I agree that having kids play sports for the express purpose of getting a scholarship presents a number of problems, but I don't think I said anything about that and I don't think its the subject of this discussion. The discussion and my comments have been about the early recruiting system. As for the parents that supported their kids' decisions to commit early, we don't need any excuses at all and we certainly don't need anybody to think any such excuses are legitimate. Seriously, what would you do if your daughter was offered, during her 10th grade year, a spot on a highly ranked team, with a terrific coach and at a highly ranked university that she aspires to attend. If she really wants it, are you going to nod your head in approval or exercise your parental rights to rebel against this imperfect system and let the roster spots go to somebody else? Of course you will support her. On the other hand, if you think its a crappy school or the coach is a jerk you would push back, but that would be true regardless of when the recruitment occurs. We'd all like the process to happen later, but we parents cannot change it.
This is the part I don't buy. If enough parents said, "No," then they could change it. "The devil made me do it" isn't a sufficient response to the situation. I do understand, however, that there are very few that are willing to be out front and taking chances, given the chances they are taking are with their own children.
I don't think anyone wants to hear this. They're convinced there is a crisis and that things must change. I'm still waiting to hear what the actual, real-world problem is. Of course some kids end up picking the wrong school for them - but so do huge numbers of non-athletes. This seems like professional concern-trolling.
Completely agree with you that if enough parents said "no" it could change while few parents will actually take that chance with their own kid. However, the "devil made me do it" characterization is still way off. The parents are not doing anything wrong and have nothing to apologize or make excuses for. Helping your child to make a big decision that appears to be optimal within the constraints of the current system IS a sufficient response.
What my oldest daughter found during her recruiting: As a sophomore she was told by coaches, counselors, & her parents to take her time as she had plenty of time to make her decision. The summer of her sophomore & junior year one of her top three schools announced they had no scholarship money left for her graduating class. My daughter made a verbal commitment the first week of school in her junior year. She made the "early" commitment for several reasons. First she was sure about her decision. She didn't want her offer taken by another recruit. Again. She was tired of the entire process, and the relief was tangible.
Not sure which recruiting thread to put this on, but it seems as good as any. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/s...r-a-college-then-starting-9th-grade.html?_r=1 Discuss.
That article was very interesting on a number of points. First, the mention of Colorado, Texas and Texas A&M is not surprising. These three schools, along with a few others are consistently on the front line of the recruiting process. My daughter is in the 2016 class and has had multiple conversations with two of these schools generating offers from both. She also has offers from two East Coast schools. Though we are still researching all of her opportunities, it has been very difficult to stave off the temptation to jump on one of these and be done. Also interesting were AD's comments about the pressure of the coaches to offer to a kid on a first visit in order to make sure they don't go to the competition (which in the case of UNC is a mere 10 minute drive down the street)
This article reeks of irony. Here Anson is eschewing the early commitment process when HE HIMSELF started it. So it's annoying to him because now everyone else is doing it and he isn't getting everyone he wants and some kids he offers early don't pan out? He drives this bus. The other thing I have seen a lot of is early commitments for kids that end up being ok players. There are two specifically that I am thinking of that have commited to schools out west here...they were big, tall, fast, dominant players but as other girls have grown and improved, these two now are not big money at top ranked school type players. They are good, don't get me wrong, but I will bet cash money their respective schools find a way to get out of those scholarship offers. So it worked out for those players to secure great offers while they were at their peak, but who knows how it will transpire when their school drops them (or drops the offer to a lower amount) or they get to that school and aren't playing. Hopefully this will lead to rules from the NCAA banning scholarship offers and commitments until March 1 of junior year. (Or some other appropriate time) Props to all you parents braving this world! My advice, be patient..there will always be money for your talented player. You are the consumer right now, find the right fit and don't get pressured.
If your kid is good they will wait. The Anson comment is funny. He got a commitment from Mia at about age 15. Lilly wasn't far behind. His complaint isn't so much that kids aren't ready to decide, but that kids change in 3-4 years and his picks are wasted. But I have been told that things really changed with Jill in 1999 or so. Before that the official visit in senior year was a recruiting visit. After that it became a ceremonial thing. She was going after kids in California before other schools took notice.
