Coaches face increasing pressure to win as programs commit more resources to women’s soccer. Almost one in five Division I program changed coaches during the offseason.
Five years ago, the women’s college soccer boom created a hiring frenzy. This year, women’s soccer pro-grams again put out “Help Wanted” signs. Almost 20 percent of the 250 NCAA Division I schools welcome new coaches this fall. Unlike earlier this decade, however, the new hires will not lead new programs. Instead, they were recruited to bring now-mature programs to the next level. In other words, they are expected to win more games ù and championships ù than the coaches they replaced. If anyone needs a sign that women’s college soccer has arrived, the high attrition rate of coaches this year is it. “I can think of a number of situations where people who haven’t performed have been let go,” says Chris Petrucelli, who himself moved this year from Notre Dame to Texas, replacing Dang Pibulvech. “And I think that’s great. It shows that athletic departments are committed to winning. If a university is going to give you all the resources you need to win, then you ought to win. If you don’t, you should go.” “This comes with the territory,” agrees Randy Waldrum, who played his part in musical chairs, leaving Baylor to take Petrucelli’s place at Notre Dame. “In the 18 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve seen the game evolve. The benefits, like the Women’s World Cup, outweigh the negatives like the pressure to win.” At the same time, says Waldrum, who led Baylor the NCAA tournament last season, failure to win enough games or titles is not the only story. “Some people were not doing the right thing administratively or budgetarily,” he added. We’re definitely not where football or basketball are, where not winning alone costs you your job.” Of course, the circumstances of each job change are different. Alan Kirkup, for example, started the SMU program in 1986, then moved to Maryland three years ago. Despite reaching the NCAA tournament’s second round last year, he felt “bogged down,” and looked for a school where women’s soccer is “considered on a par with all the others.” That opportunity arose at Arkansas, where head coach Janet Rayfield had only one winning season in six years. Rayfield is now an assistant coach at Illinois under new head coach Tricia Taliaferro, who took over when Jillian Ellis left for the UCLA job.
Competitive atmosphere has changed everything
When Rayfield took the Arkansas job, she says, expectations were that she would build a national program. “No one ever said, ‘You must win X number of games or conference championships,'” she notes. “But as with any profession, three- and five-year goals were discussed.” While those expectations did not change, she says, the competitive atmosphere did. “The introduction of new programs ù Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, etc. ù completely changed the competitive environment around here,” she adds. “That made reaching our expectations more and more difficult.” At another Texas school, SMU, the problem was not enough financial support, says Greg Ryan, who left his alma mater after three years as head coach to take over at Colorado College. SMU did not provide the women’s program with a full-time assistant, or a healthy recruiting budget. Colorado College, a Division I program in only women’s soccer and men’s ice hockey, is doing both. Ironically, he says, now SMU is too. “After I left and they found how hard it is to hire without a full-time assistant,” Ryan notes, “they decided to provide one.” Ken McDonald says he left Vanderbilt after 10 years for personal reasons: He spent too much time away from home. “From the beginning, expectations were always high ù but that came mainly from me,” he says. “I expect a lot from my players, and myself.” Waldrum believes one reason for the high turnover is the rapid growth of women’s soccer itself. “A few years back,” he says, “a lot of young coaches who got jobs were not ready for them.” Rayfield offers a different take on the same idea: “Because the game has grown so quickly and there are a lot of young coaches out there, of course they will move around until they feel they’ve settled down with the right programs and are where they want to be.” Ryan says, “Coaches will go where they know they’ll be supported. The standard was set at Florida, where they gave Becky [Burleigh] all the resources to go out and win, and she did. It’s gotten to the point where even Chris Petrucelli, who was supported well at Notre Dame, had the ante upped by Texas, I think.” Petrucelli agrees. He says he was lured south, away from the school he led to the NCAA title in 1995, by two reasons. One was family: “We felt Austin is a great place to live, with a great quality of life and plenty of things for kids to do.” The other was the Longhorns’ commitment to women’s soccer, exemplified by their new $28 million facility. Like Ryan, Rayfield cites the example of the University of Florida. However, she warns, “Administrators might not be aware of environmental changes in the sport. New programs like Florida have been able to win immediately, so administrators maybe expect that can happen everywhere. They don’t realize there was a very small window of opportunity for that to happen. Programs starting up now, doing exactly the same thing, won’t be able to duplicate that immediate success.”
Expectations are implicit, not explicit
As a result, Rayfield says, administrators should focus not on success in the NCAA tournament, but on winning conference games and championships. “That’s a little easier, but still recognizable,” she says. “And from there, it’s realistic to expect progressive progress to the national level.” Kirkup notes, “When I started, it was okay to just keep your head above water and not make waves. Winning was a bonus. Now it’s like women’s hoops, and that’s exciting. But as schools throw more money at our sport, there are more expectations to win.” Still, he says, those expectations are implicit, not explicit. “Arkansas is coming off two not-so-good seasons. The expectation is that in four years” time we will have a program that contends on a regular basis, meaning Top 25, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t expect to. There’s nothing written down, but still it’s there.” Waldrum explains, “In interviews for jobs, I have never heard ‘You have to win X number of games a year.’ But I did hear the importance of national prominence.” Given the amount of money spent on women’s soccer, those are realistic expectations, Petrucelli says. Yet how does one define “competitive” and “prominent”? He advises, “Compare yourself with other sports at your university. If you’re a major university that’s nationally competitive in all sports, you should expect the same in soccer. Other schools should be happy with a tournament bid.” Noting that only 48 teams earn NCAA berths, and 47 of those finish their seasons with a loss, McDonald argues for the importance of conference titles. “Any team can conceivably win its conference tournament. Besides, administrators understand their conference, and fans identify with it. So conferences can be a good gauge of success.”
Better coaches will start sticking around
But wins still matter, and turnover continues. Is that good? “As schools take women’s soccer more seriously, this is a natural progression,” Ryan says. “Better coaches will start sticking around. When we saw this huge expansion five years ago, schools were happy to hire someone with playing experience, but no coaching experience. That didn’t work out as expected.” Petrucelli believes turnover will level off in the future ù but not until “the commitment level of the university matches the commitment level of the coach.” That, of course, is the ideal world. In the context of women’s soccer, says Ryan, that ideal world would consist of administrators who recognize that “each soccer program and conference is unique. They should know what’s going on in the sport, and how their program stacks up. The key should not be the number of wins or championships, but how close each program comes to reaching its potential at that particular school.”
by Soccer America’s
Youth Soccer Letter executive editor Dan Woog
