Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College soccer has been getting more serious about the spring, which is something!

It would be hard to advise someone without a senior national team spot to completely skip college soccer given the limited financial upside of being a pro, especially with the new influx of NIL money. Stanford's next home game against Santa Clara is already sold out. The college game is growing in popularity and should provide some $$ moving forward too. I think it should be a legit revenue sport in 10 years like women's basketball has become if it keeps developing.

Stanford's current team is good but isn't as star-studded (remember Thompson was committed prior to going pro). They've had Sullivan, Smith (who left early), Girma, Cook, Macario, Davidson, and Campbell who have all earned USWNT caps. Multiple while they were at Stanford too.

O'Hara and Press had overlap in the late 2000s too. I didn't mean to slight the current team but in terms of top-shelf talent, it isn't the best the school has had partially because top players are now exploring other avenues than college soccer.

I think 75% of the Stanford players have US national youth team experience. So the players are some of the best as identified by US Soccer(what ever that means). Playing college soccer for the women is similar to putting your development on ice for 3-4 years. The speed of play is just too slow, the technical skills are not there and the defense gives way too much space. The last point is a big one. Usually you play like you practice. If you are not playing defense hard in practice it hurts the other players because they are not under playing under pressure.
As for the women college game growing. I do not know. A lot of the games are really physical and ugly(not enjoyable to watch). If you are a soccer fan, you want to see the women’s game played like it is at Barca or Super league. The women champions league games are drawing 90k.

Anonymous wrote:College is not a feeder system for professional sports. The vast, vast majority of college athletes (99%) have no intentions to play professionally. The goal is to go to college and do something you enjoy (sports). Represent and compete for your school.

Why would you take a system like college sports that is working well for 99% of its participants, and try to change it for the 1% that might be playing professionally?

Anonymous wrote:College soccer has been getting more serious about the spring, which is something!

It would be hard to advise someone without a senior national team spot to completely skip college soccer given the limited financial upside of being a pro, especially with the new influx of NIL money. Stanford's next home game against Santa Clara is already sold out. The college game is growing in popularity and should provide some $$ moving forward too. I think it should be a legit revenue sport in 10 years like women's basketball has become if it keeps developing.

Stanford's current team is good but isn't as star-studded (remember Thompson was committed prior to going pro). They've had Sullivan, Smith (who left early), Girma, Cook, Macario, Davidson, and Campbell who have all earned USWNT caps. Multiple while they were at Stanford too.

O'Hara and Press had overlap in the late 2000s too. I didn't mean to slight the current team but in terms of top-shelf talent, it isn't the best the school has had partially because top players are now exploring other avenues than college soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Women’s college soccer in the US is simply the last step of ECNL, because ECNL has a chokehold on elite women’s soccer in the US. Unfortunately, ECNL is a toxic organization that does not prioritize development and training. As far as I can tell, it exists to make its administrators rich, to provide marketing material to larger clubs so they can squeeze out smaller clubs and recruit the lower teams that fund the ECNL teams, and to funnel profits to the entities that manage the training facilities where they hold their endless and useless “college showcases.”

I have a son, not a daughter, who is now playing college. He spent one year in ECNL, easily the year where he had possibly the worst training of his youth career, at a supposedly good club. My son said that the US women would be lucky to make it out of the group stage, after seeing ECNL up close. He played in a Sunday league team for fun and got better coaching there.

The problem isn’t college. It’s ECNL. Colleges can only work with what ECNL produces. And so long as ECNL has the chokehold on women’s soccer development in the US that it does, the women will not do well internationally. ECNL structurally cannot produce athletes at the level of the European clubs.

Please tell me you are not suggesting GA?! You are just bashing ECNL the organization - right? Tell your son ECNL mens leagues are very very different from ECNL Women's leagues.

Oh, I’m absolutely not suggesting GA. I think there needs to be a solid competitor to ECNL, though.

I don’t think it’s all that different for girls from what I saw. In many ways it is worse. At least there are other options for boys.

