2018 FIFA U17 Women's World Cup Uruguay ( Nov13-Dec 1 )

[Vic]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Their coach was also very cynical about that injury, her face was disappointing. Mind you, maybe we should have been closing the game out with a bit of gamesmanship. 

I've talked to her, she's quite bright. I think if I was in her shoes at that point in the game my face would have been more disappointing. In Canada we're not up on gamesmanship but in other parts of the world going down at that point would be more common. She just needs a primer on Canadian courtesy to understand that she really was injured.

Given that, if it's the first minute of three minutes of extra time, and it takes at least a minute (and probably more to get someone on the field), if you can walk off the field, do you not walk back to the penalty area and cover even a metre of ground until someone can possibly get in the game?

[carolynduthie]

2 hours ago, Saviola7 said:

Yep, I think it happens much later. Consider:

https://www.torontofc.ca/post/2018/11/27/two-academy-players-sign-national-letters-intent

or 

These players are 2001s (grade 12s). I don't think they can contact you until much later in your high school career (maybe grade 11?).

As to whether the U17s are looking to show themselves for NCAA or not, I would say that 90% of them have their eyes on NCAA. I would also suspect that nearly all of them would get scholarships solely based on the fact they are on the U17 national team.

You can't formally commit (sign a National Letter of Intent) until November of the year before you're planning to enter, and coaches can't start calling you to formally recruituntil September 1st of your Junior year of high school (I'm sure there is a formal document somewhere for what that means for Canada, but I imagine grade 11 most places), but verbal commitments are completely non-binding and so there's nothing to stop a kid from verbally committing to a school when they're well younger than that, for example: 

 

[BreadBoy]

1 hour ago, Vic said:

I've talked to her, she's quite bright. I think if I was in her shoes at that point in the game my face would have been more disappointing. In Canada we're not up on gamesmanship but in other parts of the world going down at that point would be more common. She just needs a primer on Canadian courtesy to understand that she really was injured.

Given that, if it's the first minute of three minutes of extra time, and it takes at least a minute (and probably more to get someone on the field), if you can walk off the field, do you not walk back to the penalty area and cover even a metre of ground until someone can possibly get in the game?

Which again makes me think she was really injured. This is u-17 and I think she is one of the youngest on the team. She didn't play the next game.

[Unnamed Trialist]

I am shocked that girls are committing to universities at that age. It suggests that recruiting mentality is very immature, since you cannot determine anything so early. They are being predatory, they are creating false expectations, they are using these early commitments for promotional purposes, they probably have a huge group of kids with that status and then trim it down anyways. That a program would even go after an 11 or 13 year old shows they are pretty screwed in the head and the system is perverse. They cannot develop this player at all, it is not like early club recruitment, they have no say in how they will grow as a player. A girl in Grade 10, like some at this tournament, well that it different. Which is why I am asking. 

I think that it is being proven that NCAA is a mediocre path for women's soccer, at least, it is not relatively as good as it used to be. The US is still strong, and maybe because of it, but the vast majority of other nations are not considering NCAA options, and in fact foreign players in NCAA men and women are not good enough for pro options, almost without exception.

NCAA is a weak option, for a simple reason: the pro women's leagues in the world are growing, most are setting up tiered promotion-relegation systems, so you could start in a lower tier, and the opportunities are going to grow. I know it is hard for women to travel, maybe harder than men, but it is an option. You may earn something basic, at least you might live as well as someone who is a university 2nd year in Arkansas, and you will play a 9 month season. Not three or four, which is pathetic (for men and women), you cannot develop properly as a player that way, 22 year olds playing 15 games a year in the fall, that is amateur. Mexico has a new league, all over Europe the leagues are strengthening, due to UEFA support, their own federations, sponsorship. So for a strong u-17, you should really consider continuing on a pro path and forget university, if you can. Only if you have no serious pro option, then think about NCAA. But only if you really, honestly think that the university in question can give you the education you want. 

Otherwise, stay in Canada, since you are not going to need a lot of money to be at home, pay Canadian fees, get likely a better education, and then play U-Sports, which might be like a lot of NCAA division 2 colleges. Stay in Canada and compete close to home. And be educated properly, and then use your education to live a life.

I have a guy I've worked for here, from the States, whose son has just signed with U of Missouri in Kansas City, the mom is from here. The kid is a year younger than mine and they even played against each other u-19. He could not seriously be thinking about either education or football by taking that option. It is pure stupidity as I see it. Either stay here, stick it out and try to advance in the lower tiers in Spain. Or stay here and go to a way better university than UMKC. But to forsake both quality football and a quality education, well that is useless. 

[Saviola7]

If you have a full ride (which can be rare), it's not a horrible way to get an education. I think most girls would see it as hedging their bets - likely not going to have a pro opportunity which pans out, so better to play at a high level and get a (paid) education. They probably don't see it as hindering to their development and figure that if the soccer thing is still an option when they graduate, they can explore that. Basically the Jessie Fleming route.

Not saying it's a good idea, but that's probably what their mindset is.

