24 on roster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No I think this is the common misconception in youth soccer. You’re paying for the trading sessions and to be part of the club, not just to play games.

Sessions make players better. Coaching makes players better.

Paying for games and “college coach exposure” is the wrong mindset in my opinion. They are still part of the team, they are still participating. They’ll get a refund bc they don’t play in games? Every kid isn’t playing in college, a lot of kids will be more successful being part of a team.

It’s not personal it’s based on ability, you’d be surprised how many parents see the value of being part of a team and learning to sacrifice for the greater good. All of these kids show up, root for their teammates when they’re injured. I don’t force them to, it’s just our current environment and it’s so much more important to me than results.

Kids don’t develop just by winning and playing, I think this mindset hinders so many kids development.

[Anonymous]

I think communication is key here. If someone knows they are just a training player and are never going to see the field, that’s fine. Keeping them off the official roster also let’s them be carded to a lower level team where they can play.

But players and parents should know this when they receive an offer. Not when they show up expecting to play at the first game and are told to take off the uniform.

Communications need to be really clear too. To both players and parents as sometimes players hear what they want to hear and tell their parents what they think the parents want to hear as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No I think this is the common misconception in youth soccer. You’re paying for the trading sessions and to be part of the club, not just to play games.

Sessions make players better. Coaching makes players better.

Paying for games and “college coach exposure” is the wrong mindset in my opinion. They are still part of the team, they are still participating. They’ll get a refund bc they don’t play in games? Every kid isn’t playing in college, a lot of kids will be more successful being part of a team.

It’s not personal it’s based on ability, you’d be surprised how many parents see the value of being part of a team and learning to sacrifice for the greater good. All of these kids show up, root for their teammates when they’re injured. I don’t force them to, it’s just our current environment and it’s so much more important to me than results.

Kids don’t develop just by winning and playing, I think this mindset hinders so many kids development.

We have club dues that pay for everything but tournaments. We have team fees for tournaments. There is a difference between not playing on the bench and not even being rostered for the tournament because your club carries too many players. If my kid wasn't even going to be rostered, I'd ask for that portion back because we are not driving and then staying in a hotel so that our kid can watch from the sideline, not even in uniform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No I think this is the common misconception in youth soccer. You’re paying for the trading sessions and to be part of the club, not just to play games.

Sessions make players better. Coaching makes players better.

Paying for games and “college coach exposure” is the wrong mindset in my opinion. They are still part of the team, they are still participating. They’ll get a refund bc they don’t play in games? Every kid isn’t playing in college, a lot of kids will be more successful being part of a team.

It’s not personal it’s based on ability, you’d be surprised how many parents see the value of being part of a team and learning to sacrifice for the greater good. All of these kids show up, root for their teammates when they’re injured. I don’t force them to, it’s just our current environment and it’s so much more important to me than results.

Kids don’t develop just by winning and playing, I think this mindset hinders so many kids development.

We have club dues that pay for everything but tournaments. We have team fees for tournaments. There is a difference between not playing on the bench and not even being rostered for the tournament because your club carries too many players. If my kid wasn't even going to be rostered, I'd ask for that portion back because we are not driving and then staying in a hotel so that our kid can watch from the sideline, not even in uniform.

Tournament rosters are likely set weeks ahead of time, past teams I’ve worked with have had to tell 2-3 players each game they will sit out. Coaches expect injuries to occur, it’s really difficult for coaches to make these decisions but it’s also impossible to plan and predict every injury and every kid who suddenly can’t get a ride. Hopefully your coach communicates expectations. If you travel to a tourney and don’t play, that’s just bad coaching. All my kids play which hurts our results, but so what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No I think this is the common misconception in youth soccer. You’re paying for the trading sessions and to be part of the club, not just to play games.

Sessions make players better. Coaching makes players better.

Paying for games and “college coach exposure” is the wrong mindset in my opinion. They are still part of the team, they are still participating. They’ll get a refund bc they don’t play in games? Every kid isn’t playing in college, a lot of kids will be more successful being part of a team.

It’s not personal it’s based on ability, you’d be surprised how many parents see the value of being part of a team and learning to sacrifice for the greater good. All of these kids show up, root for their teammates when they’re injured. I don’t force them to, it’s just our current environment and it’s so much more important to me than results.

Kids don’t develop just by winning and playing, I think this mindset hinders so many kids development.

We have club dues that pay for everything but tournaments. We have team fees for tournaments. There is a difference between not playing on the bench and not even being rostered for the tournament because your club carries too many players. If my kid wasn't even going to be rostered, I'd ask for that portion back because we are not driving and then staying in a hotel so that our kid can watch from the sideline, not even in uniform.

Tournament rosters are likely set weeks ahead of time, past teams I’ve worked with have had to tell 2-3 players each game they will sit out. Coaches expect injuries to occur, it’s really difficult for coaches to make these decisions but it’s also impossible to plan and predict every injury and every kid who suddenly can’t get a ride. Hopefully your coach communicates expectations. If you travel to a tourney and don’t play, that’s just bad coaching. All my kids play which hurts our results, but so what.

There is a difference between sitting out and not being rostered. If a tournament caps rosters at 18 or 20 and you're carrying 24 then they extra kids can't play. Injuries do occur, but every team my kid ever play on from ulittle up had a big pre-season away tournament. Presumably most of the roster is healthy before the season even starts, so some kids are going to be told that they are part of the team, just not part of the group that is on the roster

[Anonymous]

There are reasons why a player is added onto a full roster. I had a kid injured a full year and came back in the summer where every club said we are already at 22-24. But a few had him come out anyway and he ended up being their weapon the following year, racking up goals.