Another thing that I found salient in the article was the reiteration of why the ECNL was founded. It was founded by some club coaches and administrators as a lucrative business designed to attract parents and players to the concept that their kids will be "showcased" to more college scouts than if they played for the traditional clubs or played ODP. It has been quite the success financially, and as the article pointed out, goes to great lengths to attract coaches (who even get to bump parents off the line from their traditional seats.) I was active in club soccer for many years, and the changes in the last 5 or so years have been dramatic. So the recruiting thing is not only the coaches fault, and ECNL, in this case, deserves a lot of the blame as they jump through their butts trying to build a product that will get their players recruited which, in turn, feeds the frenzy of parents who feel that they have to get their kid into the league so as not to miss out. This has been very purposeful marketing and the costs to the parents are staggering with national travel, and high club fees. There is no proof that such a league develops the players any better than if they stayed at home in more local leagues. Fear and greed all around.
Interesting point. The pressure to produce looks like a recipe for working in other than the kid's interest. ( not saying it happens. The college coaches are under more pressure to win, but still...) But I also see where a kid gets an offer before JR year and continues to do the ECNL camps and showcases, which must cost a bundle. Never see the point in that. It would seem getting coaches who just teach would be more fruitful at that point. Just a few years ago ( even four) the best players around here more or less retired from that stuff once they committed. Some clubs have/had teams that do a lot of showcases and some that don't, running in parallel. Now I see kids going back and playing for their clubs in the off season so the club team can win more. Colorado Rush seems to do it a lot.
I am amused by the talk of ECNL adding costs to soccer families. Since we moved to an ECNL club, both our club fees and our travel costs have both been lower every year than they were in the last year of USYS Regional play.
A player who stops competing after their commitment will not progress enough to be ready to play freshman year in college. I've heard several college coaches encouraging committed players on lower tier clubs to join ECNL teams to get better experience before they get to school.
I am somewhat hesitant to post this as my daughter is a 2017 player and in the thick of what some have called a greed filled recruiting frenzy . I am of the opinion that: - If your kid is capable of competing at the highest level, wants to compete at that level, and truly wants to play soccer in college, the ECNL is by far the best competitive platform around for girls. - ODP in many areas (my area in particular) is a watered down product and, having a choice of spending money on ODP or ECNL, I would choose the ECNL every time. In looking at the roster of the most recent ODP national camp for our region, this team included players who - frankly - aren't very good. It is an avenue to be seen and recruited, but placing any additional weight or credit on a player ranking based on being on an ODP regional roster is short sighted. Many of the kids are on that team because ECNL chose not to participate any more. Some may disagree, but I can state with confidence that there are at least 5 kids on my girl's ECNL team that would be on the roster if they participated, not to mention the those from many other regional ECNL teams. -College coaches are doing their job. They are paid to produce. They are paid to recruit the players that put them in the best position to be successful. By attending the ECNL showcases, they have been given a map to the gold mine. Why bother going anywhere else to find players for your program. In three or four days, you can accomplish what used to take months and months of leg work. -From what I can tell, the 2016s and 2017s don't mind the attention. -My girl's experience with recruiting is that coaches cast a broad net early on, seeking level of interest from many ECNL kids across the country. If interest is shown, good for the coach and the program. If interest is initiated by the player early on, that's even better. If not, the net is recast. -Why go after kids in 9th grade? Because the landscape is exactly as described at the beginning of that NY Times article - there are not enough top level players to fill the needs of all of the 300 or so D1 programs. If you as a coach can get one, great. If you can get two or three, better. If you can nab a few that your direct conference competition is interested in as well, even better. -Coaches want players who aren't afraid to want the ball, who attack, who make good decsions, have pace, have touch, are athletic and are not selfish. They don't want panic passers with a thick/heavy touch. -A pecking order is certainly a reality for teams and players. The best players (impact players) on the team start getting interest the earliest, followed by the next level (the core), followed by the role players.
