24 on roster

[Anonymous]

And there are plenty of clubs with B teams who will send players up to play, even if you already have a full squad. In other words, just because you think there’s only 18-19 on the roster doesn’t mean that 25-25 won’t show up for a tournament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What age?

+1. This might be okay for high school, but it is still a money grab.

It’s not ok for high school either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes me worried. It's a team that is not mixed Md/Va but just one so everyone plays HS in the same season. The idea of 12 players sharing 15-25% of minutes is absurd for development and absurd for the money you pay not to mention the anxiety every week not knowing if you need to leave the time free for a game. What happens at tournaments? Does everyone go and some kids only play in one game? Were you told in advance and could decide not to attend?

Look into double carding with a lower team to get playing time.

[Anonymous]

Another thought: make sure your player does his own conditioning on game days if he doesn’t get much playing time. It is very easy for bench players to get out of shape when not playing in the games. This requires a lot of discipline but is necessary so they are ready when called upon to play.

[Anonymous]

24 on roster could possibly be too much but not always. Around 22 for older age groups seems to be the right number for reasons mentioned in this thread (high school, college visits, injuries, etc.). Most teams I have seen with just 18 rostered are usually (more often than not) struggling to field full teams with some subs to give breathers by the end of a season in leagues of with a high level of competition. And many clubs will let those not rostered play with the B team on that given week. Either way, I do support at the older age groups (u17+) having kids earn their time by performance in training and in games. This is not popular opinion for parents of kids that don't get as much time. I have had kids on both ends of this (one who played for fun and only got 15-20 minutes per match and one who played nearly every minute, was a star, and still plays in college). The one who played for fun knew her place on the team and made decisions on how hard she wanted to work to earn more time. I think the earn your way approach at older ages sets kids up well for the truth they will face in college soccer (if they go that route) and definitely in the journey of life and is one of many steps to help with maturity growth. Not everyone will be the star and not everyone deserves equal time. Not fun to discuss or internalize, but true. I will not go on a rant but the "entitlement factor" is a big part of the problem in the world I see today.

[Anonymous]

NP also in this situation. DD would be fine with 15-20 minutes per game or less if she deserves that but not being able to even be on the bench is really hard or being told not to travel to a tournament or maybe worse traveling there and then being told they are not in the 18 for any game so they can't even dress.

She's U15 and some kids are still in middle school and this is not a team where kids skip games unless they have to do it. Last year they had a completely full roster almost every game.

[Anonymous]

In general there are a lot of factors to consider, amount of games weekly (2 leagues?) and tournaments/showcases, size of club (pull from lower teams for light roster), etc…. So if this is an older team, the top team at a smaller club, playing in multiple leagues and a lot of tournaments and showcases it would be reasonable. If not, pure and simple, straight money grab where the coach/club cares very little about the experience of the individual kids and family. And what’s the roster size of the “A”, b/c if it’s big (and I’ll bet it’s the size or larger), your DC will never be pulled up to play…

[Anonymous]

DS roster was 20 to start year last year, at MLS next club. Coach/director added another 4 throughout the year (up until January), after injuries roster was at 22 by early March. Each week 4 kids didn’t dress for games, it sucked for the kids and families. And, generally, it was the same 3/4 kids. And w/ mls next subbing rules (No reentry) kids at the bottom of roster often got 10min or less per game. It wasn’t a great experience for roughly 10 of the families. Team now has 25 to start the season, and they’ll add more, for sure. It’s all about the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:24 on roster could possibly be too much but not always. Around 22 for older age groups seems to be the right number for reasons mentioned in this thread (high school, college visits, injuries, etc.). Most teams I have seen with just 18 rostered are usually (more often than not) struggling to field full teams with some subs to give breathers by the end of a season in leagues of with a high level of competition. And many clubs will let those not rostered play with the B team on that given week. Either way, I do support at the older age groups (u17+) having kids earn their time by performance in training and in games. This is not popular opinion for parents of kids that don't get as much time. I have had kids on both ends of this (one who played for fun and only got 15-20 minutes per match and one who played nearly every minute, was a star, and still plays in college). The one who played for fun knew her place on the team and made decisions on how hard she wanted to work to earn more time. I think the earn your way approach at older ages sets kids up well for the truth they will face in college soccer (if they go that route) and definitely in the journey of life and is one of many steps to help with maturity growth. Not everyone will be the star and not everyone deserves equal time. Not fun to discuss or internalize, but true. I will not go on a rant but the "entitlement factor" is a big part of the problem in the world I see today.

