I think if a coach has been told they have one more year to improve results the AD will give them a year extension in most cases. Plus with covid finances are down so having to go through a head coaching search isn’t ideal with expenses of bringing candidates to campus, moving expenses etc. I think you’re right there could be some coaches moves along if their contract is up and they are blindsided possibly, but a lot of contracts are either up at the end of December (so you have maybe 2-3 weeks to bring in a new coach before spring soccer), or straight after spring season which finishes around end of April which gives a little time before the fall. But I have never heard of a contract being up at the end up April so more likely end of June which is a tight timeline till the August season. I think coaches get a reprieve but you never know.
Agree with a lot of that. Anyone who's paid attention to their favorite school or conference for very long knows how changes get cycled. Often the best predictor is conditions at the school - namely new AD or new President/Admin that sets different goals or wants 'their coaches' in the house. Seems easy to predict there will be less leadership/admin changes in a year like this so more coaches are likely 'safer' than in a normal year. Retirements and random real life/family stuff can always happen though. Budget cuts could easily affect other resources for sure - asst coaches, travel, scholarships, even gear could be really affected going forward short term. (ask anyone with a great Under Armour deal). At some point after we can see if Bowl games make money and the basketball season gets started, we'll know how much more revenue damage there could be in store for 21-22. I also completely agree that this entire year will be considered mostly 'developmental' for most teams and so evaluating coaches will be difficult. Would be nice to see how teams reload for a "normal" start to 2021 with full rosters and internationals. Hopeful.
I get that coaches are evaluated on many things. The fact that some coaches could use this time developmentally actually makes it easier to evaluate them in terms of how they want to play, how they actually play and if you see progress. I understand that in spite of how some feel, for the vast majority of programs, the mandate is win a few conference games, dont embarrass the school and graduate your kids. Soccer development is not and should not be a priority at most places.
I mean no disrespect, but this could be one of the most incorrect statements I've ever seen on this forum. We are talking about college women's soccer correct? This is not the NBA. Please look for some quotes from Dorrance or any long term "winning" college women's soccer coach to support that they are not prioritizing development at any time but especially in the corona year 2020. We'll be waiting....
Very confused by your comment and example. I said Soccer development is not and should not be a priority at most places. I said most places. There are programs that have a reason to recruit and develop players for continued play beyond and they are in the minority. Most programs are not doing that as a priority. You bring up Anson Dorrance and winning. I dont need to look at his quotes. He has developed a system and method that gives him the best chance of consistent winning. Winning college games is his priority. Even if you could name me 50 programs at which real player development was the priority, my statement could still be true. Most programs want to win some games, graduate kids and do the right thing by Title IX within a budget. Most kids want to enjoy their last 4 years of soccer, win some games and move on with life. There is no real economic benefit in College soccer development of players.
I'll make this as clear as possible. Developing players IS how you ultimately win games. The best evidence that a coach is effective is the improvement shown in players and in teams from week to week and year over year. This is a basic philosophy for competitive sports at just about every level. Of course, where you start has alot to do with where you finish so recruiting is a massive ingredient of course. But developing players, and teams, is essentially the mission of college (or most competitive) sports teams. How you determine to quantify or measure that development is up for debate of course. Some have said here Stanford should be in every college women's final four with the quality going into that program. Interesting that very many coaches would say some of their best coaching was of teams that had the least talent. So they had to really coach, organize, train, scout, and game plan to get results but may not have won the big game or even had many All-Conference type players. I think the point being made here is that in this corona year of 2020, very many coaches are training and preparing their players with an eye on the fall 2021 season. Since there will not even be a Fall 2020 championship, something like post-season success, is not going to be a very consistent metric to evaluate coaches. But the development of players is always happening.
Coaches are evaluated by wins. You dont have to develop players to win Womens college soccer games, especially at the top programs that attract talent. To win consistently, you need to build a system that works with as wide a range of player types as possible. Im not disputing that some coaches and players are focused on development. I disagree that its anywhere close to the majority. Your words . Coaches who coach, organize, train, scout, and game plan to get results are not necessarily developing players. Most of them are certainly trying to put their team in the best position to win todays game though. Question. Is UNCs preset sub pattern there to help develop players or simply making the most efficient use of a rule that does no exist in any form of pro or international soccer?
If all college soccer players arrived at their full development as a player, why have practices? With that logic, incoming freshmen are ready for the big time when they arrive. I've seen my share of D1 practices, and they don't just hit the field on work on tactics and a system for the whole session. The ball is everything in this sport, and if you aren't comfortable with the ball at your feet, you aren't "developed" as a player.
