Per my recent year's policy, I will not have any numerical rankings until at least 200 players for the class have committed, but here is my usual comment on the distressing fact of acceleration of recruiting deeper towards the young players (freshmen in High school.) Readers may argue, but does just finishing her freshman year make a player a sophomore or do classes have to have started in the fall in order to classify a recruit as a sophomore in high school? Arbitrarily, I am looking at this present mid July date as the transition point between being a high school freshman or a rising sophomore. Prior to 2013 no players had committed by this date as high school freshmen 6 players had committed by this date in 2013 for the 2016 incoming class. By the end of calendar year 2013 there were 37 total commits to the 2016 class. 8 players had committed by this date in 2014 for the 2017 incoming class. By the end of calendar year 2014 there were 84 total commits to the 2017 class. 36 players have committed by this present date for the 2018 incoming class If projections hold, there may be as many as 150 commits by the end of this calendar year. Up through 2013 I failed to identify the dates that players committed to specific schools in my records. (I only have the total number of recruits at specific dates.) Noting the increasing trend to early recruiting, I started recording the dates, names of players, and schools of commitments starting in 2014. By 7/21, 2014 the 8 players committed by that date announced comittments to: 1 player - Texas 1 Player - California 2 players - Ohio State 1 player - Oklahoma State 1 player - Robert Morris 1 player - Colorado 1 player - SMU By the end of the calendar year 2014 the following schools (in order of the first commitment date) had committed players then in the middle of their sophomore years: 2 -Texas 6 - California 3 -Ohio State 1 -Oklahoma State 1- Robert Morris 3 -Colorado 1 -SMU 2 -UCLA 1 -Pittsburgh 1 -TAMU 2 -Arkansas 1 -Lafayette 1 -Tulsa 2 -Florida State 3 -UNC 1 - UNC-Charlotte 1 -Vermont 2 -Alabama 1 -Kentucky 3 -Penn State 1 -Villanova 1 -Boston College 2 -Baylor 1 -LA Tech 5 -Stanford 1 -Cincinnati 1 -Troy 1 -Lipscomb 1 -Pepperdine 2 -UTEP 1 -Denver 1 -SCU 1 -Miami (Fl) 1 -Marquette 1 -AZ State 1 -Miss State 1 -Syracuse 1 -Butler 3 -BYU 1 -Iowa 1 -Liberty 1 -Dayton 1 -Auburn 1 -Duke 1 -Notre Dame 1 -S. Florida 1 -Portland 1 -Oregon 2 -Rutgers 1 -Clemson 1 -Louisville 1 -Duquesne 1 -Virginia 1 -S. Carolina 1 -Steven F. Austin 1 -Missouri By this date, the following schools had players committed to the 2018 oncoming class (in order of first committed player) 1 -BYU 1 -Florida State 1 -Furman 4 -UNC 1 -Tenn 1 -Miami (Fl) 2 -BC 1 -ND 1 -Oregon 2 -High Point 1 -Illinois 3 -Duke 1 -Washington 1 -USC 2 -Virginia 4-Penn State 1 -Florida Gulf Coast 3 -TCU 1 -Louisville 1 -Northeastern 1 -Providence 1 -UNC-Wilmington 1 -VT Note that for the past 4 years, the most active time for obtaining commitments (especially from the blue chippers) is in the sophomore year. By the end of that academic year, essentially all of the players with national team experience and other top recruits have committed. Even with the 37 players already committed for the 2018 class in their freshman year, this pace will greatly accelerate starting in September.
