I assume it is due to tryout season and they see the Northern Suburbs as fertile recruiting grounds since it is only FC United in that part of Chicagoland. The whole landscape of elite girls in Chicago would change if ECNL awarded a full badge to 1974. But I assume Rory would do everything in his power to keep that from happening since that would eat into his base.
With all these commitment tables, the devil is in the details. Plus what clubs do over multiple years. If you analyze where the Eclipse players have committed, at least in my opinion, the overall quality surpass those of the other two clubs in the area. Ultimately, an offer is an offer, but… Regarding Galaxy, unless they can figure out the issues with their younger age groups in the GA, they are likely to regress toward Sockers in the next few years. They are at the peak unless it’s fixed.
I think the other unknown is what type of “offers” these players are getting. A walk on at a p4 program is great but a full ride to a strong d1 academic school but not p4 is more compelling to a lot of families.
What specifically are the issues with the younger age groups at Galaxy? the 2011 team according to the soccer rankings app is 1st in state and 13th in nation with recent wins against HTX GA (19th in nation) and FCU. the 2012 team is ranked 4th in state and recently tied Lamorinda and Indy Premier. the 2013's are 16th in state, but it's the 1st GA year for them and they are competitive. 2014 pre-GA is 8th in state.
My original reply was about the D1 and P4 offers. The original post was highlighting some recent commitments from Galaxy. You've basically outlined my point. Since the 2011 age group, each subsequent team seems to show a decline in strength. Since their teams compete in the same league, it's fairly reasonable to infer that the talent level has decreased compared to the older age groups, which would likely roll through into recruiting success out of those age groups unless fixed. At least in my opinion, seems unlikely that they’ve got the same level of D1/P4 talent in the pipeline As their high school teams.
This stuff is interesting to track. Galaxy dominant at the older groups. Younger groups definitely falling off that pace. Galaxy seems to have a good reputation, good coaches and all of that so it does seem odd they aren’t building off the older teams success. Competition? They are in a much harder conference now that they are playing the Michigan teams. Development? That 2013 team was a force a couple of years ago but now are really struggling. Did they just lose all their best players or did they not develop them? Recruitment? Are those teams just naturally going to get better as they get older and the consolidation happens? Is there now too many badges ECNL/GA and the overall talent pool is too diluted? Would have assumed in their area they absorbed a lot of the Evo girls after all that stuff went down. Quick glance at standings: Evo 11’s pretty good. Evo 12’s not so great. Evo 13’s really good. So I guess that’s not the case.
Younger groups (U12/U13) are developmental by design—even at badge clubs. Short-term results and standings at that age don't necessarily predict U17 success or recruiting outcomes. For one thing, how many girls at U13 are on the same team or club by U17? With the GA badge, consistent talent inflows (including recent crossovers from Inter and elsewhere - I know this firsthand), and Galaxy’s older teams still dominant, I don't see evidence the pipeline is unhealthy. Overreading a single fall season of standings misses the forest for the trees. The 2013 struggles look a lot like normal growing pains + a tougher conference to me. And just for context on the 2014 age band: I’ve seen Eclipse’s top three teams play multiple times this year. There’s massive overlap in rosters and minutes—honestly hard to argue there are even two full teams’ worth of truly elite kids in that entire group, let alone three. Depth looks a lot thinner than the roster count suggests.
[QUOTE=" Development? That 2013 team was a force a couple of years ago but now are really struggling. Did they just lose all their best players or did they not develop them? [/QUOTE] Isn't that the first year of 11 v. 11? There's probably a bit of an adjustment and learning curve going from 9 v 9 to 11s and the field gets a lot bigger.
All these stats are becoming worthless as more and more college coaches learn to manipulate the portal. After having spoken to several coaches at P4 schools recently, you are much better off sending your kid to be a star for a year at Juco/D2/D3/low level D1 and then enter the portal. They will get more playing time and a better deal if they have shown they can be a star somewhere in college. Roster limits have significantly impacted how coaches build their teams. College coaches don't have to take the risk (and won't) with an unknown college freshman when they can find a kid who has proven it in a college environment. The leap from HS and living at home to being away at college is huge.
Missouri State having no American Players should be a warning sign. Why take a chance on an 18 year old at all, when you can bring in a 23 year old freshman from Europe. If this trend continues, American college soccer will cease to exist. The Women's side is still probably 10 years behind but we're seeing more international players creep into the discussion as Europe builds up its Girl's Academies.
Did they (Evo) combine an age group (2014G) with Chicago City? Or was it just a one-off for the tournament? Or was it misnamed for SR...
The percentages are even higher than I would have suspected: . Although NCAA research shows that the heavy majority of internationals the women's side are from Canada so probably not as big of a risk of bringing in 22-23 year old freshmen like they are doing on the Men's side.
I understand that Evolution's 2014 group is entirely Chicago city and that no girls from the western suburbs participate with that team.
Got it - sounds like they may be happy with how it's listed now, affiliated with Chicago City. As is, Evo shows as having no 2014G team, which is a primary reason they are all the way down in 17th for IL clubs.
A couple clubs I know seem to be taking a strict approach to school year, with good players dropping back. I had expected it to take a few years to fully trickle through the system but now I think not.
I'm going to regret this probably, but ... nobody is dropping back. It does a disservice to the younger kids from BY to keep saying they are "playing down" or "dropping back" with the new system. Nobody said they were "playing up" or the Jan to March kids were "playing down" when it was BY. The new age groups align better for college recruiting, lessens trapped players and keeps a more uniform group from younger to older. Yes, there will be good players that are August to Dec birthdays that could play in with the old age group - just as their will be good players from the age group below that will be good playing in the new age group. for 97% of the teams, the team will be all the same grade. Which helps in the younger ages as kids play with classmates and helps in the older age groups once true travel starts and college recruiting is a big part of the system. I've heard too many conversations over the past few months from BY older parents complaining that the younger BY players are lucky they get to play down in fall. Don't mean to come off as attacking you ne plus ultra, just think it doesn't move the sport forward when conversations continue to be had about kids playing down when they are playing their grade mainly. I would say the clubs that seem to be having August kids play their grade (not the age group) are being smart about it as high school aged kids would want to play their grade for recruiting.
Just as many younger age parents also saying, "I am not playing U9 again." There is just so much fear and misunderstanding that everyone is wound up, and some clubs are using it to their advantage to recruit players, which just makes everyone more nuts. Once we get to September, hopefully it all calms down.
My kid will be in the position of playing U11 for 3 years in a row. Last year, as a U10, she guest played with the U11s quite a bit. Next year, with the age change, she'll likely be the oldest U11. Long-term, being the oldest will be helpful as it prevents her from being a trapped player, but from a developmental standpoint, I'd like to see her continue with her current team at least until that team moves to 11v11. The joys of youth soccer.
As a parent of a child with a late November birthday, thank you for saying this. My child has been the youngest on almost every team he has played on. We never complained, even when most of his teammates started high school while he was still in eighth grade. I don't view this opportunity to play with kids in his same graduating class as playing down.