The Most Analytical Big Board Around, 2025 Superdraft Edition
/The MLS Superdraft takes place on Friday, and despite MLS’ best effort to make sure you don’t know about it American Soccer Analysis will step in to keep you informed. Thankfully Wyscout keeps an extensive data collection that helps to analyze the 477 players* eligible for the draft and determine who might be the best available.
(*not all the players are from NCAA Division I soccer, the purview of this analysis)
The draft in 2025 is largely seen as a global anomaly, a weird part of the game that is at this point vestigial and sure to be left behind by MLS. Or at least, that’s been said since roughly 2010. The drum that college soccer is no longer relevant is constantly beaten by various factions of the American soccer landscape, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Despite the doubts, college soccer has largely kept pace with MLS in large part due to the influx of foreign talent. The job prospects for an academy reject in Europe are not great and a college education keeps the dream alive while providing a solid backup plan. Also, life as a college athlete is objectively pretty great! That means that some pretty impressive talent ends up in relatively small schools and the NCAA quality of play continues to improve.
Because of this, there is still plenty of talent to be acquired in the draft. It’s also a symbiotic relationship; while drafts in the larger American sports leagues are designed around making it difficult for players to fairly negotiate their value in the name of enforced parity, the MLS Superdraft essentially creates a resource that can only be spent on certain players (or traded for peanuts if you’re the Philadelphia Union). By spending resources to acquire player rights, it creates some skin in the game for MLS teams to use those resources wisely and try to get a return for them.
Are MLS teams taking advantage of that? In some cases, it appears so; Mike Imburgio, my collaborator on last year’s edition of this article couldn’t lend his DAVIES algorithm to the data due to conflicts of interest. Mark Kelkenberg, probably the single best resource for understanding NCAA soccer and the players therein, isn’t releasing a mock draft this year - again due to conflicts of interest. Somebody is paying attention, and they’re bringing in the smartest and best informed people to help them. When every edge counts, teams at this point know that if they don’t invest in the draft other teams are going to run circles around them.
To help fans scout ahead, or follow along during the (not televised - what the hell, MLS) Superdraft, I’ve put together the following Tableau Dashboard that hopefully gives a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual players in the draft. (Note - if the embed below is difficult to use, or if you are a mobile user, use the direct link. Individual pages can be downloaded as images through the menu on Tableau.)
The actual workbook can be accessed here.
Some notes on the data - first, NCAA data collection is spotty at best and while Wyscout data is good enough, it’s hard to know for sure just how good it all is. Consider this whole article to lean more towards entertainment than serious analysis.
With a wealth of stats available, I elected to classify each (while creating a number of new metrics of my own) to categorize both the intent and the outcome of actions. This resulted in a fairly neat breakdown of different areas where players might have their strengths. On the dashboard are measures of tendency (the radial chart and the ternary triangle) as well as performance (the bar and circle chart and stat table).
Tendencies were measured against positional profiles, while outcomes were measured without norming for possession. Positional profiles are based on how college players tend to translate to MLS. For example, it is rare for a player who is the primary playmaker for their college team to have the same role in MLS. Such a player is usually an expensive international signing for an MLS team, if not a DP. The players who are used to large amounts of the ball in college may need to adapt their game to fit their role in the team.
Category Definitions:
Control:
A player’s attempt to control the possession without losing the ball. Factors include ball losses, pass completion percentage, back/lateral pass completion.
Progression:
A player’s attempt to advance the ball into more dangerous areas. Factors include progressive passes and carries.
1v1:
A player’s attempt to take opponents on and beat them. Offensive duels, dribbles, and fouls received are factors here.
Unlocking:
A player’s attempt to break through either behind the defensive lines or inside the penalty area to create a shot. Factors include crosses, through balls, and shot assists (key passes).
Finishing:
A player’s attempt to score goals via shots.
Proactive Engagement:
Duel numbers are tricky, but this measure attempts to measure physical engagements with opposing players in both frequency and outcome.
Reactive Engagement:
This reflects plays on the ball that do not require a physical engagement with an opponent. Factors include clearances, interceptions, and recoveries.
The Big Board:
The Tiers are a rough separation, with the 1st tier representing players that should expect to go early (minimum first round), then the second tier being players with a good shot at a first round selection and the third rounding out players who should expect to be drafted. With 400+ eligible players I would be pleasantly surprised if even half of the first rounders are represented here.
Center Forwards:
(Note - player comparisons are on a log scale. Draft players tend to cluster in the extremes, so the log scale helps differentiate at the tails. Look carefully at the percentiles)
The draft, and NCAA soccer as a whole, has been one of the most consistent producers of forwards in MLS. Of the top 10 domestic players in MLS by xG this last season, only two did not play in college - Colorado’s Djordje Mihailovic, and Cole Bassett. There could be any number of reasons for why this is the case; a good working theory is that college soccer requires a certain kind of athleticism to excel, and that athleticism readily translates to MLS. This year has a number of excellent center forwards and other strong candidates to fill out rosters and MLS Next Pro lineups.
