Spring Ball Update

Giant Killers

Credit Where It's Due: DI Teams Lack Depth

It's been an interesting spring in college soccer.  The spring slate of games saw a few interesting results, and for those who are in high school and thinking about playing in college, some worthy points to consider cropped up.

Take these scores:
Hobart (DIII) v. Hartwick (DI) 1-1 (and Hartwick scored second, literally at the buzzer- in a short game)
St. Lawrence (DIII) v. Colgate (DI) 1-1 (Colgate had to equalize...)
Stevens IT (DIII) v. Colgate 3-0
Hobart v. Colgate 0-2
Oneonta (DIII) v. Albany (DI) 1-0
Colgate v. Hartwick 2-0
Colgate v. Syracuse 1-1
Swarthmore (DIII) v. Albany 2-0
Colgate v. Swarthmore 1-1
Colgate v. Albany 2-0


The scores ought to raise some eyebrows- we certainly weren't pleased with Colgate's results against SLU and Stevens and Swarthmore.  But the real points highlight a couple things youth players ought to be aware of.   One is that the topmost tier of DIII schools offer both excellent coaching and players.  To both be fair to the DI guys and further laude the DIII programs, the successful results versus DI opposition are due mainly to the very organized and disciplined approach of those teams.  Player for player, the talent level is skewed clearly, if not by a very wide margin, in favor of the scholarship programs.

Hobart, for instance, fielded a player who transferred from Villanova.  The SLU team featured two center backs who, though not very technical, offered size; one was probably 6 foot 3 and the other cleared 6 foot 6, possibly by a lot.  Physically, the DIII players are fast, strong and generally fit.  The scholarship players are generally faster, though not necessarily bigger or stronger.  Skill is the difference; the application of skill (decision-making) especially.

But skill does not always trump, and we have seen that a well-coached team that works hard for one another can make up a gap in skill and the edge in athleticism and turn results in the favor of the "weaker" team.  This coach takes these results, too, as an indicator that however slowly, this nation is developing better players each year.  So that's a broader positive.  We are also seeing here at the top amateur level more clever ball skill and possession.  While teams may not feature too much Tiki-taka, there's a great deal more passing than when I played in school (a mere 12 years ago...) and the long ball game has gone completely at the DI level and the top ranks of the DIII group.

I don't know all the coaches of the DIII teams here, but I know the guys at Stevens (Devin Rensing, formerly of Colgate), St. Lawrence, and Hobart, and to a man, they are all good guys.  They work hard, are sincere with their players and well-liked by them, know the game thoroughly and have figured out the recruiting pitch for their institutions pretty well, ensuring sustained success.  I'm sure there are a few lepers running some top-ranked DIII teams (just as in DI, or any other top tier organization in any field) but happily most of these guys are doing things well.  Youth players should be wary of programs that aren't as prominent, not because of the lack of success, but because of the reasons for that lack of success.  Get past the welcoming smile and quick joke every coach offers when a prospective student visits, and keep a keen eye and ear out for less-than-professional conduct.  Be a critical consumer of recruitment pitches.

The final takeaway is that youth players need to be aware of the college standings, who is nationally ranked in their area, regionally ranked and so forth.  Matching this information against academic interest can help quickly reduce a college search to a manageable process.