Question from a happy parent. My 11yo kid has been playing for the same club for years. He is not a superstar but he easily made A team every year. His team is doing very well, winning a lot of games in league and tournaments. He’s happy and committed. I can’t think of any reason to move him, but can’t help wondering if I missed something in the big picture. I am not looking at scholarships or pro probabilities, even though my kid aspires to be one. I just thought it’d be nice to have a hobby and some friends and maybe a boost to college admissions. Any advice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, was considering signing up my 3 year old DD up next year but after reading this thread I think we will just put her in softball.

Same circus, different clowns.

Also softball kids seem to be less fit, soccer at minimum gives you a workout of sorts.

Anonymous wrote:

If your kid was on a C team for a year, has improved a great deal, is the best player on the team and does not move---you need to switch Clubs. It happens. We had several benchwarmers that hardly play the entire season move up because of parent pressure or the Club owed the family a favor, while the kid that played the entire game every game and was a crucial/key player did not move. Zero behavioral or parental issues. If anything, we were the least PIA/quiet and supportive parents on the team. And the Coach had him listed as #1 when giving names to TD/age group head. I am not a squeaky wheel. When we announced we were leaving, they were shocked. They offered to move the kid up to get us to stay. That completely turned me off. Too little, too late. My kid said 'who wants to get on a team that way'?

Ended making a much more competitive A team, playing and starting in a First Division of a competitive league vs the low division in the middling league where we were before. Sometimes the only option is to move on. The kid has progressed light years playing at a higher speed and against better players. He never would have had that opportunity at the other Club.

There is sticking it out and working hard, but at some point you need to realize that it is futile at some Clubs and it doesn't matter if you progress above the players above you---they just aren't demoting their favorites.

Wait, are we at the same club? I'm very happy for your player and good for you for moving on. It makes me sad that there are so many kids stuck in situations like yours was who could have a much better soccer experience if clubs were what they claim to be. Oh, and the advancement due to family connections is super common everywhere. That's why I laugh every time someone here says that you should tell your DS or DD to work harder so that they can move up. Sure. It totally works that way.

Our current U15 A team is filled with kids that were lower team players and had to move around quite frequently in order to stay in the game at a high level.

Sadly, the scenario described is common. It is always the parents that are delusional

Anonymous wrote:

My child is relatively young, and has been on the C team for two years. I know why - he is very small for his age and although his technical skills are pretty good, his aggression level is not where it needs to be. I have no problem with paying for him to be on the C team, and don't care if he moves up, except for one reason. A lot of the other kids on the team are just a mess - and I don't in terms of soccer ability. They don't show up for practices, they don't listen to the coach, and they goof around a lot. I wish I could find a C team full of players like DS - not top players, but focused on soccer. I don't know where such a C team exists, though.

Yes, yes, yes. Again, proving my point that most of us are reasonable and not obsessed with the status of a particular team as long as the team DC is placed on is the appropriate environment. And the problem is how you find that. We have experience at 5 clubs and that is the problem everywhere. There are too many teams and many club's lower teams have players that are not committed, let alone talented.

To support placement, club directors will tell you that your child is not at the developmental level of the A team, so they need to move down. But does anyone care when the B team is a dumpster fire? The appropriate placement for your child's level of development does not matter then. And it is hard to know how things will play out when you accept an offer, which is another huge problem. A team players need to be surrounded by the best, but B and C team players can well . . . just play with anyone whose parents fork over cash.

And so ego and pride on the parents step in and say "no way, my kid id better than this" and leave in a huff.

Your kid is good, but currently not A team good so the club tries to both improve both the B team and potentially your players role and development potential with their placement but instead pride steps in and you leave.

Anonymous wrote:All points well taken, except this/

It isn't about "who cares" it is about tell tale signs that should be a red flag that a conversation needs to happen with the coach. Yes, not all coaches do not communicate with parents or parents particularly well but they do speak through playing time, and positional roles.

As far a C teams, yes, they are transient. C teams exist to keep kids playing the game at a competitive level. Some kids improve and advance and others do not. Some kids/paretns care if their kids improve and advance and others do not. Every year during the spring season players and coaches alike should be assessing where they are. Coaches are assessing if players are a good fit or not. Parents should also be assessing their players role on the team and the overall improvement of the player and team.

