FCGB Names New Director of Girls Programs

[Unregistered]

I hope you don't put any any weight in those Top Drawer club rankings. I mean, it really doesn't matter to me what club your child plays for, but if you are using these rankings to choose a club, then you are making a mistake. The idea to rank clubs based on the criteria given is a good idea, the problem is in the execution and the fact that the rankings do not represent current trends.

[Unregistered]

The high ranking was largely (solely?) due to Tracy Kerr's team. It should fall dramatically once the numbers are updated with the 2009 grads and go to near zero the following year (they have no current U17 team).

[Reward youth development]

Crappy thing about this ranking system is it doesn't track the players' previous clubs.

For example:
If a player played for Boston United from U11-U15 then switched clubs to FC MASS for U16 and older, the player would forever be remembered as a Mass FC kid. When in reality he was developed by Boston Utd. and grew into the player he/she is today because of Boston Utd.

[Unregistered]

Beachbum is correct in saying that what the Bolts girls teams can't offer is top-flight competition. But should the club then scale back its fees accordingly? Maybe offer a 10% discount if a team plays in Division 2, a 15% discount for Division 3, and a 20% discount for MASC?

If they did something like that, how could they afford to pay the coaches their full salaries? Would coaches sign performance-based contracts linked to Maple success? I don't think so.

At any rate, the new Bolts DOC has his work cut out for him--not just with the Bolts, but at Wellesley. So far he hasn't improved on the one-year record of the previous coach (the All-American BC alum Sarah Rahko). Wellesley's last season ended with a whimper, a 1-0 loss to that soccer juggernaut, MIT.

In the long run it's all about recruiting, even at the youngest ages. What can the Bolts offer to get back in the game?

[Unregistered]

Beachbum is correct in saying that what the Bolts girls teams can't offer is top-flight competition. But should the club then scale back its fees accordingly? Maybe offer a 10% discount if a team plays in Division 2, a 15% discount for Division 3, and a 20% discount for MASC?

If they did something like that, how could they afford to pay the coaches their full salaries? Would coaches sign performance-based contracts linked to Maple success? I don't think so.

At any rate, the new Bolts DOC has his work cut out for him--not just with the Bolts, but at Wellesley. So far he hasn't improved on the one-year record of the previous coach (the All-American BC alum Sarah Rahko). Wellesley's last season ended with a whimper, a 1-0 loss to that soccer juggernaut, MIT.

In the long run it's all about recruiting, even at the youngest ages. What can the Bolts offer to get back in the game?

Talk about college that are hard to recruit to! Wellesley, a beautiful school, a great location and you can't beat the education, but hard to find girls that want to attend an all women's college in this day and age.

[Unregistered]

The girls side will rise again. Look for the current 13 team to hold its own this spring and some new players will make a difference in fall. Also the 16's will rebound.

Enough said.

[Unregistered]

The high ranking was largely (solely?) due to Tracy Kerr's team. It should fall dramatically once the numbers are updated with the 2009 grads and go to near zero the following year (they have no current U17 team).

That so? So Tracy's team, with only 16 or less currently playing in college, are the only reason for this? Not the other teams before hers in the history of the club that were among the top in the state. Also in more recent years, the players from the teams besides Tracy's that went to:
Columbia
Providence
UMASS Lowell
Colby
University of Alabama
Skidmore
Nichols
Salem State
Babson

Don't count? And the other black sheep U18 team from last year has players at:
UMASS Lowell (2)
Fordham
Lafayette
NYU
Bridgewater State
Lesley
Northeastern
Salem State

And the current U18 team that has almost all players committed, including one to NU.

The thing that this ranking does is look at not only if players play in college, but for how long. So pick it apart, make fun of not enough D1 looks, give all the credit to Tracy Kerr. Whatever makes you feel better about putting down a club that has obviously helped prepare girls for their college careers.

And by the way, it is up to the players to identify their club. There is a player at Columbia who played for another club her final year, but chose to give the credit in her bio to the Bolts. So that factor can be limited by the player.

[Unregistered]

This year's commits:

http://www.fcgreaterboston.com/Club/alumni.shtml

[Unregistered]

Talk about college that are hard to recruit to! Wellesley, a beautiful school, a great location and you can't beat the education, but hard to find girls that want to attend an all women's college in this day and age.

Or who can pony up $48K for tuition and room and board!

[Unregistered]

2009 grads look to score about 10 points on the TDS system.

[Unregistered]

2009 grads look to score about 10 points on the TDS system.

For the first year they play, that is correct. The others still playing in college will also score more points for the club, as each year they continue to play in college more points are earned.

There is one missing from the club listing - a player who has committed to Northeastern. There are also 2 who are going to Duke but not playing, both pre-med. And one who is a true U17.

[Unregistered]

I hope you don't put any any weight in those Top Drawer club rankings. I mean, it really doesn't matter to me what club your child plays for, but if you are using these rankings to choose a club, then you are making a mistake. The idea to rank clubs based on the criteria given is a good idea, the problem is in the execution and the fact that the rankings do not represent current trends.

And if your club was ranked up near the top you would say the same? Clubs that are among the top are there based on a history of proven results beyond wins/losses, instead on what players do after they leave the club. We call that player development. Seems like a good reason to choose a club to me.

[Unregistered]

And if your club was ranked up near the top you would say the same? Clubs that are among the top are there based on a history of proven results beyond wins/losses, instead on what players do after they leave the club. We call that player development. Seems like a good reason to choose a club to me.

No I wouldn't. It's a problem with the system across the board across the entire country. You'd be just as accurate picking names out of a hat. Some would accurately represent the top clubs and some wouldn't. You need to do your homeowrk, not depend on these rankings.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, but their U16s were st Scorpions Bowl. Unfortunately they weren't playing under the Bolts name.

What does this mean?

[Unregistered]

What does this mean?

I believe it's a reference to the current U16 Stars Rovers who use to playfor the Bolts.