How My RosterFit™ Scoring Works: The Eight Factors

What My RosterFit is (and isn’t)

My RosterFit™ is a scoring system that evaluates how well a specific recruit’s profile aligns with a specific college soccer program. It’s personalized — the same program will receive different RosterFit scores for different recruits, because fit depends on the individual.

What it is: A structured, data-driven assessment of fit across multiple dimensions. It helps families prioritize which programs to investigate further and which programs to deprioritize.

What it isn’t: A prediction of whether a recruit will be offered a spot, a ranking of programs, or a guarantee of anything. Recruiting involves human decisions, subjective evaluations, and factors that no algorithm can capture — like a coach’s impression during a conversation, or team chemistry, or a recruit’s intangible qualities.

RosterFit is a tool for making smarter decisions, not a replacement for the recruiting process itself.

The eight factors

My RosterFit evaluates eight factors. Each factor captures a different dimension of fit between a recruit and a program. We describe each factor conceptually here — what it measures and why it matters — without revealing the exact mathematical weights, which are calibrated based on the relative importance of each dimension.

1. Position Need

What it measures: How much the program needs players at the recruit’s position, based on current roster composition and class-year distribution.

Why it matters: A program with three senior center backs graduating next spring has a demonstrable need for a center back. A program with two freshman center backs and a sophomore does not. Position Need captures the gap between where the roster is and where it needs to be at the recruit’s position.

What we look at: Number of players at the position, their class years, how many are likely departing (graduation, typical transfer rates), and the resulting depth after departures.

The nuance: Position Need is based on publicly available roster data. It cannot account for players the coach plans to convert from another position, recruits who have already committed but aren’t yet on the roster, or transfer portal additions. It’s an indicator of likely need, not a guarantee.

2. Academic Match

What it measures: How well the recruit’s academic profile aligns with the institution’s academic profile.

Why it matters: College is a four-year academic commitment, not just an athletic one. A recruit whose academic profile is well below an institution’s typical range will face admissions challenges. A recruit whose profile significantly exceeds an institution’s range might find a better academic match elsewhere. The sweet spot is alignment — where the recruit is academically competitive and the institution offers the academic experience the recruit wants.

What we look at: Publicly available institutional data on admission rates, academic profiles, and available programs of study.

The nuance: Academic Match is based on institutional-level data, not program-specific admissions practices. Some programs have admissions flexibility for recruited athletes; others do not. The score reflects general alignment, not a specific admissions prediction.

3. Roster Composition

What it measures: The overall structural fit between the recruit’s profile and the program’s roster — beyond just position. This includes class-year balance, roster size relative to limits, and the general health of the roster’s composition.

Why it matters: A program with a well-balanced roster (even distribution across class years, healthy depth at all positions) is a different environment for an incoming recruit than a program with significant imbalances. Roster Composition captures the broader structural picture that Position Need alone doesn’t address.

What we look at: Class-year distribution across the full roster, total roster size, and the balance of returning players versus expected departures.

4. Pathway Alignment

What it measures: How well the recruit’s development pathway (club, high school, academy) aligns with the pathways that have historically fed into the program.

Why it matters: Programs develop relationships with specific clubs, academies, and regions. A recruit from a club that has sent multiple players to a program benefits from an existing relationship between the club coach and the college coach. Pathway Alignment identifies these connections.

What we look at: The previous schools and clubs listed for current roster players, identifying patterns in where the program recruits from.

The nuance: Pathway Alignment reflects historical patterns, not predictions. A program that has never recruited from a specific club might be open to doing so; a program with a strong pipeline from a specific club might already have filled its needs from that pipeline. The score identifies alignment, not certainty.

5. Height Fit

What it measures: How the recruit’s height compares to the program’s roster at the same position group.

Why it matters: Different coaches and programs have different physical profiles they prefer at each position. A coach who consistently recruits 6’2"+ center backs has a preference that’s reflected in the roster data. Height Fit tells the recruit whether their physical profile matches what the program has historically valued at their position.

What we look at: Heights of current roster players at the recruit’s position, compared to the recruit’s height.

The nuance: Height is one physical dimension among many. A program that has historically recruited taller players at a position might still value a shorter player with exceptional technical ability. Height Fit is a data point, not a disqualifier. It matters more at some positions (goalkeeper, center back) than others.

6. Geographic Fit

What it measures: The geographic relationship between the recruit’s location and the program’s location and recruiting patterns.

