Actually, and I have posted this before, the best UNC/ND game I ever saw was a game in 1998 in South Bend that was called due to lightning. It ended 2-2. On that field were Shannon Boxx, Kate Sobrero (Markgraf), LaKeysia Beene for ND, Tiffany Roberts, Cindy Parlow, Stacey Wilson, Lori Fair for UNC to name a few. All legends.
Simply saying that because education is the key driver in college choice for women's soccer (look at Harvard's signings this year, and Princeton recently), IF women's soccer had later commitment schedules like boys basketball and football, UNC would be worse off then they are now. If no girls could commit until junior year schools like Stanford and Duke would have even bigger advantages since less risk in offering partial scholarships to a junior than a freshman. The Duke's and Stanford's could wait until all the kids were juniors and pick first. Duke has had some huge busts of kids that were fabulous in 9th grade but rarely saw minutes in college. (former girls national team). UNC, since they would not be top of the pecking order benefit from a system where expensive private schools are "gambling" with partial scholarships to 9th graders. UNC's super low in state tuition, and cheaper than most out of state tuition while still being solid academically, put them in great position when competitor schools are blowing scholarships on 9th graders. UCLA has most of the benefits of UNC, except since CA produces so many players they are even better off. Stanford's best player/difference maker Macario was originally verbally committed to Cal Berkley, but somehow switched to Stanford. Imagine if all the schools couldn't offer until junior year. https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/hig...irls-commitments:-no-1-recruit-picks_aid34927
no one wants to address the elephant in the room which is that AD is not the draw he once was. Its also surprising that once again no one mentions UVA or Penn State as a recruiting rivals to the schools everyone quotes. they 100 pct are. its not UNC vs Stanford and the west coast powers. its a core group of schools. Playing style is starting to become more and more of a factor
I must disagree with your statement that no one is addressing the fact that UNC is not as much the premier destination as it was for recruits in decades past. In fact That's what I addressed at long length a few posts ago... and so did chch and L'orange. To which your response in post 216 was that we all had it wrong and said that (1) Stanford's recruits as not better than others, but only better known and that (2) there are recruits out there who do not want to play for Anson because their perception of his system to be a bad fit for for them. (Duh!) And (3) you said that the pundits overrate west coast players and under-rate east coast recruits. OK, those are your opinions. For myself, I can respect differing views, but do not feel the need comment on what seems pretty straight forward. But now in your post 236 you say that one one is addressing the "elephant in the room" that "Anson is not the draw he once was" (we got that.. and address it directly as it is the basic premise of our posts!) and that we failed to mention that there are other good programs out there on the east coast competing for recruits. (I think that most of us take such recruiting competition as a given over the last 20 years as we have followed the expansion of the college game.) Hmmm... is your "elephant" that you are having trouble with is that the several of us who have posted directly on the topic have a different analysis on the relevant factors impinging on this issue are not fully agreeing with your take on it? I Believe that we all have commented directly on the topic, and unless there is some amazing new information that none of the rest of has perceived or contemplated (other than your assertion that pundits are overrating west coast players versus east coast players which, to me is a subjective assertion that for the moment I can't test one way or the other) we may be done for the moment. This topic has cycled through these pages on Big Soccer multiple times over the last decade or so and feels like it has once again arrived at the same place of reasonable agreement on the fact that as women's college soccer has continued to expand and grow from the early days, UNC is comparatively not the destination it once was as there are more quality options....and some interesting views as to why that is so.
I read or implied several reasons from the posts above as to why UNC was at a disadvantage. At no point did anyone mention the way they play. I think that is a major turn off to some top end recruits. as far as west coast vs east coast, how is me saying i disagree any different to the initial assertion? Clearly both are subjective. I believe another poster added some facts to the discussion re Stanford that suggested if you normalized for location, Stanford was not overweight West coast. so in summary, my elephant would be the impact Dorrance and his style has is very binary- very positive or very negative. More so than any other College coach at a top program i can think of. And lets face it, if we all agreed life would be boring.
