HS rosters are currently at 25 each for JV and varsity. They said they'll still make cuts but many players remain who should have been cut in earlier rounds and season starts in a few days. Is 25 on the roster a recipe for disaster? Or would a coach want to use a huge roster as a motivator? I think the problem is that there are 15 seniors, most of whom aren't good enough to start on varsity and want the varsity letter to put on their college resume. Five seniors were cut already (there were 20), including a few kids who never came out for soccer in previous years. Several seniors who were not cut missed tryouts and there are also sophomores and juniors who missed tryouts due to travel who automatically made JV. If it was a club team, I'd be ballistic that they had such a big roster unless the team was national level. And the HS is not a soccer power...
25 is a lot for high school. We have been lucky enough that cuts are rare but 20-22 is usually where we stop. Coaches perogative though. For club it's a little different and I'd understand being upset because you are paying to play in most cases. Not so in HS. The number of players could be effected by all kinds of things. Sounds like there is a big senior class. Perhaps the coach is trying to establish succession. After all he has to field a team next season too. If this years senior class is large it leaves fewer spots for the underclassmen but you'll need those boys in the future. This way they are a part of the team and have a full understanding of expectations, tactics, and have the experience of a year on the team when they are seniors next year. Another reason may be that the coach is being loyal to the seniors by keeping them on but has such a talented younger group that he has to carry more. Only the coach really knows. Of course there are unlimited substitutions at the HS level so playing time can be managed for all. Also sounds like he may cut a few more. Don't be suprised if he gets it down to 22.
That's a lot of players are they all that good? What's the point so they can say they made the HS soccer team. Or so you can play the starters against the stiffs. So the starters can look a lot better then they are? Or is it that some kids never get into a game. Then they and there parents get bummed out.
Of the 27, maybe 8 get almost full games, 8 more get at least a half of a game, and the rest get 10 minutes or less, and not even every game. JV won the local tournament, varsity was out after the second game. Varsity has many more losses, and no single player has more than 3 assists. They cut a senior due to "talking back" and then put him back on. It's a charlie foxtrot, and my kid is happy to be on JV, which is up to 20 players but several of them sit most games too. There are about 8 juniors between the JV and varsity teams this year, so next year they will likely take proportionally more juniors. Who cares, by then my kid will be close to committing to a college, the process is outside of HS soccer. When varsity played JV last, JV lost 1-0 because their 3rd string goalie let in a soft goal. Varsity had their "A" team out the entire time, JV rotated players. Top two JV players never went up to varsity.
I coach JV and wanted 18-20 tops.. Varsity coach basically told me "No, make it 25-27". I was supposed to have an assistant but they became the freshman coach so now I have to coach 27 kids.. Told them all from day 1 that I'm starting best team possible every time. This way while I do try to give kids time, I won't hear back from them when they don't. "Its a privilege, not a given right to play HS". Theres about 6 for sure starters so there is some flexibility. About 4/5 won't see much time at all.. But doesn't mean I don't train them. Part of me feels like its because we politely ask for donations.. more kids = more donations from parents. Money used for refs, transport to every away game, payment for the volunteer coaches (I know seems backwards).
You are a JV program no one cares whether you win or lose. You need to be developing players. Play two keepers a half a game each. Play platoons at midfield and forward. 6 players changing out every 7 minutes. Play 4 in the back rotating an outside back and a centerback now you are playing 20 players at least half a game each. The cream will still rise to the top for the varsity coach to pull up.
The performance, expectations and composition of the program influence this a lot. HS teams run from lucky to get a full squad to teams that expect to contend for state titles and national rankings. As long as roster sizes and playing time line up with the program objectives, and those objectives are communicated, it should work out fine.
I'm going to be in the minority here, as I am quite often. I don't believe in cutting kids. I want as many kids involved in soccer as possible. The educational setting and its athletic pairing reinforce that. It's an extension of the classroom. The more kids are excluded, the less likely they will be to continue enjoying the sport -- as well as having that "healthy lifestyle" that is beat in their heads. I believe the team setting is important and keeping kids in that setting is only beneficial. I carried this mindset into college coaching as well. After 8 years in college coaching, I never cut one kid that wanted to be a part of the program. I valued the players, no matter their role, just the same. Every player, no matter their ability, respected each other and knew it was important for everyone to be on the team. Were there frustrations? Absolutely. But, in the end, some of these kids will go on and live their own lives. Hopefully, they will continue to give back to the game as the game has given them so much. Never know what these kids will do once they grow up and have their own lives. They'll be parents (hopefully), and potentially be coaches. Removing them from a positive setting at 13-18 years old isn't going to benefit their kids in the future.
