Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Club Commitment List Accuracy Analysis

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    I'm not sure its relevant. FSA has State teams and CFC has branch teams like Sound. Both field teams at 17 and 18. Typically decent role players on their HS teams that love the game and love to compete outside the HS season. For most of those players college soccer isn't even a goal. Every year a few will move on D3 teams but they are typically engaging in the recruiting process like their peers on the top teams. ECNL kids live and breathe college recruiting for Sophomore and Junior year. It's a painful process that most have no interest in.

    So saying the club has 50% of kids go onto college soccer would be misleading because typically ECNL teams have 100% take up on their rosters

    Are you stating that the ECNL clubs in this state have 100% college commitment from their rosters? Every player on the roster gets a college commitment?

    If there are players aspiring to play college ball on "B" teams, regardless of club structure, doesn't the club have an obligation to work for them as well to get them placed?

    Why then isn't total club performance across an age group not relevant, if any of this list is relevant to anything at all in the first place?

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      This is a fine idea, but the issue that I have is that the other unknown is whether the club provides any assistance with the recruiting process. FSA has not given us any support or assistance. They are all talk. My daughter will play in college but 100% of the interest generated so far is based on her effort - emailing coaches, going to camps/clinics, sending video. FSA doesn't do anything.
      How would this be measured objectively?

      Isn’t the only objective measure for “assistance” already being tracked via results in commitments? If you assume all the kids are equal in ability and desire across the CT clubs, then the number and quality of the commitment list must be related to how much each club’s staff assists in securing those. Either that or the players are better at one club vs another.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Thanks Walmart Dad. That's a pretty good guess.
        what if UFlowers VEGAN$hip FRUIT$hop EVIL GARDEN$hop GATOR$hip smoke FRESHman?!





        what if the CAKE$hop is smoking HAIRY POSTERaids TOWN$hip smoking CLOWN$hip?!




        what if MELON$trip with ORANGE & LEMONaids using CITRUShop smoking strange PALMS?!

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Doesn't this all fail to consider the number of players in the club or in an age group within the club that do not commit to any college program at all?

          Wouldn't it be better to know that Club A places 80% of its kids as opposed to another club that might place more or less in terms of percentages?
          The clubs originally listed are clubs that supposedly strive to place players on college rosters. Since that is part of their draw then they should be assessed on that metric as well as whether or not players stay on rosters and actually play. A few other clubs not listed will get a few players to college, but it's not many because 1) the talent is more limited 2) they play in lower level leagues that make recruiting a tougher sell 3) many players have no interest in playing in college. then there's a whole host of clubs that won't place any. Players that want to play in college will push to try and get to those top clubs where the probability of success is higher.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Final 2017 Accuracy % -

            YU - 56%
            FSA - 75%
            OW - 87%
            CFC - 97%

            2017 Single Season College Soccer Quality Analysis

            As determined by % of schools on commit list that made the NCAA postseason (in D1, D2, or D3) for Fall 2017. To remain objective we are looking only at whether that college was considered in the top 64 schools (top 48 for D2) for that single season.

            YU – 0 of 16 = 0%
            OW – 2 of 14 = 14%
            FSA – 2 of 13 = 15%
            CFC – 8 of 28 = 29%
            Good Lord. I almost feel sorry for you that you are taking the time to research this and post it on TS. It is almost laughable.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Good Lord. I almost feel sorry for you that you are taking the time to research this and post it on TS. It is almost laughable.
              It's been posted elsewhere by others who did the work. If picking a club is largely driven by college placement success then this is good information for parents to have.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                It's been posted elsewhere by others who did the work. If picking a club is largely driven by college placement success then this is good information for parents to have.
                Just plain stupid. Parents and kids should plan on doing the work themselves, not picking a club for their college placement success.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Just plain stupid. Parents and kids should plan on doing the work themselves, not picking a club for their college placement success.
                  Even if you are correct (you are not) that all of the recruiting work must be done by the parents/kids themselves, then the analysis offered here is a guide to how much each club lies about its ability to "help" kids get rostered on a college team. As that claim is a primary marketing tool for the clubs, then knowing how much they lie about it has a value to the consumer.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Just plain stupid. Parents and kids should plan on doing the work themselves, not picking a club for their college placement success.
                    Of course, but as the information has shown some clubs have better success than others, making it very helpful. Would you really have your kid at YU knowing that over 40% weren't even on their proclaimed rosters? Or would you at least shoot for one of the others first?

                    Comment


                      #25
                      The ECNL crowd is going to gang on to their college placement superiority until they can't. Which will happen. Like soon. DA will turn out the best placements because it'll turn out the best players. Move on.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        any measure of placement has to be relative to expected or its worthless.

                        is it a plus to take a kid who would place no matter where she played and have her settle for a school she could have gotten into without soccer becasue her game has not improved ?

                        Its is a plus for Clubs to "help" place kids in safe spots because it looks good on stats as opposed to risking better and also risking failure?

                        None of this analysis amounts to much because it has no depth to it. If a club is capable of developing kids to get in to the schools their talents project to then they are doing a good job, even if they only have 5 such kids in the Club. they are doing just as well as another club who may have 20. its all about doing the best with what you have, not how many.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          The ECNL crowd is going to gang on to their college placement superiority until they can't. Which will happen. Like soon. DA will turn out the best placements because it'll turn out the best players. Move on.
                          Not in CT it won’t. Move on.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            The ECNL crowd is going to gang on to their college placement superiority until they can't. Which will happen. Like soon. DA will turn out the best placements because it'll turn out the best players. Move on.
                            Looks like you are going to be waiting for a while. ECNL 2019 and 2020 classes will be the most impressive placements yet for CFC. We can revisit this claim when the class of 2021 has signing day

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Just look at the Boys model for college placements. More boys leaving Academy to go back to HS than ever before and that is before they had any real competition. Girls Academy will be fun and exciting for those trapped in Oakwood. No other players from CFC or FSA that are of significance will be knocking down the doors to get in .
                              CFC class of 2021 had 96 players at tryouts. Triple the amount of Oakwood.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                It's been posted elsewhere by others who did the work. If picking a club is largely driven by college placement success then this is good information for parents to have.
                                You have no idea how much athletic money any of these kids got. To say my daughter got a 75% ride to Iona with 65% merit and 10% athletic money indicates to me that the value the club had was negligible. Without meaningful numbers, your list is not very valuable.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X