2014 Boys Soccer Verbal Commitments

[Unregistered]

Different time in the life of an individual plus spending 3-4 per day besides traveling is not just a distraction. Coming from another continent, I think that sports in college make sense if someone will pursue a career connected with sports, got a great scholarship due to sports, and/or is using sports as the ticket to his/her dream school. I understand that it is fun to continue with sports, but I grew up knowing that by the end of high school the fun was over. Time to move on, make tough choices, and think about the future. College students use time wisely getting seriously involved in activities related to their future careers and choosing challenging courses. If you have some free time, you can continue doing sports or any other activity just for fun or as a distraction.

You do realize how little time is actually spent in class while in university? Most of the time is spent on extra curricular activities or studying, probably less the latter. So why not sports. Studies have shown that most athletes do better while in season, so it is probably not the sports that is keeping them from their studies.

[Unregistered]

Different time in the life of an individual plus spending 3-4 per day besides traveling is not just a distraction. Coming from another continent, I think that sports in college make sense if someone will pursue a career connected with sports, got a great scholarship due to sports, and/or is using sports as the ticket to his/her dream school. I understand that it is fun to continue with sports, but I grew up knowing that by the end of high school the fun was over. Time to move on, make tough choices, and think about the future. College students use time wisely getting seriously involved in activities related to their future careers and choosing challenging courses. If you have some free time, you can continue doing sports or any other activity just for fun or as a distraction.

I sort of agree with this - what the kids in club/DAP and parents don't seem to get is in today's competitive job environment, direct skills and job preparation is more important than some abstract thing about learning to multi-task. Most college students are involved in sports - every college has club/intramural soccer that require ability to play for, but you play and practice when you can, so the priority is on your education. Why do the colleges have varsity sports? It has to do with school spirit and for some sports, big money. But varsity soccer players aren't getting money or a career out of the sport - they're getting used.

[Unregistered]

I sort of agree with this - what the kids in club/DAP and parents don't seem to get is in today's competitive job environment, direct skills and job preparation is more important than some abstract thing about learning to multi-task. Most college students are involved in sports - every college has club/intramural soccer that require ability to play for, but you play and practice when you can, so the priority is on your education. Why do the colleges have varsity sports? It has to do with school spirit and for some sports, big money. But varsity soccer players aren't getting money or a career out of the sport - they're getting used.

you people are total losers. take the stick out of your arse.

[Unregistered]

I sort of agree with this - what the kids in club/DAP and parents don't seem to get is in today's competitive job environment, direct skills and job preparation is more important than some abstract thing about learning to multi-task. Most college students are involved in sports - every college has club/intramural soccer that require ability to play for, but you play and practice when you can, so the priority is on your education. Why do the colleges have varsity sports? It has to do with school spirit and for some sports, big money. But varsity soccer players aren't getting money or a career out of the sport - they're getting used.

Please enlighten me as to what my son should be doing for overall job preparedness? Is there a course he can be taking? A 2-3 hour course a day that he should enroll in since he is just wasting that time playing Div 1 soccer. How to get a real job 101...or Real Life section B. You would have a valid argument if these classes actually existed and he CHOSE to play soccer instead. Seriously, there are 24 hours in a day and there is plenty of time to succeed at more than one thing.

[Unregistered]

I sort of agree with this - what the kids in club/DAP and parents don't seem to get is in today's competitive job environment, direct skills and job preparation is more important than some abstract thing about learning to multi-task. Most college students are involved in sports - every college has club/intramural soccer that require ability to play for, but you play and practice when you can, so the priority is on your education. Why do the colleges have varsity sports? It has to do with school spirit and for some sports, big money. But varsity soccer players aren't getting money or a career out of the sport - they're getting used.

You are a tool. Ask your kid, who did not make D1 (that's why you are posting this jealous BS on this site) what that means. If he finds out what you wrote, which I doubt, because you are a tool, he would dis-own you.

[Unregistered]

my kid did make D1 - currently has an offer - but I'm not going to say obviously. And we're deciding whether to turn it down, go to the same school and just play club. Because there are so many other great things to do in college that you don't have time for when trying to contribute to a D1 team.

