Conference Playing Styles?

[truenorth]

One of my sons played in the NESCAC and the other in the Ivy League.  My anecdotal observation is that, although there is some pressure on coaches to perform and garner wins, there is generally a more important expectation that the coach connect with the players and provide mentoring and an environment for personal development.

Sometimes for better but often for worse, today's college athletes have more frequent and direct input into the athletic administration regarding their experiences with and feelings for the coach.  Athletic administrators are operating in an increasingly "PC" environment at private liberal arts colleges and are thus quicker than ever to pull the trigger and fire a coach if the player feedback is negative.

I've seen many instances where a coach who is a good mentor and is supportive of the players can last a long time in a program with a middling record, while a coach who gets wins but generates discord and/or animosity won't last long.

Regarding a high school player's preference for style of play in college, I'm guessing that the perceived importance of style of play varies with the academic quality of the D3 institution the player is aspiring to.  Players who are strong academically are likely to rank style of play lower on their list than players who view college as an opportunity to play soccer first and are worried about the quality of academics second.

[Mr.Right]

You may commend Williams and Colby for their style, but both of those coaches have to be under some pressure.  Given Williams' competition in all things with Amherst, you have to believe there is pressure to do better (make the tournament) there.  Colby has gone from challenging Bowdoin as the #1 destination in Maine for a male soccer player to dropping down to fend off Bates for the #2 spot.    Sounds like Williams brought in a good recruiting class, and the word is that the coach was proceeding with greater urgency in recruiting given recent results.  Not sure about about Colby- no evidence of an increase in urgency there.

This is absolutely not accurate. Sullivan took over for Russo in 2015. While I AM frustrated with Williams lack of success since 2013 Sullivan will be safe at Williams for a long time. When I talk about pressure I am talking over a 10-15 year time period. Coaches in Nescac that have been let go the past 10 years were all at their respective schools for over 25 years before being "pushed" out. My main concern at Williams is that Sullivan starts getting frustrated with not keeping up with Amherst and Tufts and decides to change Williams' style of play. I commend him for keeping Williams' playing some possession futbol with a super counterattack like it was under Russo. I would be most disappointed if Williams starts looking like Amherst. However, I am sure they will not.

Seabrook has only been at Colby 4 years. He took over a program that was really struggling and got them in the Nescac tournament 1 year. While I do not agree with his hiring he will be safe at Colby for a while. D3 coaches get a lot more leeway than D1coaches in terms of time. However, even D1 coaches can get a lot of leeway if the school does not care about soccer. Great example is Boston College.

[Clotpoll]

Amazingly, more than a few D3 firings occur when part-time coaches refuse the offer to become full-time. They have lucrative teaching, ODP, DA or club DOC gigs and don't want to give them up.

[luckylefty]

Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?

I know of 2 in the Mid-Atlantic alone within the past year.

I would agree with whoever said it's important there isn't discord etc, but as you could imagine the discord comes quickly when a team of 18-22 year old competitive men is consistently losing.

[SoccerFan2017]

Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?

I know of 2 in the Mid-Atlantic alone within the past year.

I would agree with whoever said it's important there isn't discord etc, but as you could imagine the discord comes quickly when a team of 18-22 year old competitive men is consistently losing.

Just curious what coaches would they be that were let go in the Mid Atlantic in the last 2 years due to on field performance?

[luckylefty]

Delaware Valley and Ursinus.  Delaware Valley might have been a "resignation" but their record in the Conference from 2013 on is 1-27.

[SoccerFan2017]

Delaware Valley and Ursinus.  Delaware Valley might have been a "resignation" but their record in the Conference from 2013 on is 1-27.

Neither is known for winning so wouldn't surprise me if Del Val coach just left on his own, they only won 1-2 total conference games in the 2009-2012 period too. But agreed in the sense that coaches can be fired or on the hot seat if they can't be competitive every few years in the conference - no athletics program (regardless of whether or not soccer is a priority for the school) wants to see consistent 2-16 records or last place conference finishes.

[Dubuquer]

Regarding a high school player's preference for style of play in college, I'm guessing that the perceived importance of style of play varies with the academic quality of the D3 institution the player is aspiring to.  Players who are strong academically are likely to rank style of play lower on their list than players who view college as an opportunity to play soccer first and are worried about the quality of academics second.

