2011 Boys Soccer Verbal Commitments

[Unregistered]

Hmm. The only Bolts player that I've heard going to Williams is a former Vikings players on the non-DAP team. A good player, but not DAP and definitely not a product of Bolts development since he just joined the program this fall. .

You obviously didn't read the Globe All Scholastics Soccer issue.

I guess you and your sources just aren't as informed as you think you are. Ha Ha.

[Unregistered]

The UNH player is on the Revs after he committed. Non-DAP Player.

DAP player. DAP roster.
How long did Caldwell play for Revs DAP? Or the player currently at BC?
Sorry. You're wrong.

[Unregistered]

DAP player. DAP roster.
How long did Caldwell play for Revs DAP? Or the player currently at BC?
Sorry. You're wrong.

I believe he was with the Revs for his U18 season only because the NE Eagles did not field a U18 team at the time. What's your point? Are you trying to say that the DAP was the reason for him or the UNH player being recruited to D1? If you are, how can you justify your position? These players were committed before ever putting thier Revs jersey on. Keep drinking the kool-aid

[Unregistered]

I believe he was with the Revs for his U18 season only because the NE Eagles did not field a U18 team at the time. What's your point? Are you trying to say that the DAP was the reason for him or the UNH player being recruited to D1? If you are, how can you justify your position? These players were committed before ever putting thier Revs jersey on. Keep drinking the kool-aid

The DAP folks will look to claim every player they can, even if DAP had absolutely nothing to do with the commitment. They can't even answer whether the commitments of the kids who actually have been playing DAP would have happened without DAP. They look foolish. Even if DAP players end up edging non-DAPers in regard to commitments the fact that a debate can even occur is an embarrassment for these folks who have been claiming that non-DAP couldn't play DAP, or were stupid if they could but didn't, or that non-DAPers couldn't find their way into a college commitment because DAP is monopolizing all of the recruiting avenues.

And btw, I didn't see anyone criticize a Williams commitment. Congrats to the kid or kids who achieved that, aside from the DAP issue. Major accomplishment, and they must be very talented kids on the field and in the classroom.

[Unregistered]

DAP player. DAP roster.

ok, fine. They are DAP players now. The discussion has always been does the DAP really provide that extra exposure to D1. While other parts of the country this may be true, so far the local DAP teams have not placed any more D1 players for the class of 2011 than non-DAP clubs.

DAP: PC (2), Bucknell, Cin

non-DAP: BC, HC, UNH, UVM

You have to consider who did these players play for at U16 and U17. Those are the recruiting years, not U18.

[Unregistered]

ok, fine. They are DAP players now. The discussion has always been does the DAP really provide that extra exposure to D1. While other parts of the country this may be true, so far the local DAP teams have not placed any more D1 players for the class of 2011 than non-DAP clubs.

DAP: PC (2), Bucknell, Cin

non-DAP: BC, HC, UNH, UVM

You have to consider who did these players play for at U16 and U17. Those are the recruiting years, not U18.

1 of the BC kids (TM) is DAP for Bolts, and the HC Kid (AB) is DAP for IMG, although that is not a local DEV Acad club. CB is also DAP for revs so it is about 50-50 for non DAP vs DAP

[Unregistered]

there are 2 kids going to Williams, one who is a current DAP player and the other is currently on the non DAP Bolts team (but from u15-u17 was with SFV)

TM for BC was not a part of Bolts for U16 or U17 but did play Bolts prior
CB was not a part of Revs until this year so its hard to say Revs did anything for him in terms of recruiting

[Unregistered]

there are 2 kids going to Williams, one who is a current DAP player and the other is currently on the non DAP Bolts team (but from u15-u17 was with SFV)

TM for BC was not a part of Bolts for U16 or U17 but did play Bolts prior
CB was not a part of Revs until this year so its hard to say Revs did anything for him in terms of recruiting

Exactly. And some of the kids that are playing DAP this year are among the non-DAP players last year that some DAP poster(s) insisted could not play DAP or else they already would have been playing DAP.

I'd like to see the commitments list for DAP players who played DAP for 3-4 consecutive years since U16. My guess is that at least a few are exceptional students who would have landed at the same or similar elite D3 schools with or without DAP....the prep school and suburban west groups.