That's not both ends of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is not being allowed to dress for games. PP said they were on an ENCLR team that did this. I can understand ECNL or MLSNext because that's where you expect to be fighting for playing time and to get scouted. For lower leagues, U17 is the end of the line. I'd be furious if my kid didn't even dress for their last season or get to attend their final tournament because the most allowed on a bench was fewer than the number of players on a team.

[Anonymous]

The coaches have to pay their salary plus club expenses. What do you expect people? Some of the coaches (ECNL) are pretty well paid, coaching two teams and making a nice living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS roster was 20 to start year last year, at MLS next club. Coach/director added another 4 throughout the year (up until January), after injuries roster was at 22 by early March. Each week 4 kids didn’t dress for games, it sucked for the kids and families. And, generally, it was the same 3/4 kids. And w/ mls next subbing rules (No reentry) kids at the bottom of roster often got 10min or less per game. It wasn’t a great experience for roughly 10 of the families. Team now has 25 to start the season, and they’ll add more, for sure. It’s all about the money.

The no rentry rule is tough. Really the only answer is to allow doublecarding or playing for the B team so that player can get some minutes in somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS roster was 20 to start year last year, at MLS next club. Coach/director added another 4 throughout the year (up until January), after injuries roster was at 22 by early March. Each week 4 kids didn’t dress for games, it sucked for the kids and families. And, generally, it was the same 3/4 kids. And w/ mls next subbing rules (No reentry) kids at the bottom of roster often got 10min or less per game. It wasn’t a great experience for roughly 10 of the families. Team now has 25 to start the season, and they’ll add more, for sure. It’s all about the money.

Is this in the DC area? That sounds terrible. Was there any way to find out how many are on the roster?

[Anonymous]

I coach a u18/19 team, we aren’t a “big elite” club. Last season we had games where 12 and 13 kids showed up bc of add’l commitments.

It’s not necessarily a “money grab”. Coaches need to have numbers in training, and need committed bodies for matches.

Injuries occur very often at the older age groups as well, and don’t forget that just bc the initial roster has 24 that doesn’t mean that all 24 players will be returning.

It’s very possible that more players in training sessions will weed out those that are there just to have fun and do what they want. There are also likely 3-4 players who might not be up to par who can develop and get better just by attending sessions.

I see both sides of the argument, keeping kids just to pay, but if you end up cutting 3-4 dedicated kids as a coach it’s difficult. You can have discussions w these kids and say “look, you might be a training player next season and might get left off of a few match day rosters” and if the player has a problem w it, they can find another club.

Some kids don’t have options for another club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS roster was 20 to start year last year, at MLS next club. Coach/director added another 4 throughout the year (up until January), after injuries roster was at 22 by early March. Each week 4 kids didn’t dress for games, it sucked for the kids and families. And, generally, it was the same 3/4 kids. And w/ mls next subbing rules (No reentry) kids at the bottom of roster often got 10min or less per game. It wasn’t a great experience for roughly 10 of the families. Team now has 25 to start the season, and they’ll add more, for sure. It’s all about the money.

The no rentry rule is tough. Really the only answer is to allow doublecarding or playing for the B team so that player can get some minutes in somewhere.

The pushes B team players to the bench or off of the bench depending on roster size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I coach a u18/19 team, we aren’t a “big elite” club. Last season we had games where 12 and 13 kids showed up bc of add’l commitments.

It’s not necessarily a “money grab”. Coaches need to have numbers in training, and need committed bodies for matches.

Injuries occur very often at the older age groups as well, and don’t forget that just bc the initial roster has 24 that doesn’t mean that all 24 players will be returning.

It’s very possible that more players in training sessions will weed out those that are there just to have fun and do what they want. There are also likely 3-4 players who might not be up to par who can develop and get better just by attending sessions.

I see both sides of the argument, keeping kids just to pay, but if you end up cutting 3-4 dedicated kids as a coach it’s difficult. You can have discussions w these kids and say “look, you might be a training player next season and might get left off of a few match day rosters” and if the player has a problem w it, they can find another club.

Some kids don’t have options for another club.

So for the pre-season tournament, do you just tell 4 kids not to come? Do you at least refund them that portion of their team dues?