expected, she’s a USYNT starting GK who didn’t feature much and now is the #2, fighting with a girl in the same class. it was either transfer or go pro
Live by the sword, die by the sword. I sympathize with FSU fans, but this is the world that the Power 4 conferences and schools and athletics administrators and coaches (some more than others and some not at all) and players and their attorneys have created in Division I -- aided and abetted by Congress' complete dysfunction -- and it's very hard to have any sympathy for them.
Not necessarily. A few years ago Cristina Roque platooned with Mia Justus before Mia transferred to Texas. I agree that the platoon option isn't the most likely choice but it was an option - obviously one that Evan rejected. You don't need to sympathize CP. This is the world that we are living in now. FSU isn't the only team facing these issues. FSU is getting the most attention because of the amount of the attrition and because they are the Champs but many teams are losing valuable players. Also, there is still a good amount of talent left in Tallahassee.
No sympathy needed. BP has navigated the changing environment in his first four years by elevating the already incredibly high standard that Krikorian left behind, having the best four year run in school history with two national titles. Not feeling too bad about that. I expect teams will have more year to year variability in the current environment and suspect fsu will swing in the other direction to some extent next year. That still means a very talented team winning a lot of games, just likely not a favorite for another national title. A different challenge for BP to navigate. Looking forward to watching next year and beyond.
From the FSU `25 thread, a good time to revisit: I think the reality is most players and the agents that represent them are recognizing that going to FSU is not a pathway for development. You'll get paid money and you'll win some games and trophies but it's becoming widely understood that under BP these players are not being developed or playing a style in which they will grow in the ways that are needed for the professional game. Why would you not take $75k and college tuition....because you know it's not worth your time. Think about it, did this happen when Mark was coach at FSU?
Lol! Gee, did anything else change in college women’s soccer in the last five years besides Krikorian moving on?
The facts simply don't support the narrative that you are trying to spin. This is a list of the players who started for FSU in the national championship game who are either seniors or who have announced that they are going pro along with their new teams: Taylor Suarez - Angel City Jordynn Dudley - Hasn't announced Yuna McCormack - Denver Mimi Van Zanten - San Diego Kameron Simmonds - Hasn't announced Heather Gilchrist - Bay FC It doesn't look like the NWSL agrees with your narrative that FSU doesn't develop players.
We will probably know very soon where she lands. My strong suspicion is that she already knows which team she will sign with and that is why she is comfortable announcing that she is going pro. All of the other players that went pro early from FSU announced their new team within days and I expect that Dudley will be no different.
Haters will hate. The number of players going pro at some level is remarkable. I'm anxious to see if and when JD gets a look at the USWNT. They have a plethora of talented players up top, but not many (if any) have her combination of size, speed, dribbling, passing and aggressive defending skills. she is somewhat fragile, which is the only downside I see. Maybe my G&G glasses have me not very clearly. IMO unexpert opinion, having her up top with all of these superb options makes it difficult for opponents to double team her w/o leaving other studs 1v1 or wide open. She's very clever and quick at her passes.
No sympathy here. It suits them, and they benefit from it. I have been consistent in my dislike of the new system, but the usual response is "you don't like it because you are not good at it" . The amount of movement makes development for players worse and stops fans from building any connection with the team. Genie is out of the bottle now so I have chosen to watch far less. Not convinced it benefits the players either This is NOT FSU specific by the way.
Depends on how you measure it. I believe MK played "better" soccer and developed more rounded and "better" teams/ players. You need time with players to really teach and with the turnover now the quality of the game , in my opinion, has suffered. If your measure is Nat Titles, then I can see where you are coming from.
I am not pushing the narrative, but I dont think your comment disavows what the OP is saying. one explanation could be that NWSL Clubs are willing to pay to develop the players themselves as opposed to letting College programs do it. Players have always gone pro. From what I have seen, the technical level is lower than the MK days, but again, just my opinion. Not meant as a dig. I think it is true across the board. Not just FSU.
It is possible that NWSL teams are willing to develop the players themselves but there is no way to prove that outside of NWSL teams actually admitting it which they would never do for obvious reasons. Also, it is almost impossible to fully counter the OP's narrative since it is an opinion. Keep in mind that I actually presented evidence that counters the OP's narrative while the OP has offered no evidence to support that narrative.
One other thing: FSU has had the following results the last three years: 2023 - ACC Champs, #1 seed, College Cup, National Champions 2024 - ACC Champs, #1 seed 2025 - College Cup, National Champions It's frankly bizarre to come that program's thread and argue that this spectacular run was accomplished with undeveloped players.