This is perhaps the most de-legitimatizing thing you've said to this point. It is the height of ignorance and a commonly regurgitated foul talking point from those who hate everything Anson Dorrance & UNC Women's Soccer is & has been. Both coaches ... *BOTH* ... said that UNC dominated the midfield in the match-up vs Stanford. The UNC's forwards inability to retain possession and hold up play is what Anson pointed to as an area of improvement in a half-time interview. It was Stanford that was the more direct team, it was Stanford that tried to slow the game down through physical play (something overlooked in the wake of the bad Davidson tackle), & it was the *Stanford* advantage in athleticism & 1v1 capability that won that game for them... not their better team play & passing. The quality passing & vision from Bailey, Otto, & Pinto far out-stripped that of their Stanford counter-parts ... the coaches comments, the inStat comparison, & the unbiased eyeball all prove this ... but go on, hang your argument around an old, tired, & flat out wrong assessment of the type of player that goes to UNC. Some of the nice folks on here are trying to be kind and patient with you, but you won't get that courtesy from me. Go back to the Stanford thread if you want to continue to insult UNC and it's coaches, players, & fans.
I dont see the relevance of anything you just said to the comments I made. I am the one saying Stanford players are not better than others. I dont think they are out recruiting UNC or anyone else in the top tier. I made that very clear. The comment related to recruiting over the the last 5 years or so, not another tired who is better than who. I have zeo affiliation with Stanford. I suggest you read my comments again. If you still think a redux of UNC Stanford is relevant to what we were discussing, then Im sorry.
and by the way, PERCEPTION , the very thing you refer to, whether accurate or not DOES have a HUGE impact on potential recruits. I assumed that an intelligent place like this would understand that in no way did I say that it was justified or real. If you dont think how UNC are perceived to play etc is a very binary factor in recruiting, then ok. I know for a fact it is.
and lastly. I dont need your patience. Im a grown up who can express a view. You are entitled to yours.
A response that necessitates three separate posts would suggest otherwise, but so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. To say something like "UNC is loaded with one type of player" is disingenuous and wrong, & to use it and other incorrect talking points as a basis of projection of your "perception" of Anson Dorrance & his "style" is where you are at fault here. Anson Dorrance's "style", currently, is possession, build-up from the back and through the middle, & precision in the final third. if ... say ... you were to use his substitution patterns as the basis of your argument I would have no issue. It would be a supportive talking point to the issue of recruitment ... but the current play style is not, and that is not an opinion you can have without contest, because it is not an opinion ... it's a misconception at best, a flat out lie from you at worst.
the actual quote was a certain type of player. in my opinion, they are. by the way. most coaches favor a certain type of player. you keep trying to project what my perception of his style is. I dont care, not is it relevant. What IS relevant is the perception many recruits have. That is the point. I read this "Anson hasn't been able to get the very top names each year as they now routinely go to the west coast to college" .or this"UNC still has great recruiting classes every year. They may not be Stanford great, but they are not far behind, at all. More specifically, I think a very high percentage of the true blue-chip prospects every year are from California--and given that there are three powerhouse college programs in California" and finally "I don’t know but competing against Stanford and losing recruits is nothing to be ashamed of..." The above implies that some of dont think you are getting the very top names. I dont agree. You are getting your fair share of excellent recruits. The "way" a team plays encompasses everything - from sub patterns, tactics even the weekly leaderbaord and how the line ups are selected. You choose to define it as on field tactics only here and thats cool, but it does not mean I did. The whole environment created there by AD is hugely appealing to some players and a turn off to others. Thats just a fact. Its more of an issue because of the unique ( and successful) environment he has created and his approach. I dont think its a negative in any way, just a reality. he more unique your methods, the more binary peoples reactions become. Your reaction is very strange. ill put it down to misunderstanding what has been written.
Penn State is no where near UNC and UVA academically, so for the women's side that's a UNC advantage over Penn St.
look for upperclassmen who play less that a games worth of minutes in a season but were on U little national team. There's one now, but the one I saw in person in a blowout graduated. they exist.