Why it matters: Some programs recruit nationally; others recruit primarily from their region. A recruit from Georgia applying to a program in Oregon that recruits almost exclusively from the Pacific Northwest faces a different dynamic than a recruit from Washington applying to the same program. Geographic Fit identifies whether the recruit’s location aligns with the program’s typical geographic reach.

What we look at: Hometowns and states of current roster players, compared to the recruit’s location. Also, the program’s general geographic recruiting radius.

The nuance: Geographic patterns describe tendencies, not rules. A program that recruits regionally will still recruit a special player from across the country. Geographic Fit captures the pattern, not the exception.

7. Financial Fit

What it measures: The general affordability of the institution for the recruit’s family, based on publicly available institutional data.

Why it matters: A program that’s a perfect athletic and academic fit but financially out of reach isn’t actually a fit. Financial Fit helps families factor cost into their prioritization from the beginning rather than discovering affordability issues late in the process.

What we look at: Publicly available data including published cost of attendance, average financial aid awards, and institutional financial aid generosity metrics. We use institutional-level data from federal sources.

The nuance: Financial Fit is based on aggregate institutional data, not individual family circumstances. Actual financial aid offers depend on family income, assets, the FAFSA, and institutional policies. The score provides a general indicator, not a specific prediction. D3 programs (no athletic scholarships) and D1/D2 programs (with athletic scholarships) are assessed differently.

8. Division Level

What it measures: How the recruit’s competitive profile aligns with the program’s competitive level and division.

Why it matters: The competitive level varies not just across divisions (D1, D2, D3, NAIA) but within them. A recruit who would start at a mid-tier D2 program but sit on the bench at a top D1 program needs to weigh the value of playing time against the division label. Division Level helps calibrate expectations about competitive fit.

What we look at: The program’s division, recent competitive results, and conference strength — contextualized against the recruit’s self-assessed competitive level.

The nuance: Competitive level is the most subjective dimension because it depends on an honest self-assessment from the recruit and family. RosterWise cannot evaluate a player’s talent from data alone. We provide the competitive context; the family provides the self-assessment.

How the factors combine

The eight factors are combined into a single My RosterFit score for each program. The combination is not a simple average — some factors are weighted more heavily than others based on their relative importance in determining fit.

We don’t publish the exact weights for two reasons:

First, the weights are calibrated and subject to adjustment. As we learn more about which factors are most predictive of genuine fit, we refine the model. Publishing exact weights would create false precision.

Second, the individual factor scores are more important than the combined score. We display each factor’s contribution so families can see why a program scored the way it did and apply their own judgment. A family that prioritizes academics above all else should weigh the Academic Match factor more heavily than the combined score does; a family focused on playing time should weight Position Need.

The combined score is a starting point for exploration, not a definitive ranking. Programs with high RosterFit scores deserve a closer look. Programs with low scores might not be the best use of time. But no algorithm replaces the judgment of a family that knows their athlete, their values, and their priorities.

What RosterFit cannot capture

We believe in being transparent about the limits of any scoring system:

• A coach’s subjective evaluation. Coaches recruit based on film, in-person evaluation, personal interaction, and factors no database captures.
• Team chemistry. Some recruits will thrive in a program’s culture; others won’t. This is invisible to data analysis.
• Incoming recruiting class. RosterFit is based on the current roster. Recruits who have already committed but aren’t yet on the roster can change the picture.
• Transfer portal dynamics. Programs actively recruiting the transfer portal may fill needs that the current roster suggests exist.
• Personal preferences. Campus feel, distance from home, social environment, and other personal factors that matter enormously to individual families.

RosterFit provides a structured, data-driven foundation. The best recruiting decisions combine that foundation with personal judgment, campus visits, coach conversations, and family values.

How to use RosterFit scores

High RosterFit scores (strong fit): These programs deserve priority in your outreach and research. The data suggests meaningful alignment across multiple dimensions. Start your recruiting communication here.

Medium RosterFit scores (moderate fit): Worth investigating but not automatic priorities. Look at the individual factor scores to understand why the overall score is moderate — it might be one factor pulling the score down, and that factor might not matter to your family.

Low RosterFit scores (weaker fit): The data suggests limited alignment. This doesn’t mean the program is impossible, but it means the path is steeper and other programs may be a better use of time and energy.

Always look at the individual factors, not just the combined score. A program with a high Position Need but low Academic Match tells a different story than a program with moderate scores across the board. The factor breakdown is where the actionable intelligence lives.

RosterFit is designed to help families allocate their recruiting effort more effectively. It’s a compass, not a GPS — it points you in productive directions and helps you avoid unproductive ones. The journey is still yours to navigate.