The dirt on college coaches

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Franklin Pierce is NOT going Division 1. I played there a few years ago (on the mens side). Great soccer program , but there are many barriers to entry in NCAA Division 1. Pierce is staying put.

Also, there are almost NO academic standards... which has its benefits! After taking a look at everything as a post-grad, myself and my fellow alums have nice jobs while my fellow HS alums that went IVY LEAGUE are ready to step off the ledge... I can't help but giggle at the irony.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Here's some dirt... the SNHU Women's coach knows nothing about soccer...
5-6 years ago they were in the NCAA Tourney and the conference tourney. Lately... nothing (they MIGHT have made the NE-10 Conference Tourney this year, not sure).

She is a softball coach, a cheerleader and an aerobics instructor... nothing more. In fact I would love to see her attempt the "B" License, something tells me she wouldn't get it. Not good for a D2 Head Coach.

If you want to be a better soccer player in college, search elsewhere.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Please Please Please...This is not sour grapes. Stay away. Some items were stated in other threads. I know the situation as a central ma. girl last year was treated so horribly. I also understand that pending legal action is being taken.

You are being pretty vague here. Please point me to those threads. I have no wish to put my daughter through a meat grinder but its a little bit of a stretch to expect that just because one kid may have had a bad experience she should put the place on the to be avoided list. Lots of kids get their dreams destroyed when they go to the next level. There can be a lot of reasons and not all of them are the coaches fault. Is the coach a liar? Do they put kids at risk physically? Please be a little more concrete.

Different poster than the Please Please Please one, but if I were interested in attending a school whose coach has gotten a bad rap even in an anonymous fourm (and if I recall part of the issue with St. Rose is due to over recruitment) I'd probably try to contact some of the Mass kids or their parents that are currently on the roster. Second to that would be contacting those players' club coaches. BTW if you are registered you could do a search on this site for St. Rose to find out exactly what was said.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Here's some dirt... the SNHU Women's coach knows nothing about soccer...
5-6 years ago they were in the NCAA Tourney and the conference tourney. Lately... nothing (they MIGHT have made the NE-10 Conference Tourney this year, not sure).

She is a softball coach, a cheerleader and an aerobics instructor... nothing more. In fact I would love to see her attempt the "B" License, something tells me she wouldn't get it. Not good for a D2 Head Coach.

If you want to be a better soccer player in college, search elsewhere.

The whole coaching staff is heavy on softball. :shock: When batting averages are inlcuded in the coaching bios a prospective soccer player should go "Hmmmmmm". Of course if the athlete also plays softball, it might be the perfect fit.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Here's some dirt... the SNHU Women's coach knows nothing about soccer...
5-6 years ago they were in the NCAA Tourney and the conference tourney. Lately... nothing (they MIGHT have made the NE-10 Conference Tourney this year, not sure).

She is a softball coach, a cheerleader and an aerobics instructor... nothing more. In fact I would love to see her attempt the "B" License, something tells me she wouldn't get it. Not good for a D2 Head Coach.

If you want to be a better soccer player in college, search elsewhere.

The whole coaching staff is heavy on softball. :shock: When batting averages are inlcuded in the coaching bios a prospective soccer player should go "Hmmmmmm". Of course if the athlete also plays softball, it might be the perfect fit.

Oh brother! You people are so naive. The majority of college programs, even D1 college programs are no different than high school programs. I'd wager that many of the kids playing today know more about the sport than some of the dinosaurs that are coaching college soccer. Biggest difference between an 18 year old today and the college coaches is the 18 year olds are able to turn on TV and at least see what good soccer looks like. The dinosaurs couldn't do that and the majority of them think the way they played 20 years ago is how the game is played. Many of these coaches are the products of soccer dad coaching that most of you abhor and they transfer what they learned from those no-nothing soccer dads to your kids.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

I think we first need to define what "over-recruitment" is. Every college team has more players on their roster than can expect to play. So in essence every school over-recruits. However, I think in this context we are talking about extreme cases (rosters of 25+) and players that are recruited into a program but don't even make the team. From a coach's perspective, especially D2 and D3, you are depending on walk-ons to not only fill out your roster but also to contribute in practice and on the game field. In D1 anywhere from 70%+ of your roster will be getting some level of athletic aid - even if ony a small amount. In D2 that drops down to no more than 40% and in D3 it is obviously 0. That changes the reality of the recruiting picture. The D2 coach needs to bring in more players, and since very few of those players will be getting any degree of substantial athletic aid, the coach's expectations are less. Why? no investment in $$$ and probably very little involvement with admissions. D2 coaches also tend to be better niche recruiters. That means they are often looking for: a. Lower D1 quality players who can earn big academic aid from their school; b. upper D1 quality talent with issues; c. D1 transfers; or d. internationals. The problem is that every player going to a D2 school expecting to play soccer was a HS soccer star. Probably all-conference and likely possessing a solid club resume. When that player sits on the bench or doesn't make the team, its called over-recruiting by the parent. The coach would call it survival in D2 and welcome to the real world.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Franklin Pierce is NOT going Division 1. I played there a few years ago (on the mens side). Great soccer program , but there are many barriers to entry in NCAA Division 1. Pierce is staying put.

Ok, I had heard they were but....I think they are playing amny D1 teams though?

[beentheredonethat]

Re: The dirt on college coaches

BTW if you are registered you could do a search on this site for St. Rose to find out exactly what was said.

Curiousity got me and I did just that. Tried diferent combinations and came up with nothing other than pats on the back for their run this past year and some player notifications. No dirt.