OK...Im gonna throw this out and it might hit home with 2 out of 10 who read it. Womens College Soccer Recruiting is like watching a full season of "Wicked Tuna" on Nat Geo. Here me out. So....The recruiting process starts at the beginning of the Tuna Season....because the fishery is protected from Net Trolling, the guys catch the Tuna the old fashion way...one at6 a time with a rod and reel. Now the good ones get off the dock early in the morning and get out to their spot where they think the best bite is gonna be. They throw out chum and stare at their fish finders for hours. Finally they get a Mark, then two, then four.....then, after chumming (this I liken to College coaches texting club coaches saying they are interested in a couple of kids from their team) They hook one...now the work starts....you gotta get the Slob into the boat (that's what they call a huge fish) So they set the hook and start reeling, but damn this fish is a fighter....(not sure if the school is right, the coach is right, too far from home) soo they keep reeling and eventually they boat the Slob, Cut its head and tail off, weigh it and sell it to the Japanese (OK that last part doesn't happen to the girls but thought it would be funny to end it that way)
Here's another "Wicked Tuna/Silly Soccer" episode: A bunch of boats fish Tuna.com's GPS "numbers" and anchor up at the same spot (parallel universe story line...dozens of college coaches mob the sideline of an ECNL game in hopes of landing a prized, 15-year-old player). Meanwhile, Pinwheel (skippered by a young, ambitious captain/coach) takes a gamble on a long, solo run to George's Bank and lands two beauties for a big payday back in Gloucester/(insert college name here).
OK. We're over 250 commits to the 2016 class and most of the (currently) high profile players have committed. I started this thread with the comment that the earlier recruiting trend was continuing... and it, in deed, steadily is. So with the usual disclaimers that this is for fan fun only and that recruiting rankings must be at least in part subjective and are absolutely NOT hard science, and, especially two full years out, things will change, we can take a look at the early leaders. The numbers only warrant posting the top ten at this time. (I actually have ratings for the top 20 schools. but the recruiting is so thin that those numbers get next to meaningless, so there's no point in posting them.) Bear in mind that there are so many quality players that will commit over the next two years, history has shown that except for teams in Teir I things will jump around. In some cases, if one quality player commits, the ranking shoots way up. However, in most cases, as the numbers increase, the schools will solidify their rankings or incrementally move up the ladder. Explanation of "Tiers" Although it is possible to numerically rank teams individually, I have commented many times that the reality is that if the recruiting classes are within a certain range, they should be considered indistinguishable from a practical point of view. As the overall class fills out, the ranges become blurred, but still, classes within 0.40 of each other could be arguably equal in strength depending on the exact needs of the team and the "fit" of the specific players involved. When all is said and done, there there are typically one or two classes that are obviously head and shoulders above the rest. Then follow perhaps 4 or 5 classes in Tier II that are very, very strong, then in Tier III maybe 10 classes that are very strong, then for Tier IV 15 classes that are strong, and Tier V with 23 classes that are moderately strong - which gets us to the top 50 classes. Each recruiting year is different in the level of talent available, so these approximate tier divisions must be flexible. Very Early Look at the 2016 Recruiting Class TIER I 1. 9.53 UCLA 2. 9.05 UNC TIER II 3. 8.10 Virginia 4. 8.00 Duke 5. 7.67 Stanford TIER III 6. 7.33 Santa Clara 7. 7.25 USC 8. 7.00 South Carolina TIER IV 9. 6.67 Florida State 10. 6.33 Central Florida
I did my recent calculations for this class. My rankings: 1. UCLA 2. North Carolina 3. Duke 4. Virginia 5. Notre Dame 6. Stanford 7. Santa Clara 8. West Virginia 9. Florida State 10. USC South Carolina's #11 in my rankings, so I don't think we're too far off, except with Central Florida. I've got them currently ranked 20th, so I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning in how you've got them in your top ten.
