kids playing sports so that they can get a college scholarship, unless the parents really qualify as poor. So, I don't think it's a legitimate excuse for parents of most high level soccer players to say they're going along with current early recruiting practices in order to further their daughters' educations.
     
  24. socdad

    socdad Member

    Nov 9, 2011
    Dayton, Oh
    We do not need more rules to controls us from us. It has been several years but the system worked fine for my four kids, three soccer players and a gymnast.
     
  25. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #25 Cliveworshipper, Jan 7, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2014

    You are totally misreading what I said. If you want coaches to do more than a Hoover recruiting system ( suck them all in and sort them out later) you give them enough FULL scholarships to build a team, and not give them a system where they can recruit 36 players on 14 partial scholarships. The offers would be picks they would have to live with.

    They can recruit 14 year olds if they want, but then they will be the ones taking the risk that those players won't evolve in the 3-4 years before college. It would probably make the coaches hold on to their full scholarships until they saw if the players would better fit the programs. It might also bring he possibility of offering four year commitments to take the risk away from the players. And by taking away the one time exception in return, it would make players see they are making a commitment that means something also.

    The current system is lopsided. It gives coaches and schools the ability to recruit sometimes only on promises and books, but commits a player to a full year plus a second year on the whim of the school.

    Full scholarships even the score a bit, where both sides commit, and a coach would know that his selections for the team are players that can't be shuffled into the background because there isn't a bottomless pool to chose from.

    Basketball teams all across D1 are built on a finite pool of players. Every coach has to build a team from 13 or 15 players they have committed to and no more. If a coach makes bad choices, they come back to bite them.

    As to the one time exception, I'm actually for it for everyone ( As has coach K at duke been quoted as saying he is ok with it in Basketball).

    But I was answering your assertion that the higher transfers was due to earlier recruiting. It's not. It is due to the fact that transfers are allowed under the exception in soccer, unlike basketball.
     

Share This Page