[perspective]

I admit not having read the last several days of this thread, but here's my two cents, beyond the usual cost, scholarship, relative cost benefit vis-a-vis money spent all those years for club soccer, DAP vs non-DAP, ECNL vs NEFC Elite, etc, etc ad nauseum debates.

Let the kid decide (and make sure he is really deciding rather than doing what he thinks he should do or what thinks you want him to do or he thinks his friends want him to do).

Does he love playing soccer? Will he love just being around his teammates and will he love practicing and training with his teammates?

Will being a part of the team, even if he is not getting or going to get substantial game minutes, enhance his overall college experience?

Don't worry about a couple of decimal points on the gpa. Playing may help or hurt the academics. Depends on each individual case. And you may have a feel about what the culture of the team is regarding academics. There very well may a strong core group of players who are highly motivated academically and who promote an atmosphere of doing well academically.

Despite what people say, you can always quit. It's the kid's 4 years....4 years that he can never get back...and even in today's world college should be among the most enjoyable and growth-promoting years in one's life.

[Unregistered]

my kid did make D1 - currently has an offer - but I'm not going to say obviously. And we're deciding whether to turn it down, go to the same school and just play club. Because there are so many other great things to do in college that you don't have time for when trying to contribute to a D1 team.

"We" and are "We" going to college with him too. Last I knew it was usually the student athlete's decision.

[Unregistered]

All employers aren't the same - some require skills you learn in classes (not soccer skills). And they hire the people who have those skills (technical, legal, etc.) (not soccer skills). So, when a kid takes a bunch 'classes for athletes' and pours his time into a varsity sport, he might end up best trained to play or coach a sport. There's a lot of variation - some college athletes are like the guys who can't read at 5th grade level, described in a CNN report this week. Some guys are making modest academic sacrifices that are worth it, because they love to play. College soccer lasts four years. A career lasts ten times that..

You're focusing on a very small subset of college athletes and applying it to all varsity athletes. It's well known that some big time programs in football and basketball are really training ground for the NFL and NBA where the focus on both sides is exclusively on the sport, not academics. It's not unusual, in fact, for a superstar player to declare for the draft after their first or second year and never graduate. And they may be semi-illiterate, as evidenced when you hear some of them speak during interviews. This story is done to death.
But the other 90 percent of college athletes who play soccer, run track, play tennis, row crew etc? They are taking the same type of course load as all other students, not "classes for athletes" whatever those may be. Unless you have a child currently or formerly playing D1 sport, you can't really talk with any real authority. My child is in a demanding science major, and several of her senior teammates are on their way to medical and graduate school next year. Like another poster noted, they tend to perform better academically than the average student, especially in season, because their time is highly regimented and curfews and NCAA and individual school rules have them studying on weekends while many other kids are partying. My daughter gets to enjoy the life of a "normal" student for two-thirds of the year, but she (and we her parents) like the restrictions she faces during her preseason/season.

And anyone who's been around knows that the students who falter the most, especially in their freshmen year, are those who are not involved in any kind of extracurricular activity.
And anyone in the "real world" knows that most employers look favorably on applicants with a collegiate sports backgrounds. They sometimes have an edge over other job candidates because many of the qualities needed to play a sport at a higher level are the same qualities needed to succeed in the business world. You can do your own google search and find many more reports that support that claim than the report that perpetuates the dumb jock stereotype.

[Unregistered]

All employers aren't the same - some require skills you learn in classes (not soccer skills). And they hire the people who have those skills (technical, legal, etc.) (not soccer skills). So, when a kid takes a bunch 'classes for athletes' and pours his time into a varsity sport, he might end up best trained to play or coach a sport. There's a lot of variation - some college athletes are like the guys who can't read at 5th grade level, described in a CNN report this week. Some guys are making modest academic sacrifices that are worth it, because they love to play. College soccer lasts four years. A career lasts ten times that..

