2019 Boys Soccer Verbal Commitments

[Unregistered]

OP. My tongue in cheek point on Tufts and big boy pants is that I read a bevy of D3 supporters saying that D3 is better than, or as good as D1. As a D1 player, I've played against D3 talent. Not even close. Better than high school, for sure, nowhere near D1 - some combination of the following was always lacking: skill, speed, size, quickness, desire.

As a data point, look at Hopkins. Similar but stronger academically than Tufts (although Tufts is quite good). D3 in every sport but one: Lax. D1 lax and one of the best in the country. If Tufts were that good, step up. They will be a better team for doing so because they will attract D1 level talent. In the meantime, they will lose quite a bit.

I'm calling BS on this. Anyone who was actually a D1 player would know that there is a wide spectrum of talent in both D1 and D3, so any reference to "D1 talent" or "D3 talent" is nonsense. The level of player at Stanford is totally different from the level of player at VMI, even though they're both D1. Similarly, the level of player at Chicago is totally different from the level of player at, say, Lasell.

[Unregistered]

I don't think the OP's comments are asinine at all. Both Tufts & the UAA should be in D1. If you compare undergrad enrollments of the UAA to the Patriot League, most UAA schools enrollments are larger (with the exception of BU). According to the NCAA the average D3 school as an enrollment of 2600 students. Other than Brandeis, most of the UAA schools are at least double that. I contend the reason the UAA is one of the strongest soccer leagues in D3 is because of their size. They have resources that create an unfair advantage compared to the typical D3 school. Getting back to Tufts, at a minimum they should probably be in the AAU.

The idea that the size of a college has much to do with the performance of its athletic teams is silly. It would make sense in a world without recruiting. In that case, you'd expect that the schools with larger pools of students to select from would outperform the schools selecting from smaller pools, because each of the pools would have been selected without any consideration of athletic ability. But of course, that's not the way things work at all. There is recruiting. The pools aren't composed of students selected without consideration of their athletic ability. Which explains, for example, how the NESCAC schools have historically been many of the strongest not just in terms of soccer, but more generally in terms of athletics (e.g., Williams, Midd, Tufts and Amherst all finished in the top nine in last year's Learfield Directors' Cup standings), even though they're not massively larger than the rest of the D3 schools. It explains why Tufts was a bottom feeder in NESCAC soccer until Shapiro arrived, despite being much larger than the other NESCAC schools. It explains why NYU doesn't dominate the UAA athletically, even though it's much larger than the other UAA schools.

Secondly, this poster seems to have a total misunderstanding of what constitutes the difference between divisions in colleges. It's not supposed to be based on size, as in high school. It's primarily based on whether a school wants to award athletic financial aid. Of course the Ivies are D1 and they don't award athletic aid, but this significantly inhibits their ability to compete in many sports, and it also requires them to relax their admissions requirements for many athletes significantly. While they take it into consideration, top academic D3 schools such as the NESCAC and UAA schools are generally not willing to dip as far as the Ivies to admit an athlete, and there's no valid reason to expect that they should be willing to. So there's no valid reason to expect all schools above a certain size to go D1.

[Unregistered]

The idea that the size of a college has much to do with the performance of its athletic teams is silly. It would make sense in a world without recruiting. In that case, you'd expect that the schools with larger pools of students to select from would outperform the schools selecting from smaller pools, because each of the pools would have been selected without any consideration of athletic ability. But of course, that's not the way things work at all. There is recruiting. The pools aren't composed of students selected without consideration of their athletic ability. Which explains, for example, how the NESCAC schools have historically been many of the strongest not just in terms of soccer, but more generally in terms of athletics (e.g., Williams, Midd, Tufts and Amherst all finished in the top nine in last year's Learfield Directors' Cup standings), even though they're not massively larger than the rest of the D3 schools. It explains why Tufts was a bottom feeder in NESCAC soccer until Shapiro arrived, despite being much larger than the other NESCAC schools. It explains why NYU doesn't dominate the UAA athletically, even though it's much larger than the other UAA schools.

Secondly, this poster seems to have a total misunderstanding of what constitutes the difference between divisions in colleges. It's not supposed to be based on size, as in high school. It's primarily based on whether a school wants to award athletic financial aid. Of course the Ivies are D1 and they don't award athletic aid, but this significantly inhibits their ability to compete in many sports, and it also requires them to relax their admissions requirements for many athletes significantly. While they take it into consideration, top academic D3 schools such as the NESCAC and UAA schools are generally not willing to dip as far as the Ivies to admit an athlete, and there's no valid reason to expect that they should be willing to. So there's no valid reason to expect all schools above a certain size to go D1.

We just made this choice between top D3 and medium D1 and what sealed it was the level of D3 player and the level of play. If Tufts is good enough they could be D1, their swim team is D1

[Unregistered]

Moving from D3 to D1 is a huge cultural change for a school as well as the obvious financial commitment (extra staff, travel, scholarships). The president and Board of Governors set the school's mission. Top academic schools like Tufts or Chicago have prioritized what matters to them. Not having D1 certainly doesn't hurt their applicant pool. In fact those schools offer the best of all - great D3 sports, larger size vs say an Amherst but not massive, top academics.