I agree with the idea there should always be competition for a spot in the roster and the field. That’s the way it is everywhere else in the world that doesn’t have that pay-to-play bureaucracy BS. This is older ages.

With little kids and it more about development I can understand, but by 14-15 it is about competing and having hunger to fight for your place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are reasons why a player is added onto a full roster. I had a kid injured a full year and came back in the summer where every club said we are already at 22-24. But a few had him come out anyway and he ended up being their weapon the following year, racking up goals.

I agree with the idea there should always be competition for a spot in the roster and the field. That’s the way it is everywhere else in the world that doesn’t have that pay-to-play bureaucracy BS. This is older ages.

With little kids and it more about development I can understand, but by 14-15 it is about competing and having hunger to fight for your place.

I agree kids should have to compete for playing time. I think a roster spot is part of what you are paying for when you accept an offer and pay thousands of dollars to the club. If the team wants kids to have to fight to even be on a team, then they should figure out a way to charge per game

[Anonymous]

DD had a coach that handled this well at U15 a few years back. Many girls showed up for tryouts - so many that the club considered a third team. That didn’t work out. OST girls returned (great Coach, great team) so very few roster slots. One girl was offered a training position (she was the 19th girl). A player ended up moving in the middle of the year and she gained the roster slot. This was win-win. Everyone felt good about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DD had a coach that handled this well at U15 a few years back. Many girls showed up for tryouts - so many that the club considered a third team. That didn’t work out. OST girls returned (great Coach, great team) so very few roster slots. One girl was offered a training position (she was the 19th girl). A player ended up moving in the middle of the year and she gained the roster slot. This was win-win. Everyone felt good about it.

I think training spots are a good idea, offering roster spots and then not rostering kids is just rotten

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD had a coach that handled this well at U15 a few years back. Many girls showed up for tryouts - so many that the club considered a third team. That didn’t work out. OST girls returned (great Coach, great team) so very few roster slots. One girl was offered a training position (she was the 19th girl). A player ended up moving in the middle of the year and she gained the roster slot. This was win-win. Everyone felt good about it.

I think training spots are a good idea, offering roster spots and then not rostering kids is just rotten

Agreed. I think the clubs would benefit in the long run from being up front about it and offering training slots rather than extending everyone an offer to be on the team. I think the coaches know who fits where. Charge training players for the training not for leagues or tournaments.

If the clubs can’t make budget, they need to cut expenses or make other hard decisions - not just add more paying customers to the team with expectations of, you know, being on the team.

[Anonymous]

My son has been wanting to move to ECNL for years and this is exactly why both he and I have been hesitant. He gets all the playing time on his current and past teams (which roster 18) but I expect on an ECNL team his best hope is 50% playing time (he’s a GK). Even more likely, he will just be a backup. But my biggest concern is him not even being rostered for games after we stretched our budget to pay thousands for the year. I’ve noticed ECNL teams which have these huge rosters seem to be much more expensive than other travel teams so I would not want to pay those fees if he rarely plays. I would be absolutely livid to spend even more money to travel to a tournament and watch him sit on a bench without any minutes (or not even dress). Sure training is important but for a GK, there’s just no substitute for the experience they gain on game day.

[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.

I’d agree that 24 is not always too many, but the coach/club needs to do a good job of communicating the overall picture and individually per player. That rarely/almost never happens, in my experience.

But, there are a lot of factors. At a big club (3 or more teams per age group), there’s no reason for 24, you can pull from other teams short term (both up and down), and given that environment (large player pool) and the large fees (over $3k) I don’t think it’s an issue of entitlement.

My DC’s club has 5 teams at age group. Top 2 have a combined roster of over 50 at this point (and adding, top team is mls next w/ 26 kids). There’s no real resason for such large rosters w/ a player pool of over 100…other than cold hard cash.

[Anonymous]

Are all the local MLSNext/ECNL clubs like this - having large rosters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all the local MLSNext/ECNL clubs like this - having large rosters?

For boys it depends on the club and age group. Generally, boys and girls older age groups (U16 and above) start to have larger rosters.

Some MLS clubs do a pretty good job of keeping a smaller player pool per age group and often use 2nd team players to fill for injuries (Bethesda boys). The smaller clubs (Achilles) often have smaller rosters as well and kids often play up. DC United is really large at older age groups (U17), which is to be expected. But kids/families don’t pay anymore and get free equipment (shoes, training gear, etc)

For ECNL boys most of the teams do a good job of balancing regional roster and top team it seems, but there are outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all the local MLSNext/ECNL clubs like this - having large rosters?

Depends on the club. On my DD's ECNL team, we traveled to a Dec. showcase out of town with 19 players (roster of 23 - a few injuries). The coach asked the girls to let him know who should sit out game 1. The girls needed to take into account attendance, skill, sportsmanship, and hustle. They banded together and told him they weren't choosing. He basically scolded them, saying they needed to make tough decisions in life. HE was a COWARD and lacked any sense of accountability. Fortunately, the referees allowed the full team to be active for those games. This was just 1 example of a year's worth of poor communication and coaching.

Set the expectations early and communicate the plan. Those who are training players should be told that and also should only pay a fraction what others pay. Having families spend money on travel when their kid will be a spectator makes no sense.