As an addendum to my above posts, here is the class of 2018 recruiting through 8/31 as posted on Brian's spreadsheet.* There have been 63 commitments in this class to this date, documenting once again the acceleration of recruiting into the high school freshmen class. Not only is the gross number of freshmen recruits accelerating, but the percentage of top (USYNT experienced) players is too. By 8/31 12 --- 7 recruits to the 2015 class ---- 14% USYNT By 8/31/13 -- 9 recruits to the 2016 class ---- 22% USYNT By 8/31/14 -- 17 recruits to the 2017 class --- 29% USYNT By 8/31/15 -- 63 recruits to the 2018 class -- 43% USYNT By conference, this year's early recruiting to this date of 2018 players is (in order) 20 - ACC 12 - Big Ten 6 -- PAC 12 3 -- SEC 3 -- Big 12 3 -- American Athletic 2 -- Big South 2 -- Colonial 1 -- Southern, West Coast, Big East, Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Patriot, Big West By School the leaders are: 5 - Penn State 4 - Duke 4 - UNC 3 - Cinncinnati 3 - TCU 3 - Virginia 2 - Boston College 2 - High Point 2 - Notre Dame 1 each: Arizona, Auburn, Boston U, BYU, Colorado, Dayton, FL Gulf Coast, Furman, Illinois, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, Michigan, N Florida, Northeastern, Northwestern, Oregon, Providence, Rutgers, Stanford, Syracuse, Tennessee, UC Irvine, UNC-W, Virginia Tech, Washington, Western Kentucky, Wisconsin. As I have stated before, I personally do not think that such early recruiting is in the best interests of the players or even necessarily of the college teams. However, excessive hand-wringing about this fact will not change anything until such time as enforceable rules may come into existence. But given the competitive nature of D-I NCAA athletics, the apparent eagerness of parents to get their kids into the best college programs, and the legal free agency of players (and their guardians) in this country, the only thing that will realistically control recruiting is supply and demand. Right now, these forces are conspiring to apply great pressure for early commitments from both sides of the equation. Who knows, if there is a truly viable women's professional soccer league with a different route to that goal which includes guarantees for higher education, perhaps in 10 years things will have shifted, but for now this early recruitment trend to university teams will likely continue. * (Note: Top Drawer has slightly difference recruiting commitment data, but I have found Brian's spread sheet to be more complete and reliable.)
Aghh! I hate making mistakes. I have a few corrections to make to the list of schools who have commitments for 2018 through the end of August. The corrected list is as follows. (The total of 63 is still correct.) 5 - Penn State 4 - Duke 4 - UNC 3 - Cinncinnati 3 - TCU 3 - Virginia 2 - Boston College 2 - High Point 2 - Michigan 2 - Northwestern 2 - Notre Dame 1 each: Arizona, Auburn, Boston U, BYU, Colorado, Dayton, Fl Gulf Coast, Florida State, Furman, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami (F), Miami (O), N Florida, Northeastern, Oregon, Providence, Rutgers, St Mary's, Stanford, S. Carolina, Syracuse, Tennessee, UC Irvine, UNC-W, USC, Virginia Tech, Washington, Western Kentucky, Wisconsin.
Here's a potential solution to the "too early recruiting" situation: Verbal commitments are not allowed, but written commitments are allowed at any age. If a player gives a school a written commitment, then whatever the age of the player, the school has 30 days within which to formally accept or reject the commitment. If the school formally accepts the commitment, the acceptance must include the exact level of financial support the school will provide, and the support at that level must be for four years. This must be a legally binding commitment from the school, and the commitment must apply against the school's allowed number of scholarships. Once the player has received the acceptance, the player has 30 days within which to accept or reject the acceptance, in writing. If the player does not accept the acceptance, then the player is deemed to have rejected it. If the player rejects it, then thereafter, the player cannot play soccer at that institution.