A competer to ECNL on what? ECNL's main focus is to be a recruiting platform for colleges. It does that fairly well and customers on both sides (players and colleges) are getting served. A competitor that is focused on producing the best possible WNT players, which really only caters to the top 1% of players at the expense of the other 99% who are just looking to play in college, is not much of a threat to ECNL's business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Women’s college soccer in the US is simply the last step of ECNL, because ECNL has a chokehold on elite women’s soccer in the US. Unfortunately, ECNL is a toxic organization that does not prioritize development and training. As far as I can tell, it exists to make its administrators rich, to provide marketing material to larger clubs so they can squeeze out smaller clubs and recruit the lower teams that fund the ECNL teams, and to funnel profits to the entities that manage the training facilities where they hold their endless and useless “college showcases.”

I have a son, not a daughter, who is now playing college. He spent one year in ECNL, easily the year where he had possibly the worst training of his youth career, at a supposedly good club. My son said that the US women would be lucky to make it out of the group stage, after seeing ECNL up close. He played in a Sunday league team for fun and got better coaching there.

The problem isn’t college. It’s ECNL. Colleges can only work with what ECNL produces. And so long as ECNL has the chokehold on women’s soccer development in the US that it does, the women will not do well internationally. ECNL structurally cannot produce athletes at the level of the European clubs.

Please tell me you are not suggesting GA?! You are just bashing ECNL the organization - right? Tell your son ECNL mens leagues are very very different from ECNL Women's leagues.

Oh, I’m absolutely not suggesting GA. I think there needs to be a solid competitor to ECNL, though.

I don’t think it’s all that different for girls from what I saw. In many ways it is worse. At least there are other options for boys.

Anonymous wrote:
For years women college was second only to the USWNT or the small professional league that would come and go. Things changed about 6-7 years ago and college soccer has stayed the same. I do not see anything changing in college soccer . There is no pressure to change.

Anonymous wrote:College is not a feeder system for professional sports. The vast, vast majority of college athletes (99%) have no intentions to play professionally. The goal is to go to college and do something you enjoy (sports). Represent and compete for your school.

Why would you take a system like college sports that is working well for 99% of its participants, and try to change it for the 1% that might be playing professionally?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Women’s college soccer in the US is simply the last step of ECNL, because ECNL has a chokehold on elite women’s soccer in the US. Unfortunately, ECNL is a toxic organization that does not prioritize development and training. As far as I can tell, it exists to make its administrators rich, to provide marketing material to larger clubs so they can squeeze out smaller clubs and recruit the lower teams that fund the ECNL teams, and to funnel profits to the entities that manage the training facilities where they hold their endless and useless “college showcases.”

I have a son, not a daughter, who is now playing college. He spent one year in ECNL, easily the year where he had possibly the worst training of his youth career, at a supposedly good club. My son said that the US women would be lucky to make it out of the group stage, after seeing ECNL up close. He played in a Sunday league team for fun and got better coaching there.

The problem isn’t college. It’s ECNL. Colleges can only work with what ECNL produces. And so long as ECNL has the chokehold on women’s soccer development in the US that it does, the women will not do well internationally. ECNL structurally cannot produce athletes at the level of the European clubs.

Please tell me you are not suggesting GA?! You are just bashing ECNL the organization - right? Tell your son ECNL mens leagues are very very different from ECNL Women's leagues.

Oh, I’m absolutely not suggesting GA. I think there needs to be a solid competitor to ECNL, though.

I don’t think it’s all that different for girls from what I saw. In many ways it is worse. At least there are other options for boys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Stanford was #2 and Georgetown #13. Georgetown had the run of play and maybe could have had 1 or 2 goals more. Watching the game I think most would predict a 2-1 or 1-0 Georgetown win. A Georgetown player gave up a free kick outside of the box late in the game and the Stanford player put a nice bending ball in for a 1 -1 tie. That’s how it ended.

Before the game I thought it would be a fairly high level soccer game. There were a few players who stood out(#8 for Georgetown former Union/McLean as midfielder) but over all the speed of play was slow, there was a lot of time and space in the final 1/3(even around the box), whiffs on open crosses, passes going out of bounds with no pressure, etc. I know it’s not professional but this was two top 10(this weeks ranking) teams playing. I was hoping for a bit more.