I think we first need to define what "over-recruitment" is. Every college team has more players on their roster than can expect to play. So in essence every school over-recruits. However, I think in this context we are talking about extreme cases (rosters of 25+) and players that are recruited into a program but don't even make the team. From a coach's perspective, especially D2 and D3, you are depending on walk-ons to not only fill out your roster but also to contribute in practice and on the game field. In D1 anywhere from 70%+ of your roster will be getting some level of athletic aid - even if ony a small amount. In D2 that drops down to no more than 40% and in D3 it is obviously 0. That changes the reality of the recruiting picture. The D2 coach needs to bring in more players, and since very few of those players will be getting any degree of substantial athletic aid, the coach's expectations are less. Why? no investment in $$$ and probably very little involvement with admissions. D2 coaches also tend to be better niche recruiters. That means they are often looking for: a. Lower D1 quality players who can earn big academic aid from their school; b. upper D1 quality talent with issues; c. D1 transfers; or d. internationals. The problem is that every player going to a D2 school expecting to play soccer was a HS soccer star. Probably all-conference and likely possessing a solid club resume. When that player sits on the bench or doesn't make the team, its called over-recruiting by the parent. The coach would call it survival in D2 and welcome to the real world.
I think we first need to define what "over-recruitment" is. Every college team has more players on their roster than can expect to play. So in essence every school over-recruits. However, I think in this context we are talking about extreme cases (rosters of 25+) and players that are recruited into a program but don't even make the team. From a coach's perspective, especially D2 and D3, you are depending on walk-ons to not only fill out your roster but also to contribute in practice and on the game field. In D1 anywhere from 70%+ of your roster will be getting some level of athletic aid - even if ony a small amount. In D2 that drops down to no more than 40% and in D3 it is obviously 0. That changes the reality of the recruiting picture. The D2 coach needs to bring in more players, and since very few of those players will be getting any degree of substantial athletic aid, the coach's expectations are less. Why? no investment in $$$ and probably very little involvement with admissions. D2 coaches also tend to be better niche recruiters. That means they are often looking for: a. Lower D1 quality players who can earn big academic aid from their school; b. upper D1 quality talent with issues; c. D1 transfers; or d. internationals. The problem is that every player going to a D2 school expecting to play soccer was a HS soccer star. Probably all-conference and likely possessing a solid club resume. When that player sits on the bench or doesn't make the team, its called over-recruiting by the parent. The coach would call it survival in D2 and welcome to the real world.

Has anyone ever watched the movie "The Junction Boys" or read the book "Meat on a Hook" about college football. Different sport but don't kid yourself into thinking that such realities are not there in soccer as well. Is Gutheil any worse than Bear Bryant or Royale? She seems to be producing winning teams which is what she is more than likely being paid to do. Do you think her boss would be upset with her if she turns over players to produce results? I doubt it. Welcome to college sports. All you have to do is look at the typical college rosters to understand that a whole lot of programs out there churn players up and spit them out. It's like bargaining with the devil. In the more competitive programs, if you don't produce the coaches have go find someone who can in order to perserve their job. The sad thing is that some times the margins between players are very slim, especially if the program is in demand, and you can easily end up like Matt Cassel without the story book ending. That's where the hard feeling come from.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Anyone know anything about MIT women's program?

Re: The dirt on college coaches

The Coach is also a Mass Youth soccer coach. name is Krista Fulton.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

The Coach is also a Mass Youth soccer coach. name is Krista Fulton.

MIT web site said she "resigned".

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Interesting - I heard she might be leaving last year. She is still working for Mass Youth soccer last I heard. Maybe she got another position.

Re: The dirt on college coaches


Some info that I know about the NE-10 women's league (D2):

Franklin Pierce - look at their roster - how many are from out of the US? They're the ones who get the scholarships. Some of them can barely speak English. The coach knows his soccer though. It's just well known that once soccer season is over, those foreign students seem to disappear from the school...
St. Rose - coach has gotten results but from what I hear is quite the tyrant.
SNHU - coach focuses on fitness; should have better teams given they have scholarship $$; but the players seem to love her - and if that works for them, don't fix it.
Stonehill - coach is a psycho - stay away.
Assumption - ditto
Merrimack - ditto, though I heard he's getting better.
Bentley - coach is a great player herself but not sure on the coaching - haven't had a good team in quite a while. Heard the players relate well to her though.
AIC - Coach seems to know his soccer (and was a good player himself) and they have scholarship $$. It's just a school that players will stay away from because it's such a dump.

Though some schools may have good results, if the coach is so unbearable, it's really not worth it to a lot of players because if they're going to spend 4 years at a school, they do want to enjoy themselves. That's why players have no issues with their coach if they are happy, yet not going far in the tourney, if they even make it that far. It's not like they are going to make a career out of soccer now, is it?

[tobby]

Re: The dirt on college coaches

can you elaborate on the "coach is a psycho "...

Is this first hand knowledge or something else? The reason I ask is my daughter is seriously looking at one of those schools mentioned with the psycho coach and I would love to avoid that if all other things are equal.

Re: The dirt on college coaches

Hmmm...not sure how I can do the word "psycho" justice.

Degrading, demeaning players. Constant screaming throughout the game at the players and refs. Throwing things. Temper tantrums on the sidelines. Many players constantly in tears.

Even heard in the stands that a team was tanking their last few games so as not to make the playoffs because they couldn't stand spending any more time with their coach.