I like your suggestion. But would it need an addition? Specifically, is there a potential problem with involving other scholarship money. In other words, if a school is wealthy (think: Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, etc. with no state laws governing how they spend their money) then what would prohibit a school from signing up lots of talent at any date they wished above and beyond any control the NCAA theoretically has over athletic scholarships? (Or is this already done?) In my jaded mind it would work something like this. School X designates a large pot of money controlled by the athletic department for "academic scholarships" for students with special talents. The qualifications for being awarded such a scholarship would, in addition to a recommendation from a coach, be something like: "(1) projected academic performance would meet the university's (minimum) admission standards. (2) in addition to academic progress, other factors the may be given considerations would be: participation in a sport, acting or musical ability, community service, etc, etc." With this kind of a scheme, the coach could say to a high school freshman (or 7th grader for that matter) "you will have a guaranteed 4 year scholarship so long as you end up with a C average by your senior year in high school and maintain academic eligibility during your years at our school." The unwritten expectation is that the athlete will want to play on the team and will try out. If she doesn't make the team but stays academically eligible, then that would be fine for everyone. If the student can't hack it academically, and she doesn't achieve the agreed minimum high school grades to be admitted or fails to meet academic eligibility standards after admission, there is no loss as the same consequences would be true even on an academic scholarship.
As bad as the early recruiting has gotten, the wealthy schools would never sacrifice their academic standards as you have suggested above. Many of these coaches are recruiting academics as much as athletics due to the fact their jobs are also reliant on team GPA. Stanford is a perfect example and would be impacted by the idea of legally binding commitments. Therear4e one or two commits every year or two that cant make the grade to get into Stanford and end up scrambling at the 11th hour to find a home
Agreed. Soccerhunter, most of those schools you mentioned spends very little money when it comes to athletics(compare to other big schools that is). Stanford's athletics department budget is near the bottom in the Pac-12. As glove stinks mentioned, they have 23 on the roster this year and that is not by design. Princeton can't even afford to have two full time assistants. Do you think they care that much about Women's soccer? Some of these high academic institutions will only twist their arms for a few Football and Basketball players.
OK, Glove Stinks. Your point is well taken. But based on my very naive (or should I say, ignorant) view of what goes on in the recruiting battles are such offers ever made? (Or could they be?) The schools I listed popped into my mind at 4:00 am were schools who most everyone know have no money worries but are there not other schools with different admissions standards who may have huge booster organizations with large pots of money? (And even top end academic schools have a range of GPA and test score admissions criteria.) So what is to keep a coach from presently making a binding offer of an academic scholarship at any time to a kid of any age contingent on a few factors, such as a specified target GPA, test scores, courses taken, no criminal record, or whatever? For Harvard, the GPA and test scores specification might be higher than for Pudunk U, but so what. The point is that a kid (actually her parents) could relax as a high school freshman with such a contract in hand at least as a fall back if nothing else. If the grades stayed up and other conditions were met all would be well. If not, then the usual recruiting visits could occur (...your Stanford examples.) My whole question here is about separating offers away from the NCAA rules controlling athletic scholarships. Is this done, and if so is it done at any age? (Surely I am not the first to have thought of this obvious possibility...)
OK, The first cut at the class of 2018 recruiting pecking order. As in past years, this is only a preliminary look after at least 200 recruits have publicly committed. While there will, of course, be significant changes as time goes by this first look pattern will yet be recognizable in two years. The top 3 or 4 schools will still be at or very near the top and the rest of this list of 10 will be found not too far away. Of the top 75 players available, only about 20 or so have not yet publicly committed. (Only 6 of the top 20 have not yet committed, and only 1 top ten player (Sophia Smith) is still on the market.) Cheers! Top 10 2018 Recruiting class as of 2/22/16. (241 players verbally committed) 1. 9.02 Stanford 2. 8.97 Virginia 3. 8.93 UNC 4. 8.25 Penn State 5. 8.00 Florida State 6. 7.77 Notre Dame 7. 7.67 Washington 8. 7.10 Duke 9. 7.00 Boston College 10. 6.33 Michigan
I doubt it. The standard for women's soccer seems to be 1 official visit. Most recruits are committed long before an official visit can even take place, and budgets probably only allow for one.
Thank you. Oh, I thought the 5 visit rule was with respect to the student. i.e. a student is allowed to accept a maximum of 5 visits (most likely from 5 different schools).