If you don't have a full ride, it's not a good option at all.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Saviola7 said:

If you have a full ride (which can be rare), it's not a horrible way to get an education. I think most girls would see it as hedging their bets - likely not going to have a pro opportunity which pans out, so better to play at a high level and get a (paid) education. They probably don't see it as hindering to their development and figure that if the soccer thing is still an option when they graduate, they can explore that. Basically the Jessie Fleming route.

Not saying it's a good idea, but that's probably what their mindset is.

If you don't have a full ride, it's not a good option at all.

A good way to get an education is to stay in Canada and get a real education, where you are actually educated properly. 

I know that many US universities are good, and of course, depends what you are studying. But on average, and for the cost, you are getting more in Canada, you have much fewer filler universities spending more time on sports than learning.

[paul-collins]

18 hours ago, carolynduthie said:

You can't formally commit (sign a National Letter of Intent) until November of the year before you're planning to enter, and coaches can't start calling you to formally recruituntil September 1st of your Junior year of high school (I'm sure there is a formal document somewhere for what that means for Canada, but I imagine grade 11 most places), but verbal commitments are completely non-binding and so there's nothing to stop a kid from verbally committing to a school when they're well younger than that, for example: 

 

Yeah, this has been our experience as well.  The parents are very active in reaching out to the recruiters starting early (the girls I've known who got verbal commitments did so in grade 9 for soccer or field hockey).

There are myriad ways to get around these recruiting rules (or, in the parlance of hockey in Ontario, "tampering").  A favourite is to host invitational practices or tournaments...  And by chance bump into parents on the sidelines.

[red card]

3 hours ago, Saviola7 said:

If you have a full ride (which can be rare), it's not a horrible way to get an education. I think most girls would see it as hedging their bets - likely not going to have a pro opportunity which pans out, so better to play at a high level and get a (paid) education. They probably don't see it as hindering to their development and figure that if the soccer thing is still an option when they graduate, they can explore that. Basically the Jessie Fleming route.

Not saying it's a good idea, but that's probably what their mindset is.

If you don't have a full ride, it's not a good option at all.

As you noted, Fleming is an outlier. Going to a school with a well known rep for being tier 1 in education and sports. And she is majoring in a tier 1 program in terms of job prospects and salary. 

But many of the Canadian women are signing with tier 2  level schools in sports and tier 3 level in education.

Because the US college system was the only place developing women soccer players, it has made the US ranked #1 for most of the time. But as with men, once the Euro clubs get serious about women and European society becomes more open about women playing sports their methods will easily outclass the seriously flawed US college soccer system.

[Vic]

The NCAA as a development avenue is kind of a trompe l'oeil. It exists solely due to men's football and basketball and Title IX. School programs do not exist like club programs which are by nature, design and passion in the soccer business, they exist simply because by policy schools need to offset enormous financial investment on the men's athletics side. As such they too often reek of amateurism.

Jeffrey I'm glad you mentioned the playing season which truly is the clearest statement of all that it is not a serious development option by design. Another is the substitution rule and games like the UNC one's with combined 50+ substitutions and how that completely transforms the game we call soccer.

And red card a good point about how the US college system was historically a best practice and leader but as the women's game evolves it will be usurped. The Americans can throw 350 million people at that problem though and it will be a while before it surfaces, we'll see the effects of it much sooner.

To be out front of that we need to transform our domestic alternatives to keep players here and from being marginalized and going backwards abroad.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Just now, Vic said:

The NCAA as a development avenue is kind of a trompe l'oeil. It exists solely due to men's football and basketball and Title IX. School programs do not exist like club programs which are by nature, design and passion in the soccer business, they exist simply because by policy schools need to offset enormous financial investment on the men's athletics side. As such they too often reek of amateurism.

Jeffrey I'm glad you mentioned the playing season which truly is the clearest statement of all that it is not a serious development option by design. Another is the substitution rule and games like the UNC one's with combined 50+ substitutions and how that completely transforms the game we call soccer.

And red card a good point about how the US college system was historically a best practice and leader but as the women's game evolves it will be usurped. The Americans can throw 350 million people at that problem though and it will be a while before it surfaces, we'll see the effects of it much sooner.

To be out front of that we need to transform our domestic alternatives to keep players here and from being marginalized and going backwards abroad.

A player needs to play 30 games a year over 9 months, that, in my view, is the minimum. A 15 game season from September to December is useless. You go from your elite level club at at 18, playing quite often a full season, to playing 4 months, and even then, often with little playing time as NCAA squads are big. So going from a top level club when in high school, in a top league, to a university program is actually a step down, as you REDUCE your playing time drastically. 

Honestly, I am not really sure how even basketball or American football can develop properly that way, though the fact that you train more time is a positive factor. Maybe training basketball, playing pick up vs. your college teammates, is not a bad way to keep skills honed. You can work on shot mechanism alone, free throws, all kinds of personal technical details. In American football you can run plays, play after play, in training, and your American football IQ is growing. So training in the off season is fine. 

