So where, Olelaliga, is your daughter going to college? I know nothing about her, and don't really need to, but I'm curious since signing day is at hand and you've written about her recruitment quite a bit.
Are a lot of kids expected to sign their letters today? I know they don't have to, correct, but I"m wondering if today will become the new, big signing day or whether signings will be stretched out over time and there won't be a big, official signing day any longer.
Today is the big signing day for women's soccer. For the big programs the signings will not be stretched out over time.
I think it’s crazy that this day drops in the middle of the tournament. Many teams are in the middle of game prep, travel and in general are focused on the big prize. This was a dumb change
You misunderstand my post. Signing day is about administration. Getting paperwork back and forth making sure questions are answered and the recruits welcomed to the team
Most programs have a staff that handles all of that. Its not even the coaches. Compliance draws up NLI's, Sports information has press release, social media, and all other things covered ready to put up. Most questions have been answered well before signing day. Most coaches Ive talked with are happy with the date change. It locks up the kids earlier and gives less time for the kids to get cold feet and make a change. It will be interesting to see how administrations move going forward with handling letting coaches go. Thats my biggest question on the entire process
According to Top Drawer today, she hasn't yet /publicly/ committed to a school. It seemed a weird signing day, today, with a few programs announcing classes, a lot of schools not yet announcing, and some schools announcing a signing or two but not the whole class. I'm sure there will be some more announcements tomorrow, but it sure didn't seem like the old Feb. 4 (?) signing day.
It was definitely different. I don't think the high schools did as much because its not the signing period for football. I think having it on a different signing date than football kind of loses some of the luster of national signing day. Also I am sure a lot of the smaller D1's and D2's don't have their classes finalized this early. There will be a lot of kids announcing signings as the year goes on
This a continuation of post #37 on the 2019 PSU thread which was was to trying to start a rational discussion of ranking players and recruiting classes. In particular, this thread is aimed at trying to start to speak to Number007’s continued dissatisfaction with various posters about the strength of various teams, players, or, in this case, recruiting classes. The effort at this point will be to see if there is agreement on then following points. 1. Ranking of recruits and/or recruiting classes is subjective no matter who does it. 2. Is there an understand that the rankings of recruits and classes is for the interest and fun of fans and is not meant to claim that any recruit or class will necessarily perform as expected once matriculated at the college and on the soccer team? Note: As was confirmed on the PSU thread, in the off season there is a human interest in discussing strengths of players and recruiting classes replete with various subjective insights as to strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, difference of opinion is expected ...supported with various arguments and (usually subjective) observations. No one claims to be 100% correct. 3. Can we agree that is it impossible for any one to see all recruits play multiple games for 50 or so recruiting classes or have a network to send out scouts with that mission. Such a task would involve evaluating at least 400+ players and a single person such as myself does not have the time (or money) to watch videos all day (even if there were available) or travel to watch live games... 4. ...Consequently can we agree that ANY ranking of classes must of necessity involve a blind system of available data to accomplish this task? Such data can include videos of highlights or games, rosters of international matches, match reports, accolades, coaching evaluations (preferably opposing coaches), camp evaluations, etc. Even with such data, one must still take into account the age of the data to track changes; to adjust for regional differences; to change teams or leagues; to adjust expectations if now playing a different position than when first noticed, etc. 5. Even agreeing on the above two points (3 and 4), can we agree that it is yet plausible to rank players and classes in a manner that is representative of a probable range (tiers) of relative strength? On this last point we can make a further assumption: 5a. It is silly to have a smooth ranking of players or classes. Even if one could watch all practices and games for each player over a period of time, assuming that they were not actually playing directly against each other, there is no way to rationally claim that player (or recruiting class) X should be ranked at number 38 while class Y was 39th and class Z was 40th best. Consequently a system of tiers is used (such as TDS’s 5 stars, etc.) but even then adjacent tiers have porous borders. I feel that we need to have reasonable agreement about the above points before going further. Comments?
I agree with this 100%. On the other hand, coaches recruit players and top coaches get results from their players. I tend to thing the good results mostly have to do with the coaches, but that includes something to do with the players they have recruited. I could see using a college team's results to define the value of the team's players before they reached college. The team's results could be compared to how different systems evaluated the players before they reached college and, over time, could tell which system evaluated the players the best. For example, suppose a system says Team A had the #1 recruiting class for four years in a row, but the team only finished up #50 in Year 4. That would suggest, pretty objectively, that the system is no good.