I walked away with doubts that college soccer is the answer to competing with what was on display at this last World Cup.

This country is wrestling with an idea that no one really wants to say out loud, because it would call for a seismic shift in the way we do things. But, I think we have to at least ask ourselves does the college sports model work anymore as it relates to developing our nation's best players in any given sport? I actually think most of us know the answer, but again, don't want to say it out loud. No one else cares about college sports the same we do, but we've poured sooooo much money into it. "College" football is in the midst of breaking away from the NCAA and shedding any myth of amateurism. Look at the NBA -- how many players come from college basketball anymore? There's an increasing number of players drafted from Europe who went through their youth systems. European countries have always produced better mens soccer players through their clubs, and now that there's financial incentives in the womens' game, clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Bayern Munich are all starting to add their collective resources to developing girls/women. Any coincidence that the WWC final featured the two countries with arguably the most robust women's clubs? What would you want for your daughter if soccer was the final goal -- play for a D1 school or go to the Barcelona youth academy?

We're also holding on to the well-roundedness factor, which I get. Can't tell you how many parents I know who want their daughters to play sports, excel at STEM, be confident and emotionally balanced, and go to an Ivy League school or top state school. I probably want that too for my individual daughters. But for the good of the national team product, is that the wisest way to field a team to go against players who have been developed in a completely different environment?

With so few people still making very good money in women's soccer, I actually expect more good international players to come to the US for college, which will improve the college game, at least in the short-to-medium terms.
You need to be an Alyssa Thompson level talent with knowledge that you'll be in the senior national team pool for skipping college to be a good idea now.
The financial incentives you mention are so limited and concentrated at this point that unless she is a phenom, I'd probably want her to come back from Spain for college.
Also, France didn't exactly do great this summer and their clubs are especially well respected for women. Lyon regularly has the world's most impressive roster and PSG is no slouch and has had Americans too.

France lost in PKs - a virtual toss up to host Australia who was playing some of the most spirited soccer of their lives in the Final 8. A disappointing result for France for sure, but I disagree that they didn't "exactly do great." Any team in the final 8 was good enough to win that tournament.

About 5-6 years ago, there actually was a small influx of non-US players coming to college here to get some run. Alessia Russo played a year for UNC. That trend stopped -- they can stay in Europe now and get developed better.

Look - for any one individual situation, it's easy to say: since the odds are so low, why bother - let's just focus on broader pursuits; college is therefore better. But from the perspective of the interests of fielding the best possible team, which approach is better? I hope I'm wrong, but my concern is that we're in the midst of a pretty big shift, and yes, money is driving the boat here. There will have to be a readjustment, at least, - and I think most would say it's already happening.

No they weren't. Australia never had a chance to win that tournament and it showed in the semifinal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Stanford was #2 and Georgetown #13. Georgetown had the run of play and maybe could have had 1 or 2 goals more. Watching the game I think most would predict a 2-1 or 1-0 Georgetown win. A Georgetown player gave up a free kick outside of the box late in the game and the Stanford player put a nice bending ball in for a 1 -1 tie. That’s how it ended.

Before the game I thought it would be a fairly high level soccer game. There were a few players who stood out(#8 for Georgetown former Union/McLean as midfielder) but over all the speed of play was slow, there was a lot of time and space in the final 1/3(even around the box), whiffs on open crosses, passes going out of bounds with no pressure, etc. I know it’s not professional but this was two top 10(this weeks ranking) teams playing. I was hoping for a bit more.

I walked away with doubts that college soccer is the answer to competing with what was on display at this last World Cup.

This country is wrestling with an idea that no one really wants to say out loud, because it would call for a seismic shift in the way we do things. But, I think we have to at least ask ourselves does the college sports model work anymore as it relates to developing our nation's best players in any given sport? I actually think most of us know the answer, but again, don't want to say it out loud. No one else cares about college sports the same we do, but we've poured sooooo much money into it. "College" football is in the midst of breaking away from the NCAA and shedding any myth of amateurism. Look at the NBA -- how many players come from college basketball anymore? There's an increasing number of players drafted from Europe who went through their youth systems. European countries have always produced better mens soccer players through their clubs, and now that there's financial incentives in the womens' game, clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Bayern Munich are all starting to add their collective resources to developing girls/women. Any coincidence that the WWC final featured the two countries with arguably the most robust women's clubs? What would you want for your daughter if soccer was the final goal -- play for a D1 school or go to the Barcelona youth academy?

