I can't remember the exact numbers, but at some point I did a count of the number of players Ellis brought into camp and had on rosters since the US Women won the 2015 WWC (and published it on BS). The number brought in for looks was around 70. This is for a team that had just won the World Cup. That seems like a reasonable number, in that context. Plus, of course, Ellis saw the players playing in the NWSL that weren't called into camps as well as the players on the youth national teams. If the number of men called into camps over the last year is in the range of 60, that suggests that the total to be called in over the 4-year cycle might be well above that number as well as Ellis' roughly 70. Comparing the two sets of numbers, however, whatever they are, doesn't seem like a very meaningful exercise to me. The men had just failed to qualify for the World Cup and it appears that US Soccer, whether it was reasonable to do it or not, was trying to implement a pretty significant re-boot. Comparing a significant re-boot for the men to a more evolutionary process for the women who had just won the WWC simply doesn't mean much. I do find the overall discussion here, by those who are trying to the thoughtful, interesting. My own take is that for reasons of history, in the realm of men's and women's roles generally, in the realm of media interest in men's and women's athletics, and in the development of men's and women's soccer in the US (which have significantly different histories), it's very difficult to do reasonable or fair comparisons between men's and women's soccer. Maybe it can be done, but the comparison would involve many complex factors.