I can not underscore this more. This is why the US will eventually join the elite in world soccer. When I played about 40 years ago my parents and older brothers did not know one thing about soccer. Now more and more kids are being exposed to it and parents have played the game. Some have coached it This will continue on down the line. More kids play the bigger the talent pool. More people coach the bigger the coaching pool
Two quick stories (hopefully) about cutting kids. 1 -- I had the opportunity to be a club president for 2.5 years. When I got there, the club had roughly 70-75 kids in it. I quickly found out why: they were "cutting" kids at U7 because they were too lazy to look for additional coaches and create more teams. They thought some kids weren't good enough. What did they encounter? When rosters expanded, they were left scouring for local players who had little-to-no experience playing. They were upset they couldn't compete. So, we made the proper decision and quit "cutting." When I left, we ended up with over 150 kids in the club, and the most teams the club has had...possibly ever. 2 -- my wife assisted two teams where this club directly fed, a middle school team and the HS girl's team. Middle school turned to coed around the time we were in the community. They had 65 kids come to tryouts. They cut. Instead of making two teams of girls and boys, they cut and kept two coed teams. The following year, she assisted the HS girl's team. The HS has roughly 1500 students in it. They had 21 girls come out for soccer. 21! Eventually, that number fell to 19. For a school that size, that is a pitiful turnout. Cutting is miserable. I don't look at making kids get accustomed to getting rejected. No. Participation numbers are important for the future of the sport AND their well-being. It's essential that we continue to build the sport and get girls/boys in the positive setting to learn/grow.
IMO, you can have too many kids on a roster. If you have too many kids, playing time suffers. There's only so many minutes to spread around. I don't think it's advantageous to have a bunch of kids that will only get "clean up" minutes in a handful of games. If the goal for those kids is earning their letter, isn't there a rule you have to play in 'x' amount of games or average 'y' number of minutes throughout the season? There are reasons to keep a larger than normal roster: * Kids will miss games for club practices/tournaments/rest. * Substitution limits on games (ie: one or no rentry if you're subbed out) * Multiple kids prone to injury. PP alluded to keeping everyone because then they'll love soccer. But if they don't get playing time, does it really help them? Are they willing to just participate in practice? Now, where is that size limit? We have 17 (had 18, but one tore his ACL for the second year in a row and decided he was done) on our club team. We have 20 on our HS Varsity team. I would think 22 would be about the limit unless you have someone of the situations I listed earlier.
No one can make someone "love" something. That post was made by me, that you are referring to. Being a team-member isn't always about playing time. Especially when structured in the interscholastic/intercollegiate setting. It's an extension of the classroom. It's a coach's job to educate through the sport they choose to coach. As long as a coach can keep the player(s) understanding where the players are at, then sometimes the playing time isn't that big of an issue. Can players develop without games? Absolutely. Can players enjoy the sport without games? Absolutely. Sometimes players want to be a team member. As long as a coach isn't leading a player astray, it's not a bad thing that someone is a training player who may never see games. Through the potential four-year (or six, in some states) participation of a sport in HS, a player has the potential to develop A LOT. Expectations are important. Making them clear and following through can ensure player satisfaction.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But will a teenager be satisfied being on a team where they get minimum playing time, especially if it happens year after year? Sure, it's possible, and probably truthful for some. But I don't think it's realistic. You said you don't believe in cutting kids. Admirable. But would you carry 50 kids on a team? 60? My HS has a V and a JV team. ~20 players each. Another area HS has a V, JV1, JV2, and Freshman. But who are the JV2 & Freshman squads playing? Or are they just "training"? I can see keeping 3-4 kids as "training" only. 10? No. They'll take focus away from the coaches during the training sessions.
I cannot speak for any teenagers, and/or their families. What I can say is, a coach can communicate effectively where the player(s) are and what the expectations are. It's up to the player and/or family to determine what is best for the athlete. If the athlete wants to stick it out because they are a team member, then so be it. If the player chooses to move on, then so be it. I have no problem carrying 50 kids on a team. I'm in an area that has multiple JV teams as well. In college, I carried 36 players one year with no JV team -- school didn't give me a budget worth anything, they certainly wasn't going to give me one for JV. As long as players know the expectations the team has, it's up to them to agree to those expectations AND carry on as a teammate. We (as coaches) can structure training where those "training players" aren't as much of a distraction, they can develop, and they can still be valuable teammates. In terms of who are JV and freshman teams playing...my own idea would be to have a JV and/or freshman league. Guaranteed games that way. Insert teams in there. If there are multiple teams from one school in the league, so be it. I don't care. It's all about getting the time in a competitive situation to develop right? Let them play against each other, they do in training all the time. I don't know why this couldn't be a solid structure for a "development league."