I 100% agree with the premises you set forth, and I like what you said regarding coaching and developing the incoming talent. I would add that even if a class is ranked #1, that doesn't necessarily equate to success. I give, as an example, the 2018 Penn State Women's Volleyball incoming class, which was ranked #1. Although, the consensus was that PSU had more of the best players, the new class didn't fill all the needs of the graduating class. Specifically, PSU got 2 of the best Middle Blockers, but is in need of Outside Hitters. That position will hopefully be filled in the next 2 incoming classes.
"Dissatisfaction" is a poor word choice. like you, I have an opinion. its not the only one and its by no means definitive. there are many ways to assess a class. Is it top end players? is it volume? Is it # of potential impact minutes in year one? Everyone can have a view and depending on what you consider to to be more valuable, you may well come up with different answers I think there are several question marks on this group ranging from injuries to performance over the last 12/18 months. Lets not turn this into any more than a friendly discussion. I really dont care who the #1 or #20 class is. Talking about it ( & other things) is just pure entertainment to pass the day.
i think its rational to go back and look at how some of these rankings played out. it helps from a credibility standpoint, but also helps you get a feel for what is being ranked at the time. whilst i accept that there are no guarantees with any ranking, to say ho hum and move on to next year without analysis is not my style. Here are some facts about the TDS 2018 rankings. 1. Stanford Commitments: F Sophia Smith (Real Colorado – No. 1), D Naomi Girma (California Thorns – No. 5), D Sierra Enge (So Cal Blues – No. 13), GK Katie Meyer (Real So Cal – No. 32), M Bianca Caetano-Ferrara (San Diego Surf – No. 48), F Abigail Greubel (Slammers FC – No. 77) Injuries hurt. No doubts about the top 2. 2. USC Commitments: M Madeline Vergura (FC Stars of Massachusetts – No.17), GK Anna Smith (Seattle Reign Academy – No. 34), F Penelope Hocking (So Cal Blues – No. 20), GK MacKenna Carmichael (San Diego Surf), M Ashley Soto (So Cal Blues), D Logan Wells (San Diego Surf), D Kaylin Martin (Santa Margarita Catholic) Transfers: Natalie Jacobs (Notre Dame), Alea Hyatt (North Carolina), D Jessie Holmes (Florida), M Megan McCashland (Notre Dame) I think transfers should not be part of a recruiting class ranking, but they are here. Hocking had by far the biggest impact and the top rated recruit hardly played at crunch time 3. North Carolina Commitments: M Brianna Pinto (NTH Tophat – No. 3), M Rachael Dorwart (Penn Fusion – No. 8), F Rachel Jones (NTH Tophat – No. 9), GK Claudia Dickey (Charlotte Soccer Academy – No. 25), F Mary Elliott McCabe(Charlotte Soccer Academy – No. 125) Top 4 all contributed to a great season and a CC final appearance. Great class 4. Virginia Commitments: M/F Alexa Spaanstra (Michigan Hawks – No. 7), F Ashlynn Serepca (Carolina Rapids – No. 10), F Rebecca Jarrett (NYCFC – No. 23), D Claire Constant (McLean Youth Soccer – No. 37) Transfer: D McKenna Angotti (Northwestern) All 4 played significant minutes. Great class 5. Notre Dame Commitments: M Brianna Martinez (New Mexico Rush – No. 19), F Olivia Wingate (FC Stars of Massachusetts – No. 21), M Luisa Delgado-Heinz (Beach FC – No. 53), GK Mattison Interian (Slammers FC – No. 82), D Chloe Boice (So Cal Blues – No. 94), F Nikki Colantuono (Quickstrike FC), D Genevieve Watkins (Slammers FC), GK Jaina Eckert (Birmingham United SA), D Jade Gosar (Real Colorado), M Brooke VanDyck (Indiana Fire Academy) Martinez played heavy minutes. Wingate coming back off injury. Flashed potential. skipping to 8. Penn State Commitments: F Allison Schlegel (Real Colorado – No. 11), D Caitlin Haislip (Eclipse Select – No. 43), GK Katherine Asman (NTH Tophat – No. 51), D Rachel Wasserman (D’Feeters – No. 128), M Madison Myers(Michigan Hawks), M Kelli Beiler (North Union United SC), F Makala Thomas (Crescenta Valley SC), M/F Kim Dubs (BSC Young Boys) Dubs aside, injuries cost PSU here. Jury out 9. Duke Commitments: M Mackenzie Pluck (PDA – No. 24), F Marykate McGuire (Boston Breakers Academy – No. 71), M Sydney Simmons (Solar SC – No. 74), D Emily Crocco (Richmond United – No. 109), GK Holland Stam(Boston Breakers Academy – No. 119), D Delaney Graham (NTH Tophat) lowest rated player ended up being the biggest contributor, but overall a great class. 