You're focusing on a very small subset of college athletes and applying it to all varsity athletes. It's well known that some big time programs in football and basketball are really training ground for the NFL and NBA where the focus on both sides is exclusively on the sport, not academics. It's not unusual, in fact, for a superstar player to declare for the draft after their first or second year and never graduate. And they may be semi-illiterate, as evidenced when you hear some of them speak during interviews. This story is done to death.
But the other 90 percent of college athletes who play soccer, run track, play tennis, row crew etc? They are taking the same type of course load as all other students, not "classes for athletes" whatever those may be. Unless you have a child currently or formerly playing D1 sport, you can't really talk with any real authority. My child is in a demanding science major, and several of her senior teammates are on their way to medical and graduate school next year. Like another poster noted, they tend to perform better academically than the average student, especially in season, because their time is highly regimented and curfews and NCAA and individual school rules have them studying on weekends while many other kids are partying. My daughter gets to enjoy the life of a "normal" student for two-thirds of the year, but she (and we her parents) like the restrictions she faces during her preseason/season.

And anyone who's been around knows that the students who falter the most, especially in their freshmen year, are those who are not involved in any kind of extracurricular activity.
And anyone in the "real world" knows that most employers look favorably on applicants with a collegiate sports backgrounds. They sometimes have an edge over other job candidates because many of the qualities needed to play a sport at a higher level are the same qualities needed to succeed in the business world. You can do your own google search and find many more reports that support that claim than the report that perpetuates the dumb jock stereotype.

[perspective]

You're focusing on a very small subset of college athletes and applying it to all varsity athletes. It's well known that some big time programs in football and basketball are really training ground for the NFL and NBA where the focus on both sides is exclusively on the sport, not academics. It's not unusual, in fact, for a superstar player to declare for the draft after their first or second year and never graduate. And they may be semi-illiterate, as evidenced when you hear some of them speak during interviews. This story is done to death.
But the other 90 percent of college athletes who play soccer, run track, play tennis, row crew etc? They are taking the same type of course load as all other students, not "classes for athletes" whatever those may be. Unless you have a child currently or formerly playing D1 sport, you can't really talk with any real authority. My child is in a demanding science major, and several of her senior teammates are on their way to medical and graduate school next year. Like another poster noted, they tend to perform better academically than the average student, especially in season, because their time is highly regimented and curfews and NCAA and individual school rules have them studying on weekends while many other kids are partying. My daughter gets to enjoy the life of a "normal" student for two-thirds of the year, but she (and we her parents) like the restrictions she faces during her preseason/season.

And anyone who's been around knows that the students who falter the most, especially in their freshmen year, are those who are not involved in any kind of extracurricular activity.
And anyone in the "real world" knows that most employers look favorably on applicants with a collegiate sports backgrounds. They sometimes have an edge over other job candidates because many of the qualities needed to play a sport at a higher level are the same qualities needed to succeed in the business world. You can do your own google search and find many more reports that support that claim than the report that perpetuates the dumb jock stereotype.

And actually that "very small subset" may be even smaller than we think. The stereotype even for the "big-time" sports doesn't hold like maybe it did 20-25 years ago. I am often impressed by how articulate and "smart" many of the high-profile athletes are. Many of them seem "older" and more mature than "our kids" of the same age who are excelling at upper-tier academic schools, and they tend to exhibit greater poise and social competence. Now perhaps it is true that the ones of this type we see the most -- TV sports analysts for both college and professional sports -- are hand-selected, but even many highly recruited high school seniors and college frosh and sophs can present, off the cuff and on their feet, as quite impressive and savvy. Watch Steve Smith, Dennis Scott, Isaiah Thomas, Brent Barry, etc on NBA TV or any number of the guys for the regular networks and ESPN for football. A lot of those guys, many of whom left college after their soph or junior years, are very smart and possess speaking and engagement skills that any Ivy or NESCAC kid would envy.

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/nca...eading-scores/

The facts aren't what you think. And its not just basketball and football. Soccer players get into college with weaker academics and perform below the non-athlete students, even in D3 and Ivy League. Anyone familiar with the academic performance of college athletes knows this. The question isn't if, but how much and what is a reasonable trade-off for the pleasure of playing a sport.

