BRYC Girls TD Larry Best leaving for Washington Spirit

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard some crazy figures with regard to WS pricing. Can a WS parent offer some facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard some crazy figures with regard to WS pricing. Can a WS parent offer some facts?

Information about costs is available on website.

https://washingtonspirit.com/da/

The travel costs of U13 and 14 are less than older teams (fewer showcases). Costs are comparable to other DA/ECNL teams although U13 ECNL travel costs likely higher than U13 DA costs (assuming ECNL actually plays all their winter games.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large rosters aren't anti-development. They're a realistic approximation of college and pro rosters. Spirit's pro team has 23 players. UNC has 29 players. What you mean to say is that you're pissed not all kids on a roster are able to earn playing minutes, and that as a result of not playing games they aren't developing. That's crap. That challenge will come with any good team. You've got to earn a spot on the team and then earn a spot on the field. Most development doesn't happen during games anyway, it comes from practicing against other good kids on your own team, with the benefit of good coaching.

Not trying to be argumentative, but one frequently hears pundits talk about young professional players and how they need to be on a team where they will get regular, first-team minutes in games in order to properly develop. Think about all the ink spilled on players like Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Sargent and others, and whether they made the correct decision to go overseas vs. picking a different option in the US. Or all of the ink spilled about the failure of MLS teams to play young players, and how that is hurting their development.

Are these statements incorrect about young pro players needing playing time in order to develop? Or is a high school kid somehow different, and they don't need to play games in order to develop?

It just seems like a contradiction for playing time to be important for 18-21 year olds, but not important for 14-17 year olds.

Are you suggesting that Spirit has generational talent on their rosters that they are sitting?

Not at all. I was simply suggesting that the prior poster's statement (suggesting that playing games is not important to developing players) was not correct, and that playing games is an important part of any player's development.

[Anonymous]

Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

If a player isn't good enough to DESERVE to play, they shouldn't be on that team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

DP. I disagree that kids can develop on a large roster as well as they can develop on a smaller roster. First, assuming the size of the coaching staff is the same for a team with a roster of 16-18 (for example) vs. a team with a roster of 20-24, then there is no way the coaches are able to provide as much attention to each of the players in practice. In this example, the coaching staff of the large roster team will have less eyes on a particular player during a practice, and may not even see mistakes he/she is making in practice, let alone have time to work with that player in correcting the mistakes. It is stating the obvious that less players = more individual attention. I personally believe more individual attention leads to more development of a particular player, but I appreciate others may feel differently on this point.

Second, if the kids are not playing significant minutes in games, then they are not developing as well as a kid who is playing significant minutes in games. Again, I would think this is an obvious statement, and one that has been made in other posts.

I completely agree with your points that part of developing is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing significant time, especially by the high school years. However, I think, especially in DA with its substitution rules, a team should be more selective and have a smaller roster of 16-18 players. In that case, players will still compete to make that small roster, and, if they've made the small roster, they will still have to compete for playing time. I think a more selective, smaller roster is better for all involved, rather than having a larger team roster of 20+. Those extra players on the larger roster would be better served playing for a "B" team, where they were getting proper instruction from coaches and earning meaningful playing time on that B team. In other words, I think their development would be better served by playing and competing for a B team. They can then come back next year and compete for a spot on the A team roster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

First just to put it out there I'm not the same person who posted the initial quoted text of play time is NOT based on merit. I was just saying when a coach specifically tells you that it's not merit based because rankings aren't occurring for a current age group, so time will be split as evenly as possible. That isn't an assumption or eyes lying. It's just a fact of what has been relayed by the person making those decisions.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

First just to put it out there I'm not the same person who posted the initial quoted text of play time is NOT based on merit. I was just saying when a coach specifically tells you that it's not merit based because rankings aren't occurring for a current age group, so time will be split as evenly as possible. That isn't an assumption or eyes lying. It's just a fact of what has been relayed by the person making those decisions.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.


First just to put it out there I'm not the same person who posted the initial quoted text of play time is NOT based on merit. I was just saying when a coach specifically tells you that it's not merit based because rankings aren't occurring for a current age group, so time will be split as evenly as possible. That isn't an assumption or eyes lying. It's just a fact of what has been relayed by the person making those decisions.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

DP. I disagree that kids can develop on a large roster as well as they can develop on a smaller roster. First, assuming the size of the coaching staff is the same for a team with a roster of 16-18 (for example) vs. a team with a roster of 20-24, then there is no way the coaches are able to provide as much attention to each of the players in practice. In this example, the coaching staff of the large roster team will have less eyes on a particular player during a practice, and may not even see mistakes he/she is making in practice, let alone have time to work with that player in correcting the mistakes. It is stating the obvious that less players = more individual attention. I personally believe more individual attention leads to more development of a particular player, but I appreciate others may feel differently on this point.

Second, if the kids are not playing significant minutes in games, then they are not developing as well as a kid who is playing significant minutes in games. Again, I would think this is an obvious statement, and one that has been made in other posts.

I completely agree with your points that part of developing is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing significant time, especially by the high school years. However, I think, especially in DA with its substitution rules, a team should be more selective and have a smaller roster of 16-18 players. In that case, players will still compete to make that small roster, and, if they've made the small roster, they will still have to compete for playing time. I think a more selective, smaller roster is better for all involved, rather than having a larger team roster of 20+. Those extra players on the larger roster would be better served playing for a "B" team, where they were getting proper instruction from coaches and earning meaningful playing time on that B team. In other words, I think their development would be better served by playing and competing for a B team. They can then come back next year and compete for a spot on the A team roster.

Good points. The only thing I would add is that the DA rules mean it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing as far as DA team or B team. They are allowed up to 10 PT players. Those players can be rostered on the B team, but train with the DA team and play up to 10 games with the DA team. This allows players to continue to compete for a FT spot, but in the meantime they are still getting game minutes so their development does not suffer.

As far as I can tell, none of the local DAs - boys or girls - are using this option very much.