LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE

It’s no question that the shifting trend to recruit soccer prospects at younger and younger ages has presented challenges for both the athletic institutions and the athletes and their families. Though the shift may be due in part to positive factors such as the growth of women’s sports as a whole, this downward trend presents more challenges than it does benefits.

“I don’t ever like to say it’s not fair,” said Keely Hagen, assistant coach for the University of Texas’ women’s soccer program. “But it definitely presents more situations that aren’t fair for the kids.”

One of the major effects of youth athlete’s being forced to make a decision at such a young age is the increasing transfer rate. According to NCAA research, 6.7 percent of athletes transferred from one four-year institution to another. This is compared to just 4.9 percent in 2009. Further, 23 percent of the women who committed during or before their ninth grade year are not currently enrolled at that institution.

“They find themselves at 15 years old trying to make an emotional, passionate decision,” Angela Kelly, head coach of the women’s soccer program at the University of Texas said.  “But transporting themselves three years down the line, what’s the decision going to be?” And that aspect of indecision is impacting the game.

But Kelly says the impacts of recruiting youth players have effects that reach beyond the college game itself. She says it’s impacting our game at an international level.

“It’s hurting the developmental stages that’s filtering into the National team programs,” she said. If players are committing early, then they often become complacent and don’t often continue to develop. “Stagnation is occurring and there’s no place in the world where you can take a year and a half off, and then expect to jump in and compete against people that are four years quicker, faster, stronger, with more experience.”

She says if the U.S. Women’s National Team wants to continue to be a national powerhouse, then a plan to ensure youth players are continuing to develop, despite college commitments, is necessary.

Across the board, Division I college coaches and club coaches alike are calling for change. It’s a general consensus that in order to control the age at which coaches can begin to recruit athletes and slow this growing trend, the NCAA must step in.

“I think the NCAA has failed in its ability to step in and recognize a growing trend and put rules in place to stop it,” said Kevin Boyd, Director of the girls’ academy program at Legends FC. Prior to working in the club sector, Boyd was a Division I coach in the PAC-12 for 20 years. He said he’s seen the tides change over his decades as a coach at all levels, and there are no benefits for anyone involved.

The time for change is now.

“This is one of the most detrimental areas that were facing across the board,” said Boyd.

A LOOK AROUND THE NCAA

Division I collegiate women’s soccer coaches are calling on the NCAA to put rules and restrictions into place in order to control the youth recruiting process as a whole.

“The ethical and moral barometer of 325 coaches, the needs and the wants, and the intent, is never going to be the same,” said Angela Kelly, head coach of the women’s soccer program at the University of Texas. In order to create an even playing field for all coaches, she says “at some point, it’s going to have to get legislated from a superior authority.”

And that authority falls on the responsibility of the NCAA.

But change may not be so far off. On April 14, 2017, the NCAA announced their first legislative change to the recruiting rules for the sport of men’s and women’s lacrosse; a sport leading the youth recruiting trend with over 1/3 of athletes issuing verbal commits before their sophomore year, according to the NCAA.

The amendment bans student-athletes from being in contact with a college coach before September 1st of their junior year of high school. Before that date, recruits can no longer send emails or make phone calls to coaches, attend unofficial visits, or interact with coaches at any off-campus event.

This change was implemented by the NCAA in response to an overwhelmingly strong pushback by the college lacrosse community. Division I lacrosse coaches, across the board, banned together placing major pressure on the NCAA to make a decision that would positively affect the future of their sport. And clearly, it was effective.

Student-athletes will now have more time to develop physically and focus on their academics and standardized tests needed to attend universities in the first place. This legislative change allows athletes to mature more before making a life changing decision, something collegiate soccer coach Angela Kelly says is essential in recruiting players.

“That’s [verbal commitment] a big mature, adult decision at a younger age,” said Kelly. “And without the proper education of the process, sometimes they don’t always make the right decision the first time.”

Though this change places strict, set-in stone regulations, there are still some grey areas that will need to be addressed as situations arise over the years. Questions regarding the role of club coaches in the process is still unclear. While they cannot directly set up correspondence between a recruit and coach anymore, they can still be in contact with coaches relaying information about game schedules; something that may undermine the restrictive legislation itself. Further, there are no rules that directly state that a recruit may not make a verbal commitment to a university before September 1st of their junior year; just that they may make no contact with college coaches before then. The power that club coaches and recruits hold through this legislation is still unclear.

Regardless, of the questions this restrictive regulation may leave, the changes are being heard around the NCAA, and other sports are following in suit. Nearly two months after the NCAA announced the changes with lacrosse, recruiting calendars and rules were also amended for softball; a sport topping the charts for the timing of verbal commitments in women’s sports.

While the rule change did not designate an exact date in which athletes could be recruited, the recruiting calendar outlining dates that coaches were able to recruit was altered. For example, in the Fall recruiting period, college coaches are only allowed six Saturday and Sunday weekends to actively scout prospects.

