Roster Sizes

[Unregistered]

$$ or valued (not $$)

This is a great number for some of the younger ages, but do you feel this is adequate for the older ages U15+?

At what point should we parents start feeling uncomfortable with the large rosters and feel more like a $$ than a valued (not $$ :) )player?

Tough question & not sure we'll find out the real reason or who this is in the best interest of anytime soon

[Unregistered]

From another thread

Unregistered
Guest Posts: n/a



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot imagine rostering over 18 players at any age under U19. I realize it happens a lot at older ages, even U18, but I also know in talking to my older daughter's friends, they certainly feel the warmed bench under them as the coach often tries to get everyone in for a decent amount of time.

I have seen better players sit, when they should not, because a coach wants to get in number 16, 17 and 18 so they don't go an entire game with no minutes. Unfair to the better players who worked hard and deserve that time?

What about the players who work hard but never "beat out" players 1-11, and don't ever get a good amount of time? Better to sit the better players to give them the time? Or is that unfair to the better players?

Tough balance for sure. I am sure having only 3 defenders on a team means 100% playing time for those 3 defenders, but wonder what those players, and parents, would think if 3-4 starting level defenders came over and made the team; big change to go from 100% playing time to, oh say, 60-70%. Not sure people would have the same opinion after experiencing it themselves. It is easy to say "Oh, it happens, it's all fine, everyone needs time", and yes, it is just as easy for others to say "Screw those bench players! My kid earned that spot and deserves 100% time!"

Bottom line, until you have had a player on both sides, it's tough to really comment. Since I have had a player on each side, and even the same player on one side one year, and the other side the next year? I feel rosters should be kept small to allow for max playing time. I think if you are a bubble player and could be a top B team player or a bottom A team player, you need to decide whether training or games matter more to you. Many clubs are now doing the pools where A and B players mix for training, and rosters for games are decided on game to game, after evaluating kids are training constantly. Like ODP really.

[SodiumFan[2]]

Unregistered
Guest Posts: n/a



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tough balance for sure. I am sure having only 3 defenders on a team means 100% playing time for those 3 defenders, but wonder what those players, and parents, would think if 3-4 starting level defenders came over and made the team; big change to go from 100% playing time to, oh say, 60-70%. Not sure people would have the same opinion after experiencing it themselves. It is easy to say "Oh, it happens, it's all fine, everyone needs time", and yes, it is just as easy for others to say "Screw those bench players! My kid earned that spot and deserves 100% time!"

Believe me, if 3-4 starting defenders wanted to tryout, they would be welcomed. Those defenders also play other positions and when you are limited to 3, they don't get a chance to play anything else very often. Also, they have played with and through injury all season. We have never had, or will ever have, the "Screw those bench players! My kid earned a that spot and deserves 100% time!" attitude. Maybe on your team, but not on this one. Please don't try to lump us into that category. Thanks.

[Unregistered]

Roster sizes

As the players get older more and more have minor to serious injuries due to their size, strength and higher level of competition. Rec players drop out. So, roster sizes should be at their maximum. With the roster being at 22 for my daughter's team, often times 4 or 5 are physically unable to play. Its very rare that all 22 can play. When all can, the coach must sit someone for a given game.

As to A and B team switching back and forth between games, this seems to mainly benefit the club. When you try out you are selecting for a given team, not a pool for further selection. This is a good deal for the club, (switching players A to B), as they can keep the B players interested. Also, a way for coaches to punish players by putting them on the B team, playing head games with them, etc. Don't buy into it.

[Unregistered]

As the players get older more and more have minor to serious injuries due to their size, strength and higher level of competition. Rec players drop out. So, roster sizes should be at their maximum. With the roster being at 22 for my daughter's team, often times 4 or 5 are physically unable to play. Its very rare that all 22 can play. When all can, the coach must sit someone for a given game.

As to A and B team switching back and forth between games, this seems to mainly benefit the club. When you try out you are selecting for a given team, not a pool for further selection. This is a good deal for the club, (switching players A to B), as they can keep the B players interested. Also, a way for coaches to punish players by putting them on the B team, playing head games with them, etc. Don't buy into it.

Never heard of coaches punishing players by demoting them to a B team. I have seen players moved to B teams because they are not keeping up with the A team in training and commitment expectations. Makes sense to me.

[Unregistered]

Never heard of coaches punishing players by demoting them to a B team. I have seen players moved to B teams because they are not keeping up with the A team in training and commitment expectations. Makes sense to me.

Never heard of that one either. I do, however, like the idea of a 'pool' of players working for a position on the 'A' team ever week. If you have an 'A' & a 'B' team, why wouldn't they practice together and the 15 or 16 players who worked the hardest, improved the most and showed the most commitment play for the 'A' team that weekend or in the tournament and the rest play 'B'. Promotes competition and hard work.

[Unregistered]

Never heard of that one either. I do, however, like the idea of a 'pool' of players working for a position on the 'A' team ever week. If you have an 'A' & a 'B' team, why wouldn't they practice together and the 15 or 16 players who worked the hardest, improved the most and showed the most commitment play for the 'A' team that weekend or in the tournament and the rest play 'B'. Promotes competition and hard work.

I never liked the A and B teams practicing together because at the younger age groups it really did no good for the A team. There was a huge difference in skill level and while it helped out the B team players it did nothing for the A team. It was too easy and the practices had to be geared more to the inexperienced players instead of really pushing the skilled ones. I had to have my son practice up as well just so he could really be pushed.