4 players who played good minutes and did well 10. Florida State Commitments: M Jaelin Howell (Real Colorado – No. 2), F Kristina Lynch (Indiana Fire Academy – No. 63), M Kirsten Pavlisko (Florida Elite Soccer Academy – No. 140), M Yujie Zhao (Shanghai Youyi High School) 4 impact players on the eventual champion and the lowest rated player won several freshman awards With 20/20 hindsight to date only 1. FSU 2. UNC 3. UVA 4. Duke are top 5 worthy and in that order. its clear that TDS have a heavy US bias (Understandable) and YNT bias ( Less so). My conclusion is that a lot of this is simply YNT name recognition and little more which is why i prefer hearing from people who have actually seen these kids play in person. food for thought 40. Georgetown Commitments: M Maya Fernandez-Powell (FC Portland – No. 106), F Laura Jackson (PDA), D Charlie Kern(Ohio Premier), M Devon Lis (Match Fit Academy), F Caitlin Moon (McLean Youth Soccer), D Jenna Royson(PDA), M Rose Sorribes (Washington Spirit Academy MD), F Jamie Walton (New Jersey Stallions Academy) Transfers: F Kyra Carusa (Stanford) Jackson and Royson both contributed meaningful minutes in big games and Carusa was as important a transfer as anyone last year. yes its a very imperfect process. apologies for the length of post
Sorry to have used a wrong word to characterize how I perceived you were coming across. My apologies.. no offense is intended. I was hoping that you might respond to the specific points of my post (#38 above) so that there would be some baseline regarding the ranking of recruiting classes representing a agreed starting point. You may reasonably disagree with me on those points and if so, it would be good to work towards common ground before looking at any ranking process. No? Are there other important assumptions about ranking classes that you would add beyond the helpful three kinds of strength "assessment" views of a class that you list above? (...with which I absolutely agree.)
Soccerhunter, do you have your rankings of incoming classes that go back a number of years? I'd be interested in matching those up with teams' results to see how well they match. I'm thinking I'd take a team's average incoming class rank over four years and see how that matches with the team's ranking outcome in year four. I think I'd use Massey's ranks, which I have in my data, since they're the best representation of how teams performed. I could do this, quite easily, for as many years as your incoming class ranks cover. It could provide some interesting info from an incoming class rank "validation" perspective.
Soccerhunter takes on a gargantuan task in ranking classes. Do you have a website for that, or do you simply share your rankings here? Do you try to take into account transfers and internationals? If you do, kudos, but it would be a mammoth task indeed. Regardless, the work you do and the knowledge you share is appreciated.
first off, I dont think i am specifically disagreeing with you. simply opined on PSU. on your post, I mostly agree with it. n seeing players, its clear no one sees them all, but its important to understand which ones people have seen extensively. Does it guarantee anything? no. However, with highly ranked players, there is momentum towards validation from people who frankly have not seen much of them and are simply going along with consensus. This happens a lot with YNT regulars who people assume must be the best because the USA pick them. #4 is where i diverge the most. I understand that rankings are relative by definition, but i dont think accolades, selections are relevant. these blind evals are often self fulfilling and have little value in assessing a player and there for a class. if these are significant inputs, then what is being ranked is publicity. the rankings are then really a measure of most "decorated" group pre College. In reality, i think that is what most of these lists are. that is why so many seem ok divorcing how they actually perform from the rankings. why players coming in off serious injuries do not impact rankings. why WC players like Zhao are not rated.its a buzz meter perhaps i have answered my own question. PSU does indeed have the most decorated incoming class. My comments should perhaps be that I dont think they will have the same impact as I would expect from a #1 class.
