Field hockey clubs feedback

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 high school juniors who were favorites at husel were made to play U16 instead of U19 while a husel coach’s DD (a freshman) played U19. They left and went to next level who then also made them play U16. Talk about recruitment sabotage…..

How is playing U16 recruitment sabotage? According to what I’ve been reading on here, college coaches are at the showcase tournaments to watch the U16 players and not the U19 players. I’m confused.

Huh? This doesn’t make sense. If you are a junior you’ve aged out of u16 and play u19.

[Anonymous]

For many juniors, they don't turn 17 until after Dec 31 of their junior year. That means they play U16 through the fall of junior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 high school juniors who were favorites at husel were made to play U16 instead of U19 while a husel coach’s DD (a freshman) played U19. They left and went to next level who then also made them play U16. Talk about recruitment sabotage…..

How is playing U16 recruitment sabotage? According to what I’ve been reading on here, college coaches are at the showcase tournaments to watch the U16 players and not the U19 players. I’m confused.

The 2 HS juniors felt they were good enough to be playing U19 and they definitely were. There were other Juniors already on U19 that aged up before Dec. 31st. But the Husel coach needed them to play U16 because that team was a weaker group of players than U19. The 2 players/parents were not happy about it so they left and went to Next Level. Unfortunately the Next Level coach did the same thing to them and made them play U16 so they never got the looks they would have if they’d been allowed to play U19. One player was a (D1 or) bust and the other now plays for a local D3.

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 high school juniors who were favorites at husel were made to play U16 instead of U19 while a husel coach’s DD (a freshman) played U19. They left and went to next level who then also made them play U16. Talk about recruitment sabotage…..

How is playing U16 recruitment sabotage? According to what I’ve been reading on here, college coaches are at the showcase tournaments to watch the U16 players and not the U19 players. I’m confused.

The 2 HS juniors felt they were good enough to be playing U19 and they definitely were. There were other Juniors already on U19 that aged up before Dec. 31st. But the Husel coach needed them to play U16 because that team was a weaker group of players than U19. The 2 players/parents were not happy about it so they left and went to Next Level. Unfortunately the Next Level coach did the same thing to them and made them play U16 so they never got the looks they would have if they’d been allowed to play U19. One player was a (D1 or) bust and the other now plays for a local D3.

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

There is a lot to consider here. If two different clubs thought they should play their age group, maybe that was the correct spot for them. Is it possible playing the u16s up would have eliminated an opportunity for a current u19? Some clubs play the best players where they need them regardless of age, some don’t.

Maybe NL wasn’t the right club for them to move to because the coaching style and playing style didn’t align. My DD did not care for Welma’s coaching and was clear she did not want to play for her, though we know others who are happy with her. Did these families go to clinics with Welma before moving and did they have a conversation with her about where she sees them fitting on her team and what their expectations were? Again, people need to pick the club that is best for their kid, not just the club of the moment.

True, there are plenty of kids who play up and get recruited to play D1. But there are also plenty of kids who play their age group and get recruited to play D1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion. It is nonsense.
Players normally play in their age group as determined by their age on January 1. Sure, there are clubs that have a u16 player "play up" on u19 occasionally or regularly, but it isn't because of recruiting opportunities.

For high level D1, the "looks" are happening sophomore year and earlier when the players are u16, and committing sometime in the summer, early fall as they are rising juniors. That is for fewer than 150 players across all D1 programs as of the end of the fall high school season (again as juniors). All the other D1 commitments happen after that. A typical class has around 350 commits from US high schools (the rest are from overseas). Junior year, half of the class is u16 in the fall, and they are all (usually) u19 in the winter and beyond.

A D1 program in the ACC or B1G is done recruiting juniors by the time September, October rolls around. (and the vast majority of those players are already on the junior national teams or have been seen at NEXUS championships, etc. - they aren't normally being "found" at a tournament when they are already juniors). Most of the Ivys are done too. There are a handful of more academic programs (Patriot, select A10 schools) that take a bit longer since they often want at least 1st semester junior grades or test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion. It is nonsense.
Players normally play in their age group as determined by their age on January 1. Sure, there are clubs that have a u16 player "play up" on u19 occasionally or regularly, but it isn't because of recruiting opportunities.

