POLL - College athletes - young stars or no?

[CaliKlines]

Did the club ask her to play up, DD initiate it or parents asked the coach about it? Not judging, just trying to get a feel for how the politics tend to play out... I’ve been trying to be as hands off as possible, but wondering if I should be more proactive...

The Strikers ECNL season was finished in May. (Did not qualify for playoffs). Her new team was competing in the USYS National Championships, and she was unable to be rostered until after the finals. I was speaking to the coach of the older team (within the same new club) at a practice, and it was his suggestion to have her guest at Surf. I had encouraged her to guest at some other tournaments/events with a variety of teams to get her used to playing with different teams and coaches, so she was up for it.

Lots of different paths. There isn’t any one single way, other than it is very important to have a player with the desire.

 

[Supermodel56]

With all due respect, my sense is the your survey and the questions you are asking for misses the mark.

That’s a fair statement -
the forum only allowed me to ask one question in the poll which is why I was hoping folks would comment and elaborate since I’m sure there are a lot of unique stories... and just to clarify, it was asking what year the player started dominating, not to choose one year they did. Janie made a great point in also asking when they stopped - if at all... we assume that our kids should be at the top and stay that way throughout when the game changes and the competition gets a lot tougher... is that a realistic expectation?

Re: early vs late bloomers, so far it does seem like most players were dominating at some point prior to U12. Others, never at all, but just consistent throughout. I find it interesting that no one said their kid all of a sudden became a top player after U13 - which leads me to believe there’s really no such thing as the late bloomer - maybe more beneficial for boys but not girls since puberty seems to do more “harm” than good for their game.

I’m curious, was your younger dominating like your older was at the younger ages before he moved onto other sports?

I agree a lot when it comes to fit, desire, and natural genetic/athletic/body type traits. The purpose of the poll wasn’t to determine if your kid would be able to be a college player if they had XYZ, it was to see if being a dominating player at a young age a critical factor, a contraindication, or if you were just as likely to be playing college soccer if you were a late bloomer and early talent meant nothing. Based on the responses so far, it looks like if you’re thinking college soccer (D1-3) for your kid, at minimum they should have demonstrated some serious talent at some point before U12.

 

[mirage]

I’m curious, was your younger dominating like your older was at the younger ages before he moved onto other sports?

Sorry if I confused you. Our younger played multiple sports but is still playing soccer and have not moved onto another sport.

The answer is no to your question. Our younger never dominated at younger ages. In fact he was not at all athletic and not very coordinated either. That said, puberty has been very kind to him. He is significantly faster, leaner and far more coordinated than he ever was. Still, not much as his older brother, but has many other characteristics and attributes that far exceeds his older sibling.

.....I find it interesting that no one said their kid all of a sudden became a top player after U13 - which leads me to believe there’s really no such thing as the late bloomer - maybe more beneficial for boys but not girls since puberty seems to do more “harm” than good for their game.

......Based on the responses so far, it looks like if you’re thinking college soccer (D1-3) for your kid, at minimum they should have demonstrated some serious talent at some point before U12.

Maybe for girls but not for boys, as you so noted. For boys it can makes fast kids slower, shorter kids taller or faster kids even faster and so on.

I do disagree with the statement that a player most likely needs to be dominate before U12 for boys, as puberty is a huge part of change. There are plenty of examples that show non-dominate players that make it big on the boys side all sports.

Since the forum is mostly populated with girls parents these days, the impression you've reached is no surprise. Just want to add clarification point how different the genders are when it comes to transitioning from childhood to adulthood in terms of sports. Its not to say that there aren't similarities - there are - but the differences are greater.

 

[Supermodel56]

Sorry if I confused you. Our younger played multiple sports but is still playing soccer and have not moved onto another sport.

Are you thinking he's going to play soccer in college?

I do disagree with the statement that a player most likely needs to be dominate before U12 for boys, as puberty is a huge part of change. There are plenty of examples that show non-dominate players that make it big on the boys side all sports.

I agree with you - for boys it really could go either way. From everyone I've talked to re:girls, puberty has generally had a negative effect - it's just a matter of to what degree - but I could be wrong. Too bad the poll doesn't let you ask/link multiple questions...

For the 20% parents responding that their kid never really dominated - I'm curious what position, gender, division they ended up playing in college... do those kids ever end up playing D1? I should probably just create a legitimate survey and look at all the different factors... would be really interesting to see!

 

[mirage]

Are you thinking he's going to play soccer in college?

As I've indicated in the original post, no. The younger kid has no interest in playing soccer for college. He says he'll continue to play via college club team or intramural for fun. He's very well balanced, personable kid with smarts so its all good. We're just working the last mile to get his SAT score at or over 1500.

.....I'm curious what position, gender, division they ended up playing in college... do those kids ever end up playing D1?...

As my final note, its always interesting to read many on this forum equate college soccer to D1, or at least focus solely on D1. Frankly, I believe, its misguided to view it that way.

While many of the top schools are D1, they are also D2 and D3. And depending on how important academic quality of the institution is a factor, NCAA D1~D3 are a dependent variable. In other words, think of it this way. A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major. Which would you pick? Taking nothing away from CC, UofC has a significantly higher stature when transitioning to working career.

There are other D3 schools that are similar or better (MIT, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon and so on) so its a matter of the right fit and priorities of the player and the family. And don't forget NAIA either. If the objective is to play, then the division shouldn't matter as much as playing or not playing.... what do you think??

 

[Zerodenero]

As I've indicated in the original post, no. The younger kid has no interest in playing soccer for college. He says he'll continue to play via college club team or intramural for fun. He's very well balanced, personable kid with smarts so its all good. We're just working the last mile to get his SAT score at or over 1500.



As my final note, its always interesting to read many on this forum equate college soccer to D1, or at least focus solely on D1. Frankly, I believe, its misguided to view it that way.

While many of the top schools are D1, they are also D2 and D3. And depending on how important academic quality of the institution is a factor, NCAA D1~D3 are a dependent variable. In other words, think of it this way. A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major. Which would you pick? Taking nothing away from CC, UofC has a significantly higher stature when transitioning to working career.

There are other D3 schools that are similar or better (MIT, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon and so on) so its a matter of the right fit and priorities of the player and the family. And don't forget NAIA either. If the objective is to play, then the division shouldn't matter as much as playing or not playing.... what do you think??

Truth right here

 

[Supermodel56]

As my final note, its always interesting to read many on this forum equate college soccer to D1, or at least focus solely on D1. Frankly, I believe, its misguided to view it that way.

While many of the top schools are D1, they are also D2 and D3. And depending on how important academic quality of the institution is a factor, NCAA D1~D3 are a dependent variable. In other words, think of it this way. A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major. Which would you pick? Taking nothing away from CC, UofC has a significantly higher stature when transitioning to working career.

There are other D3 schools that are similar or better (MIT, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon and so on) so its a matter of the right fit and priorities of the player and the family. And don't forget NAIA either. If the objective is to play, then the division shouldn't matter as much as playing or not playing.... what do you think??

I totally agree, the only reason I use D1 is because I'm generally assuming if your player can play at the D1 level, D2/3/NAIA should be an option for them... but yes, the school should be a right fit for the kid's career, academic, and social goals.

 

[Justafan]

A player is recruited by U of Chicago (D3) and Coastal Carolina (D1), and wants to be a business major. Which would you pick?

Give me U of C even without the soccer.