[Unregistered]

ummm, the Bucknell player graduated in 2010 (we're talking about 2011) and the 2 PC players went to HS in Rhode Island and 1 is in his first year with the Bolts DAP team. Nice Try.

This post borders on moronic. This thread is about players entering college in 2011. The 2 PC players have been with Bolts DAP for a few years now. This is the kind of uninformed, ignorant posts that degrade this board. If someone sees this poster, give him a napkin for the egg on his face.

[Unregistered]

This post borders on moronic. This thread is about players entering college in 2011. The 2 PC players have been with Bolts DAP for a few years now. This is the kind of uninformed, ignorant posts that degrade this board. If someone sees this poster, give him a napkin for the egg on his face.

Why is the post moronic? PG or gap year players should be considered differently. A lot of players could do a PG year and enhance their prospects. And congrats to Rhode Island. But in terms of real 2011s from Massachusetts, where's the beef? Who are the Massachusetts DAP success stories? And where are the folks who have been insisting that DAP makes such a monumental difference given the results we're seeing for non-DAP and DAP-unassisted kids?

[Unregistered]

there are 2 kids going to Williams, one who is a current DAP player and the other is currently on the non DAP Bolts team (but from u15-u17 was with SFV)

TM for BC was not a part of Bolts for U16 or U17 but did play Bolts prior
CB was not a part of Revs until this year so its hard to say Revs did anything for him in terms of recruiting

Wasn't MF, TM's classmate and a BC recruit, also part of the Vikings? ESPN Rise shows no current club affiliation. But I have heard he was a BC commit quite early in the process.

[Unregistered]

The DAP folks will look to claim every player they can, even if DAP had absolutely nothing to do with the commitment. They can't even answer whether the commitments of the kids who actually have been playing DAP would have happened without DAP. They look foolish. Even if DAP players end up edging non-DAPers in regard to commitments the fact that a debate can even occur is an embarrassment for these folks who have been claiming that non-DAP couldn't play DAP, or were stupid if they could but didn't, or that non-DAPers couldn't find their way into a college commitment because DAP is monopolizing all of the recruiting avenues.

And btw, I didn't see anyone criticize a Williams commitment. Congrats to the kid or kids who achieved that, aside from the DAP issue. Major accomplishment, and they must be very talented kids on the field and in the classroom.

Unless you have kept a log of each of the kid's playing history, and been intimately involved with the family during their college search, then no one can answer whether DAP had anything to do with the committment.

Why don't you offer proof that that the non DAP kids from Massachusetts that committed to colleges this year would not have attracted the attention of more schools if they played on a DAP team? Because you can't, any more so than any DAP supporter could offer proof that DAP helped the kids get offers from better schools to play soccer.

What you can't argue, what you can prove, and what would be easily evident to you if you would go watch a regular season DAP game and then a regular season MAPLE or even a Region 1 game is the number of college coaches at each event, and what schools they are from. US Soccer claimed that there were more than 350 coaches and scouts at the showcase tournament in Phoenix in early Decemver (list is here: http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/Develo...ttendance.aspx). In what non DAP competition does a kid have exposure to those schools over a three game/four day period?

I think it's quite evident you dislike the DAP. That's really OK. Everyone understands that kids from non DAP programs are going to commit to good schools. Those kids should be congratulated for their hard work, same as any kid from a DAP program. There is not one reason why a 15-18 year old kid who wants to play at the highest level, who is good enough to play at the highest level, who wants to give himself the best chance to be seen by the most number of college coaches and schools, and who wants to play in college, wouldn't want to play on a DAP team. I'm sure someone will respond about education, and that may be valid. But both the Revs and the Bolts rosters have kids from from the most prestigeous and academically rigorous boarding schools to kids from some of the worst school systems in New England. Look at the rosters of teh kids from teams in and out of New England, and you'll see the same thing. They all seem to be able to make it work. Both the Revs and the Bolts have kids on the roster who travel significant distances and/or live in other states. They all seem to make it work. If you want to say that DAP isn't for everybody, I agree with that. But there are dozens of examples of people making it work despite obstacles and inconveniences.

I get that DAP participants will defend the program. And I get that some are over the top with arrogance as a way of showing off their kid. There are also quieter people who are tired of the progtram being attacked by people who don't understand the program, won't take the time to read or see what it's about, or attack the program because of some long festering hatred for a team that is in the program (like the Bolts).

