Wondering what people are hearing. It looks like USC will have the best class in the country. Five national-teamers (U17-U16-Australia) have committed to the Trojanettes, including four players from what might be the best class of players ever out of Southern California. Look for Jim Millinder to change the style from gutty and gritty to pretty and technical. The players I've heard want to spend the next four years surrounded by some of the worst neighborhoods in L.A.: Amy Rodriguez Maryhelen Tomer Ashley Nick Kristin Loucks Stacey Strong Jessica Potter (an American who plays for Australia's U-19s; her parents are Aussies) The other early commits I've heard (and I'm looking for more; please share): Aysha Jamani (Canadian NT) -- Nebraska Kasey Moore -- Texas Kelly Quinn -- Virginia Alli Fries -- Virginia Mandy Moraca -- North Carolina Courtney Lewis -- Santa Clara Diana Pfenninger -- Florida State Amanda Lernor -- Loyola Marymount Samantha Sanderson -- LSU According to a story in the latest Soccer America, Kara Lang most heavily favors North Carolina and UCLA but also is considering Florida and Penn State.
No news from me, at least not for another month or so, but I wanted to say how pleased I am to see this thread -- let's keep it going -- and how nice it is to have l'AJA posting again on the Women's College forum. Thanks, l'AJA, and welcome back.
Great for the Women of Troy! [sounds like a bordello ] Just getting Rodriguez was big enough for $C. Add Tomer to the mix, & $C will be a force in the Pac for years. I agree that the CA-S 87Gs are a very strong group, perhaps one of the best ever. However two of 87Gs best - Orand & Bosio - don't graduate until 2006. Add them to the 88Gs, the 2006 class coming out of CA-S will be another strong one. Is that Pfenninger the GK (Diana) from the Houston area? Great job, l'AJA. Let me know what you hear on these other names at the top of my head: Yael Averbuch - NJ, World Class Nikki Krzysik - NJ, World Class Amanda Lebo - PA, World Class Kylee Rossi - NJ Christina DiMartino - NY, Albertson Express Brittany Taylor - NY, Albertson Express Kaila Sciascia - NY Madison Gates - NY Caroline Walden - CT MD's & the Bethesda Excel's Meagan Holmes, Ashley Myers, Amanda Poach, & Hayley Siegel Katie Schulz - GA Cydney Currie - TX Laura Grace Robinson - TX Lauren Shapiro - AZ Meagan McCray - CA-N Stefani Rocco - CA-N Ameera Abdullah - CO Erika Sutton - CO Better yet, go to Surf Cup next weekend. Keep your eyes & ears open because everyone will be there.
Everyone on your list is on my want-to-know list. I'm really just starting to put names together. Pfenninger is from Houston area. I hear mixed things on Rossi -- big things one moment, disappears the next. My understanding is she hasn't committed. Kryzsik is finalizing her visits list, a clued-in NJ friend informs me. Supposedly looking closely at Duke, UNC, Rutgers, Arizona and Penn State. Arizona a recent addition to her list. I think everyone expects Averbuch to be a Tar Heel. When I talked to her last December, she was open to any possibility, but figured she'd likely stay on the East Coast. I talked with Cydne Currie the other day. She wants to go through official visits. Says there is some pressure from coaches to commit early, but she wants to take her time. Word is A&M and UNC top her list. I asked her, and she said they were among the schools she's considering. Another player to keep an eye on is Zerboni McCall from San Clemente, Calif. She was in U.S. U-17s in 2003 but apparently turned them down this year. She told me last spring she hadn't been asked back; several coaches told me they'd love to have her on the team, but she wasn't interested. Kiki Bosio is the best player I saw in SoCal high schools last year. Phenomenal -- takes over games. Her sister is a top defender at Pepperdine, but I expect Kiki to go somewhere bigger. When I last talked to Orand about colleges, several months ago, she hadn't really started thinking about it too hard.
