Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Nah, I read just fine. If you also believe the college coaches want to take in innumerable contacts from club directors about every player under the sun, you do not understand how it works. The recruiting director's job: help get certain college coaches to a field to see xyz players. After that, the coaches will want to see more of them or not. If yes, they'll ask for certain info about said player, from several sources. For the club's part, just respond and be organized so stuff doesn't fall between the cracks.
Nothing goes anywhere if the player can't play. And if they can, college coaches will be very interested regardless of anything outside that player's control.

Cool. I don’t know anything. Just a parent who’s seen it up close. You sound like a delightful person trying to justify a club’s poor recruiting results. Best of luck to ya.

Oh, you don't have to identify yourself. Well aware by now you're a parent who has seen just your own circumstance, hearsay on others. And of course have heard the club pitch.

100% that college coaches didn't lay all that out for you.

IDC about any club's recruiting results. BUT, if they can get coaches to the field, they're doing well and you're in good shape.

Of course you care, otherwise you wouldn’t be writing. You just don’t like that this conversation is happening around Hero’s 26 recruiting results. And that’s ok. Keep with the status quo, it seems to be working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Nah, I read just fine. If you also believe the college coaches want to take in innumerable contacts from club directors about every player under the sun, you do not understand how it works. The recruiting director's job: help get certain college coaches to a field to see xyz players. After that, the coaches will want to see more of them or not. If yes, they'll ask for certain info about said player, from several sources. For the club's part, just respond and be organized so stuff doesn't fall between the cracks.
Nothing goes anywhere if the player can't play. And if they can, college coaches will be very interested regardless of anything outside that player's control.

Cool. I don’t know anything. Just a parent who’s seen it up close. You sound like a delightful person trying to justify a club’s poor recruiting results. Best of luck to ya.

Oh, you don't have to identify yourself. Well aware by now you're a parent who has seen just your own circumstance, hearsay on others. And of course have heard the club pitch.

100% that college coaches didn't lay all that out for you.

IDC about any club's recruiting results. BUT, if they can get coaches to the field, they're doing well and you're in good shape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Nah, I read just fine. If you also believe the college coaches want to take in innumerable contacts from club directors about every player under the sun, you do not understand how it works. The recruiting director's job: help get certain college coaches to a field to see xyz players. After that, the coaches will want to see more of them or not. If yes, they'll ask for certain info about said player, from several sources. For the club's part, just respond and be organized so stuff doesn't fall between the cracks.
Nothing goes anywhere if the player can't play. And if they can, college coaches will be very interested regardless of anything outside that player's control.

Cool. I don’t know anything. Just a parent who’s seen it up close. You sound like a delightful person trying to justify a club’s poor recruiting results. Best of luck to ya.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Nah, I read just fine. If you also believe the college coaches want to take in innumerable contacts from club directors about every player under the sun, you do not understand how it works. The recruiting director's job: help get certain college coaches to a field to see xyz players. After that, the coaches will want to see more of them or not. If yes, they'll ask for certain info about said player, from several sources. For the club's part, just respond and be organized so stuff doesn't fall between the cracks.
Nothing goes anywhere if the player can't play. And if they can, college coaches will be very interested regardless of anything outside that player's control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

There wasn’t a sequence suggested in the PP so nothing “backwards” about it. Players control what they control (grades, test scores, playing well). Clubs can control what they should control: develop relationships with coaches to promote players, get them to the sidelines, and stay engaged with coaches throughout the entire recruiting process. Capital and M&D both do this and it shows from their recruiting performance.

If a club leaves recruiting to the player and the parents, you should know other clubs are taking an entirely different approach. You don’t have to take my word on it: the recruiting results of the clubs taking an active role speak for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

You have it backwards. Your "rest of it" is most of it. Getting the college coaches to make it a semi-priority to see the players on the field is their main job. No college coach is taking on ANY of their only 8-10 players because a recruiting director tells them to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Blue beat Hero Green twice this past recruiting season, if I remember correctly. They also defeated the number two team, Long Island Top Guns. I was surprised that Cap Blue did not move higher in the rankings. Hero Green has some standout players, but only three to four players truly shine and CARRY the team to win. They do not have the same depth as some of the other teams, which is noticeable to coaches when they play against them. If Capital played their top players for the entire game, their ranking and win record would also be much higher. However, they prioritize equal playtime during the recruiting season, which makes sense as it helps all players get recruited to excellent schools. Again, there is not much difference between many of these top seven teams. Goalies make a significant difference as well!

I think there is a difference that is based on points system for ranking that's why Capital Blue is #7 not #1 . Plus I they played M&D 🖤only once and lost .

.
Nobody is saying cap blue should be number one, but we thought they would've moved up in the rankings a little bit more given some of the wins

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but saying girls are “underperforming” (especially when maybe been out hurt)- by whatever subjective standard you hold - is, in fact, not respectful.

And the “Maybe I am, maybe not” is weird.

Never said the players were underperforming. The players did everything right - they’re #5 in the country. It’s a reflection of the club’s recruiting capability, not player performance.

I think you may be over estimating Club recruiting as a whole. Everything falls on the kids.

If that’s what your club is telling you, that’s unfortunate. Your club’s recruiting director should be actively communicating with coaches about players during the recruiting season. The number of commits on M&D and Capital isn’t coincidental. As someone who’s been through this process, a lot of it comes down to the relationships the club has with coaches, and how well the club markets each player to the coaches at schools on her dream list. The rest of it (performing at tournaments, grades, scores, etc) falls on the player’s shoulders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Blue beat Hero Green twice this past recruiting season, if I remember correctly. They also defeated the number two team, Long Island Top Guns. I was surprised that Cap Blue did not move higher in the rankings. Hero Green has some standout players, but only three to four players truly shine and CARRY the team to win. They do not have the same depth as some of the other teams, which is noticeable to coaches when they play against them. If Capital played their top players for the entire game, their ranking and win record would also be much higher. However, they prioritize equal playtime during the recruiting season, which makes sense as it helps all players get recruited to excellent schools. Again, there is not much difference between many of these top seven teams. Goalies make a significant difference as well!

I think there is a difference that is based on points system for ranking that's why Capital Blue is #7 not #1 . Plus I they played M&D 🖤only once and lost .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capital Blue beat Hero Green twice this past recruiting season, if I remember correctly. They also defeated the number two team, Long Island Top Guns. I was surprised that Cap Blue did not move higher in the rankings. Hero Green has some standout players, but only three to four players truly shine and CARRY the team to win. They do not have the same depth as some of the other teams, which is noticeable to coaches when they play against them. If Capital played their top players for the entire game, their ranking and win record would also be much higher. However, they prioritize equal playtime during the recruiting season, which makes sense as it helps all players get recruited to excellent schools. Again, there is not much difference between many of these top seven teams. Goalies make a significant difference as well!

I think there is a difference that is based on points system for ranking that's why Capital Blue is #7 not #1 . Plus I they played M&D 🖤only once and lost .

Anonymous wrote:Capital Blue beat Hero Green twice this past recruiting season, if I remember correctly. They also defeated the number two team, Long Island Top Guns. I was surprised that Cap Blue did not move higher in the rankings. Hero Green has some standout players, but only three to four players truly shine and CARRY the team to win. They do not have the same depth as some of the other teams, which is noticeable to coaches when they play against them. If Capital played their top players for the entire game, their ranking and win record would also be much higher. However, they prioritize equal playtime during the recruiting season, which makes sense as it helps all players get recruited to excellent schools. Again, there is not much difference between many of these top seven teams. Goalies make a significant difference as well!