For high level D1, the "looks" are happening sophomore year and earlier when the players are u16, and committing sometime in the summer, early fall as they are rising juniors. That is for fewer than 150 players across all D1 programs as of the end of the fall high school season (again as juniors). All the other D1 commitments happen after that. A typical class has around 350 commits from US high schools (the rest are from overseas). Junior year, half of the class is u16 in the fall, and they are all (usually) u19 in the winter and beyond.

A D1 program in the ACC or B1G is done recruiting juniors by the time September, October rolls around. (and the vast majority of those players are already on the junior national teams or have been seen at NEXUS championships, etc. - they aren't normally being "found" at a tournament when they are already juniors). Most of the Ivys are done too. There are a handful of more academic programs (Patriot, select A10 schools) that take a bit longer since they often want at least 1st semester junior grades or test scores.


How many parents of players who are high level D1 prospects are reading this thread? I’m guessing not many. I know we parents think our DDs are the best, but realistically most of them probably will play D3 sometimes at a good academic school and that is the goal. Some players just want to play in college and will play lower D3 just to keep playing. Obviously those are good options for the majority of players around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion. It is nonsense.
Players normally play in their age group as determined by their age on January 1. Sure, there are clubs that have a u16 player "play up" on u19 occasionally or regularly, but it isn't because of recruiting opportunities.

For high level D1, the "looks" are happening sophomore year and earlier when the players are u16, and committing sometime in the summer, early fall as they are rising juniors. That is for fewer than 150 players across all D1 programs as of the end of the fall high school season (again as juniors). All the other D1 commitments happen after that. A typical class has around 350 commits from US high schools (the rest are from overseas). Junior year, half of the class is u16 in the fall, and they are all (usually) u19 in the winter and beyond.

A D1 program in the ACC or B1G is done recruiting juniors by the time September, October rolls around. (and the vast majority of those players are already on the junior national teams or have been seen at NEXUS championships, etc. - they aren't normally being "found" at a tournament when they are already juniors). Most of the Ivys are done too. There are a handful of more academic programs (Patriot, select A10 schools) that take a bit longer since they often want at least 1st semester junior grades or test scores.


How many parents of players who are high level D1 prospects are reading this thread? I’m guessing not many. I know we parents think our DDs are the best, but realistically most of them probably will play D3 sometimes at a good academic school and that is the goal. Some players just want to play in college and will play lower D3 just to keep playing. Obviously those are good options for the majority of players around here.

Following MAX IG, and a lot of the strong academic D1 schools have not posted many commits yet. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion. It is nonsense.
Players normally play in their age group as determined by their age on January 1. Sure, there are clubs that have a u16 player "play up" on u19 occasionally or regularly, but it isn't because of recruiting opportunities.

For high level D1, the "looks" are happening sophomore year and earlier when the players are u16, and committing sometime in the summer, early fall as they are rising juniors. That is for fewer than 150 players across all D1 programs as of the end of the fall high school season (again as juniors). All the other D1 commitments happen after that. A typical class has around 350 commits from US high schools (the rest are from overseas). Junior year, half of the class is u16 in the fall, and they are all (usually) u19 in the winter and beyond.

A D1 program in the ACC or B1G is done recruiting juniors by the time September, October rolls around. (and the vast majority of those players are already on the junior national teams or have been seen at NEXUS championships, etc. - they aren't normally being "found" at a tournament when they are already juniors). Most of the Ivys are done too. There are a handful of more academic programs (Patriot, select A10 schools) that take a bit longer since they often want at least 1st semester junior grades or test scores.


How many parents of players who are high level D1 prospects are reading this thread? I’m guessing not many. I know we parents think our DDs are the best, but realistically most of them probably will play D3 sometimes at a good academic school and that is the goal. Some players just want to play in college and will play lower D3 just to keep playing. Obviously those are good options for the majority of players around here.

Following MAX IG, and a lot of the strong academic D1 schools have not posted many commits yet. Why is that?