Rebecca Mendoza (Mexico U-19) - Notre Dame http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/city/garland/stories/072504dngarsoccer.4e679.html
Didn't Kelsey Davis verbally commit to UCLA? And the U-18 Cal-N Grapevine forum says that Meagan McCray verbally committed to Santa Clara. Is this correct? As Cathy Griffin the comedian says, "If it's a rumor, that's good enough for me....." Rebecca Mendoza (Mexican National team) from Texas committed to Notre Dame. It looks like USC will have the best class in the country. Five national-teamers (U17-U16-Australia) have committed to the Trojanettes, including four players from what might be the best class of players ever out of Southern California. Look for Jim Millinder to change the style from gutty and gritty to pretty and technical. The players I've heard want to spend the next four years surrounded by some of the worst neighborhoods in L.A.: Amy Rodriguez Maryhelen Tomer Ashley Nick Kristin Loucks Stacey Strong Jessica Potter (an American who plays for Australia's U-19s; her parents are Aussies) The other early commits I've heard (and I'm looking for more; please share): Aysha Jamani (Canadian NT) -- Nebraska Kasey Moore -- Texas Kelly Quinn -- Virginia Alli Fries -- Virginia Mandy Moraca -- North Carolina Courtney Lewis -- Santa Clara Jennifer Pfenninger -- Florida State Amanda Lernor -- Loyola Marymount Samantha Sanderson -- LSU
I received errant info from a source, who has corrected that info: Nikki Krzysik is looking at Arizona State, not Arizona, which makes more sense, although Arizona certainly is rising. It is believed she will stay closer to home.
Great news for A&M about the Currie sisters..... This is definitely UNC's loss. Looks like the start of another great recruiting class for A & M.
Santa Clara getting another great class. In addition to Courtney Lewis (Laguna Hills Eclipse, Tesoro HS, US U-17s), the Broncos have pulled in three national-teamers from Bethesda: D/M Meagan Holmes D/M Amanda Poach M Hayley Siegel
More early 2005 verbals than ever before. Has the early signing period for women's soccer been moved up from Feb to Nov? Any other reasons for all the early verbals?
For girls who achieved national/regional ODP level, the recruiting process has been two to three years long already. For the player in our household, the correspondence before July 1 was almost two feet high, along with daily e-mails. She has tried to respond to everyone, regardless of her interest. That takes a lot of time, but we encouraged her towards a professional approach with all of these very nice people who have taken time for her. Some of the players don't want to deal with the phone onslaught, especially when they are really set on where they want to go. For our daughter, everything fell into place in her mind right after the Houston Shootout, and she didn't feel she needed more time. The offer and the fit was right for her, and she now moves on to a senior year filled with more certainty than uncertainty. I don't think it's for everyone, but when it works, it's great.
One other thing in our particular situation -- since the recruiting interest was national in scope, we made the decision to "invest" in unofficial visits between February and May. The player didn't make an early verbal without seeing the alternatives. Again, not the right approach for everyone. But, the decision was made in the context of knowing the short-list options. Waiting to take five official visits is not always practical, and it's very late in the game when the top programs have other commitments tapping into the scholarship funds early.
The nature of recruiting is that it is getting earlier and earlier. I know of several programs that already have commitments for 2006. In some ways it is a bit unbelievable that coaches are recruiting players that won't play for them for another year to year and a half, but at the same time if you sit on the fence and wait, the best talent is gone. As SoccerCrd mentioned, players really have to take the "unofficial visits" in early spring, or the scholarship money will not be there if they wait to go through the official visit process. Not every level of college soccer operates on this level, but most of your power conference schools, or schools that are climbing in their respectability are certainly operating on this schedule.
I agree with borisman, we have had our daughter on numerous unofficial visits in the north to give herself a benchmark as to what is available, then come Sept. 6th start the official visits. It was also a matter of economics...we could drive to Northeast and central states and she will be on the schools tab for flights to the southern areas. Is there any forums with disussions about strengths or weaknesses of different conferences to help us newbies?