I guess that's right, but because of early commitments it is still effectively one. I guess a few of the small handful of recruits that end up switching commitments their senior year may officially visit more than one school, but it would be very rare.
Update on 2018 Recruiting Class Ranking. With 655 commitments, it's time to update the quickie initial "top ten" of 10 months ago based on 241 commits. This update will be a top 15 given that only about 1/4 of the class is committed. (There should be enough data to meaningfully order 25 teams this summer and get to a full top 50 by a year from March.) All of the top recruits are now spoken for. This does not mean that there are not still a hundred or more solid players who could play a role on any DI team, but the big name recruits are long gone. The top 5 schools are the same as the last ordering in February (Stanford, UNC, Virginia, Penn State, and Florida State.) Newcomers Texas and UCLA popped up to come next, followed by Notre Dame, Washington, Duke, Boston College from the February listing and then more newcomers Rutgers, Arizona and USC along with Michigan who was also on the last list. Two interesting notes: 1. In the fall of 2018 Michigan will have the benefit of two strong classes in 2017 and 2018 which will compliment a strong 2015 class which may mean that the Wolverines will provide some serious competition in the Big 10. 2. Stanford is certainly putting its stamp on DI recruiting by arguably having the top class for 2013 thru 2018. In those 6 years they will technically have been #1 4 times and #2 twice (-a virtual tie in 2013 with UNC 10.14 to 10.12 and only relegated to #2 in 2017 given the shuffling of top players to UCLA from the U20s this year past season.) As of 21/27/16 Tier I 9.70 Stanford 9.35 UNC and Virginia Tier II 8.25 Penn State 8.18 Florida State 7.92 Texas 7.82 UCLA 7.72 Notre Dame Tier III 7.33 Washington 7.10 Duke 7.00 Boston College 6.67 Rutgers 6.60 Arizona 6.43 Michigan 6.33 USC
I'm not to that stage of data collection quite yet, so yes, it is a metrics thing. For the 2018s, the top 30 low hanging fruit committed 6 months ago (the regular youth national team players plus most all of the regular national team campers.) Then there are the one-and-and done USYNT campers who have been to college camps this summer who have been picked up based on what the college coaches saw. This then leaves the "100 or so" solid DI players who will come into view this next year (or even 18 months) before the 2018 season starts most of whom are already on the radar to some degree on various college recruiting charts. These would be the bulk of regional ODP players who have not yet committed, the ECNL uncommitted best 11 players, uncommitted id2 players, and some US Soccer national league players, plus others in state ODP programs, or some high school standouts. (Some of these will also be one-and-done USYNT campers too.) Of this pool will come about 100 to 150 more kids who will have the potential for lots of playing time at good DI schools. The point is that the easy picks (youth national teams and repetitive national campers) have gone, and the harder task of identifying the good prospects from the pool listed above will take some more time and patience to see which players are the "diamond in the rough" coachable late developers some of whom will become stars. The "100 or so" players that end up going to good DI schools does not include perhaps 300 more who find good homes as key players at less competitive DI schools and in the other college divisions. Now this group (above) does not include about 6,500 more prospects who will end up filling in many teams (DI, DII, DIII, and NAIA.) These later would be reasonably skilled club and high school players who hopefully will find a good fit at a college and enjoy their experience on the soccer team. FYI In very round numbers, there are about 1,150 (4-year schools) women's soccer teams in the US (NCAA and NAIA.) That number of schools absorbs about 7,000 players each year on the average assuming an average roster size of 22 and typical attrition in the upper classes. (eg: An average freshman class of 6.5 players may yield an average senior class of 4 still on the playing field -especially at highly competitive academic schools in DIII.)