[Unregistered]

Interesting comments. I would tend to agree with your comments, but I would contend that these traits are regardless of D1 or D3. I would be interested to know which D1 schools you are discussing. I would expect that a D3 Tufts, Bowdoin or Hopkins kid would likely be a better candidate than a D1 kid from UPass or the majority of other state schools.

I wouldn't think that would be the comparison you want to go with. Hopkins to UPass, which I assume is a pun? Of course, there are good kids everywhere. There are entitled kids everywhere, too, and that is the problem the NESCACs are now confronting. I am just telling you want I am seeing. It is completely anecdotal, but I have heard the same thing from classmates in other industries.

[Unregistered]

I wouldn't think that would be the comparison you want to go with. Hopkins to UPass, which I assume is a pun? Of course, there are good kids everywhere. There are entitled kids everywhere, too, and that is the problem the NESCACs are now confronting. I am just telling you want I am seeing. It is completely anecdotal, but I have heard the same thing from classmates in other industries.

Why wouldn't I want to make that comparison given your initial post which made no qualification at all and was a blanket D1 vs. D3 comment.

I agree, there are good kids everywhere and at all levels (D1, 2 or 3), and I do agree that participating in sports in college does provide the opportunity to develop some characteristics that may set them apart - regardless of level. That said, my comment is a generalization as most all comments in the post. Exceptions abound.

If instead you believe that many of the NESCAC kids are entitled, I think that may be a different discussion, regardless of whether a sport was played or not, and I expect you would find many that would agree with you.

[Unregistered]

Tufts...swim team is D1

Not true.

[Unregistered]

Moving from D3 to D1 is a huge cultural change for a school as well as the obvious financial commitment (extra staff, travel, scholarships). The president and Board of Governors set the school's mission. Top academic schools like Tufts or Chicago have prioritized what matters to them. Not having D1 certainly doesn't hurt their applicant pool. In fact those schools offer the best of all - great D3 sports, larger size vs say an Amherst but not massive, top academics.

Lol @ comparing Tufts to Chicago. Come on...

[Unregistered]

Lol @ comparing Tufts to Chicago. Come on...

Both #1 in their conferences.

[Unregistered]

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges...l-universities

Colin Canniff, Liverpool, Halifax MA, WPI
Graeme Logan. Worcester Academy Westford, MA. Pitzer (D3)
Prince Loney-Bailey, Revs Cambridge, MA, James Madison
James Michielli, Worcester Academy, Medway, Mass. Trinity
Will Poreda, Liverpool. Duxbury, MA, Endicott

[Unregistered]

D1

Owen Schwartz, ?, Worcester Academy, Brown
Nick Awada, Bolts, Westford, Bryant
John Muckstadt, GPS, Dover Sherborn, Colgate
Eli Gould, Black Rock, NMH, Colgate
Nick Steed, Black Rock, Berkshire, Colgate
Jack Ostrosky, Bolts, Rutland, Holy Cross
Prince Loney-Bailey, Revs, Cambridge, James Madison*
Andrew White, Revs, Boxborough, Lehigh
Camden Blackburn, Revs, Ludlow, UMass
Christian Pulselli, Bolts, Pembroke, Michigan
Jacques Baldwin, GPS, Brookline, Northeastern
Colby Hegarty, Bolts, Nipmuc, Northeastern
Deng Deng Kur, ?, Berkshire, Northwestern
Tyler Freitas, Revs, N Attleboro, UVM
Jeremy Verley, ?, Milton, UVA
Nicholas Berghold, Black Rock, Berkshire, UVA


D3

Declan Sung, Bolts, Newton, Amherst
Michael Webber, NEFC, Rivers, Bowdoin
Jack Marvel, Liverpool FC, Tabor, Conn College
Will Poreda, Liverpool, Duxbury, Endicott*
Justin D’Alessandro, FCStars, Middlesex, Hamilton
Minka Soumah, South Bronx, NMH, Kenyon
David McCrory, Black Rock, Berkshire, Kenyon
Graeme Logan, Worcester Academy, Pitzer*
Jonah Johnson, Exeter, Milton, Swarthmore
James Michielli, GPS, Worcester Academy, Trinity*
Bryce Visnick, NEFC, Beverley, Tufts
Rolando Rabines, NEFC, Phillips, Tufts
Colin Canniff, Liverpool, Silver Lake, WPI*

[Unregistered]

A D1 coach has pull in admissions so a D1 commmit could potentially have secured a spot. But how can anyone be a D3 commit when early action decisions are not out and coaches have almost no pull in admissions?

[Unregistered]

A D1 coach has pull in admissions so a D1 commmit could potentially have secured a spot. But how can anyone be a D3 commit when early action decisions are not out and coaches have almost no pull in admissions?

These are verbal commits, contingent on admissions acceptance. Their only real purpose is to stop other coaches recruiting that kid. There is no NLI for D3 anyway. It just means the D3 coach has you mentally in his game plan for that class.

[Unregistered]

A D1 coach has pull in admissions so a D1 commmit could potentially have secured a spot. But how can anyone be a D3 commit when early action decisions are not out and coaches have almost no pull in admissions?

most D3 coaches have pull in admissions

[Unregistered]

most D3 coaches have pull in admissions

Not so much both in terms of terms of the quantity of players or how far a player is off from admissions norms. Most D1s have more latitude. Having the grades matters, especially the top academic D3s.