I got confirmation today that Meagan McCray has verballed to Santa Clara. And Kelsey Davis with UCLA, which gives the Bruins top goalkeepers from the '05 and '06 classes, no doubt in response to last year's semifinal.
Re: 2005 verbals and the trend of early commitments I agree that for some kids, committing early is ok. If they know where they want to go, and have the means and time to check out the schools on their own, then it does get a big decision out of the way quickly. The problem, and this is where we can educate parents and club coaches, is that top level programs are demanding commitments from players earlier and earlier, or else they lose the money. This is both unfair, as it doesn't allow kids to check out schools on officials, and unethical as they are pressuring kids into making a decision with the fear of a lost opportunity. USC did that this summer, telling kids, if you don't commit now I can't gurantee you anything. So he got a few verbals from kids who were scared to lose out, but they don't have a chance to compare schools. (and to realize that the girls hate playing for him and his days there are numbered, but disregard that statement.) Parents, if a coach says this to your daughter, it means she is not a top priority kid for them, and no matter what he is saying, this reveals that he wants her in or not, so he can move on to the next player. He is not interested in her finding a great fit for her college expereince. This is a fact. These coaches are saying, hey, it would be ok for this player to be here, but i need her to decide so i can move on with the money. Don't get pressured into making a hasty decision. The other trend out there, used by Jerry at Santa Clara and others is to offer 6 kids and tell them that the first 3 to commit get the money. Also unfair, because the kids are pressured into saying yes to avoid losing out, but they are often making a hurried and uneducated decision. But they are Santa Clara, so they can get away with it. The thing that is in the parents and players' favor is that parity is better and better in women's college soccer. Coaches, schools and conferences once considered down are now getting fully funded, with great traveling and equpiment budgets, and hiring great coaches. (IE..look at San Diego State...great hire for head coach, great budget, great faclilites, great location, poised to be a top notch program very soon) So the choice is in the hands of the consumer: YOU. As far as 2005 verbals goes...Surf cup was interesting, and a lot of players do wait to take their visits and can often get more money by waiting as the second tier schools (meaning not top 5) will have more money later than the top 5 who are done by Aug 15. My 2 cents anyways. i have been around d 1 athletics for over 10 years and have no vested interest....
Unfortunately since there are only 12 scholarships available at fully funded programs, it is a buyers (coach) market, and not a (sellers) player market at the most competitive programs. Many of the top programs are not only elite soccer programs but stellar academic institutions as well. This in itself draws the elite student athlete. Many players and their families realize that admission in some of these institutions would be slim if they didn't play soccer, even though the average select soccer player is an excellent student. I would assume (hope) most players would pick a school based on the educational opportunity first and then the soccer experience second. It also unfortunate that some players can't take advantage of visiting schools unofficially to be able to compare if and when early scholarship offers may present themselves. However if you are fortunate enough to visit schools early, and have offers that meet your academic, athletic, financial and other college concerns, it would behoove a player to commit early. In general, a coach will honor a scholarship to a player who commits early even though a verbal is non binding. This is especially important should a player receive a serious injury prior to signing day. Get hurt, and see the interest and money wane regardless how promising the player. Although there are only so many national and regional players, there are many, many players who now are of that caliber even if they haven't been identified as such. Last spring, Notre Dame had no scholarship money well before State Cup, Regionals, and ODP had ended. My daughter was offered a recruited walk on opportunity. Flattering, but hardly economically feasible at $35,000 plus annually. Virginia reportedly already has at least 2 national caliber players verballed already. Tennessee has early verbals from top players too. At top programs, wait long and the money and opportunity may be very well gone.
Re: 2005 verbals and the trend of early commitments With the exception of a couple of the verbals, USC was finished for 05 before summer even began. Don't know the source of your information, but mine is first-hand. I do think that some of the existing players aren't up to the expectations of the current staff and are likely genuinely unhappy in that system. But, if you think all of the 05 players on their list were forced into an early commit, you are completely mistaken. Several of them had a very long list of alternatives.