Looking back on when I was a high school junior/senior looking at colleges I think this is likely true.  I was a decent player - club/HS team captain, all conference player - and I'll call myself a "cerebral" player.  I liked to analyze styles and think strategy.  I fit in very well on teams that played possession-oriented ball.  But I also was a HS valedictorian who liked music.  I was recruited by two schools, Macalester and Luther, who were at the time probably the two best sides in the North region.  I liked both but I didn't care what style they played. That wasn't even on my radar. I was thinking about other things.  I wanted to play for a coach I liked.  I wanted to play on a successful team with players I liked.  I wanted a good financial aid package.  I wanted to keep playing music.  I wanted a beautiful campus.  I wanted a good science program.  I chose Luther, but not for soccer because I hated the way the coach talked to me when he'd call on the phone.  I didn't even end up playing there because there were other things I wanted to do.  While I had played with many of the players on the team who would go on to be all conference, all-region players and they played a style that would have worked for me I'd watch the games from the stands with no regrets.

Now I watch the Loras team regularly.  They have been one of the most successful sides in D3 in the last decade, and after an "off" year last year I expect that this year they have a team that can go deep again as their talented freshmen will have a year of experience.  They are regularly derided here for their overly direct style, and I largely agree that they can be incredibly frustrating to watch.  I happened to be in Peru a few weeks ago and had dinner with a former player (who was from Peru) who also agreed.  But the players love the team, they love being successful and so the style itself is secondary to those things.  I think Rothert plays direct with high pressure because it just plain works at this level.  There have been some incredibly skilled players (I think first of Kevin Cavers but there are plenty of others) who have played there and been successful.  Would I have liked playing that style? It wouldn't have been ideal but I would have enjoyed being part of that type of program and that level of success, that's for sure.

[PaulNewman]

Dubuquer, +K.  That is a great post.  Sure, kids might have preferences and styles that suit them better than others, but for most, including really smart ones, that ranks pretty far down, and, like you put it, isn't even "on the radar" except perhaps in hindsight.  The personality of the coach, the vibe of the team and how you don't or do fit in with the guys, and whether you'll get the nerve to speak to that really cute young woman in your freshmen philosophy course are far more important.

I also give a ton of credit to you Midwesterners.  My first thought, and I bet a first thought for many Northeast/New England snobs like me is how you passed on Macalester.  Still angry with my daughter that she didn't pick Macalester!

[truenorth]

As a fellow New Englander, I'd agree with your assessment PaulNewman.  I'm friends with a couple who have 4 very smart daughters.  None of them played soccer in college, but the oldest went to Barnard, the middle two to Colby and Hamilton, and the youngest to Macalester.  She had a great experience there, ran cross country and track, and is now in medical school at Tulane.

[PaulNewman]

As a fellow New Englander, I'd agree with your assessment PaulNewman.  I'm friends with a couple who have 4 very smart daughters.  None of them played soccer in college, but the oldest went to Barnard, the middle two to Colby and Hamilton, and the youngest to Macalester.  She had a great experience there, ran cross country and track, and is now in medical school at Tulane.

One of my biggest disappointments during the college search periods was failing to get any of my kids to even visit Grinnell! Will have to put that burden on the grandkids if I'm still kickin'!

[Dubuquer]

I also give a ton of credit to you Midwesterners.  My first thought, and I bet a first thought for many Northeast/New England snobs like me is how you passed on Macalester.  Still angry with my daughter that she didn't pick Macalester!

I wasn't a rebellious teenager but I did rebel against the expectation that I would go to an "elite" school.  I had HS friends go to Middlebury, NYU, WashU, Macalester, Carleton, Stanford, Grinnell, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, Brandeis, Hopkins, Duke and probably plenty more I can't remember. I probably could have gone to those places but I didn't want to.  Every so often I have a tinge of regret I didn't choose Mac, but I quite like how life has turned out and loved Luther.  Looking back and watching the Loras team I do get occasional regrets now about not playing soccer in college, but c'est la vie.

[midwest]

Paul Newman -- Grinnell is a wonderful school, I managed to get both my kids there, and one went so far as to get recruited, but could not get his ACT score to the mandatory range and so had to pass on that opportunity.  Too soon to contemplate grandchildren, but I will always have a soft spot for Grinnell.   

[SoccerMom_5]

Lefty, if you are saying style matters but usually is so far down the list of factors that style doesn't end up ultimately tipping the decision then we pretty much agree.

