Survey Overview
College Soccer Recruiting Survey
Dates: December 18, 2025 – January 30, 2026
Total Responses: 106 high school coaches from across the United States (Sent the survey to over
1,500 coaches)

Objective
The goal of this survey was to assess how well high school soccer programs and players
understand the college recruiting process, identify gaps in recruiting education, and gather
coaches’ perspectives on player readiness, misconceptions, and overall preparedness for college
soccer.

Data Quality
Responses were well distributed geographically and represented a wide range of states, school
sizes, and program types. Most questions were fully completed, with only limited missing data
on open-ended questions. Clear and consistent themes emerged across responses, giving the data
strong reliability and confidence.

Key Insights
Player understanding of the recruiting process is generally low.
Most coaches rated their players between 1 and 3 when asked about understanding the recruiting
timeline, communication with college coaches, and eligibility rules. Only about 15 percent of
coaches felt their players understood the process very well, rating them at a 4 or 5.

Recruiting tends to be reactive instead of proactive.
More than 60 percent of coaches reported that players do not begin seriously thinking about
college soccer until their junior or senior year. This delay often causes players to miss early
opportunities and limits their options.

There is a clear educational gap in recruiting knowledge.
Approximately 45 percent of programs do not provide any recruiting education, while another 35
percent offer it only occasionally. Nearly all coaches expressed interest in having more
structured recruiting guidance for their players and families.

Communication is the biggest source of confusion.
Contacting college coaches was identified as the top area of confusion by more than 70 percent
of respondents. Financial aid and scholarships ranked second, followed closely by choosing the
right college fit.

Misconceptions are still widespread.
Coaches consistently noted beliefs such as “college coaches will find me” and “only Division I/II
opportunities matter.” These myths continue to shape unrealistic expectations and delay
meaningful engagement in the recruiting process.

Coaches want structured, practical resources.
Many respondents requested standardized recruiting timelines, checklists, and workshops
designed for both players and parents. Several coaches emphasized that rural and low-income
schools face additional barriers due to limited access to recruiting information and exposure.

Respondent Demographics
Geographic representation included coaches from 27 states, with notable concentrations in
Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan.
All respondents were high school soccer coaches, with a small number also involved in club
soccer.
Schools represented a mix of public, private, and charter institutions.
Recruiting education within programs breaks down as follows:
15 percent provide recruiting education regularly
38 percent provide it occasionally
40 percent do not currently provide it but would like to implement it
7 percent do not provide recruiting education and show no current interest

Response Patterns and Trends
Recruiting timeline understanding averaged a score of 2.3 out of 5.
Most coaches rated their players as having limited awareness of when recruiting starts and how
the process unfolds.
Knowledge of college levels averaged 2.8 out of 5.
Players generally recognize differences between NCAA, NAIA, and JUCO, but confusion
remains around eligibility rules, scholarships, and how levels differ in practice.
Communication with college coaches averaged 2.2 out of 5.
Many players rely heavily on their high school coach to initiate contact rather than reaching out
themselves.
Understanding what college coaches look for averaged 3.0 out of 5.
Some awareness exists beyond athletic ability, including academics, character, and fit, but talent
is still often overemphasized.

Timing of when players start thinking about college soccer shows a late trend.
45 percent begin during junior year
30 percent during sophomore year
20 percent during senior year
5 percent during freshman year
This timing suggests many players miss early recruiting windows.
Primary areas of confusion include contacting college coaches at 72 percent, financial aid and
scholarships at 58 percent, and choosing the right college fit at 50 percent. Secondary concerns
include eligibility rules and creating effective highlight videos.

Open-Ended Response Themes
What coaches wish players understood better includes the need to start early, take ownership of
the process, communicate consistently, and maintain realistic expectations.
The most common misconceptions are that college coaches will discover players on their own,
only Division I matters, recruiting happens automatically, and most athletes receive full
scholarships.
Additional feedback emphasized the need for step-by-step recruiting guides, affordable and
trustworthy ID camp information, and tools to help educate parents. Several coaches also noted
that the transfer portal and increased international recruiting have reduced opportunities for U.S.
high school players.

Recommendations
High schools should implement structured recruiting education beginning as early as freshman
year, using standardized modules or workshops that can be adapted by region and level.
Coaches and parents would benefit from clear training resources, including recruiting timelines,
contact templates, and simplified explanations of NCAA, NAIA, and JUCO rules. Webinars or
on-demand modules could make this information more accessible.
Communication skills should be a priority. Players need direct instruction on how to email, call,
and follow up with college coaches professionally, including opportunities to practice these skills
in team settings.
Programs should emphasize early visibility and exposure by introducing video creation and
online recruiting profiles by sophomore year or earlier.

Equity and access gaps must be addressed by offering targeted support for rural and low-income
programs and exploring partnerships with state associations to distribute standardized recruiting
tools.
Finally, recruiting myths should be directly addressed. Sharing real examples of successful
players at all levels, from JUCO to Division III, can help reset expectations and reinforce that
recruiting is an active, player-driven process.

Overall, the survey highlights strong interest from coaches in structured recruiting education and
confirms the need to shift recruiting culture from reactive to proactive. Starting earlier and
equipping players with practical, realistic knowledge is critical to improving outcomes across all
levels of high school soccer.

Hope all of this information is helpful for you all. Thanks to everyone to took time to share
thoughts and insights.

Jeremy Miller
Men’s Soccer Coach at Kentucky Christian University (Since 2012)
jeremymiller@kcu.edu
Cell 765-318-8011