[Unregistered]

Never heard of that one either. I do, however, like the idea of a 'pool' of players working for a position on the 'A' team ever week. If you have an 'A' & a 'B' team, why wouldn't they practice together and the 15 or 16 players who worked the hardest, improved the most and showed the most commitment play for the 'A' team that weekend or in the tournament and the rest play 'B'. Promotes competition and hard work.

Totally agree. The hardest I see some players work is at tryouts. Once they're on the team they are content to coast, and if that means less minutes, they are fine with it.
However, I see B team players working their butts off in training with no chance of advancement under the current system, even if their skill improves greatly over the season. New players have it particularly hard since a poor tryout makes for a long season, whereas a returning player often gets credit for past play.

[Unregistered]

Let's see.... OPL runs league for more money. Now they have huge rosters for more money. Anyone that thinks having a roster size of more than 16 kids is good, they need to have their head examined. Player 16, 17, 18 would see little to no playing time.

My kids have also been on both sides of this (at one of the OPL clubs). One went from being a starter and sitting very little on a "B" team to having whole games he never saw the field on the "A" team the next year. What a waste of our time and money. At one point we asked the coach what the deal was. He stated our son was player 13-14 and that he would not see much game time but that our son was improving because he was practicing against more qualified kids.

I was never happier than when he decided to not play high school ball and did track. Set two school records (metro 6A school) in sprints and went to state so he was obviously a good athlete.

[Unregistered]

Let's see.... OPL runs league for more money. Now they have huge rosters for more money. Anyone that thinks having a roster size of more than 16 kids is good, they need to have their head examined. Player 16, 17, 18 would see little to no playing time.

My kids have also been on both sides of this (at one of the OPL clubs). One went from being a starter and sitting very little on a "B" team to having whole games he never saw the field on the "A" team the next year. What a waste of our time and money. At one point we asked the coach what the deal was. He stated our son was player 13-14 and that he would not see much game time but that our son was improving because he was practicing against more qualified kids.

I was never happier than when he decided to not play high school ball and did track. Set two school records (metro 6A school) in sprints and went to state so he was obviously a good athlete.

So what do you suggest, equal playing time? I personally don't pay $1200 a year for equal playing time. If my kid sat the bench then I'd either help him train harder, drop to the B team or switch clubs. I certainly wouldn't complain to the coach and ask what the deal was. It's not the coaches fault if your kid isn't getting the playing time.

OPL did not suggest the roster size of 26. That is strictly through US Club soccer and they go by those guidelines. If you are a player and you choose to stick with a team that rosters 26 and you sit the bench you have no one to blame but yourself. No one made you stick with the team.

[Unregistered]

Let's see.... OPL runs league for more money. Now they have huge rosters for more money.

Well, I do believe the OPL is cheaper in the long run: Fall classic is $750 per team, winter classic is $900 per team, no qualifying tournament to pay for, their end-of-season tournament (president's or state cup) will run about $500 (based on how much the team I managed paid last year), and they don't issue or make money from player cards, US Club Soccer issues the cards. According to US Club Soccer's website, cards run between $12-15 depending on your age, and clubs pay that directly to US Club. OYSA's player cards cost close to $30, but remember part of that is their admin fee...which is a bit odd, as one would assume their $1000 league fee and $600 tournament fees would cover their admin costs. And additionally, based on how the OPL registered their non-profit status, they don't plan on running their operations off grants or donations either, while OYSA receives several grants and donations offset their operational costs.

So your assessment that the OPL is trying to make more money off the increased roster sizes is inaccurate; a more accurate statement would be "now that the roster sizes can be up to 26, are clubs going try to make more money by adding more players to their teams' rosters?"

[Unregistered]

26 players!!!

Coming from a coach's stand point - 26 players would be great since you can choose from a pool each week, but really the coach is there for the player, not the other way around. This is why I usually don't have more than 16 on my team. Right now I am trying to get more players...and it saddens me that there are good players that work hard and are not playing. These kids, especially at a young age, need to have playing experience. Now I am not saying even playing time, but they should be getting a good amount. If injuries are the worry there are always players that will swing up or down to get more playing time, so this should not be the reason.

[Unregistered]

Best Point Ever

Coming from a coach's stand point - 26 players would be great since you can choose from a pool each week, but really the coach is there for the player, not the other way around. This is why I usually don't have more than 16 on my team. Right now I am trying to get more players...and it saddens me that there are good players that work hard and are not playing. These kids, especially at a young age, need to have playing experience. Now I am not saying even playing time, but they should be getting a good amount. If injuries are the worry there are always players that will swing up or down to get more playing time, so this should not be the reason.

I think the above statement sums it up best "Really the coach is there for the player, not the other way around".

Parents are spending valuable time, money and energy for their kids to be trained and given the chance to use that training on the field. 18 players is a perfect number. Anymore and it becomes about something other than the players.

I know some will say that the stronger players should get the play time and if your child doesn't like sitting on the bench go somewhere else. But, that is not the point. This is not college or professional ball, we pay for training, tournaments, and much more for our children to PLAY soccer.

Hopefully, the clubs will remember it is about the kids & not just the dollar and not just the top 18 getting to play and the rest sit around. Have your top team but remember the rest of the kids are paying to train and play, too.