[perspective]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/nca...eading-scores/

The facts aren't what you think. And its not just basketball and football. Soccer players get into college with weaker academics and perform below the non-athlete students, even in D3 and Ivy League. Anyone familiar with the academic performance of college athletes knows this. The question isn't if, but how much and what is a reasonable trade-off for the pleasure of playing a sport.

Now why would you say "Anyone familiar with the academic performance of college athletes knows this"??? I was a D1 athlete and my kid is a current D3 athlete.

Context matters. Of course you can cite stories of athletes who were or are academic non-qualifiers or marginal qualifiers who with or without overt scandal are passed through easy classes. The vast majority of those kids come from a certain background, had chaotic and often transient childhoods and youths, and were never "good students" to begin with. Certainly this does not mean that all of those kids were dumb but more likely overwhelmed by their circumstances and not situations where school performance was valued. And yet some pull through in other ways and end sounding (and likely being) just as "smart" as others, whether they "finished" their college degrees or not.

I assume your personal interest has more to do with the vast majority of kids coming out of the demographic represented by TS. Among that group, you are just wrong, especially when it comes to D3 athletics. Many kids and teams do better than the mean at their respective colleges, and even kids who got "tipped" can do well. At least 5-6 kids from from kid's team will be going to med school, a few will be going to med school, and several others will be attending some type of grad school.

Each kid and family are different, and each has to decide what works best for them. And the truth is that you may not know for sure whether it "helps" or "hurts" relative to academic performance until you are in the midst of it. There are some kids who will opt out of or not make college athletic teams who then will, as a result, end up more heavily involved in fraternity life, and that may have a far greater impact on academics than athletics would. And I would argue that in most cases kids who are destined to do well in college are likely going to do well regardless of these choices. Most of the time blaming something external doesn't make sense.

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/nca...eading-scores/

The facts aren't what you think. And its not just basketball and football. Soccer players get into college with weaker academics and perform below the non-athlete students, even in D3 and Ivy League. Anyone familiar with the academic performance of college athletes knows this. The question isn't if, but how much and what is a reasonable trade-off for the pleasure of playing a sport.

No, the facts are exactly as I stated, and your CNN link just reinforces my claim. If you actually read the piece in its entirety, it states that it focused on "sports that make revenue" and then goes on to say it surveyed 21 public universities, hardly a representative sample of all D1 athletes at all schools and all sports. And which are some of the schools selected? Florida State, Auburn, Miami, Ohio State, Penn State. In other words, big time football and basketball programs that regularly turn out NFL and NBA players.
And how are you familiar with the academic performance of college athletes? Having been through the process, and consulting with other club coaches and parents, very few if any soccer players are getting into a NESCAC or Ivy League or Patriot league school with average or below average grades and test scores. And those going to less academically selective schools still need decent grades and must be literate. If they aren't, they would flunk out of school. No college is going to accept such a student, much less allow them to continue, unless he (and more rarely she) is making the school some serious money through their high profile sports program. I.e. Football and basketball

[Unregistered]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/nca...eading-scores/

The facts aren't what you think. And its not just basketball and football. Soccer players get into college with weaker academics and perform below the non-athlete students, even in D3 and Ivy League. Anyone familiar with the academic performance of college athletes knows this. The question isn't if, but how much and what is a reasonable trade-off for the pleasure of playing a sport.

I think that for most of the NESCAC, Ivies and some of the higher level, competitive schools, this is a non-issue for soccer. Student athletes have bare minimums that are needed to get accepted including the academic index and team wide index averages. Even the lowest scores and GPAs are still within the 25 - 75% ranges reported for most school indexes. Could these students have slightly better GPAs without sports? Possibly. However, some of us consider a broader definition of college educational experience vs. the narrowly defined "I have the highest GPA, I will be most successful" approach. There are lots of ingredients that make one successful in future career. Sports contributes to that mix.