Tier 1:
Emil Jääskeläinen, University of Akron:
The son of Bolton Wanderers legend Jussi Jääskeläinen, Emil Jääskeläinen is a player who broke from the family trade to put the ball in the net rather than keep it out. He’s a tall, physical striker with underrated ball skills who easily led NCAA in scoring.
Alec Hughes, University of Massachusetts:
Although his college numbers are not as eye-popping as some of the other forwards on this list, he won the USL 2 Golden Boot and his physical metrics are absolutely ridiculous.
Alex Harris, Cornell University:
Harris is only a Sophomore, and could easily return to college for multiple years. His numbers are the most well rounded of all the forward prospects and he has the most growth potential of the group.
Daniel Ittycheria, Princeton:
May not have the pure scoring numbers, but has better numbers in other areas than almost any other center forward on the board.
Tier 2:
Sergi Solans, Oregon State
Marko Borkovic, Ohio State
Ulfur Bjornsson, Duke
Tier 3:
Dean Boltz, Wisconsin (Potential Generation Adidas signing)
Matthew Roou, Notre Dame
Maximilian Kissel, Vermont
Luis Sahmkow, Pittsburgh
Wide Forwards:
While maybe not carrying as much quality as the center forward group, these players have a wide variety of skills that lead to them being comfortable across the attacking line and therefore a useful group for many different teams.
Tier 1:
Hakim Karamoko, NC State University:
Karamoko is another sophomore, but he is left footed and a capable attacker. Left footed players in general get boosts to their value, and his ability as a scoring threat from the right makes him an intriguing prospect.
Alioune Ka, Cornell:
Ka is a physical and capable forward, but along with his impressive offensive metrics he brings next level defensive engagement as well. His ability to press and challenge across the back line is additional value for teams that need a variety of contributions from their forward line.
Tier 2:
Tyler Trimnal, Clemson
Ahmad Al-Qaq, UNC
Samuel Sarver, Indiana
Clarence Awoudor, UCF
Tier 3:
Logan Dorsey, Kentucky
Jackson Castro, Creighton
Arnau Farnos, Oregon State
Richie Aman, Washington
Joseph Melto Quiah, Dayton
Attacking Midfielders/Second Strikers:
This is a huge group that includes low touch midfielders who get in the box, inverted playmakers, true “10s”, and forwards that tend to sit deeper and link up with their teammates. Plus, there’s always a few players that defy positions and simply exist to attack. The problem for these players is that it’s difficult to break into these positions in MLS. While many of the top players by xG in MLS come from college soccer, very few of the top players by xA do. Still, for the very special players there is always a place for attacking talent - and for others, there’s always dropping into deeper roles.
Tier 1:
Michael Adedokun, Ohio State:
Adedokun capped off a phenomenal season with an excellent tournament run. He profiles most like a forward, but is more than happy to drop deep and play on the turn as well. He’s dynamic and very difficult to defend in open space.
Sydney Wathuta, Vermont:
One of the heroes of the NCAA National Championship game, Wathuta is a fascinating player without a clear role at the next level. He’s a ruthless playmaker with ideal size, but represents a high risk and high reward option as a draft pick.
Tier 2:
Tommy Mihalic, Indiana
Daniel D’Ippolito, Fordham
Colton Pleasants, Duke
Simon Carlson, WVU
Sebastian Nava, Portland
Tier 3:
Bailey Sparks, SMU
Steven Cordova, Presbyterian
Sander Røed, Lousiville
Roberto Ordonez, CSU Fullerton
Alexis Ledoux, UC Santa Barbara
Sergio Ors Navarro, West Virginia
Holding Midfielders:
This group can be broken down further into more defensively focused midfielders, who might transition to be lone defensive midfielders (6s), and more aggressive box to box or progressive midfielders (8s). Wyscout position logs often fail to distinguish between these roles effectively, so where necessary I will note which role a player is more likely to fill.
Tier 1:
Nick Fernandez, Portland (8):
Fernandez was one of the top performers last season, and after another successful season with Portland should be highly considered as a player who is elite on the ball in every phase. His smaller stature might scare teams off, but for anyone willing to take a chance he should prove to be an MLS level technician in the middle of the park.
Joran Gerbet, Clemson (6):
Gerbet has been the anchor for years at an incredibly successful Clemson side and has no real weaknesses in his game. He’s a player who can plug into a lineup immediately and cause no interruption to how the team performs. His age and international status might be all that holds him back.
Manu Duah, UCSB (6):
Duah isn’t truly available until the Generation Adidas contract is official, but as one of the few freshmen invited to the College Showcase that appears to be where things are heading. He’s an elite defender and game controller, and while he might not offer the most in ball progression he will be the kind of player that goes for years in the right lineup.