Right, so do you think coaches develop systems that rely on making players more comfortable with the ball at their feet or put systems in place that limit the reliance on that. How many of the kids you think are really good on the ball are imported from other countries who stress that at a much younger age? Most players arrive with the tools they have and most are recruited by schools who think they can use those qualities to win. You have practices to work on team stuff. You say they dont just hit the field on work on tactics and a system for the whole session, but in season thats actually what they do the vast majority of the time. Most College players are asked to use their strengths to win as opposed to given time / put in position to work on weaknesses so as to become better. Most have nothing to bet better for. In the mens game, the financial rewards are aligned with the goal of becoming a better player. I
It is an interesting conversation. There are coaches who develop their athletes to be better soccer players technically. There are some who develop them tactically. I think most places have a program to develop them physically. Some programs mix technical and tactical developments. But there are coaches out there who fill practices with ‘drills’ just to use the time and don’t try to develop. I know Indiana State had been mentioned on the hot seat at one point and I have heard multiple times this is how the coach operates; full practice with drills to make the time go by work try out a developmental plan. Developing requires (in my opinion) a devotion to teaching these athletes individual and broad concepts, challenging them to become stronger on a technical basis, and dealing with the rigors and physicality of college soccer that requires mental toughness.
Sorry if this is not EXACTLY hotseat but still about evaluating coaches and a bit interesting...I think. (Agree with what @Collegewhispers just posted) I'd love to know what college program(s) you have experience with? Are you Not seeing the players get better - with the ball? making decisions? physically? and learning different systems and tactics? Do you Not call this development?? "US College women's soccer is one of the best developmental platforms for the women's game in the world" (insert the name of any good college coach here) Yes, my words! What do you think I mean by coach and train? I could give you dozens of quotes from soccer coaches and other sport coaches about technical training. Whether they use a 'games based' approach or more straight reps - shooting/winning high balls, escaping pressure, quality passing, etc. etc. etc. If you know anything about UNC, you'd know they spend HOURS learning how to hit better long balls and win high balls - a massive shortcoming in the women's game. Gary Cureen just did a post about the UNC pressing system. There's a great quote by AD likely about his sub pattern. (link below) I think it's pretty easy to say those UNC players are learning skills, tactics, habits, etc. Along with training in psychology, nutrition, strength training, all while getting a college degree usually in something completely different than soccer. And about "winning", again this is not the NBA. Are you going to argue now that all good coaches win and all bad coaches lose? My HS coach was a living legend in my area, Hall of Famer, but never won a State Title. He has about 50 former players out there coaching though. I think he developed a lot of players. And a total sub topic but I Never understand why people want to compare college soccer to FIFA or International soccer. If the FIFA rules where so good, why are the changing all the time? "Our players are not required to step on the field and play 90 mins, they are required to step on the field & sprint... and there’s a big difference between those two development platforms" - Anson Dorrance https://www.modernsoccercoach.com/post/unc-master-the-pressing-basics-again
Two questions for those out there in the know. 1. With the SEC, BIG XII, ACC all playing this fall, how will this fall season play out when it comes to the NCAA tournament in the Spring? Do they get a break for playing to just train for the Tournament? 2. Why is it that NCAA DII & DIII coaches can be on the road recruiting at Events and games, but DI Coaches are in a dead Period?
There has been a regular season competition window in the Fall and there will be one also in the Spring (February 2 to April 17), after which the Women’s Soccer Committee will make its NCAA tournament selections. The Division I Council has adopted emergency legislation that says for Fall sports (which include women’s soccer), a school may break up the Fall segment into multiple segments of the playing season. What this means is that the teams playing games in the Fall also can play games in the Spring. (They still will be subject to limits on the number of total games they can play.) Teams will not be allowed to practice during academic finals and the week prior at the conclusion of the Fall term. In addition, they will be required to have a break prior to the start of the Spring soccer season. Although the Spring season for games that will count for NCAA tournament selection purposes will end on April 17, schools may continue their seasons past the NCAA championship so long as the season ends by the end of the school academic year. I think it is safe to anticipate that the schools playing games during the Fall segment also will play some games during the Spring segment. For the ACC, Big 12, SEC, and Sun Belt, all of which are playing their conference seasons in the Fall, they likely will be playing non-conference games in the Spring, essentially reversing the usual course of events where they play non-conference games at the beginning of the season and conference games in the second half of the season.
In the case of the SEC, teams in recent years have played 12 league games and then six or more non-conference games. Since the SEC is only playing 8 conference games this fall, I assume that teams will play an additional 4 league games in the Spring plus several non-conference games--as many as they want or can find. Do the conference tourney games count toward the 20-game limit every year? If not, SEC teams may be playing more games in the Spring than in the fall.
