NCAA Final

[Guest]

Assuming that the ladder is youth to college to pros. Some gets helped up and some earn it. It is easy to spot.

Please share some examples of those women helped up the soccer ladder who sit at the top. There is no unified pyramid or ladder in womens soccer.

[Guest]

It is a destination for PDA kids. What do you consider destination programs? And is it just soccer based or student life quality and academics too?

In practice, almost no one is making a decision based on just soccer. the destination programs are pretty obvious. There is a reason the same group of teams tend to dominate every year.

[Guest]

I agree just buying gear isn't professional development. College do not professionally develop. Clubs do not professionally develop. Most players rely on someone else pushing them up the ladder without doing the work needed. And in the US, it works for a short time. It is a polish and fade thing. That gets exposed as you go up the ladder.

“Most players rely on someone else”. Where do you come up with this damning statement? What exactly are you referring to? In the USA the end game for 99.9% of college student-athletes is college graduation and the real world. That’s it.

[Guest]

Bench warmers don't get anything close to 50% athletic but may get decent merit $ ifbtheyre a good student. Regardless it's their choice and if they're happy with it why do you care? There are kids languishing on every single college bench in the country. It's up to each student athlete to decide what works for them.

If you do the math you can hand out money to about 25 girls and have a balanced roster. This is just off the top of my head so don't go crazy with the distribution this is just to illustrate that it's doable. In this example 11 girls from 9-20 can get 50% so you know so are not getting much play time after 16.

2 100%
6 75%
11 50%
8 25% 5 0%

32 girls and 14 full rides. Even if you hand out more to the top players there's still enough to go around.

[Guest]

“Most players rely on someone else”. Where do you come up with this damning statement? What exactly are you referring to? In the USA the end game for 99.9% of college student-athletes is college graduation and the real world. That’s it.

exactly.

[Guest]

If you do the math you can hand out money to about 25 girls and have a balanced roster. This is just off the top of my head so don't go crazy with the distribution this is just to illustrate that it's doable. In this example 11 girls from 9-20 can get 50% so you know so are not getting much play time after 16.

2 100%
6 75%
11 50%
8 25% 5 0%

32 girls and 14 full rides. Even if you hand out more to the top players there's still enough to go around.

The concept of top player is flawed. there are very few players who can perform in any system and there are quite a few who can look good in a system that revolves around them without making the team any better. A top player for say Monmoouth is not necessarily a top player for UCLA. College soccer is a huge range of abilities and fits. Pick the best one for you. By my definition, there are less than 20 elite players in all of College soccer.

[Guest]

The concept of top player is flawed. there are very few players who can perform in any system and there are quite a few who can look good in a system that revolves around them without making the team any better. A top player for say Monmoouth is not necessarily a top player for UCLA. College soccer is a huge range of abilities and fits. Pick the best one for you. By my definition, there are less than 20 elite players in all of College soccer.

One better. Some of these alleged elites can't perform unless surrounded by other top players. Put some of the tops on a major mid like monmouth, and they get swallowed up. And i mean every position 1-11. They would fold like a cheap suit.

[Guest]

One better. Some of these alleged elites can't perform unless surrounded by other top players. Put some of the tops on a major mid like monmouth, and they get swallowed up. And i mean every position 1-11. They would fold like a cheap suit.

i agree to a point. remember I don't think there are many elites, so to me, it's more like remove them from a system designed to maximize them and they are ineffective. All skills are not equal in terms of what they do for a team. A winger tha can beat the best defenders inside or outside and deliver will make every other player on the team better. A Cb tha can win headers will make a defense look better. her, we overvalue player that score. We dont take chance creation into account. If a tam defends an elite player with 2, and another player exploits the space...who is great ? its a team sport but this system makes it about individuals. Look at DUke...Jones is a great player on the right system. Her game has gone to the dogs so Cooper can be a star. WHo si better? I think its harder to find a Jones but its also harder to build a team around a Jones. Duke have not done much with Cooper as a team

[Guest]

i agree to a point. remember I don't think there are many elites, so to me, it's more like remove them from a system designed to maximize them and they are ineffective. All skills are not equal in terms of what they do for a team. A winger tha can beat the best defenders inside or outside and deliver will make every other player on the team better. A Cb tha can win headers will make a defense look better. her, we overvalue player that score. We dont take chance creation into account. If a tam defends an elite player with 2, and another player exploits the space...who is great ? its a team sport but this system makes it about individuals. Look at DUke...Jones is a great player on the right system. Her game has gone to the dogs so Cooper can be a star. WHo si better? I think its harder to find a Jones but its also harder to build a team around a Jones. Duke have not done much with Cooper as a team