Good grief: It is axiomatic that it gets harder to excel as an individual athlete (or even group of athletes) moves up the competitive ladder. It is the nature of sports. Players who were exceptional at, say, ages 14-16 and got picked for U.S. youth national teams are likely not going to seem quite so exceptional at ages 18-20 and playing in college because the competition will be different; the competition will be harder, as it always is as one moves up in class. Why should that be surprising? It's all relative. Some players may have reached their performance peak as 16/17-year olds and not be as exceptional in the more competitive college environment while others who have a YNT pedigree will continue to shine. I'm pretty sure that most coaches in the college ranks would be thrilled to have a class with three/four kids who have been on YNT rosters. You seem to regularly want to demean YNT picks and generally suggest they are overrated. It's a silly complaint. They are/were kids who stood out playing for their clubs teams, in showcase tournaments and in ID camps and NT camps. They got noticed, they got evaluated in multiple settings--and they got picked. Of course the system is imperfect--every system is--but they were talented/dominant enough to get picked. And, yea, there surely is some impetus for YNT coaches to assume that players who were good enough to be on the U16 NT might be good enough to be on the U17NT team. Even so, it seems to me there is more turnover on our youth national teams than one might think. Some do get picked year after year, but others are dropped. Of those that are chosen for consecutive NT rosters, most are probably pretty darn good while a few might have plateaued as players. It happens. But as I say, no player or group of players is going to dominate in college as they did as 16-year-olds. No one should assume that they will because they'll be competing against other kids talented enough--athletic enough, skilled enough, motivated enough-- to play in college. It gets harder in college, no less because it can be hard to score in soccer, and especially so if a coach has a solid group of players and can organize a defense. In the end all his knit-picking about recruiting rankings and the relevant value of former NT players is silly: Recruiting rankings are produced mostly for the purpose of reading entertainment and so not to be taken as gospel; I don't think anyone suggests that having a top class means a team is going to win a national title. At the same time, it does suggest that you've got a group of players who have distinguished themselves in the past---and some if not most of that group are likely to distinguish themselves in college, to more or less degree, even given the heightened challenges of the college game. They will very likely give Team X with the top class a competitive advantage, all things considered. That's the bottom line--not a national title but, all things considered, a competitive advantage. That's what it amounts to--and we see it because, in fact, the teams that produce consistently high recruiting rankings, with all the subjectivity and flaws inherent in the process, DO tend to win more games consistently; they finish near the top of their conferences, get into NCAA tournaments and do well in the tournaments. This is all pretty self-evident to me.
Thanks, L'orange, for stating the argument so well. Let me explain from my perspective some of the issues that have been raised here. Your point about YNT layers being picked again (or dropped) for successive YNT teams is excellent. For years I have tracked players who are not re-picked for youth national teams. For example, in the 2020 class, consider the following facts. *In 2018 39 2020 players were called up to camps and international competitions on U16, U17, U18, U19, or U20 youth national teams. (Many more 2018, 2019, 2021 players were also called into these teams in 2018, but I am only focusing on one recruiting year.) *of the 39 2020 players called up, 14 of them were not invited back to to any of the many 2018 camps in the various age divisions after May 2018. .. And some of these 14 had had multiple prior call-ups.) *In addition to the 39 players mentioned above there were 34 players who had single or multiple call ups at the U15, U16, or U17 level in prior years, but were not called up in 2018 at all. (And I suspect I missed a number of players in this category.) *To put it succinctly, out of about 75 players who got good looks at various ynt camps and games coming into 2018, for the last 7 months of 2018 only 25 of them were actively playing in the system. If they all were originally chosen because they were outstanding in their clubs or at various tournaments or camps, then it is a reasonable view that these kids are showing themselves to be the best of the best. So what does this simple data mean? It seems to show that the YNT coaching staff does in fact continuously grade the players against each other and culls out those who are not developing and promotes those tho are excelling. This seems to support the point that you make. It does not address the notion that the ynt coaching staff may incompetently be selecting the wrong players, or that some of those who were let go could yet develop into great players, but, as has been said many times, for our purposes of looking in general terms of the quality of recruiting class, this is only one measure. And, for the record, my personal practice is to not simply look at who has been called up, but to look at trends in those call ups over time with a view toward who may be exhibiting development... and I also look at match stats to see who is getting the playing time against the tougher (and weaker) competition and who are the first subs in and out when a game is in jeopardy for defensive or offensive reasons.
SH, do you get paid for this? I hope so, because what you are talking about must take immense chunks of time. Kudos! FSU just got a 21 recruit Amelia Horton out of Kansas I believe. Do you have any knowledge and opinion of her?
Yes, in my system Horton is an excellent recruit. I believe she is one of the top three recruits still (er, I mean recently) available after most of the top recruits were picked off in the past 18 months. While she doesn't have the star power of the bigger names (Byars, Pagador, Kitahata, etc.) she would seem to be precisely the kind of recruit that Mark does real well with. A bit under the radar hard worker with a good athletic platform who may develop very nicely. But like has been said, there are several more years to go so nothing is guaranteed, but it is her type that will likely still be there. And no, this soccer stuff is all an avocation.