I agree that some parents are fine with their kids not advancing. I'm pretty much fine if my kids are happy. All I am saying is that my kids have played at different clubs and it very hard to find the right fit for some kids, especially if they are bubble top team players and especially if they are late year birthdays. You might think it is easy to find a good fit, but it isn't. Our experience has shown that coaches want our child and tell us he has talent, but when push comes to shove, they want to win now, so he tends to have a less than ideal experience. If minimal playing time is based mostly on size, there isn't much a kid can do to control that.

We have one not so talented player, and it is easy to find the right place for him.

As to your bolded statement, I disagree. I'm not a soccer expert and I don't have any idea where the kid is developmentally or how much potential my child has. That's what coaches are for. I'd like club to do evaluations without making us seem like annoying parents for demanding them. Frankly, I want there to be more ongoing conversation between the coach and my kid with me staying out of it.

Then I don't really know what to tell you. If the kid is High School age then absolutely the player should be their own advocate but any younger than that then you may need to do the some of the heavy lifting for them.

Some clubs do annual evals but many don't. If they don't then ask for one.

I'm not a soccer expert and I don't have any idea where the kid is developmentally or how much potential my child has.

This is exactly why YOU need to talk with coaches yourself. How else are you going to learn what matters soccer wise, what matters to the coach soccer wise, what the coach sees in your player what the coach looks for in other players and the coaches development philosophy as it applies to the team and your player if you don't try and have that conversation? Asking questions is not in and of itself adversarial and there is no reason to view a coach in an adversarial way. It sounds like you have been frustrated and changed clubs a couple of times and based on the quoted statement above you might be overreacting to things that you might not have a full understanding or proper perspective of developmental stages and timelines for players.

My child is relatively young, and has been on the C team for two years. I know why - he is very small for his age and although his technical skills are pretty good, his aggression level is not where it needs to be. I have no problem with paying for him to be on the C team, and don't care if he moves up, except for one reason. A lot of the other kids on the team are just a mess - and I don't in terms of soccer ability. They don't show up for practices, they don't listen to the coach, and they goof around a lot. I wish I could find a C team full of players like DS - not top players, but focused on soccer. I don't know where such a C team exists, though.

Yes, yes, yes. Again, proving my point that most of us are reasonable and not obsessed with the status of a particular team as long as the team DC is placed on is the appropriate environment. And the problem is how you find that. We have experience at 5 clubs and that is the problem everywhere. There are too many teams and many club's lower teams have players that are not committed, let alone talented.

To support placement, club directors will tell you that your child is not at the developmental level of the A team, so they need to move down. But does anyone care when the B team is a dumpster fire? The appropriate placement for your child's level of development does not matter then. And it is hard to know how things will play out when you accept an offer, which is another huge problem. A team players need to be surrounded by the best, but B and C team players can well . . . just play with anyone whose parents fork over cash.

If your kid was on a C team for a year, has improved a great deal, is the best player on the team and does not move---you need to switch Clubs. It happens. We had several benchwarmers that hardly play the entire season move up because of parent pressure or the Club owed the family a favor, while the kid that played the entire game every game and was a crucial/key player did not move. Zero behavioral or parental issues. If anything, we were the least PIA/quiet and supportive parents on the team. And the Coach had him listed as #1 when giving names to TD/age group head. I am not a squeaky wheel. When we announced we were leaving, they were shocked. They offered to move the kid up to get us to stay. That completely turned me off. Too little, too late. My kid said 'who wants to get on a team that way'?

Ended making a much more competitive A team, playing and starting in a First Division of a competitive league vs the low division in the middling league where we were before. Sometimes the only option is to move on. The kid has progressed light years playing at a higher speed and against better players. He never would have had that opportunity at the other Club.

There is sticking it out and working hard, but at some point you need to realize that it is futile at some Clubs and it doesn't matter if you progress above the players above you---they just aren't demoting their favorites.

Wait, are we at the same club? I'm very happy for your player and good for you for moving on. It makes me sad that there are so many kids stuck in situations like yours was who could have a much better soccer experience if clubs were what they claim to be. Oh, and the advancement due to family connections is super common everywhere. That's why I laugh every time someone here says that you should tell your DS or DD to work harder so that they can move up. Sure. It totally works that way.