I can just imagine if Serpone had called our house and told my kid he really wanted him at Amherst and would even give him a push if needed with admissions.  If my kid had responded "I'm not interested because I don't think you're willing to play through the midfield" I think I probably would have lost my mind.  In that scenario, my kid had better hope he's got a Williams or Haverford or similar in his pocket.

There are just too many scenarios in D3 to account for, including a wide range of player abilities and a wide range of competitiveness of the schools.  A kid who is told he is one of a top tier contender's top three recruits will feel differently than a kid who is offered a roster spot but told competition for playing time will be fierce.  Some other kids might know they are borderline in the coach's eyes and are satisfied with just a promise of a fair shot to make the roster.  Of course the more leverage one has the more a kid can afford to make more specific factors like playing style important (i.e. if I've got admits to Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Hopkins and Wash U and all those coaches want me badly then I can more easily factor in style and personality issues).  Ironically, if I'm not seeking a top 50 school and I'm comfortable with a bunch of schools in the 75 to 150 range then perhaps it's easier pick style (although the confidence level on a particular coach staying might not be as great).

As for playing time, there may be schools that need players and where decent playing time is pretty much guaranteed.  At the most competitive programs I'm not sure why kids (or at least their parents) would think they definitely will play.  I've certainly seen a good number of USSDA players end up mostly sitting on benches.

Lol.  My kid told Serpone that.  And then he declined his Amherst offer and went somewhere else. 

But in the end, the final choice was not ultimately about soccer. Although the choice not to go to Amherst was mostly about soccer. 
He had really thought Amherst would be his top choice prior to the soccer visit at Amherst.

So -- I think that playing style does factor in to the decision, at least for some of the players; it mattered for my kids...to an extent. 

But -ultimately- I don't think soccer is really a deciding factor for a kid to attend a NESCAC school.  At least, in our house, that has been the case for both of my soccer-playing kids who are in college. 

They both considered the soccer component, but neother of them chose the school that was the best soccer-fit.  They chose for the environment that they really wanted to be in and the academic programs they found most appealing.

[Goldenrj]

Lefty, if you are saying style matters but usually is so far down the list of factors that style doesn't end up ultimately tipping the decision then we pretty much agree.

I can just imagine if Serpone had called our house and told my kid he really wanted him at Amherst and would even give him a push if needed with admissions.  If my kid had responded "I'm not interested because I don't think you're willing to play through the midfield" I think I probably would have lost my mind.  In that scenario, my kid had better hope he's got a Williams or Haverford or similar in his pocket.

There are just too many scenarios in D3 to account for, including a wide range of player abilities and a wide range of competitiveness of the schools.  A kid who is told he is one of a top tier contender's top three recruits will feel differently than a kid who is offered a roster spot but told competition for playing time will be fierce.  Some other kids might know they are borderline in the coach's eyes and are satisfied with just a promise of a fair shot to make the roster.  Of course the more leverage one has the more a kid can afford to make more specific factors like playing style important (i.e. if I've got admits to Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Hopkins and Wash U and all those coaches want me badly then I can more easily factor in style and personality issues).  Ironically, if I'm not seeking a top 50 school and I'm comfortable with a bunch of schools in the 75 to 150 range then perhaps it's easier pick style (although the confidence level on a particular coach staying might not be as great).

As for playing time, there may be schools that need players and where decent playing time is pretty much guaranteed.  At the most competitive programs I'm not sure why kids (or at least their parents) would think they definitely will play.  I've certainly seen a good number of USSDA players end up mostly sitting on benches.

Lol.  My kid told Serpone that.  And then he declined his Amherst offer and went somewhere else. 

But in the end, the final choice was not ultimately about soccer. Although the choice not to go to Amherst was mostly about soccer. 
He had really thought Amherst would be his top choice prior to the soccer visit at Amherst.

So -- I think that playing style does factor in to the decision, at least for some of the players; it mattered for my kids...to an extent. 

But -ultimately- I don't think soccer is really a deciding factor for a kid to attend a NESCAC school.  At least, in our house, that has been the case for both of my soccer-playing kids who are in college. 

They both considered the soccer component, but neother of them chose the school that was the best soccer-fit.  They chose for the environment that they really wanted to be in and the academic programs they found most appealing.

IMO, that is the best way to do it.  These kids aren't going to be pros, so go where the education/major is a fit and college soccer is a bonus.