Tier 2:
Roman Torres, Creighton (6 or 8)
Tomas Bedouret, Oregon State (6)
Matthew Sullivan, Pittsburgh (6)
Joe Buck, Georgetown (6 or 8)
Umberto Pela, Virginia (8)
Tier 3:
Collin McCamy, Northwestern (8)
Taimu Okiyoshi, Marshall (6)
Wide Players:
These players either played wing back in college, or project to being that kind of player at the next level. For the ones who played winger in college they may lack the scoring of a wide forward but have plenty to offer in terms of their athleticism and their ability to make plays. Curiously, there are a number of left footed players in the draft. Left back can be a difficult position to find in general, keep an eye here.
Tier 1
Tate Johnson, UNC (Left):
Johnson is another freshman whose eligibility is pending a Generation Adidas contract. From the academy of USL’s Tampa Bay, he has excellent metrics across the board as a true left back. He has a knack for exploiting the interior with slashing runs or well placed passes, adding a wrinkle that makes him difficult to defend.
Jesus De Vicente, University of Illinois Chicago (Left):
The highest rated wide player as a defender, De Vicente has the floor skills necessary to fit in to MLS. He can play as a more traditional fullback or as a more advanced wing back.
Arthur Duquenne, Clemson (Left):
Duquenne is a sophomore who managed to secure a starting role on the national champion Clemson team as a freshman. Like Johnson, he is an ‘05 with significant potential for growth.
Tier 2:
Ian Smith, Denver (Left)
Gerardo Castillo, VCU (Left)
Casper Svendby, Pittsburgh (Right)
Kieran Chandler, UConn (Left)
Anthony Samways, Ohio State (Right)
Tier 3:
Kyran Pinho, SMU (Left)
L Nikolai (JMU)
E. Newman (Oregon State)
Bernardo Prego, Providence (Right)
Full/Elbow Backs:
Borrowing from John Muller’s popular term, these players are more defensive in their focus that a typical wing back. They may move further into the interior, or take up space as the wider defender in a back three. These players might lack the elite size and speed of MLS center backs.
Tier 1:
Daniel Moore, Charlotte:
Moore is one of the highest rated defenders as a fullback, with exceptional size and physicality for the position. While he would have to work on his consistency as a passer if he were to move to a more interior defensive position, there’s every indication that he would have the talent to do so.
Max Floriani, St Louis University:
Floriani played extensively this season as a true center back and as a fullback. He can play any position across the right side of the back line comfortably, and as a junior still has plenty of potential growth.
Tier 2:
Bryce Blevins, Michigan
Riley Thomas, UNC
Kyle Genenbacher, Notre Dame
Tier 3:
Reid Roberts, San Francisco
Santiago Hopkins, UC Berkeley
Pablo Greenlee, UCLA
Central Defenders:
Another reliable vector for talent moving to MLS has been at center back, where the speed and strength of the top level of players is sufficient to make them competitive for roles on MLS teams. NCAA CBs also offer a cost effective way to fill out defensive depth.
Tier 1:
Jansen Miller, Indiana:
Miller does everything a good center back is supposed to do; unlike most, though, he also brings a great deal of fun to the table. He is capable of driving into the attacking third and taking on opponents, which is an excellent way to disrupt opposition defenses.
Zach Barrett, Vermont:
Barrett was last seen playing the game winning assist in the National Championship game. That is a microcosm of his passing game; he stands out among CBs in his ability to create chances with his the ball at his feet, although his high risk profile may not be suited to a team that enjoys a good deal of the ball.
Moussa N’Diaye, VCU:
The junior central defender is a ball progression machine, along with being among the top in the nation for sheer pass volume. It’s rare to see a player have such a high progressive pass volume and completion rate, but Ndiaye is an exception.
Tier 2:
Siggi Magnusson, Ohio State
Aleksandar Vukovic, Marshall
Noah Adnan, Stanford
Nick Dang, Virginia
Ian Pilcher, Charlotte
Charlie Harper, UNC
Tier 3:
Reid Fisher, San Diego State
Lasse Jonathan Kelp, UMBC
Jann Riecke, Harvard
Nathan Demian, Ohio State
Shame on MLS:
With more than 400 eligible players, it’s impossible to cover each and every one of them. I would say to tune in to the draft tomorrow to see who will be taken, but you can’t. It’s a real shame. While obviously the whole production for players who may or may not every play in MLS can seem unnecessary, the draft coverage served more as a celebration of American collegiate soccer. There were interviews, back stories, and happy families celebrating in their very nice suburban homes. It’s disappointing to lose it - it’s more disappointing that it’s the sort of genuine storytelling with heart that Apple seems incapable of replicating.