All points well taken, except this/

It isn't about "who cares" it is about tell tale signs that should be a red flag that a conversation needs to happen with the coach. Yes, not all coaches do not communicate with parents or parents particularly well but they do speak through playing time, and positional roles.

As far a C teams, yes, they are transient. C teams exist to keep kids playing the game at a competitive level. Some kids improve and advance and others do not. Some kids/paretns care if their kids improve and advance and others do not. Every year during the spring season players and coaches alike should be assessing where they are. Coaches are assessing if players are a good fit or not. Parents should also be assessing their players role on the team and the overall improvement of the player and team.

I agree that some parents are fine with their kids not advancing. I'm pretty much fine if my kids are happy. All I am saying is that my kids have played at different clubs and it very hard to find the right fit for some kids, especially if they are bubble top team players and especially if they are late year birthdays. You might think it is easy to find a good fit, but it isn't. Our experience has shown that coaches want our child and tell us he has talent, but when push comes to shove, they want to win now, so he tends to have a less than ideal experience. If minimal playing time is based mostly on size, there isn't much a kid can do to control that.

We have one not so talented player, and it is easy to find the right place for him.

As to your bolded statement, I disagree. I'm not a soccer expert and I don't have any idea where the kid is developmentally or how much potential my child has. That's what coaches are for. I'd like club to do evaluations without making us seem like annoying parents for demanding them. Frankly, I want there to be more ongoing conversation between the coach and my kid with me staying out of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are adding making this way more complicated than it needs to be and bubble players just don't happen in a vacuum.

1. If your playing time went from 60% to 30% you might be a bubble player.
2. If your player is suddenly seeing reduced playing time and playing in vastly different positions, you might be a bubble player.
3. If a new kid comes in and starts in your kids main position, you might be a bubble player.
4. If your kid is asked to "guest" in a couple of games on the lower team, you might be a bubble player.

Fine. Who cares? I guess if your kid is a bubble player they deserve no feedback, coaching or encouragement? You you think that it is totally acceptable to cut fully participating youth players mid season because they must know they are bubble players? It is right to significantly reduce or eliminate the playing time of a fully contributing, committed player because new kids are added to the team (and there is no lower team)?

Basically, you seem to be saying that unless your child starts and plays an entire match, they are clearly bubble players, they obviously suck, they must know they suck, and if they had better parents, they would take them elsewhere. OK. You prove my point, which is that it must be all about winning now. I think that kids can learn from being bench players. I'm not shopping from club to club because my child isn't a starter.

You do realize that in your C team statements you proved my point, right? Today's little tiny non-starter may be tomorrow's star. Today's man child striker could be tomorrow's bench player. Both need to work, independent of their size, on their other abilities. But the not quite there kid is less likely to get better (or stick with it) if she's always an afterthought and never gets to play.

It isn't about "who cares" it is about tell tale signs that should be a red flag that a conversation needs to happen with the coach. Yes, not all coaches do not communicate with parents or parents particularly well but they do speak through playing time, and positional roles.

As far a C teams, yes, they are transient. C teams exist to keep kids playing the game at a competitive level. Some kids improve and advance and others do not. Some kids/paretns care if their kids improve and advance and others do not. Every year during the spring season players and coaches alike should be assessing where they are. Coaches are assessing if players are a good fit or not. Parents should also be assessing their players role on the team and the overall improvement of the player and team.

But the not quite there kid is less likely to get better (or stick with it) if she's always an afterthought and never gets to play.

This is the perfect example of the kid is not in the right environment. The player should either move down a team in the club or seek another team for the following season. Sometimes things just don't work out.

If your kid was on a C team for a year, has improved a great deal, is the best player on the team and does not move---you need to switch Clubs. It happens. We had several benchwarmers that hardly play the entire season move up because of parent pressure or the Club owed the family a favor, while the kid that played the entire game every game and was a crucial/key player did not move. Zero behavioral or parental issues. If anything, we were the least PIA/quiet and supportive parents on the team. And the Coach had him listed as #1 when giving names to TD/age group head. I am not a squeaky wheel. When we announced we were leaving, they were shocked. They offered to move the kid up to get us to stay. That completely turned me off. Too little, too late. My kid said 'who wants to get on a team that way'?