UM is always competitive. 'Seriously Competitive' is a different story altogether. G. Ryan gets good players every year. They are good every year. They have rarely risen to the top of the B1G let alone the national stage with the exception of a few years back when they had the 6'0 Canadian target forward who was like YaYa Toure with the ball. Time will tell - Go Blue (love the current kids on the team - a scrappy bunch)! In my view, of these 7000 incoming freshman there are perhaps 300 - 400 (just like you say above) who can be considered quality players (in the world of rankings I would say 3 stars and above - whatever that subjectively means - using a basketball term I guess). That is about 50 to 60 teams worth of freshman. With 300+ D1 schools in the mix, it is easy to see why the kids commit so early and why very good foreign players are sought after to get rostered on good D1 teams: it is Supply and Demand, that simple.
WWF indeed! (Not soccer). But you got that LOL correct.... Terrible officiating!! When the ball was passed the forward was a good three feet on side but the assistant ref makes the classic mistake of waiting until the the ball is even with the forward (who had out accelerated her defender) and then raises his flag for an offside call. Then to add insult to perhaps serious injury, the center ref only gives a yellow card. That kind of a flying head-butt hit (completely ignoring the ball) should be a straight red and a special write up to the league too. (And if I were the coach, that player just might not be given a chance to play until the next season, if then.) It would be interesting to know what disciplinary action was taken after the fact. Interesting and provocative post, YankBastard.
2018 DIVISION 1 RECRUITING CLASS RANKINGS Below are posted my best shot at the top women's recruiting classes for 2018 in Division I soccer. As always, two things are true: the usual suspects are at or near the top of the list and there are also some surprises in the list. I want to note that this class may be significantly different than last year's class in overall quality such as I have noted in years past classes wane and wax for several reasons. However this year it may be the continuation of my inability (in my "spare" time) to fully do the research about each individual recruit without the "head start" that for years Brian Goff did with his incredible effort on his recruiting spreadsheet. (For a fuller explanation, see post 169 in the 2017 recruiting thread.) In any case, I am only able this year to get together a reasonably accurate "top 30" as opposed to the top 50. I just don't have enough reliable data (or time) to go further.. Disclaimers First off, the usual disclaimers..... The rankings are based on a numerical system so as to have consistency over the years. Consequently it depends on how much accurate data I can dredge up on each player in each recruiting class and therefore there will be inaccuracies because I am sure that there is more that I have not found. (Again see the post in the 2017 page.) In addition, without Brian's wonderful spread sheet, I do not have the luxury of scanning all of the Division I soccer programs to quickly ascertain which "surprise" schools (perhaps mid majors) have had a good recruiting year and so may have missed one or two schools that should be in the top 30. (I remember about 6 years ago when Hawaii was in the middle of the rankings that year.) Also remember that some of the players will fade and some develop strongly over the next year or two, so the recruiting class does not necessarily mean that the class will remain dominant. And finally, the reason I have grouped the classes in to tiers is that I want to emphasize that the exact order is not important. To claim bragging rights because my team is ranked 3 numbers higher than your team is meaningless. As I have said consistently, while there may be a consensus that the 10th ranked class is palpably better than the 20th ranked class, classes within .50 of each other can be said to be equal for practical purposes. Also, please be aware that I have structured 10 tiers geometrically within the 335 or so D-I women's soccer teams classes. The top 20 percent of the recruiting classes (about 60 schools) are designed to be in the top 5 tiers. So do not disparage the teams in the fourth tier in the listing below. The fourth tier represents classes that are in the top 12 to 7 percent of all classes --not shabby at all! Looking at the Results of 2018 Class Rankings No surprises, Stanford is at the top of the heap for the 5th consecutive year with the number 1 class. USC is a smidge below Stanford at number 2, and UNC