Is there another rankings service that is reliable? I just catalogued the top 50 ranked girls by state. California has 11 players in the top 50. 9 of those are in the top 25. Florida has 1 player in the top 50 at #48. Now, I'm sure Calif turns out a lot of great prospects, but 9 of the top 25 and 11 of the top 50?
I just looked briefly at the next 50 (51-100) and California has 16 of those. That's 27 of the top 100. Meanwhile Florida has 0 players in that category. Now Florida is not the only state that is dissed, just one easy to recognize with a large population and soccer crazy.
New Jersey has 5 in the top 50 and 12 in the top 150. Compare that to Florida with 1 in the top 50 and 0 in the next 50 and 4 in the 101-150 range for a total of 5. BTW California had 9 in the 101-150 range. That makes for 36 of the top 150. Are TDS writers lazy or are all their writers from Calif and NJ?
Maybe not enough Florida parents signed up for the premium subscription. They call it "Sock Drawer Soccer" for a reason. It's a sham.
It would be great if there was a legitimate ranking system like they have for other sports. Top Drawer Soccer ranks you based on their own biases and when players participate in their events. If you are graced with a call-up to the youth national teams then you are dubbed as the best without any actual performance data to back it up. Some call-ups they get right but the majority seem like backdoor arrangements and favoritism that has little to do with actual performance.
I agree about TDS. Back in 2014-15, I did a study of the states D1 players came from. That season, 911 came from California and 213 from Florida. In terms of players per youth capita on Top 60 D1 teams, California ranked #11 and Florida #24. The states producing the most Top 60 players per youth capita were #1 Utah, #2 New Jersey, #3 Virginia, #4 Oklahoma, and #5 Colorado. Expanding it to the Top 125 teams, the states producing the most per youth capita were #1 Utah, #2 Virginia, #3 New Jersey, #4 Oregon, #5 Colorado, #6 California, ...., #26 Florida.
2233, I too wish there was a reliable unbiased service that ranked girls soccer players. CPT, I would be interested if those gross numbers from 14-15 generally hold, or if they vary with any significance.
I believe Top Drawer is based in California, so that might factor into that state having so many of its top 100/150 players. That said, it's obvious that California has a lot of excellent players--and a lot of top club teams. There is no such thing as a "legitimate" player ranking system in /any/ sport. It's impossible. There are far, far too many players to evaluate--and you've have to actually see all of them perform--either on tape or in person. Impossible. If you had a largish team of evaluators working every day for months, you perhaps could put together a semi-credible list--but who does that--and even then most of decisions will contain some subjectivity and just random choosing of one player over another. IMO any ranking system should put players in tiers as opposed to listing prospects numerically, which is a fool's errand. The idea that any service can credibly declare that one player is 54th best in the country while another is 61th best and another 68th is silly. TDS also has its star system--but even that seems quite fallible. I mean, it certainly gets it right with some players who get four or five stars--a lot of them are very good prospects. But I've seen more than a few TDS 4 stars who looked more like 1 or 2 stars, if that, when playing in college. And then there are kids who clearly have demonstrable talent--who are, say, first-team all-state--and they have NO stars! All State and you can even get one star. (But then I don't think TDS has a 1-star designation--never seen one. Players rankings of any kind, for any sport, are mostlly just a quasi-gimmick/entertainment thing for fans and readers. People like rankings--I like to read them myself-- which is why all kinds of sites/publications doing them for all kinds of things, and have for decades.
I agree with much of what you say L'orange. Any service parsing the difference between the 54th and 61st best player is a fool's errand. That said, football and basketball do a pretty reasonable job of their recruit rankings. They are not perfect, but it's no coincidence that the teams that recruit the best (per their rankings) generally play the best and rank highly. They have staffs that include regional specialists. Additionally, most teams have private for profit Websites that follow their team's sports, especially football and basketball. These websites like Warchant.com or Noles247 for FSU follow the current team and have at least 1 recruiting specialist who follows the local and regional talent the home team is pursuing. These specialists attend camps and high school games and keep in touch with and pass on their evaluations to the national sites such as Rivals.com or 247 or ESPN. Even then they miss some by not discovering them, and some are ranked too highly because of how they test out (ht/wt/40 speed) rather than how they perform. Now in soccer, there is no such broad network that covers the ground, so perhaps it is a fools errand. My point is it can be done better than it is being done, but not perfectly. I'd like to know how the coaches find the prospects, especially the ones that are not highly rated.