Ended making a much more competitive A team, playing and starting in a First Division of a competitive league vs the low division in the middling league where we were before. Sometimes the only option is to move on. The kid has progressed light years playing at a higher speed and against better players. He never would have had that opportunity at the other Club.

There is sticking it out and working hard, but at some point you need to realize that it is futile at some Clubs and it doesn't matter if you progress above the players above you---they just aren't demoting their favorites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are adding making this way more complicated than it needs to be and bubble players just don't happen in a vacuum.

1. If your playing time went from 60% to 30% you might be a bubble player.
2. If your player is suddenly seeing reduced playing time and playing in vastly different positions, you might be a bubble player.
3. If a new kid comes in and starts in your kids main position, you might be a bubble player.
4. If your kid is asked to "guest" in a couple of games on the lower team, you might be a bubble player.

Fine. Who cares? I guess if your kid is a bubble player they deserve no feedback, coaching or encouragement? You you think that it is totally acceptable to cut fully participating youth players mid season because they must know they are bubble players? It is right to significantly reduce or eliminate the playing time of a fully contributing, committed player because new kids are added to the team (and there is no lower team)?

Basically, you seem to be saying that unless your child starts and plays an entire match, they are clearly bubble players, they obviously suck, they must know they suck, and if they had better parents, they would take them elsewhere. OK. You prove my point, which is that it must be all about winning now. I think that kids can learn from being bench players. I'm not shopping from club to club because my child isn't a starter.

You do realize that in your C team statements you proved my point, right? Today's little tiny non-starter may be tomorrow's star. Today's man child striker could be tomorrow's bench player. Both need to work, independent of their size, on their other abilities. But the not quite there kid is less likely to get better (or stick with it) if she's always an afterthought and never gets to play.

It isn't about "who cares" it is about tell tale signs that should be a red flag that a conversation needs to happen with the coach. Yes, not all coaches do not communicate with parents or parents particularly well but they do speak through playing time, and positional roles.

As far a C teams, yes, they are transient. C teams exist to keep kids playing the game at a competitive level. Some kids improve and advance and others do not. Some kids/paretns care if their kids improve and advance and others do not. Every year during the spring season players and coaches alike should be assessing where they are. Coaches are assessing if players are a good fit or not. Parents should also be assessing their players role on the team and the overall improvement of the player and team.

But the not quite there kid is less likely to get better (or stick with it) if she's always an afterthought and never gets to play.

This is the perfect example of the kid is not in the right environment. The player should either move down a team in the club or seek another team for the following season. Sometimes things just don't work out.

Anonymous wrote:You are adding making this way more complicated than it needs to be and bubble players just don't happen in a vacuum.

1. If your playing time went from 60% to 30% you might be a bubble player.
2. If your player is suddenly seeing reduced playing time and playing in vastly different positions, you might be a bubble player.
3. If a new kid comes in and starts in your kids main position, you might be a bubble player.
4. If your kid is asked to "guest" in a couple of games on the lower team, you might be a bubble player.

Fine. Who cares? I guess if your kid is a bubble player they deserve no feedback, coaching or encouragement? You you think that it is totally acceptable to cut fully participating youth players mid season because they must know they are bubble players? It is right to significantly reduce or eliminate the playing time of a fully contributing, committed player because new kids are added to the team (and there is no lower team)?

Basically, you seem to be saying that unless your child starts and plays an entire match, they are clearly bubble players, they obviously suck, they must know they suck, and if they had better parents, they would take them elsewhere. OK. You prove my point, which is that it must be all about winning now. I think that kids can learn from being bench players. I'm not shopping from club to club because my child isn't a starter.

You do realize that in your C team statements you proved my point, right? Today's little tiny non-starter may be tomorrow's star. Today's man child striker could be tomorrow's bench player. Both need to work, independent of their size, on their other abilities. But the not quite there kid is less likely to get better (or stick with it) if she's always an afterthought and never gets to play.

Depending on the age of the player the C team is really the line between travel and rec soccer. Once a player is on the full field playing on the C team is essentially organized rec soccer. Take the C team at High School ages, if there even are any. These teams are loaded with kids who are either still passionate about the game or are playing for social reasons. But at this level and age other things are usually more important.

Younger kids on C teams are a different story and it is not surprising that C team kids make the A team, especially at U13-U14 when puberty hits as well as the first wave of kids who wish to play or try other things weeds out players.