Other changes are related to holding camps for young athletes. Before this rule change, coaches were able to hold an unlimited amount of non-institutional camps; meaning they could run a camp that was not affiliated with their university and extend an open invitation to any athlete. Now, coaches are only allowed to hold those camps during the evaluation period on the recruiting calendar, occurring only six weekends during the months of October and November.

With the alterations made to the recruiting rules in the sports of lacrosse and softball, it’s clear that the possibility for change is present and the NCAA is willing to work with programs and coaches. While there have been no changes to the recruiting rules for collegiate women’s soccer to this date, the NCAA is feeling the pressure from coaches, and change is inevitable.

IVY LEAGUES HIT WITH BLUNT FORCE

One of the largest supporters pushing for a change in recruiting legislation for women’s soccer, and all sports, are the schools of the Ivy League Conference. Historically, Ivy League schools are known for their academic prestige. In order for an athlete to attend an Ivy League school, their academic abilities must be representative of the school’s general student body. Unlike other Division I institutions that may be more forgiving when it comes to an athlete’s academic record, prospects of Ivy League schools often receive little to no priority when being admitted to the school.

If the prospective athlete cannot make the grades to get accepted to the Ivy League school, despite the possibility of verbally committing prior to their application being submitted, then they will not be able to able to attend the institution and play collegiate sports. For Ivy League schools, this is additional factor that is putting them behind in the recruiting game.

With an academic quota to take into account, Ivy League coaches recruit players in a very different manner than do coaches of other conferences. Ivy League coaches must evaluate not only a player’s physical ability, but also take into account their academic record. This poses challenges. A youth player that may be one of the top recruits in the country, but holds a 2.8 GPA, is simply not eligible to recruited by Ivy coaches, despite their soccer ability. Further, the risk of predicting an athlete’s future academic ability as a seventh grader is almost impossible.

Besides the challenges of having to select from a smaller pool of youth prospects, Ivy coaches must also play the waiting game with their committed recruits. While a verbal commitment at UCLA is almost 95 percent guaranteed to pan out, a verbal commitment at Harvard is much riskier. When athletes make verbal commitments to Ivy League schools, they are saying that the institution is their number one choice. However, Ivy League coaches cannot promise roster spots or offer assured admission. Instead, when coaches verbally commit a player, they are committing to supporting their application through the admission process, according to Harvard Athletics.

Further, the athlete must enter the general application process which begins August of the athlete’s senior year. Generally, students receive notification of admission at the earliest in October of their senior year. This means that if an athlete were or were not granted admission to that Ivy school, the prospect and the coach would not be 100 percent sure of their future until then. This not only affects the fate of the players collegiate career but also creates problems for the future success of the soccer program.

In an effort to regain traction in the recruiting game, the Ivy League conference brought legislation to the NCAA and proposed that a rule be set in place across the board banning coaches from contacting recruits until September 1st of their junior year of high school. This would create a more even playing field for the Ivy League schools allowing them to gain a more accurate reading on the academic promise of a prospect.

This proposed legislation was brought before the NCAA board in January of 2017 at their annual meeting, and was not approved.

Still at a recruiting disadvantage in regard to other Division I institutions, the Ivy League Conference continues to feel the brunt of this shifting trend today.

THE NEXT STEP

There’s no doubt that the trend to recruit players at younger ages is in part due to increased funding that women’s collegiate programs are receiving. With more scholarships available across more women’s soccer programs nationwide, both the interest and demand for players is increasing; all of which are positive in terms of the games growth as a whole.

However, this increased competition to bring players to certain institutions is perpetuating this trend and creating adverse effects for all involved. For players, while they may be able to secure their spot to a top university at a younger age, they are forced to deal with an immense amount of pressure at a very young age and make a decision that they may not be completely ready for.

For parents and club coaches, risk ensues because they must support an athlete through this process and try to lead them down the right path despite the athlete being unsure of what is in their best interest.

As for the college coaches, they are stuck in a paradox. Although the general consensus is that recruiting players at younger and younger ages is wrong and detrimental for the development of the sport and the athletes themselves, they must keep up with the trend because recruiting the best athletes early means keeping their job in the future. Coaches are taking a huge risk in recruiting younger players because they are trying to project their future soccer abilities versus their talent currently.

In order to bring this trend to a halt, the NCAA must step in. They must issue rules that are restrictive enough to help solve the problem, but do not take away opportunities from student-athletes or collegiate soccer programs. For all involved, an equal playing field must be established and enforced by a higher governing body.

Until then, college coaches will continue to line the sidelines of games featuring seventh and eighth graders, vying against the coach to their right and left to secure their next college star. Until then, girls in ninth grade will continue to write emails to college coaches and nervously talk to them on the phone about their future. Until then, stories like that of Olivia Moultrie’s will continue to surface, and until then, this trend will persist.