Your vehement defending of non DAP kids really just comes across as the bitter justification of a parent whose kid was not able to play on a DAP team. There isn't anyone on this forum who would believe that you are some non DAP particpating defender of MAPLE kids everywhere.

[Unregistered]

ok, fine. They are DAP players now. The discussion has always been does the DAP really provide that extra exposure to D1. While other parts of the country this may be true, so far the local DAP teams have not placed any more D1 players for the class of 2011 than non-DAP clubs.

DAP: PC (2), Bucknell, Cin

non-DAP: BC, HC, UNH, UVM

You have to consider who did these players play for at U16 and U17. Those are the recruiting years, not U18.

And you have to consider that you don't have a definitive list of who is goinf to what college. I mean really, this whole argument is just absurd.

[Unregistered]

1 of the BC kids (TM) is DAP for Bolts, and the HC Kid (AB) is DAP for IMG, although that is not a local DEV Acad club. CB is also DAP for revs so it is about 50-50 for non DAP vs DAP

TM committed before he went back to the Bolts. He was at two clubs after not making the DAP roster at U16. So really, what did DAP have to do with that? And while he is a terrific kid personally, does anyone seriously think that he was a hotly pursued soccer recruit for BC?

[Unregistered]

Unless you have kept a log of each of the kid's playing history, and been intimately involved with the family during their college search, then no one can answer whether DAP had anything to do with the committment.

Why don't you offer proof that that the non DAP kids from Massachusetts that committed to colleges this year would not have attracted the attention of more schools if they played on a DAP team? Because you can't, any more so than any DAP supporter could offer proof that DAP helped the kids get offers from better schools to play soccer.

What you can't argue, what you can prove, and what would be easily evident to you if you would go watch a regular season DAP game and then a regular season MAPLE or even a Region 1 game is the number of college coaches at each event, and what schools they are from. US Soccer claimed that there were more than 350 coaches and scouts at the showcase tournament in Phoenix in early Decemver (list is here: http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/Develo...ttendance.aspx). In what non DAP competition does a kid have exposure to those schools over a three game/four day period?

I think it's quite evident you dislike the DAP. That's really OK. Everyone understands that kids from non DAP programs are going to commit to good schools. Those kids should be congratulated for their hard work, same as any kid from a DAP program. There is not one reason why a 15-18 year old kid who wants to play at the highest level, who is good enough to play at the highest level, who wants to give himself the best chance to be seen by the most number of college coaches and schools, and who wants to play in college, wouldn't want to play on a DAP team. I'm sure someone will respond about education, and that may be valid. But both the Revs and the Bolts rosters have kids from from the most prestigeous and academically rigorous boarding schools to kids from some of the worst school systems in New England. Look at the rosters of teh kids from teams in and out of New England, and you'll see the same thing. They all seem to be able to make it work. Both the Revs and the Bolts have kids on the roster who travel significant distances and/or live in other states. They all seem to make it work. If you want to say that DAP isn't for everybody, I agree with that. But there are dozens of examples of people making it work despite obstacles and inconveniences.

I get that DAP participants will defend the program. And I get that some are over the top with arrogance as a way of showing off their kid. There are also quieter people who are tired of the progtram being attacked by people who don't understand the program, won't take the time to read or see what it's about, or attack the program because of some long festering hatred for a team that is in the program (like the Bolts).

Your vehement defending of non DAP kids really just comes across as the bitter justification of a parent whose kid was not able to play on a DAP team. There isn't anyone on this forum who would believe that you are some non DAP particpating defender of MAPLE kids everywhere.

This advertisement brought to you by the Bolts DAP fan club.... and you still can't spell prestigious.

What do you mean by vehement? Posters have conceded that DAP may be preferable and that they get all the coaches. Why do you keep repeating that? What is questioned is what that actually means in terms of the final outcome. Posters are only arguing that non-DAP players can play college soccer if they are good enough. You repeatedly refuse to present any data EVEN from the 3-4 years DAP players, that the ultimate advantage is as great as you suggest. No one is saying that non-DAP is better, but the limited numbers here strongly suggest that the DAP advantage is more modest than claimed.