But frankly C teams by their nature are very transient and there is not much that will ever change that. During 11v11 years the best C team player is the 37th ranked player in the club. How the club came to that conclusion is certainly full of faults but it is safe to say that the 37th best kid is certainly a bubble B team player. Bubble players at all levels are most likely to move to a better situation if one presents itself. The only kids who stay put are those middle kids on the team.

My child is relatively young, and has been on the C team for two years. I know why - he is very small for his age and although his technical skills are pretty good, his aggression level is not where it needs to be. I have no problem with paying for him to be on the C team, and don't care if he moves up, except for one reason. A lot of the other kids on the team are just a mess - and I don't in terms of soccer ability. They don't show up for practices, they don't listen to the coach, and they goof around a lot. I wish I could find a C team full of players like DS - not top players, but focused on soccer. I don't know where such a C team exists, though.

You are adding making this way more complicated than it needs to be and bubble players just don't happen in a vacuum.

1. If your playing time went from 60% to 30% you might be a bubble player.
2. If your player is suddenly seeing reduced playing time and playing in vastly different positions, you might be a bubble player.
3. If a new kid comes in and starts in your kids main position, you might be a bubble player.
4. If your kid is asked to "guest" in a couple of games on the lower team, you might be a bubble player.

You also make some valid points, however....

Depending on the age of the player the C team is really the line between travel and rec soccer. Once a player is on the full field playing on the C team is essentially organized rec soccer. Take the C team at High School ages, if there even are any. These teams are loaded with kids who are either still passionate about the game or are playing for social reasons. But at this level and age other things are usually more important.

Younger kids on C teams are a different story and it is not surprising that C team kids make the A team, especially at U13-U14 when puberty hits as well as the first wave of kids who wish to play or try other things weeds out players.

But frankly C teams by their nature are very transient and there is not much that will ever change that. During 11v11 years the best C team player is the 37th ranked player in the club. How the club came to that conclusion is certainly full of faults but it is safe to say that the 37th best kid is certainly a bubble B team player. Bubble players at all levels are most likely to move to a better situation if one presents itself. The only kids who stay put are those middle kids on the team.

I'm not going to call you a liar here but the bolded part I do not believe happened at all at least not in the sense of a player in good standing, mid season was told by the coach and by the club that they have been replaced and are now off the team and out of the club. The contract is for the year and unless payments have not been made, conduct that is detrimental to the team, or a player simply is no longer attending practices no players are cut loose mid season. I would believe that a player and parent got upset about a new kid and their players role changed. This may have led to a departure mid season but that is not the same as being cut.

First, as to the C team argument, trust me, that kid is small and he was never going to get a look at his old club because that's how they do things there. No one watches the lower teams and coaches don't advocate for their players to move up. I've seen if for years. As a parent of a small player, I know well that the timing of puberty makes a huge difference at 12, 13, 14, etc., but that is one of my points. Some of those small kids have a ton of talent - keep giving them quality training so that they can be top team players when they grow. Don't stick them on a C team with rec players and have them scrimmage every practice (and charge thousands of dollars for the privilege).

As to the part I bolded, I assure you that I am not lying, but perhaps I wasn't clear about how the "cuts" came about. The families received notice over the winter saying that going forward, we don't see your kid making the roster or getting playing time, so we are going to part ways (and provide a partial refund). The kid wasn't told that he was being replaced for someone else, but then a new player shows up and is added to the team. There was no advance warning. Perhaps experience is part of the reason why we see things differently? Why I think that the dynamics of club soccer is detrimental to the soccer and emotional development of many kids?

Frankly, even if I accepted your argument that soccer is a year to year commitment, that idea might be palatable if clubs actually honored that single year commitment for the entire year. By this I mean:

1) You commit to the club, coach and team for a year:
2) The coach and team remain the relatively the same for the year no mid-season coaching changes and see #4 below) (barring emergencies, of course);
3) You have an idea when you make the commitment what the roster size will be (as in, don't tell us the roster size is 16 and then wind up with 22 kids);
4) No new players are added to the team during the season (aside from injuries or departures), increasing the roster size or significantly taking away playing time;
5) This one is important - players and/or families are given regular, quality feedback regarding performance, strengths, weaknesses, and areas to work on. Whether a demotion is a cut or natural movement reflecting that development is not linear, or whatever, it feels like a "cut" if the player or parents (depending on age) are not aware of bubble status.