In soccer, you have to play games, as there is a major difference between training and game circumstances. Not even a short summer season of PDL can mitigate that, for me, though it does help quite a bit, I'd agree. For women, there are less options. If an elite u-17 Canadian wants to grow properly, she should do what the boys do: look for a club playing a full season, September to May. Go to Sweden or France, make a basic living wage, and play the sport intensely, fighting for a starting spot, surrounded by seasoned veterans. NCAA is, in those terms, a step back. And in 95% of the universities, the education is not really even a step forward. I plan to tell my colleague here who's son just signed for U of Missouri at KC, that he has chosen a weak soccer option and a weak education, which is senseless for personal and professional development (mind you, my kid quit soccer to go into a top engineering programme, rated top 35 in the world, so I accept the trade-off; even though he misses playing competitive soccer, the fact is that his better teammates are now making zero money playing as reserves on 5th and 6th tier teams, and their prospects to even be semi-pro are in fact low). 

[BreadBoy]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

 

In soccer, you have to play games, as there is a major difference between training and game circumstances. Not even a short summer season of PDL can mitigate that, for me, though it does help quite a bit, I'd agree. For women, there are less options. If an elite u-17 Canadian wants to grow properly, she should do what the boys do: look for a club playing a full season, September to May. Go to Sweden or France, make a basic living wage, and play the sport intensely, fighting for a starting spot, surrounded by seasoned veterans. NCAA is, in those terms, a step back. And in 95% of the universities, the education is not really even a step forward. I plan to tell my colleague here who's son just signed for U of Missouri at KC, that he has chosen a weak soccer option and a weak education, which is senseless for personal and professional development (mind you, my kid quit soccer to go into a top engineering programme, rated top 35 in the world, so I accept the trade-off; even though he misses playing competitive soccer, the fact is that his better teammates are now making zero money playing as reserves on 5th and 6th tier teams, and their prospects to even be semi-pro are in fact low). 

Roughly how many teams are there in Europe that do pay a basic wage for women's soccer, I have no idea?

I thought i read on this site somewhere that some teams (the English teams?) have foreign player quotas so wouldn't that make it even harder?

[red card]

13 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

A player needs to play 30 games a year over 9 months, that, in my view, is the minimum. A 15 game season from September to December is useless. You go from your elite level club at at 18, playing quite often a full season, to playing 4 months, and even then, often with little playing time as NCAA squads are big. So going from a top level club when in high school, in a top league, to a university program is actually a step down, as you REDUCE your playing time drastically. 

Honestly, I am not really sure how even basketball or American football can develop properly that way, though the fact that you train more time is a positive factor. Maybe training basketball, playing pick up vs. your college teammates, is not a bad way to keep skills honed. You can work on shot mechanism alone, free throws, all kinds of personal technical details. In American football you can run plays, play after play, in training, and your American football IQ is growing. So training in the off season is fine. 

In soccer, you have to play games, as there is a major difference between training and game circumstances. Not even a short summer season of PDL can mitigate that, for me, though it does help quite a bit, I'd agree. For women, there are less options. If an elite u-17 Canadian wants to grow properly, she should do what the boys do: look for a club playing a full season, September to May. Go to Sweden or France, make a basic living wage, and play the sport intensely, fighting for a starting spot, surrounded by seasoned veterans. NCAA is, in those terms, a step back. And in 95% of the universities, the education is not really even a step forward. I plan to tell my colleague here who's son just signed for U of Missouri at KC, that he has chosen a weak soccer option and a weak education, which is senseless for personal and professional development (mind you, my kid quit soccer to go into a top engineering programme, rated top 35 in the world, so I accept the trade-off; even though he misses playing competitive soccer, the fact is that his better teammates are now making zero money playing as reserves on 5th and 6th tier teams, and their prospects to even be semi-pro are in fact low). 

Because of widespread abuses, you can't train as a team whenever you want in the NCAA. They have limits on the number of hours of practice and during which months practice is allowed. In this respect U Sports is better as you can have a team practice whenever you want. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 hours ago, BreadBoy said:

Roughly how many teams are there in Europe that do pay a basic wage for women's soccer, I have no idea?

I thought i read on this site somewhere that some teams (the English teams?) have foreign player quotas so wouldn't that make it even harder?

This is a good question, and it cannot be overstated: wages are still atrocious for women's football. At Barça, we have Lieke Martens, and I understand she makes 100 thousand euros a year, last years Golden Ball. The entire wage structure for the squad is near the top of end of what we are talking about for CPL salary cap. And that is at Barça, which they say is the only team in Spain that is not run at a deficity, mostly because we now have a generous shirt sponsor in Stanley (which is likely so that they can get their foot in the door at Barça for future considerations with the men).

There are all kinds of mechanisms being put into place, with UEFA money, sponsors for leagues, but there are loads of players that are making weak incomes. I dare to say it: I think first division women's basketball in Spain has better crowds and likely pays better overall. So there is a long way to go. 

In leagues across Europe, they are taking seriously about implementing a set of minimum wages for top flight women's league players, as they do not exist now (in Denmark, and soon in Spain too). So I get why a player might opt for NCAA, it is a more comfortable path, and you get that degree no matter what. But it is not a really valid option to develop as a player, in case that is what you are passionate about.