Conference Tournaments don’t count towards the 20 games in ordinary years. probably won’t this time either.
I believe there has been no change in the rule that conference tournament games do not count towards the 20-game limit.
Well UTRGV (Men's Head Soccer Coach) have been the first school not to renew the contract of a head coach in 2020, will we see any of the same in the women's game?
I don’t think so. W soccer at most places (D1) will be one of the last sports to go. On the men’s side I can see programs being cut but on the women’s side basketball, volleyball, soccer and softball are somewhat protected.
You misread the comment. The UTRGV coach had his contract non-renewed. They didn't cut the program. Didn't even mention anything about a program being cut. I think nearly 99.9% of people involved in the US soccer scene know that hardly any women's soccer programs will be cut anytime soon.
Very interesting. How many D1 teams do you think can actively work on attacking and defensive tactics (Im guessing maybe 10 out of 320). In viewing many games it seems that possession of the ball is not valued by most or they try to keep it but it cannot ( you are only as tactical as you are technical) . Thus, how do coaches say "when we win possession, we need to do this"? When ball is lost again after 2 passes, how can teams possibly get into any tactics? Or as the post above suggests,"If we hit it long and win the 2nd ball, we only have to make 2 passes before we can shoot"? IDK...
Im an totally with you. Sure there are a few (I can go with 20 or so) that have the raw materials to do it, but the Club system does not produce enough players with the tools to play more sophisticated soccer. Its one reason the crude pressing tactics you see are effective for as long as teams can keep it up physically. Most players are not equipped to make decisions and execute under a press. I too have watched a lot of games and the actual quality of most is a real eye opener.
Players [and their families] themselves do not understand, comprehend, or have the desire to play more sophisticated soccer. You can have the greatest coaches and clubs, but they still will "fail" because mommy and daddy and junior know better.
I wonder why some of you folks pay enough attention to college women's soccer to not only read but then also write on this forum if you don't like it so much?? @Number007 that's for you you negative Nancy! Since there isn't going to be much actual hotseat, and because you quoted me, I'll have a go. If you want to get into a classic 'effective vs attractive' soccer argument, there have to be lots of forums and threads for that. For example, many folks have been critical of the UNC high pressure, direct style, with lots of subbing while they win championships year after year and produce pro player after pro player. Not everyone wins the way everyone wants them to win. Some out there would probably even argue that trying to employ Liverpool's high pressure, counter press, and counter-attack style is not "developing" players. Point 1 - Of course teams can learn and apply tactics, and at a somewhat young age. I've seen great possession, use the width, go forward when you want to, teams at U16. Also seen a medium block, defend and counter team at the same age range. Players will play the way they prepare so good coaches will prepare them to use their strengths and also prepare them when plan A does not work. Point 2 - It's often relative. A team's attractive possession style is frequently directly dependent on the quality of their opponent. Teams I've had looked like awesome possession teams in many of our games. Some teams will bunker against us and it looks like half-court basketball. Others are end to end affairs, and in some others, we are chasing shadows because our opponents are just better with the ball and better athletes. How did Pitt look scoring 7 against App State versus allowing 4 to FSU? Something tells me Waldrum's tactics were probably different in those games as of course you have to prepare your players for varying opponents as well as varying tactical situations. Point 3 - Know what your getting. If you're looking for a possession style team to play for, go find one. Club or college. Do your research. Being totally surprised by the direct style of a team you end up on is kindof your own fault. There's mountains of video out there now for all kinds of teams. Watch it and don't be surprised. Point 4- No question that lots of college coaches recruit 'athletes' rather than good 'players' and do not value possessing the ball as much as they do playing high pressure. Plenty of lazy coaches out there to go around. And so its often ugly. BUT, if a coach realizes they're out matched and decides to train his team to bunker, to defend and counter, and gets a few results. Is that preparation good tactical coaching? Why is that good coaching for Russia in a World Cup but not in college women's soccer in an 8 vs 1 game in the tournament? Point 5 - Everyone gets an opinion- whether anyone likes this or not, many sports like soccer are kind of 'eye of the beholder' types of sports. Whether you score in 1 or 2 passes or after 15 passes, the goal does count the same. A long time ago I was a scrappy, basically untrained high school tennis player. I played some great players at other schools. Guys that were ranked. So I made sure I had a great serve and became a serve and volleyer. Pissed off quite a few "good" players when I beat them - winning many points on the first or second shot.
I thought forums were to exchange views. We disagree. Grown people can do that with respect. I love the sport enough to want it to be better. Thats not negative. I am perfectly entitled to my opinion. The comment is more about the CLUB system that feeds College. By the time most players get there, development is over. Again. Nothing negative about that.