Re: 2005 verbals and the trend of early commitments I've talked to Amy Rodriguez about her decision to go to USC, which (the other signings aside) surprised everyone who has seen Amy play and seen USC play. Many, myself included, figured she'd head to Santa Clara. Amy -- a real nice girl, by the way -- told me she fell in love with USC's campus and that she felt at home there. She liked the idea of staying close to home. She wants to major in business, and USC has a strong business program and great business contacts in the real world. And she said that Maryhelen Tomer's decision influenced all the other SoCal kids who have signed with SC. These girls all know each other, have all played with and against each other, and love the idea that they can be teammates in a program that wants to climb to the level of its hated crosstown rival. USC's gutty, gritty style of play has largely been dictated by the talent in the program. With players like these, and others who likely will follow, USC will begin playing a more technically sophisticated game. That's the plan, the bring that technical side to the high-pressure game the Trojans are known for. We'll know in a couple years whether it will succeed.
Re: 2005 verbals and the trend of early commitments the old saying "you snooze, you lose" goes both ways. The top prospects in the country know who they are and they are not making uneducated, rush decisions as stated above. They make unofficial visits early in their high school years and maintain an open communication with the schools they are interested in via e-mail. If they are wise, when traveling to soccer tournaments across the country, they have the opportunity to visit many universities in or around these tournaments to get some idea of each campus and respective program. They should ask appropriate questions about academics, etc on these visits. As for Santa Clara, they have verbals from 5 national teamers for 2005. (Could once again have the number 1 recruiting class in 2005) They had 11 players very interested. Not everyone gets a scholarship. You have to be as quick as possibly and also make the best educated decision based on many factors. You have to do your homework early. Don't you think it was in the best interest for each player and Jerry Smith to make their decision as soon as possible. The player waits and they lose out not only the opportunity to play for SCU but quite possibly their other choices. Dragging your feet is not a good thing! Jerry Smith sits back and lets things play out and he loses the players that were once interested in playing for him and his program. "You snooze, you lose"
Re: 2005 verbals and the trend of early commitments Re-read what I said. I said, for some it makes sense to commit early. If you have the means and opportunity to visit the schools you are interested in, unofficially, then great, make your decision. I also still maintain that this "commit early" idea is not in the best interest of the girls. For the coaches, oh yeah. They have a finite number of scholarships, so they can be the most selective...is this done? yes. accepted? yes. cutthroat? yes. in the best interest of the girls college experience? no. we are seeing more and more transfers among div 1 women's soccer, and this is why. Kids make rushed decisions in order to not miss out. Would i commit to santa clara if i thought i could lose the spot. heck yeah. but would it be the most educated decision? no. All I am saying is I applaud the coaches that let the girls take their 5 officials and make the best choice possible. I also know that is a pipe dream. I want parents and players to realize that they have more options than they think. There is money out there at other schools, as well as good coaches, good schools, etc. I know this is a losing battle, but the rush to commit early is not in the best interest of the game, IMO. I know this sounds melodramatic, and I apologize, but women's soccer is quickly going the way of men's and women's bball where early commitments and offering 3 to the first 3 that commit are the norm. I have admired women's college soccer because it has stood separate from the bballs, but we are headed that way. is that what any of us want? I played pac 10 basketball (on scholarship) and have been impressed with soccer, but am scared for what i see.
..I have a question that maybe someone can answer. For example a university like U of California Santa Barbara. Tuition for in-state students is $6,148 for Out of State Students it is $20,358. As an D1 school they would be allowed 12 full scholarships. Does this mean they have 12 x $20,358 available to be divided between their players or does NCAA look at where the athletes are from...As NCAA also allows payment for Books, Room and Board..etc..how is it calculated to allow only 12 full rides.. My daughter is being pressured into committing and I am trying to figure out the whole game....