Winning isn't development. It's the very first and exact argument everyone makes about the problem with American soccer. But now winning is development? Come on. All these elite players at youth and NT levels before college don't come to FSU for only a year or two and become developed by them. Especially playing lesser minutes, in a lesser brand of soccer, under BP. Number007 is 100% dead on saying "MK played 'better' soccer and developed more rounded and 'better' teams/players. You need time with players to really teach and with the turnover now the quality of the game, in my opinion, has suffered."
If you are making an argument that no one in college is adequately developing players because the players aren't staying long enough that's one thing. However, the argument was made that FSU in particular isn't developing players. If that is the argument please tell me which colleges are developing players so we know who to emulate.
The major argument about the historic youth development approach in the United States, including in college, is that the emphasis is on winning rather than on the development of players, in other words that at the youth level winning is more important than learning. A way to think about it is, what matters is winning now rather than what matters is winning when athletes are fully developed as players, not just physically but in the sophisticed nuances of the game. For college coaches, this necessarily is the case, and it is not the fault of the coaches. The median head coach tenure for a Division I women's college coach is 4 years -- in other words, more than half of the coaches have been in place for 4 or fewer years. It's a "win now or go home" world for most coaches, so of course their emphasis is on winning now. One of the things that players get out of the American women's soccer environment is that our players "know how to win." This is something the Europeans will say about our women players as compared to theirs. So that's a plus for the American "win now" approach. On the other hand, those who have a long history in soccer, especially with long playing experience, will say that at its highest level, soccer is a very sophisticated and nuanced game. It takes a long time to learn how to "see the field," see where to be, be able to adjust what you do based on what each of your other teammates is doing on the field, have the soccer IQ to be able to deliver balls differently to different teammates, and to see and react to things similarly when your opponents have the ball. These are things that Americans tend to "short" at the young player level. This is why we find professional teams now signing players when they are young, including younger than college age. It's why you find players like Liv Moultrie, Lindsay Horan Heaps, Mal Pugh Swanson, Sophia Smith Wilson, and others going pro early. It gives them a chance to develop in a high level sophisticated "soccer learning" environment, which is not what they get with the "must win now" college environment. I don't take this as a criticism of coaches who focus on winning now, pretty much at all costs. They are responding to the environment that has evolved in Division I college sports. But what is going on in college sports and what it takes to be a world class soccer player is quite different. I think the citation of Mark Krikorian as an example of someone who developed players with an aim towards their eventually become world class is a good one. I think Jerry Smith at Santa Clara is another example. (Remember, Santa Clara won the College Cup as recently as Covid-affected 2020.) And if you would look at other programs that seem to over achieve regularly, you would find others. I am guessing that Dave Nolan at Georgetown is one, but I have not whatched his teams play, so I don't really know. I suspect that Steve Swanson alt Virginia is one. Coaches with this orientation are few and far between, no doubt largely because of the "win now" pressure.
Respectfully, it is all relative, and i think the drop is across the board. I see this in many other College sports since the talent moves more frequently and gets paid more. Make no mistake, in WoSo, the "best" talent is still going to be concentrated on a relative basis at the "best" schools. I did not say the players are underdeveloped. I think Players like Zhao, Castellanos, Nighswhonger, Berkeley etc were technically excellent and played a different type of soccer under MK. I dont see it as controversial, these players played together longer under the same coach. I think the talent is more spread now and the top players are more moblie/stay a shorter time or dont go to College at all. FSU are still the dominant program when it comes to NCAA titles in recent times. Kudos
Firstly, that is not MY argument. It is across the board. Secondly, I am not sure you would want to do what I think it takes, especially now. You need to be willing to risk younger, inexperienced players getting meaningful minutes in meaningful games. It can cost you an NCAA game and/or title. Before NIL and Portal stuff, you could do this. Much harder now.
@cpthomas I agree with most of what you say. It is a generalisation, but American players learn to win a certain way at the youth level. That does not always translate as the level gets higher. Most of the players you mention as early leavers were very specific cases. Moultrie story is well documented. Pugh and Smith took the USWNT contract/ Image bag because they were a bit early for the big NIL payday and that was the only way to monetize. They did not do it for development. Horan was a unicorn. The landscape is very different now. Cheers
Some interesting thoughts in this thread. I'm not as informed or savvy to the nuances of the game as some on here. I have noticed that our YNTs do not fair nearly as well on the international level as our USWNT. I remember watching a game ?last year? with the US against North Korea. They were obviously better on the ball, their passes were crisper and on target. Their tactics were much better than the US counter parts. The arguments made on here are legit. There seems to be no solution under our current system. The advantage for our system is that women get an education for the rest of their future life. Apparently we leave it to the NWSL and other leagues (here and overseas) to incorporate better tactical awareness and nuance into our players.
