Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a well managed club. Thank you for the information. It's really nice they were able to offer a game for the 2nd team that week. It seems like the coaches had a strict cut off date/time for families to RSVP by the last training session so that the coach could figure out how many kids were available?

[b]One thing I do not like about our club is that many families wait until the last minute to say whether they are attending or not so sometimes last season the coaches called up kids from a lower team and the roster was inflated beyond 18.

Anonymous wrote:I also think the clubs like to keep good players from going to other clubs who might beat them. Keep 24 on your roster instead of letting 6 good players go elsewhere where they will develop into a player who beats you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all the local MLSNext/ECNL clubs like this - having large rosters?

For boys it depends on the club and age group. Generally, boys and girls older age groups (U16 and above) start to have larger rosters.

Some MLS clubs do a pretty good job of keeping a smaller player pool per age group and often use 2nd team players to fill for injuries (Bethesda boys). The smaller clubs (Achilles) often have smaller rosters as well and kids often play up. DC United is really large at older age groups (U17), which is to be expected. But kids/families don’t pay anymore and get free equipment (shoes, training gear, etc)

For ECNL boys most of the teams do a good job of balancing regional roster and top team it seems, but there are outliers.

Is this just for injuries or do kids that are developing and getting better than a top team player ever get moved ?

Again, depends on the club and age. Happens frequently in younger age groups (up to U14), after that not as often. More likely to see a kid on the first team overtake others on his team.

But at a big club even if you’re a main player on the 2nd team and the first team has a roster of 25+, not likely. It happens, but not frequently. And then even if a kid does move up, they’re not likely to play a lot - especially considering no reentry. It begs the question would you rather be one of the top 5 guys on the 2nd team and play significant minutes w/ an sig role; or roster spot 14-25+ on the first team, we little to no PT and little role for the team on game days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a u18/19 team, we aren’t a “big elite” club. Last season we had games where 12 and 13 kids showed up bc of add’l commitments.

It’s not necessarily a “money grab”. Coaches need to have numbers in training, and need committed bodies for matches.

Injuries occur very often at the older age groups as well, and don’t forget that just bc the initial roster has 24 that doesn’t mean that all 24 players will be returning.

It’s very possible that more players in training sessions will weed out those that are there just to have fun and do what they want. There are also likely 3-4 players who might not be up to par who can develop and get better just by attending sessions.

I see both sides of the argument, keeping kids just to pay, but if you end up cutting 3-4 dedicated kids as a coach it’s difficult. You can have discussions w these kids and say “look, you might be a training player next season and might get left off of a few match day rosters” and if the player has a problem w it, they can find another club.

Some kids don’t have options for another club.

So for the pre-season tournament, do you just tell 4 kids not to come? Do you at least refund them that portion of their team dues?

No I think this is the common misconception in youth soccer. You’re paying for the trading sessions and to be part of the club, not just to play games.

Sessions make players better. Coaching makes players better.

Paying for games and “college coach exposure” is the wrong mindset in my opinion. They are still part of the team, they are still participating. They’ll get a refund bc they don’t play in games? Every kid isn’t playing in college, a lot of kids will be more successful being part of a team.

It’s not personal it’s based on ability, you’d be surprised how many parents see the value of being part of a team and learning to sacrifice for the greater good. All of these kids show up, root for their teammates when they’re injured. I don’t force them to, it’s just our current environment and it’s so much more important to me than results.

Kids don’t develop just by winning and playing, I think this mindset hinders so many kids development.

We have club dues that pay for everything but tournaments. We have team fees for tournaments. There is a difference between not playing on the bench and not even being rostered for the tournament because your club carries too many players. If my kid wasn't even going to be rostered, I'd ask for that portion back because we are not driving and then staying in a hotel so that our kid can watch from the sideline, not even in uniform.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make this sound like the clubs are here to cater to us, the customers. Clubs are like any other business. They all prefer to put their competitors out of business. From their standpoint, if there are willing customers to pay to be #20 and above, it's the customer's decision. Why don't we as consumers refuse to join a team who will roster more than 20 players? I see too many parents + players who care more about the logo and league patch on their jerseys than playing on a lower level team where they'd get more development and playing time. Paying for the MLS or ECNL patch is just like any other designer label for many customers and clubs know this. Clubs are catering to what the paying customer is willing to pay for. . .

