24 on roster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow that’s really awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Asking the players to vote one off the island would be the definition of clown show. That’s ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

These stories are horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow that’s really awful.

He should be fired. He should have communicated in advance which of the 19 girls would be sitting out games and then let them make a decision about whether to attend. You can't just ask them after they are there. What a disgusting coach.

[Anonymous]

Is this Rec? I’ve had 24 on a roster and can barely get enough to show to the games.

[Anonymous]

This entire discussion has been about travel especially given all the talk about how this works for tournaments. What about this makes you think it's Rec? Some club's teams at MLS Next and ECNL have rosters this large and it's obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this just for injuries or do kids that are developing and getting better than a top team player ever get moved ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Kudos to the team for banding together and refusing to choose for him. Those girls have courage and true team spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this just for injuries or do kids that are developing and getting better than a top team player ever get moved ?

Again, depends on the club and age. Happens frequently in younger age groups (up to U14), after that not as often. More likely to see a kid on the first team overtake others on his team.

But at a big club even if you’re a main player on the 2nd team and the first team has a roster of 25+, not likely. It happens, but not frequently. And then even if a kid does move up, they’re not likely to play a lot - especially considering no reentry. It begs the question would you rather be one of the top 5 guys on the 2nd team and play significant minutes w/ an sig role; or roster spot 14-25+ on the first team, we little to no PT and little role for the team on game days.

[Anonymous]

I think it can work but it depends a lot on the mix of kids and the communication from the coach. If there are a lot of kids who play multiple sports, which is really unusual in HS but does happen, that might be a factor in the coach going up in size. If the coach can find a reasonable and fair way to rotate players that might satisfy parents. By fair I don't mean everyone gets equal playing time but it could mean the bottom third misses a game every now and then. You could even ask families to choose the game they miss in advance and since many families miss games due to travel or other conflicts anyway this might not be an issue for most families.

I think it's not ethical or good business to have the same few players miss games the entire season.

[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.

Did those 3/4 kids who had to not dress for games stay or leave? Were there other opportunities for them to play in a different league or do MLS Next rule prohibit that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this just for injuries or do kids that are developing and getting better than a top team player ever get moved ?

Again, depends on the club and age. Happens frequently in younger age groups (up to U14), after that not as often. More likely to see a kid on the first team overtake others on his team.

But at a big club even if you’re a main player on the 2nd team and the first team has a roster of 25+, not likely. It happens, but not frequently. And then even if a kid does move up, they’re not likely to play a lot - especially considering no reentry. It begs the question would you rather be one of the top 5 guys on the 2nd team and play significant minutes w/ an sig role; or roster spot 14-25+ on the first team, we little to no PT and little role for the team on game days.

Thanks! This was helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I completely agree that with larger rosters the communication aspect is critical to set expectations. I agree that cold hard cash is also a big factor. It is American soccer where it is all about money unlike many other countries. That is the American way and we have to live with it. My son's team last year started with 24. Two moved away to an MLS academy in another city, two were injured and we had a few here and there that couldn't make games along the way. It worked out and in weeks where we had more than 18 there was proactive communication on what would happen with any player not being rostered. Absolutely should not see situations where kids travel out of town to a tourney and find out when they arrive. That is just unacceptable. Expectation setting is key (and has to be done proactively). The money grab factor will be factor will always be there and if a player is not good enough to get the amount of field time they desire they can choose to work harder to get there or move to another club or lower team in same club (and that is not always going to solve the play time issue as all teams are not equal).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this Rec? I’ve had 24 on a roster and can barely get enough to show to the games.

Don't know which rec league you coach in but pretty sure the max roster size in SFL rec league is 22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I completely agree that with larger rosters the communication aspect is critical to set expectations. I agree that cold hard cash is also a big factor. It is American soccer where it is all about money unlike many other countries. That is the American way and we have to live with it. My son's team last year started with 24. Two moved away to an MLS academy in another city, two were injured and we had a few here and there that couldn't make games along the way. It worked out and in weeks where we had more than 18 there was proactive communication on what would happen with any player not being rostered. Absolutely should not see situations where kids travel out of town to a tourney and find out when they arrive. That is just unacceptable. Expectation setting is key (and has to be done proactively). The money grab factor will be factor will always be there and if a player is not good enough to get the amount of field time they desire they can choose to work harder to get there or move to another club or lower team in same club (and that is not always going to solve the play time issue as all teams are not equal).

It sounds like this team was run in a satisfactory way. How did the coach decide when there was more than 18? How soon before the game did he communicate who would be rostering? I would understand if my child were left off a roster sometimes if she was not as good as others but I would want to know as far in advance so that we could make alternate plans.