Stars White

[Unregistered]

If they are only practice players then offer them that spot for that $$!

I didn't say practice players (but I do agree there should be practice players who get minutes on another team).

Strictly from a playing perspective, again, some players should play all game and some should not. That doesn't mean some players don't play any, or just a few minutes.

A typical team will have 3-5 players who will play all game. The other dozen will share the rest of those minutes.

[Unregistered]

I don't understand the problem. do you have an actual example where your D (or your friends D) was not treated fairly on a high level team?

Of are you just making up hypotheticals based on stories you pulled together from TS?

[Unregistered]

Agree to some extent, but the party with the upper hand (making the offer) deceives consumers that their kid is an equal part of the team, they should get equal access to coach before and after practice, same number of practices and games (perceived coaches pets often get extra games and practices with other teams), and they should get close to equal PT. This is hard when coach/club build large rosters for more $$. If every team rostered 15 or 16 on game day, all the kids would play a lot.

Seriously??? You do realize this is ECNL right? It's supposed to be a platform that showcases and prepares players for the next level. This isn't ulittle "travel" soccer where everyone gets a freaking trophy, geez!

[Unregistered]

Say you have a roster of 16 players. There are 990 minutes available to be split up across all the players. If you have 4 players who play all 90, that takes away 360 minutes and leaves 630 minutes available for the remaining 12 players. That equates to 52.5 minutes, more than half.

[Unregistered]

Say you have a roster of 16 players. There are 990 minutes available to be split up across all the players. If you have 4 players who play all 90, that takes away 360 minutes and leaves 630 minutes available for the remaining 12 players. That equates to 52.5 minutes, more than half.

Jimmy learned to use a calculator. nothing worse than people with data and no clue.
What is your point? that every parent should demand a roster of 16 and open the stopwatch on their iPhone to ensure their player averages 52.5 mins a game?

[Unregistered]

Jimmy learned to use a calculator. nothing worse than people with data and no clue.
What is your point? that every parent should demand a roster of 16 and open the stopwatch on their iPhone to ensure their player averages 52.5 mins a game?

The point is that you can easily have a full roster of players, some can play all game, and plenty of room for the rest to play substantial minutes and not whine about it.

Follow along, sizzlechest.

[Unregistered]

Say you have a roster of 16 players. There are 990 minutes available to be split up across all the players. If you have 4 players who play all 90, that takes away 360 minutes and leaves 630 minutes available for the remaining 12 players. That equates to 52.5 minutes, more than half.

You know what else average to 52.5 minutes/player for players 5-16 .... playing 6 of them for 70 of the minutes and playing the other 6 for 35 minutes. See how that works? I am not opposed to the top players getting more time, just having the bottom players get so little time. My kid starts on an ECNL team and plays a great amount. If I was on the other side of that, I would not pay for it. Sorry, it cant be great for those kids confidence either. Sorry, overall, i just feel that too many club teams have far too large of an overall roster and dress far too many kids on game day.

[Unregistered]

You know what else average to 52.5 minutes/player for players 5-16 .... playing 6 of them for 70 of the minutes and playing the other 6 for 35 minutes. See how that works? I am not opposed to the top players getting more time, just having the bottom players get so little time. My kid starts on an ECNL team and plays a great amount. If I was on the other side of that, I would not pay for it. Sorry, it cant be great for those kids confidence either. Sorry, overall, i just feel that too many club teams have far too large of an overall roster and dress far too many kids on game day.

I don't disagree, but you are missing my point.

Someone said that playing time should be equal, which I completely disagree with. If you have a properly-sized roster there are plenty of minutes to go around...even if you have some players playing all game.

[Unregistered]

I don't disagree, but you are missing my point.

Someone said that playing time should be equal, which I completely disagree with. If you have a properly-sized roster there are plenty of minutes to go around...even if you have some players playing all game.

Playing all game sometimes just means that the team doesn’t have a sub for your position. Most teams my kids have been on have way too many forwards and midfielders and not enough defenders. The defender can be having a terrible game and they still play because there is no one else. Competition for playing time is a good thing, it just isn’t good if you play a formation with 2 forwards and have 6 on the team. That means someone is sitting a good amount of time.

[Unregistered]

Playing all game sometimes just means that the team doesn’t have a sub for your position. Most teams my kids have been on have way too many forwards and midfielders and not enough defenders. The defender can be having a terrible game and they still play because there is no one else. Competition for playing time is a good thing, it just isn’t good if you play a formation with 2 forwards and have 6 on the team. That means someone is sitting a good amount of time.

No, it's extremely rare to need to take out your CBs. Those two (if that's your formation) should never leave the pitch. That's reality.

Some players are fit enough, and good enough, they can and should play all game. That's just reality.

If you are on a team with 6 forwards, and play with 2, then you should go to another team, or switch positions, or deal with it.

My daughter showed up for her first high-level team as an center midfielder. They needed someone in the back. She wanted to compete, but also wanted to play. So, she said "I'll play in the back". She never came off the field since, and just finished her D1 college career.

[Unregistered]

The point is that you can easily have a full roster of players, some can play all game, and plenty of room for the rest to play substantial minutes and not whine about it.

Follow along, sizzlechest.

You’re missing the point where in addition to developing the girls skills (in practice) the clubs have a mandate to win. Again, look around this board and look at the griping about losing, and all of the players looking to jump to more successful teams. Winning is good marketing, if you are not putting out a product that sells, you will lose business.

[Unregistered]

You know what else average to 52.5 minutes/player for players 5-16 .... playing 6 of them for 70 of the minutes and playing the other 6 for 35 minutes. See how that works? I am not opposed to the top players getting more time, just having the bottom players get so little time. My kid starts on an ECNL team and plays a great amount. If I was on the other side of that, I would not pay for it. Sorry, it cant be great for those kids confidence either. Sorry, overall, i just feel that too many club teams have far too large of an overall roster and dress far too many kids on game day.

Please acknowledge that this is a business. Clubs make make more money with more roster spots. The business also needs to win as much as possible. If you take those two facts and put them together, you have the full explanation of the scenario being discussed. Not ideal for the bench kids, but it’s also not going to change because, say it with me: This is a business.

[Unregistered]

Please acknowledge that this is a business. Clubs make make more money with more roster spots. The business also needs to win as much as possible. If you take those two facts and put them together, you have the full explanation of the scenario being discussed. Not ideal for the bench kids, but it’s also not going to change because, say it with me: This is a business.

Yup. It may be emotional for you, but it is transactional for the club.

[Unregistered]

Please acknowledge that this is a business. Clubs make make more money with more roster spots. The business also needs to win as much as possible. If you take those two facts and put them together, you have the full explanation of the scenario being discussed. Not ideal for the bench kids, but it’s also not going to change because, say it with me: This is a business.

Agree. Why do so many parents still buy into this? Are they just the candidates Barnum were referring to? Are they being flat out lied to? Are they so over the moon happy to get an offer they ignore the reality of it?

How are so many (supposedly) unhappy with their place on the roster?

[Unregistered]

Please acknowledge that this is a business. Clubs make make more money with more roster spots. The business also needs to win as much as possible. If you take those two facts and put them together, you have the full explanation of the scenario being discussed. Not ideal for the bench kids, but it’s also not going to change because, say it with me: This is a business.

Uggg. What a yuck business model.