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I know players who spent 3 or 4 years on an ECNL team and played, and I'm not exaggerating, 5 - 10 minutes a game! I've never understood why anyone who do this (and continue to do it year after year) but I've also reached the same conclusion as you and that is that the ECNL patch is all important to some people. "I'm on an ECNL team that wins a lot!". Right. You are on the roster and you pay as much as everyone else does....but you play 5 - 10 minutes a game!

Anonymous wrote:You make this sound like the clubs are here to cater to us, the customers. Clubs are like any other business. They all prefer to put their competitors out of business. From their standpoint, if there are willing customers to pay to be #20 and above, it's the customer's decision. Why don't we as consumers refuse to join a team who will roster more than 20 players? I see too many parents + players who care more about the logo and league patch on their jerseys than playing on a lower level team where they'd get more development and playing time. Paying for the MLS or ECNL patch is just like any other designer label for many customers and clubs know this. Clubs are catering to what the paying customer is willing to pay for. . .

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s ok for teams to carry this many players when there are clubs with thin rosters all throughout the region. I’d love to the clubs to get together and all cap rosters at 17 and then work together to find teams for kids who need a team. The whole tryout window doesn’t meet the needs of players or their families and they are the ones who are paying and driving and giving up their time. It’s sad that some teams in the area have 24 kids and others are searching for subs. Not to take away from the competitiveness of things but if you have a good 17 do you need 7 more? Wouldn’t it be better to play a competitive opponent that has subs rather than have you team winning a game 5-1 and half your team only played 15 minutes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:24 on roster could possibly be too much but not always. Around 22 for older age groups seems to be the right number for reasons mentioned in this thread (high school, college visits, injuries, etc.). Most teams I have seen with just 18 rostered are usually (more often than not) struggling to field full teams with some subs to give breathers by the end of a season in leagues of with a high level of competition. And many clubs will let those not rostered play with the B team on that given week. Either way, I do support at the older age groups (u17+) having kids earn their time by performance in training and in games. This is not popular opinion for parents of kids that don't get as much time. I have had kids on both ends of this (one who played for fun and only got 15-20 minutes per match and one who played nearly every minute, was a star, and still plays in college). The one who played for fun knew her place on the team and made decisions on how hard she wanted to work to earn more time. I think the earn your way approach at older ages sets kids up well for the truth they will face in college soccer (if they go that route) and definitely in the journey of life and is one of many steps to help with maturity growth. Not everyone will be the star and not everyone deserves equal time. Not fun to discuss or internalize, but true. I will not go on a rant but the "entitlement factor" is a big part of the problem in the world I see today.

I’d agree that 24 is not always too many, but the coach/club needs to do a good job of communicating the overall picture and individually per player. That rarely/almost never happens, in my experience.

But, there are a lot of factors. At a big club (3 or more teams per age group), there’s no reason for 24, you can pull from other teams short term (both up and down), and given that environment (large player pool) and the large fees (over $3k) I don’t think it’s an issue of entitlement.

My DC’s club has 5 teams at age group. Top 2 have a combined roster of over 50 at this point (and adding, top team is mls next w/ 26 kids). There’s no real resason for such large rosters w/ a player pool of over 100…other than cold hard cash.

I completely agree that with larger rosters the communication aspect is critical to set expectations. I agree that cold hard cash is also a big factor. It is American soccer where it is all about money unlike many other countries. That is the American way and we have to live with it. My son's team last year started with 24. Two moved away to an MLS academy in another city, two were injured and we had a few here and there that couldn't make games along the way. It worked out and in weeks where we had more than 18 there was proactive communication on what would happen with any player not being rostered. Absolutely should not see situations where kids travel out of town to a tourney and find out when they arrive. That is just unacceptable. Expectation setting is key (and has to be done proactively). The money grab factor will be factor will always be there and if a player is not good enough to get the amount of field time they desire they can choose to work harder to get there or move to another club or lower team in same club (and that is not always going to solve the play time issue as all teams are not equal).

It sounds like this team was run in a satisfactory way. How did the coach decide when there was more than 18? How soon before the game did he communicate who would be rostering? I would understand if my child were left off a roster sometimes if she was not as good as others but I would want to know as far in advance so that we could make alternate plans.