On the womens side, Club soccer is arguably where the most money is made. The primary function has become to provide a one stop shop for College coaches to see talent up to HS age. Its a race to commitment and the business model revolves around that. Its all about volume. There is limited appetite for honest player assessment because Clubs want as many customers as possible. Telling kids/parents that truth before you have kids lined up to replace them is bad for business. Remember, Club A is making the same $$ from player 20 on a team who is hoping to be good enough to get a tip to go to U Conn as it is from its YNT star player who is hoping to get a full ride to Duke. Winning consistently in professional sports is all about identifying and developing talent. Millions of dollars are spent by teams to do this. Scouting services etc are evaluated on how well they do in analysing talent. In womens club soccer, parents spend millions of dollars. They are the revenue source. The name of the game is keeping them happy for as long as possible. TDS provide a service to parents, but they are not going to be honest about everything. They can afford to risk it. If you get 5* on their system at 14, you wont lose them, no matter how badly you play. You cant look at recruiting classes, or team of the week awards or anything like that without a huge pinch of salt. Remember, TDS also provide content for College programs via weekly awards etc. No way they are not going to spread those around as many conferences and players as they can. Keeps everyone happy. College coaches are not out there looking for diamonds in the rough. Why would they? The first thing they have to ensure is that the kids can get into the school academically. They need to make sure parents can pay etc ( if relevant) The system is built around finding the best kids that can pay not finding the best kids that can play.
"College coaches are not out there looking for diamonds in the rough. Why would they?" College coaches are absolutely looking for diamonds in the rough. They have to if they want to compete. The top 10 schools get whoever they want. The rest have to fight for the rest. If you work your tail off - like for example Washington State coaches do - to find diamonds in the rough, then you will have success.
I agree about TDS. It sucks. The player rankings/stars are a complete joke. I've seen players that may not have ever been in TDS or may have "only" been a 1 star as high schoolers and they are far superior to players with a lot of stars. To me, it seems that a lot of it is being done for the egos of parents. The player rankings are, for the most part, worthless. Some rankings are spot on but many more are far off the mark. That said, there are some news features in TDS that are worth reading.
Perhaps we disagree on what a diamond in the rough is. Im talking about finding soccer players whatever their socio economic background. Coaches are relying on the Club soccer system to do that before they get involved. Club soccer is not built for that. The fight for the rest is also not a level playing field. More than soccer talent is being evaluated. Thats the point. Success for different schools means different thing its not just winning soccer games. A lot of logic is applied to womens college soccer as if its only objective was to win soccer games. Thats part of it, but not all.
The only "ranking" system that has some meaning is the NWSL draft. TDS, United Soccer coaches, XYZ conference etc all come with no accountability. If you want to see what people who make a living identifying talent really think, you have to wait till the draft.
I suspect these coaches, much like in the other sports, first identify possible prospects and then vet them in their personal camps where possible. I believe that is when they can get a good gauge on their talent level. For the very best, that may not be possible or even necessary, but a great soccer team is made up of many players, most of whom will not make a living doing it.
If you go to 10,000 ft Sports that attach a real economic benefit to winning have robust systems of talent identification and its usually pretty young. Money is "invested" in that development based on how likely people see the probability of the player achieving professional success. Womens College soccer programs are not investing in soccer talent alone so its hard to apply the same principles. The coach has to operate within whatever guidelines are set and manage his roster of scholarships and players. there are very few difference makers.
Long time ago (Early 2000's) there was a website named soccerbuzz. I always thought they did a good job. They had their own regional rankings, and player awards but maybe the most unique thing they did was deep dives into each schools recruiting classes. They didn't rank individual high school kids exactly like you are talking about, but did a pretty good job with the recruiting classes as a whole nationally and regionally. I always thought they were just a little before their time. Not 100% what you are talking about but closest thing I know of. No idea who ran it?
its a fascinating topic. What did thy rank them on. College impact? Pro ? Ive always been a little skeptical that no one goes back and re ranks. More evidence that a track record of good predictions is less valuable than the buzz created by just predicting.
That would be a valuable tool. Go back and rerank them. I've occasionally wanted to go back and see what FSU players were ranked coming out of high school, but TDS doesn't keep an archive of recruit rankings as far as I can tell.
They don’t archive because it would be a bit of an embarrassment. Some Can’t-miss consensus POY’s in their rankings haven’t had very successful college careers. One at Tamu played less as her freshman season dragged on, then transferred, played another year and quit. She was supposed to be the Macario of her era. At least two I can think of disappeared after freshmen years. Another transferred to a so-so career. Then there are the players who suddenly gain stars when a name coach signs them.
Are TDS reporting their own opinion or simply a "buzz" rating based on things like YNT camps,ECNL goals, Commitments etc. It a very flawed Q score. Given the nature of the sport, what are we expecting TDS rankings to predict?
It’s better not to pay much attention to these rankings. No college coach I know puts any weight into how someone is ranked on this site.
In assessing talent? Probably not. In convincing others of a programs ability to attract talent? Absolutely yes. Everyone plays the game at some level. If TDS are so bad, why do Schools quote them? Why doesnt someone do it "better" and make $$? Im guessing because its close enough not to matter too much
It’s also rather rational that a player’s ranking would go up if offered by a “name coach”. Those are the people with the *best* track records of evaluating talent at this level with the most on the line. So would make sense to weight their opinion more heavily, especially for the players they’ve intently evaluated, certainly more so than a few writers trying to cover all players nationally. Biased as an FSU fan though who has thoroughly enjoyed what Mark puts together with his and his staff’s evaluations vs how their classes are typically ranked.
maybe I missed something. Mark is known for getting his talent in Europe. I’ve never considered him in the group of coaches who depend on the club programs sponsoring top drawer.