We're also holding on to the well-roundedness factor, which I get. Can't tell you how many parents I know who want their daughters to play sports, excel at STEM, be confident and emotionally balanced, and go to an Ivy League school or top state school. I probably want that too for my individual daughters. But for the good of the national team product, is that the wisest way to field a team to go against players who have been developed in a completely different environment?

With so few people still making very good money in women's soccer, I actually expect more good international players to come to the US for college, which will improve the college game, at least in the short-to-medium terms.
You need to be an Alyssa Thompson level talent with knowledge that you'll be in the senior national team pool for skipping college to be a good idea now.
The financial incentives you mention are so limited and concentrated at this point that unless she is a phenom, I'd probably want her to come back from Spain for college.
Also, France didn't exactly do great this summer and their clubs are especially well respected for women. Lyon regularly has the world's most impressive roster and PSG is no slouch and has had Americans too.

France lost in PKs - a virtual toss up to host Australia who was playing some of the most spirited soccer of their lives in the Final 8. A disappointing result for France for sure, but I disagree that they didn't "exactly do great." Any team in the final 8 was good enough to win that tournament.

About 5-6 years ago, there actually was a small influx of non-US players coming to college here to get some run. Alessia Russo played a year for UNC. That trend stopped -- they can stay in Europe now and get developed better.

Look - for any one individual situation, it's easy to say: since the odds are so low, why bother - let's just focus on broader pursuits; college is therefore better. But from the perspective of the interests of fielding the best possible team, which approach is better? I hope I'm wrong, but my concern is that we're in the midst of a pretty big shift, and yes, money is driving the boat here. There will have to be a readjustment, at least, - and I think most would say it's already happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Women’s college soccer in the US is simply the last step of ECNL, because ECNL has a chokehold on elite women’s soccer in the US. Unfortunately, ECNL is a toxic organization that does not prioritize development and training. As far as I can tell, it exists to make its administrators rich, to provide marketing material to larger clubs so they can squeeze out smaller clubs and recruit the lower teams that fund the ECNL teams, and to funnel profits to the entities that manage the training facilities where they hold their endless and useless “college showcases.”

I have a son, not a daughter, who is now playing college. He spent one year in ECNL, easily the year where he had possibly the worst training of his youth career, at a supposedly good club. My son said that the US women would be lucky to make it out of the group stage, after seeing ECNL up close. He played in a Sunday league team for fun and got better coaching there.

The problem isn’t college. It’s ECNL. Colleges can only work with what ECNL produces. And so long as ECNL has the chokehold on women’s soccer development in the US that it does, the women will not do well internationally. ECNL structurally cannot produce athletes at the level of the European clubs.

Please tell me you are not suggesting GA?! You are just bashing ECNL the organization - right? Tell your son ECNL mens leagues are very very different from ECNL Women's leagues.

Anonymous wrote:NP. Women’s college soccer in the US is simply the last step of ECNL, because ECNL has a chokehold on elite women’s soccer in the US. Unfortunately, ECNL is a toxic organization that does not prioritize development and training. As far as I can tell, it exists to make its administrators rich, to provide marketing material to larger clubs so they can squeeze out smaller clubs and recruit the lower teams that fund the ECNL teams, and to funnel profits to the entities that manage the training facilities where they hold their endless and useless “college showcases.”

I have a son, not a daughter, who is now playing college. He spent one year in ECNL, easily the year where he had possibly the worst training of his youth career, at a supposedly good club. My son said that the US women would be lucky to make it out of the group stage, after seeing ECNL up close. He played in a Sunday league team for fun and got better coaching there.

The problem isn’t college. It’s ECNL. Colleges can only work with what ECNL produces. And so long as ECNL has the chokehold on women’s soccer development in the US that it does, the women will not do well internationally. ECNL structurally cannot produce athletes at the level of the European clubs.