Someone posted this link earlier, but there is good advice there about what I would like to see at more clubs

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/81127/running-a-youth-club-steve-gans-advice-for-docs.html

Here is a quotation:
Every year I advise many parents regarding college recruiting and during the time of tryouts for the next club season. One particular scenario I have seen often that is regrettably common amongst many clubs is the following: a player who has played several years for a club attends tryouts for the next season and does not thereafter receive any communication for a protracted period of time (though they know that other players are receiving offers for the team). Parents understandably become frustrated and perplexed, and they wonder what is going on.

In my experience, this sudden silence from the familiar club means that the player is on the “bubble” of making the team, and the coach is waiting out the process to see how many extended offers will be accepted. The awkward situation develops as a result of less than ideal DOC communication skills or policies, and simply put, long-serving club players and their families deserve more straightforward communication about where they stand.

That is a situation in my opinion wherein it is absolutely appropriate for a parent to contact the DOC to ask for a timely explanation.


Also, keep in mind that while you do deny that a demotion is a "cut," a change in team can be about way more than just finding an appropriate environment developmentally. In my experience, with multiple kids, EDP is the best league with the best competition and the least amount of travel. If all of a club's teams play in EDP, moving to an A to B team (for a strong team) might be fine. But if it the difference between EDP and say CCL2, that's more travel for a lower level of competition. Or, if you have two kids in a club, the CCL idea is that all of the club's teams play in one place each day. I'm not a fan of the CCL, but makes some sense from that perspective. If one kid is demoted to CCL2 team and the other remains in CCL, the entire dynamic changes for a family. It is way more travel and will result in the family going separate ways every weekend.

Everyone wants to make this about unreasonable parents huffing and puffing that clubs don't see their kids as future stars. There are plenty of crazies. But more of us are reasonable than you think. I have no problem if any coach thinks my child does not fit on a team or isn't working hard. But the coach should be communicating with the child on a regular basis. The time to learn about bubble status, or perceived lack of effort, or whatever is not following tryouts. Kid not hustling? Fine - challenge him to do better or sit him on the bench. But don't tell him that if he hustles he will get more playing time, notice that he hustles, and then keep him on the bench because you added a new player to the team who plays his position. That's the type of situation I'm complaining about. The best players are naturally motivated, driven by ego. Many others struggle with motivation and confidence. It is way more healthy for a kid to be challenged and to develop within the context of the team. The more outside factors beyond kids' control, whether it is parental relationships (i.e. parent coach never takes his kid out), new players join team, younger players play up so that bench players don't get in a game, etc., the more the experience seems random and not fun.

Communicating and motivating players is the job of a coach. What I am saying is that many, many coaches and clubs are failing in this regard. From the outside looking in, it seems like clubs are more interested in adding players from elsewhere, harming other clubs by taking away their players, increasing chances of winning now at the expense of players who they picked and who regularly attend practice and work, than they are at actually communicating with their players and promoting their development.

Anonymous wrote:We've had multiple kids in travel soccer, and I share all the frustrations that others have raised about the fractured league situation we have now. One of our kids has had what I consider to be an excellent overall experience with the leagues he's played iin though. We're in MD, and his pathway was:

OBSL starting in 2d grade--a great, low-key developmental league with little travel

NCSL for u10-U12 (back when it was the primary local travel league before the dark day CCL north started its power grab and propaganda campaign). The pro/rel aspect that started with spring U11 was incredible. The way teams had to scrap to move up a division or get to the top of D1 made for exciting soccer and outstanding rivalries.

U13 pre-academy before the DA had younger age groups--a bit of a drag with all the travel at that age, but a much higher level of competition.

U14-U19 DA--excellent competition, more intense training, pretty reasonable travel schedule with just 2 showcases a year plus playoffs if things went well, all for less $$ than regular travel. Outstanding college recruitment, and national team opportunities for the top kids in each region. A large percentage of his teammates and local DA competitors are the kids who he played with or against during the glory years of NCSL. They've all followed each other around since they were 10.

Next up: playing in college.

Any advice about the recruiting process for playing in college?