In SoCon or Big South or similar, what is the ideal size roster from a player's point of view? Are rosters larger in ACC or SEC, and if so, why? Thanks.

In reality the "ideal" size is probably about 25-26 players. That way you have enough for full-side scrimmages, and 3-4 extras in case of injuries during the season, poor grades, or those who quit for whatever reason.

In reality you will see many teams north of 30, despite their competitiveness or conference. Many of these kids (male or female) enjoy the idea of being on the team, even though they will see precious few minutes of playing time, in many cases. Or because they believe the coach when they tell them they are their #1 choice (along with the other 10 players they signed that year).

The irony is, that in many of the teams with 30 or so players, there is huge turnover due to the disillusionment, which means they have to have larger rosters to account for this churn, which leads to more churn, and so on.

My sons team had 28 on the team, it made for a lot of good competition, but you end up with too many good players sitting the bench who then transfer or drop out of soccer. Especially some players who would have done well their jr yr. Coaches will say they need the numbers because of injuries and turnover, but sometime i think this might actually help lead to the turn over.

It would be interesting to get a coaches view on this. I know they're trying to have as many good players as they can to protect themselves but does it help foster what they are trying to eliminate.

Good discussion. The reason I had a large roster of 28 or so was to foster competition. Many of the freshmen were not physically ready to challenge for serious playing time in their first year. Some did get frustrated and transfered or quit after year one. Those who stuck it out, played a lot their sophomore years and beyond. In the 80s and early 90s players seemed more willing to work hard and wait their turn. This wasn't the case in the late 90s and early 2000s. Players who started every game since they were five couldn't deal with being on the bench or having to truly earn a position for the first time in their lives. I am in administration now, but I heard it is even worse with this generation of players.

No offense to the coach that posted, but there are too many teams in the US where the mentality is not to put the best skilled players on the field, but those who have "paid their dues". Why shouldn't a freshman be starting, if they have the skills to go up against seniors? Look at the Premier league! You have 17-year-olds scoring against players 10 years their senior, not 2 or 3.

Look at HS, College, and even on the USMNT and you'll see playes who are highly skilled, sitting on the bench, while old, worn out players are out there. This is true for both men and, especially, women. I find it hard to believe that there not a 20-something that's better than Lilly, Scurry or Eddie Lewis.

Look at some of the National teams and the league teams from Argentina, Brazil, England, etc. You'll see that there are many with players in the teens and early twenties. In the US, most of these players would be relegated to the reserve squad, until they have paid their dues.

IF the kid can play, let them play! The coach should be putting the best possible team on the field, period.

Let me clarify. If a freshman was good enough to start, they started. A large majority were not ready at 17-18 years old to play against 22-23 year old men. After a year in the weight room and some maturing, many were ready the following year. The problem lies with the fact that many players couldn't handle the fact they needed to compete day in day out.

College coach, you are now on the dark side (athletic administration) but at least you were a coach which more than most admin's can say. There are a number of schools that have Title XI issues and need big female rosters (in a number of sports) to balance out the equation. 24 is an ideal number, but some want 28-30 and that is tough on everyone. your thoughts?

Has anyone heard that there is a new limit to how many can dress out or is this only at my chils school?

According to the 2008-2009 NCAA rules and interpretations:
"A.R. 3.1.c. Is there a limit on the number of players allowed to dress for a game?
RULING: No, unless restricted by the appropriate governing sports authority."

However, competitions may place limits. From the 2008 D1 Women's Soccer Championship Handbook:
"Each team is limited to a maximum of 22 players in uniform and a maximum of 30 persons in the bench area."

So, your school, its conference, or a particular competition committee may impose limits.

they put limit on the number that can be rostered and dress for games

I think your take is accurate as many freshmen are not prepared for what they will see in the college game especially since many have played single age group soccer their whole youth careers. It makes a difference to play against kids that are several years older and more mature.

My son saw some good time his freshman yr, and he was playing with and against some 23-25 yr olds. A practice had the intensity of a game. If you didnt show up to play hard, you didnt get a chance to play come game day.

Very Physical. He said the training room was always filled and pretty much everyone learns to play with some kind of hurt. Very draining physically and mentally.

you play against freshmen and sophomores there

high school soccer is a joke in GA that is why I didn't even mention it.

Most find it a refreshing break from club and love the raging rights to their fellow players

bad soccer on narrow fields with lots of reckless play

Get real. The great majority of players at all levels of skill and ability play high school soccer. Maybe you wish they didn't, but that doesn't make it so.

if YOU say so

my kids played club soccer at a high level (premier league, athena A) 2002 through 2007. One, and a lot of both's teammates, received athletic scholarships to play in college. They both played high school soccer and so did all their club teammates and so did every good player from Georgia that they played club against (U-16 through U-18), except for those that were injured.

high school. That was for one year - junior year. This off year was injury related in part, but not entirely.

I have been told about one other very high level player who chose not to play in high school for at least a couple of years but I did not know this person and have no direct knowledge of the case.

My experience relates to high school teams that competed for and won several state championships and club teams that played in R3PL, Classic 1 and Athena A.

A few years ago Elizabeth Jobe from Quest and Roswell High School didn't play her junior year because of being in the U18 national pool, and having too many commitments with that group that interfered with high school soccer.

But these occurences are pretty rare.

I believe she also had an injury as a result of her national play, one that was not fully overcome by the time her hs junior season would have started. Playing hs soccer while not fully healthy would be a big a risk for a kid with a full athletic scholarship awaiting her...