Then explain the recent Women’s NCAA tournament. In the vast majority of matches between top 20 (P5 conference teams and mid majors those mid majors were overwhelmed. You use Duke and Monmouth as examples. The difference in talent and depth of reserves is quite large. Monmouth in their conference was very competitive, imagine if they played in the Big Ten or ACC. Of course soccer is a team sport with individual talented players. What’s your definition of Elite since you consider so few players at that level.

[Guest]

i agree to a point. remember I don't think there are many elites, so to me, it's more like remove them from a system designed to maximize them and they are ineffective. All skills are not equal in terms of what they do for a team. A winger tha can beat the best defenders inside or outside and deliver will make every other player on the team better. A Cb tha can win headers will make a defense look better. her, we overvalue player that score. We dont take chance creation into account. If a tam defends an elite player with 2, and another player exploits the space...who is great ? its a team sport but this system makes it about individuals. Look at DUke...Jones is a great player on the right system. Her game has gone to the dogs so Cooper can be a star. WHo si better? I think its harder to find a Jones but its also harder to build a team around a Jones. Duke have not done much with Cooper as a team

That is why coaches like Church are stifling. They always have an agenda. They have predestined their better players without them having to prove it. Put others in the same, equal situations (with same surrounding players), then watch what happens.

[Guest]

Then explain the recent Women’s NCAA tournament. In the vast majority of matches between top 20 (P5 conference teams and mid majors those mid majors were overwhelmed. You use Duke and Monmouth as examples. The difference in talent and depth of reserves is quite large. Monmouth in their conference was very competitive, imagine if they played in the Big Ten or ACC. Of course soccer is a team sport with individual talented players. What’s your definition of Elite since you consider so few players at that level.

I am not sure i understand the question. For me, an elite player is one who identifies the right play and has the ability to execute it consistently. Thats is different to what I see as the most prevalent definition. Players who consistently attempt the wrong play, but succed a low percentage of the time are place on a pedestal. You can get away with that when your opponent is overmatched. Given that so many games from youth through pro are that way, its difficult to get a handle on who is really good. You have to watch the games. Not the boxscores, not the Instat ratings. You have to watch the games. Most people dont care enough to do that. They watch their daughter or maybe a few of her friends.

If there was a real pro track for women, it would be more obvious.

[Guest]

That is why coaches like Church are stifling. They always have an agenda. They have predestined their better players without them having to prove it. Put others in the same, equal situations (with same surrounding players), then watch what happens.

A bunch like that. Which is why the game does not improve.

[Guest]

I am not sure i understand the question. For me, an elite player is one who identifies the right play and has the ability to execute it consistently. Thats is different to what I see as the most prevalent definition. Players who consistently attempt the wrong play, but succed a low percentage of the time are place on a pedestal. You can get away with that when your opponent is overmatched. Given that so many games from youth through pro are that way, its difficult to get a handle on who is really good. You have to watch the games. Not the boxscores, not the Instat ratings. You have to watch the games. Most people dont care enough to do that. They watch their daughter or maybe a few of her friends.

If there was a real pro track for women, it would be more obvious.

Agreed. The nuances are wasted.

[Guest]

I am not sure i understand the question. For me, an elite player is one who identifies the right play and has the ability to execute it consistently. Thats is different to what I see as the most prevalent definition. Players who consistently attempt the wrong play, but succed a low percentage of the time are place on a pedestal. You can get away with that when your opponent is overmatched. Given that so many games from youth through pro are that way, its difficult to get a handle on who is really good. You have to watch the games. Not the boxscores, not the Instat ratings. You have to watch the games. Most people dont care enough to do that. They watch their daughter or maybe a few of her friends.

If there was a real pro track for women, it would be more obvious.

Yep. Most don't understand positions outside of what their child plays. If their child plays it correctly is another discussion.

[Guest]

Yep. Most don't understand positions outside of what their child plays. If their child plays it correctly is another discussion.

you can play it correctly and still not have the tools to play it at an elite level. Elite is rare, but no one has any incentive to tell you that. Its better for everyone to believe they can be elite at some level. do people really believe that the best players are evenly distributed through conferences/ teams?