I feel like there have been a good number. I understand Ivys usually are a bit slower to pick up commits, but I have seen some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Following MAX IG, and a lot of the strong academic D1 schools have not posted many commits yet. Why is that?

With many strong academic schools (D1 & D3) the coaches have rules on how verbal commitments are announced. The common phrase used (even if allowed to share publicly) is “committed to the application process” Keep in mind that the students are also more shy to announce until they are officially accepted (around now, senior year).

And Max insta posts are posted by request of the students, not the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s not a popular opinion, but college coaches want to see the players at the younger grade levels challenged at the higher age groups so playing U16 as a junior is not a sign of confidence.

It has nothing to do with popular opinion. It is nonsense.
Players normally play in their age group as determined by their age on January 1. Sure, there are clubs that have a u16 player "play up" on u19 occasionally or regularly, but it isn't because of recruiting opportunities.

For high level D1, the "looks" are happening sophomore year and earlier when the players are u16, and committing sometime in the summer, early fall as they are rising juniors. That is for fewer than 150 players across all D1 programs as of the end of the fall high school season (again as juniors). All the other D1 commitments happen after that. A typical class has around 350 commits from US high schools (the rest are from overseas). Junior year, half of the class is u16 in the fall, and they are all (usually) u19 in the winter and beyond.

A D1 program in the ACC or B1G is done recruiting juniors by the time September, October rolls around. (and the vast majority of those players are already on the junior national teams or have been seen at NEXUS championships, etc. - they aren't normally being "found" at a tournament when they are already juniors). Most of the Ivys are done too. There are a handful of more academic programs (Patriot, select A10 schools) that take a bit longer since they often want at least 1st semester junior grades or test scores.


How many parents of players who are high level D1 prospects are reading this thread? I’m guessing not many. I know we parents think our DDs are the best, but realistically most of them probably will play D3 sometimes at a good academic school and that is the goal. Some players just want to play in college and will play lower D3 just to keep playing. Obviously those are good options for the majority of players around here.

Following MAX IG, and a lot of the strong academic D1 schools have not posted many commits yet. Why is that?

I feel like there have been a good number. I understand Ivys usually are a bit slower to pick up commits, but I have seen some.

Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Bucknell . . . they've all announced at least some commits on the FH commitment pages. Well, the players have, at least.

[Anonymous]

For those of you interested in Next Level, the club sent three U19 teams to NITQs and zero teams qualified. Next Level also sent three U16 teams to NITQs and only 1 team qualified. Imagine driving from Northern Virginia to Bethesda MD and battling traffic for club practices only to not qualify? Ooof!

[Anonymous]

^^^ Two of the u16 teams qualified for NIT's, not one. Also, even tho none of the NL u19 teams qualified their top team is almost all D1/D3 commits, which is impressive. Not sure why they didn't qualify or why they don't play better as a team, but the earlier poster stating that players get committed during in the Fall of their junior year is completely accurate.

[Anonymous]

Also, the two girls that switched from Hussel to NL were both very academically strong and were not going to commit to some low ranked academic school just to play D1 field hockey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Two of the u16 teams qualified for NIT's, not one. Also, even tho none of the NL u19 teams qualified their top team is almost all D1/D3 commits, which is impressive. Not sure why they didn't qualify or why they don't play better as a team, but the earlier poster stating that players get committed during in the Fall of their junior year is completely accurate.

If your A team is full of D1/D3 commits and you can’t win your pool at NIT qualifiers than it’s likely they are not as good field hockey players as they should be. That’s the takeaway, obviously. Sorry, nobody wants to hear the excuses (i.e. indoor vs. outdoor, tough pool, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you interested in Next Level, the club sent three U19 teams to NITQs and zero teams qualified. Next Level also sent three U16 teams to NITQs and only 1 team qualified. Imagine driving from Northern Virginia to Bethesda MD and battling traffic for club practices only to not qualify? Ooof!

Where these their top U19 teams? I know they have u16 teams trying to qualify in January. Maybe their top u19 teams were not at the qualifier at Spooky Nook.