I don't think there's necessarily disagreement and all these posts that can't be reconciled. As of now I see 22 players on Duke's Roster and 30 on UNC's. UNC logically uses the substitution rules to have deeper teams, and assume that a fresh player 12-17 if better than the other teams "tired" players 6-11 gives you an advantage. Because I think technical ability has improved across the player pool, I think stylistically UNC is becoming more similar to other possession teams, but due to deep roster and substitution can play possession with pressure. The competitive cauldron is not a secret, so if you are not willing to scrap for playing time I can see why a player wouldn't want to go there. UNCs incoming class is huge with in state players half of whom will likely never see a competitive minute but can get a good education at a cheap price and may make practices more competitive, which is really all they are expected to do.
Wondering the same. We may have to ask the student announcer crew from the last game at Syracuse as they seemed to be the only source knowing that she was injured
And yet they pull in top rated recruits from all over https://gopsusports.com/roster.aspx?roster=223&path=wsoc TDS 2019 1. Penn State Commitments: M Kate Wiesner (Slammers FC – No. 1), F Payton Linnehan (FC Stars of Massachusetts – No. 13), GK Julia Dohle (NYCFC – No. 16), D Leah Scarpelli (Cedar Stars Academy – No. 17), M Coriana Dyke(Colorado Rush – No. 23), F Angela Aguero (NYCFC), D Shelby Craft (FC Dallas), M Devon Rae Olive(Albertson SC) Despite Wiesner suffering a torn ACL this year, that should be of little issue when she gets to Happy Valley next year. There is strength in several positions, and potential U17 World Cup veterans heading to Penn State next year.
"The Heels are loaded with a certain type of player." can not be reconciled with what has since been said.
you understand Florida State pulls in recruits from all over including China and Iceland. Never said teams with scholarships can't fill rosters and win, just that education is a huge driver for women's soccer so it's no coincidence that college cup teams correlate with way above average academic schools but FBS champions in football do not (alabama, clemson)
that statement could be completed with a lot of phrases; I'd pick "highly competitive kids, who will sacrifice their bodies to win, and will scrap for any minute of playing time they can get." I have no idea what the phrase means when not disclosed.
I dont really understand what you mean by " education is a huge driver for women's soccer " . Its College. If you are saying the "better"schools have an advantage, then perhaps, but you would have to elaborate as to what better is and how it plays out. The Club structure that feeds Womes soccer is largely based around affluent mostly white suburban families for whom the College education is a pillar of their culture. Football is largely fed by a much poorer demographic so I think that comparison is somewhat self fulfilling.
Penn State is a very premier school in engineering, among other things. I went to unc , I don’t think it makes sense tp put pen state down. It really depends what you are going to study. There are a ton of places were a college student can get an amazing education if they are smart, work hard,and really want it . Have worked with lots of people from ivies. Very bright folks. I’ve enjoyed supervising them very much
Saw the game last night at VT. Th Heels basically dominated the midfield for the evening and came away with a deserved 2-0 win. Key players in the middle were Brianna Pinto, Dorian Bailey, and Taylor Otto- along with Annie Kingman who spelled Brianna. Our offense looked pretty good and worked at getting good looks which produced 4 good saves by VT's excellent keeper and at least two "near misses" past the post. To put it differently, of the 13 shots the box score lists, I only saw a few that weren't close to being on goal. Great hustle and good passing were evident. The defense was the challenge for the evening even though we came away with a clean sheet. There were several moments in the second half where we got really disorganized under VT offensive pressure and nearly conceded. Two great reaction saves by Sam saved the day. One interesting thing is that Anson and Dino are trying out new players who have never in their careers (as far as I can tell) played defense before. Morgan Goff is learning the ropes at center back and then Mary Elliot McCabe got some solid minutes at left back spelling Emily. Both Goff and McCabe have played attacking midfield and as forwards previously. It was very curious that Maggie Bill has not seen action in the backfield. She was a regular defensive starter two years ago and she got time earlier this season, but seems to have disappeared. Also, Jsse Scarpa is getting increasing minutes and looked good last night playing on the right side on offense. But here again, she has had significant experience as a defender (remember three years ago??) and could, in my opinion, do a great job at center back.