24 on roster

[Anonymous]

Sounds like Fairfax Brave mentality... aka, BRYC used to have a mish-mash of girls on A/B teams and then dress 18 for ECNL games. Disaster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had that situation too. One time the coach just violated the roster limits and played a guest kid who was not only older but was not checked in. 20th kid who played that day. It was a tournament too. Sneaky.

Coaches can get suspended for that and games forfeited. Is it so important to win? Such a bad look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had that situation too. One time the coach just violated the roster limits and played a guest kid who was not only older but was not checked in. 20th kid who played that day. It was a tournament too. Sneaky.

Coaches can get suspended for that and games forfeited. Is it so important to win? Such a bad look.

They should but this coach is still coaching. Played ineligible players in another tournament and got caught that time and booted from the tournament. But I saw that this year they let him coach a team in the tournament again. I don't know why they would do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Fairfax Brave mentality... aka, BRYC used to have a mish-mash of girls on A/B teams and then dress 18 for ECNL games. Disaster

Brave is not BRYC - and they have smaller rosters. Union seems to have the biggest rosters of local ECNL clubs.

[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).

I totally agree with the bolded. Based on experience, if anyone is considering accepting a spot on a team where your kid won't know if they made the roster until days before the game, or even worse, days before an out-of-town tournament, ask yourself if you can be ok with the logistics of this. Are you willing to leave all of your weekends open in the hopes that your kid will get a roster spot? If you have multiple kids, how will this impact them? I personally would not be able to live this way.

My kid quit a club after a horrible out-of-town tournament where many of the kids who traveled did not see the field once over four games. This team had many families with undocumented parents who view travel as a risk and can't afford to waste money on hotels. Bringing these kids and their families to tournaments where the coaches had no intention of playing the kids was absolutely unconscionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pure money grab. HS years go by quickly to not play when paying and training so much.

I would have to agree with this. We experienced this one year. Left our smaller club because they only had 11 players signed up for that age group. Went to the 2nd team (ECNL-RL) at a bigger club and had a roster of 23 players. About half of those players had been on a team at the club previously and the other half came from other clubs. The coach had a pre-season meeting and said that no player was guaranteed playing time and it would be earned based on attendance and performance at practice and games. The team had a couple of scrimmages to start the season and everyone played in those games. But as soon as the league games started, the starters (all returning players) seemed to be fixed unless they were injured. And they played about 80-85% of every game. So basically 12 players had to share the remaining time which left quite a few players and parents unhappy. Unfortunately, that's how the entire year went. Some people left during the year although to the best of my recollection, the club would not refund any money. Other people (like us) waited until the end of the year and then left. It was definitely a very frustrating experience and largely, a waste of money for about half of the team.

This sounds crap. 23 players is too many in any case, but 21-22 can just about work OK if the coaches are careful with splitting the playing time. With injuries and absences things will usually work out that only 1 kid, occasionally two has to sit out a game and this can be rotated so everyone misses one.

Then if you give the best 2/3 kids get maybe 75% playing time and the other "starters" get 55-60%, this leaves every kid seeing the field for at least close to half the game.

Coaches who want to play all the starters for 80-85% of the game though - that doesn't work even if the roster is only 19-20 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Fairfax Brave mentality... aka, BRYC used to have a mish-mash of girls on A/B teams and then dress 18 for ECNL games. Disaster

Brave is not BRYC - and they have smaller rosters. Union seems to have the biggest rosters of local ECNL clubs.

LOL - The Mishalows and Dolanskys thank you for being obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I totally agree with the bolded. Based on experience, if anyone is considering accepting a spot on a team where your kid won't know if they made the roster until days before the game, or even worse, days before an out-of-town tournament, ask yourself if you can be ok with the logistics of this. Are you willing to leave all of your weekends open in the hopes that your kid will get a roster spot? If you have multiple kids, how will this impact them? I personally would not be able to live this way.

My kid quit a club after a horrible out-of-town tournament where many of the kids who traveled did not see the field once over four games. This team had many families with undocumented parents who view travel as a risk and can't afford to waste money on hotels. Bringing these kids and their families to tournaments where the coaches had no intention of playing the kids was absolutely unconscionable.

This sounds like the same coach above who played ineligible and older players. Really unstable person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I totally agree with the bolded. Based on experience, if anyone is considering accepting a spot on a team where your kid won't know if they made the roster until days before the game, or even worse, days before an out-of-town tournament, ask yourself if you can be ok with the logistics of this. Are you willing to leave all of your weekends open in the hopes that your kid will get a roster spot? If you have multiple kids, how will this impact them? I personally would not be able to live this way.

My kid quit a club after a horrible out-of-town tournament where many of the kids who traveled did not see the field once over four games. This team had many families with undocumented parents who view travel as a risk and can't afford to waste money on hotels. Bringing these kids and their families to tournaments where the coaches had no intention of playing the kids was absolutely unconscionable.

It takes a very special person to do this kind of thing. I'm sorry that happened to the players and families. I think all the soccer leagues and tournament organizers should adopt a code of ethics that reinforces that these are kids involved and lays out certain best practices and I think coaches should be suspended for violations. A portion of our fees should go towards this initiative.

[Anonymous]

24 may be fine at U-16 and above since there are always injuried players, but in general it will be a bad experience if your kid is not a starter.

[Anonymous]

Youth leagues lack of regulation. Until the day someone speaks out and tells all business malpractices the frustration will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I totally agree with the bolded. Based on experience, if anyone is considering accepting a spot on a team where your kid won't know if they made the roster until days before the game, or even worse, days before an out-of-town tournament, ask yourself if you can be ok with the logistics of this. Are you willing to leave all of your weekends open in the hopes that your kid will get a roster spot? If you have multiple kids, how will this impact them? I personally would not be able to live this way.

My kid quit a club after a horrible out-of-town tournament where many of the kids who traveled did not see the field once over four games. This team had many families with undocumented parents who view travel as a risk and can't afford to waste money on hotels. Bringing these kids and their families to tournaments where the coaches had no intention of playing the kids was absolutely unconscionable.

This sounds like the same coach above who played ineligible and older players. Really unstable person.

It wasn't the same coach you are referring to, which in my opinion, makes it even worse. Sadly, practices like there aren't limited to just a few coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Fairfax Brave mentality... aka, BRYC used to have a mish-mash of girls on A/B teams and then dress 18 for ECNL games. Disaster

Brave is not BRYC - and they have smaller rosters. Union seems to have the biggest rosters of local ECNL clubs.

Brave rosters are perfect sized. Union is pay to be on top team.