Thanks Dimitri..... Well, as I forgot to say on the above post, please point out errors and omissions. I do make mistakes. In this case, since you pointed it out, in double checking I realized I made a silly mistake and gave the two Central Florida 2016 internationals credit for playing on the Iceland team (not the Finland team.) Oops. Wrong country. Shame on me for that fatigue induced error. This would place Central Florida down at #18, so we pretty much agree there. So CF drops off the top 10 and Notre Dame moves up. I see you have ND at #5. I have them with three players in the 2016 class. There's no question that Westendorf is a premier player, but she has not yet been selected for any YNT team roster so I have her as an "8" in my system. Brooke Littman is a keeper from SoCal, who I rate a "6" while Sam Zapponi is a 5'3" defender from Santa Rosa with nothing that I can find that would at this point in her career elevate her beyond a solid ECNL player or a "4" in my system. Hence a 6.0 total for ND. Do you have an additional player for the 2016 Irish that would elevate them more? Revised 2016s from Soccerhunter on 7/13/14 TIER I 1. 9.53 UCLA 2. 9.05 UNC TIER II 3. 8.10 Virginia 4. 8.00 Duke 5. 7.67 Stanford TIER III 6. 7.33 Santa Clara 7. 7.25 USC 8. 7.00 South Carolina TIER IV 9. 6.67 Florida State 10. 6.oo Notre Dame
I didn't count Littman in my rankings as she's not currently listed on the big spreadsheet as of yet. My Notre Dame ranking is pretty much entirely based on Westendorf at this stage, as I rate players based on a 0-100 scale based on accomplishments listed on the spreadsheet (for domestic players). She's an 80.9 at the moment of a maximum 100 points. I expect she'll hit the 100 point cap well before the end of her youth career. My system makes it easy for teams who sign one star player to dominate rankings early, but they'll fade back into the pack once those players hit the 100 point cap unless they sign other big players. FYI, I currently have seven "100" blue-chip players from 2015 and three from 2016. The three from 2016 are: Marley Canales (UCLA) Mia Gyau (Duke) Mallory Pugh (UCLA) At any rate, it's always interesting to see your rankings, as I think we have similar methodologies in how we calculate rankings.
Pretty interesting rankings. A couple of things to point out with this and any other class. First, Im a big fan of the spreadsheet, but the accolades tend to get over rated. No doubt that Pugh, Canales, Gyau (and add Zoe Redei) are the cream of this class. But grading recuits on ODP accolades is very inaccurate. ODP is very regional Strong in Southern Cal, Texas, East Coast, but there is a growing number of players that don't bother with ODP due to expense and poor technical coaching. A better yardstick is USSF Market training and more increasingly ID2 As for the two players mentioned from ND (Zeponi is a very solid defender. Don't let her height fool you...She is very strong....the GK mentioned is OK, but most likely a non-scholarship commit--flip your two ranking numbers and your getting close)
Personally, for my rankings, I don't treat all accolades equally. ODP honors are definitely on the low end of the spectrum when I add things up.
I just assumed that any intelligent person would not treat all accolades equally. There will always be an ordering of all of the different accolades and it will always be shifting, and as Glove Stinks said, there may be regional differences as well. Additionally, as I have noted before, there is also history to consider. Certainly one look at a national camp is not nearly the same as multiple invites back to the camp over a long period of time. And players fade too. Someone who was very strong as a U15 or U16 with perhaps double digits in national camps and friendlies, may fade to the point that her resume disappears as a U17 or U18. All of this is to say that this rating business is and must be mostly subjective sometimes arbitrary and we must all accept that fact. NONE of us can possibly personally see even a small percentage of the recruits and must rely on implied opinions of others as reflected in accolades. So while there may be some overall validity, there will aberrations from time to time. Those of us spending lots of time trying to get it mostly right will always try to refine our systems, but will never reach anything resembling statistical perfection. (I like Stinks comment. He is apparently in a position to have actually seen the players in question and would reverse the points I assigned, but taken together, there would be no difference.)
Your first 3 are spot on. I would put Stanford and USC and Florida St. at the number 4-6 spots with all of them being in the second Tier. UCLA's recruiting class is on another level with 6 outstanding players signed and a 7th YNT player from Norway in the works. The Norwegian player is a killer forward/mid with great skills. I saw her play at Surf College Cup this past Thanksgiving weekend and she is the real deal. The only thing holding her up according to my source is insuring that she is eligible to play due to her attending some sports academy in her home country. The coaches think that it could be one of the best classes ever assembled with every player a potential star.