The Korean team’s better passing allows for better tactics. We fail to play this way because our youth training doesn’t focus enough on technical proficiency. The example I give to support this is what many teams, including those in the College Cup, do when they have the ball to start the game. They kick it long to the other team - often directly out of bounds - and force the other team to bring the ball forward. Could you imagine winning the tip in basketball and immediately throwing it out of bounds toward your offensive end? The implication is clear. They feel their chances of success are better when the other team has the ball in their defensive zone, than when they control it at midfield and the opposing defense is set. I’d say the source of the technical deficiencies are playing to win at the youth levels. Fortunately I have a solution . Change the game so playing to win and technical development are more closely correlated. Under age 10(?) 1) Use a futsal type ball so it spends more time on the ground and encourages more touches with the feet. 2) No throw-ins, no corner kicks Incorporate a “second” game of equal time to every contest that focuses on passing and moving such as a “through the gate” type of game. Ideally, with multiple games going on at once to maximize players’ time in the ball.
Some thoughts on youth development, being relative. As @cpthomas mentioned, a lot of what youth development at club and university is focused on is winning. Some of that is very much likely due to historical drive for recruiting players who want to play, and some of that is going to be job security (thinking universities). This is, of course, also relative to where we have been as a national program. If a player is ambitious, up until the last decade or so, a lot of what was possible to be successful was pure athletic ability at the senior team. We still have that a lot, but that is part of the entire package rather than the focus over skill or technique. But as the world had developed and play with more skill and technique and more advanced tactics, we have needed to adapt. So where we are now with the growth of the women's game domestically and internationally, means that a successful player cannot just depend on physical attributes, but needs to depend on skill and technique. I think a good example of this is Alyssa Thompson. 20 years ago, she would be one of the best players in the world, at the age of 20, because of her blistering pace. Now, she is very good, but her skillset has needed to improve, and it has. Her pace, alone, does not cut it to be world class anymore. Thus, we are in a position where there is likely going to be a transition at youth club level focusing on winning only to development with winning. College will probably be the opposite - winning with development - because of the nature of the job. But, overall, there will be an increase in developing players, and part of the that is going to be driven by what Hayes has said about developing players for the senior national team. The focus for her is developing players over winning. Bringing in the comparison to Korea...we need to keep in mind that NoKo brings in players at a young age and they play together for months or years on end. Thus, there is a team that might have some individual talent at a youth level, relative to other youth teams/countries, but as a team they play together as their focus. Thus, they are exceptional at youth level - China is similar hear as well - but since the players are not allowed leave NoKo to play internationally, they don't get the continued growth that other players get. Thus, the skill and technique don't develop as dynamically as they do for players in other teams, such as the US. In this context of development, though, one of the things I'm looking at is how WoSo is changing here in the US. Part of this is a new wave of talented players coming up and not just getting the opportunity, but also succeeding at the senior national team level. This is part due to just timing, but it also is a multifaceted changed in WoSo. Things which I think are making a different, in no particular order: 1 - The Yates Report, and how NWSL has handed it. 2 - The subsequent CBA which implemented several ideas from the Yates Report. 3 - NWSL being able to pay the players on their own without the need of support from US Soccer. 3a - This has allowed clubs to develop independently, which allows them to better develop their own players. 4 - Hayes efforts to focus on developing players that can play on the senior national team 4a - Hayes finding talent and being able to help them develop when not with the national team
FSU fans, thanks for "lending" your thread for in interesting -- at least to some of us -- discussion. It's here partly because FSU makes for an interesting case study. Something to watch will be how FSU does in a couple more years. A hypothesis I have considered relates to how long it takes for a new coach's "program" to be entirely the new coach's, after replacing an elite level coach. I have considered the possibility one does not really know how good a new coach is until at least 7 years after the coaching transition and maybe even longer due to the "good will" the previous coach has built up. I'm using "good will" as it's used in economics. For FSU, it's been "so far, so good" and maybe even better than that, but I think in a couple more years we'll really know.