completes the top tier of recruiting classes this being the first time in several years to make that grade. But what happened to UCLA? Well, it turns out that the Bruins, while they have a top 12% class this year, seem to have a scholarship crunch. They had a fabulous 9 member Tier I class last year (only a few points behind Stanford), and another dynamite Tier I class in 2016, and it might be that they have much of their cash tied up. I say this because looking ahead, the Bruins have a strong class for 2019 with two players in the current top ten, and a block buster class lined up in 2020 with 8 recruits in the current top 28. The purse has been replenished by then! (And Stanford will not be number 1 in 2020 unless there are decommits elsewhere or some great internationals on the horizon for the Cardinal.) This year, Virginia again has a traditionally strong class. The Hoos traditionally are in the top 5 and this year come in #4. Notre Dame is looking good at #5, a parting gift from coach Romagnolo so that Nate Norman will have a strong team to work with. (She already has another two strong players lined up for 2019 too.) OK. Big surprise with Arizona State at number 6. I wasn't expecting that, but it is how my rating system works numerically. Graham Winkworth recruited a monstrous 18 member class and I can tell you that 9 of those class members are true "hopefulls" who may never see much playing time ...but who knows, maybe one or two will surprise. If he had just stopped at the other 9 they would have the same score in my system anyway. So what's not to like? 5 not too shabby internationals to start with. How about Marleen Schimmer with 23 caps with various German youth national teams including at the U17 and U19 level. Add Alexia Delgado who played on the U17 and U20 CONCACAF teams for Mexico that achieved third and first respectively and fifth place in the U17 world cup. IMO these two should start right away. Nicole Douglas from England with 12 youth caps, should see significant time while Players from Japan and Holland may see a little less time. The other four top recruits for ASU look to be the kind of kids that have great potential. Some should develop nicely meaning that in 4 years there may be 5 or six seniors playing significant roles. The second strong Texas recruiting class in a row comes in at number 7, and Washington and West Virginia finish out the second tier. Like UCLA, Penn State seems to be biding their time this year with a good solid top ten class, but in 2019 will bust out with 5 players currently in the top 25. Harvard is picking up nicely with a very solid class followed by Michigan which always seems to be in the hunt at around the tenth best class (or near by) and this year is right in there at number 12. And Florida State always an enigma at this time of year. While they have my number 1 player in Jaelin Howell and two strong back-ups to get them to number 13, if history is any guide a few top internationals will show up in their roster in August to change the game. Looking down the list, Duke is in an unfamiliar spot at number 15, but they also are in the UCLA and Penn State mode and look strong in 2019 and even stronger in 2020. Like all of these teams, the back log of strong upper class players will put Duke, UCLA, and Penn Sate in good competitive position this season on the pitch. (I am out of town not near a computer for the next several months, so correcting any gaffs will have to wait until late August or early September. Y'all have fun!) Tier I 1. 9.45 Stanford 2. 9.35 USC 3. 9.27 UNC Tier II 4. 8.58 Virginia 5. 8.36 Notre Dame 6. 7.92 Arizona State 7. 7.89 Texas 8. 7.58 Washington 9. 7.55 West Virginia Tier III 10. 7.48 Penn State 11. 7.47 Harvard 12. 7.40 Michigan 13. 7.38 Florida State 14. 7.34 Arizona 15. 7.20 Duke 15. 7.20 Texas A&M Tier IV 17. 7.02 Rutgers 17. 7.02 Virginia Tech 19. 7.01 South Carolina 20. 6.99 Illinois 21. 6.90 Wisconsin 22. 6.82 Clemson 23. 6.80 Princeton 24. 6.76 Ohio State 25. 6.68 Wake Forest 26. 6.67 Boston College 27. 6.63 Colorado 28. 6.62 Michigan State 29. 6.53 UCLA 29. 6.53 Maryland 31. 6.51 TCU (Bonus for the tie at 29th!)
SH, thanks again for your great work. I am curious about Stanfords class, this seems to be their fourth year in a row of outstanding recruiting. With so many top recruits on one roster, do some former blue chips simply ride the bench for 4 years?
Yes, many of the blue chippers do not start, but they do get playing time if the score warrants. (And I would argue that this is the 5th consecutive year being #1. UCLA initially scored higher in 2016, but then Pugh went pro late in the process and Stanford edged out UCLA for the top spot.)