And it can also only be a problem for the person who wants to pretend that not getting his way is somehow important. Like in this case.
The NCAA and their lobby and influence were heavily involved in the NBA's collective bargaining agreement with the NBA players association. College players practice with their MLS teams during summers to accrue the 1 yr training plateau.
All much more irrelevant to substitution rules. What differences in substituion rules exist between other pro sports and their NCAA counterparts.
You'll notice I said *match*. Yes, they have changed the bats, but more for safety than anything else (the majors would prefer they use wooden bats exclusively). The 3 point line is still shorter than the NBA's version. You can certainly argue that the substitution rule is bigger than the other rules I cited, but, face it, the NCAA isn't going to change the version of the game they have created without demand from players, coaches or fans.
But many of those other skills they pick up are due to the rules that ABET uses to accredit schools. Not only do they have to take X amount of hours in their field of study, but they also have to take Y hours in other fields, etc. Similarly the NCAA is telling student athletes that not only do they have X hours to spend training, they also have to take Y hours of class to remain eligible, where they will also pick up those other skills. Obviously its not exactly equivalent. One big difference, as you noted, is that there are other mainline paths to being a pro soccer player while there aren't really any mainline paths to being a "professional engineer" that don't involve some sort of post-high school higher education, but to say that the NCAA has no responsibility to prepare a player to be a professional athlete is missing part of what the NCAA does actually do.
Huh? This makes no sense. We are debating a topic on the Internet. New to the Internet? I don't need people to agree with me all the time. How is debating a topic on a public forum, not getting his way? You confound me.
Source? Or is this just some conspiracy theory you came up with while making hats out of aluminum foil? I think what this really comes down to is that you have a personal crusade against the NCAA in general and are trying to disguise that behind a player development argument. Are you talking about the academy players? Because anyone signed to a professional contract with MLS isn't in college anymore. And if you are talking about the academy players, this is nothing new. Since the dawn of time, the NCAA hasn't limited the amount of time that a player is allowed to practice or play on their own time. So long as they aren't practicing with their coaches or as a part of an organized training with their college teammates (organized in the sense that it is part of some offseason workout plan dictated by the coaches), then they are free to practice and play with other teams in the offseason.
It also isn't necessary to develop top-level players. Lots and lots of college players play in the PDL every summer, and they don't have any problem making the transition from college sub and timing rules to FIFA ones. One can make an argument that college soccer isn't the very best way to develop pro players, for several rational reasons, but the clock and the substitution rules are not among them.
So, apparently, does the idea that not getting your way is not the same thing as a problem. Because that was the point that flew over your head.
I think we've reached the end of a natural discussion. We disagree. I do agree that the NCAA will not do anything significant to get in line what professional development wants. But I also think that NCAA could make a few changes that do help their players in their possible pursuit of professional soccer while not hurting in any way their educational goals. I do think NCAA changes only when and if MLS develops a significant development infrastructure that then pulls a large number of student athletes away from their organizations. Coaches will then demand it and the will only move so far. I do agree we're quite aways away.
That's not exclusive to Engineering. Virtually every college that I'm aware of requires a list of prerequisite coursework in a variety of subjects that must be completed to earn a degree. I think this is a narrow view. People look at Football and Basketball and see it as preparation for the NBA and NFL. But as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, about 1% of those athletes actually turn pro. What the NCAA actually does is provide a pathway to education for tens of thousands of students each year who otherwise would not have had the means to get an education. SU Dano can talk about the corruption of the BCS all he wants. Doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of student athletes under the NCAA umbrella, NCAA sports is a pathway to education, not a career in professional sports.
You're right your incomprehensible points did fly over my head. It must be a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. On a public forum its ok to write in clear points so others can understand you. Or are you one of those who like to confuse others under the guise of superiority. As long as you like and understand your own posts I'm good.
I've never really understood why there is a conversation about NCAA soccer when it comes to MLS academy players. You're going to lose players to college just like you're going to lose players to other pro leagues. You can't sign them all. You sign the ones you're able to and let the rest take their own paths (some will end up in MLS anyway). MLS will, seemingly soon, begin the process of expanding it's ability to "sign the ones it can" and develop those players. How you go about that is the real "problem", as far as I'm concerned. What is the financial investment required to see a jump in quality of domestic MLS players over the next 10 years? How would that investment be spent? What would the development system look like? Is that investment worth any increase in profit/club valuation that would result from that increase in quality? There is going to be a ton of speculation all around as to the answers to these questions, but that's part of the fun. I don't know the answer, but I'm looking forward to seeing how this all comes together. The folks at MLS are a prudent (if not miserly) bunch and it should be interesting to see how they (attempt to) strike a balance between investment and development.
I will say that the coach of the WPSL-Elite Boston Breakers cited that one of the top players coming out of North Carolina wasn't ready for the pro game because of the sub rule. She said the player wasn't fit enough to play the full 90 because she was used to going only 20-30 minutes at a time.
The NCAA will not care. They won't. It doesn't matter how many player MLS academies pull away. Do you want to know why? The NCAA doesn't need marquee players to exist because there is no marquee on which to put their names. There are no big money TV contracts that they need to negotiate. There is no large TV audience out there demanding higher quality play on the field. For the most part, with the exception of maybe a half dozen programs across the entire country, NCAA soccer exists completely anonymously on every college campus across the country. So long as there are enough players to fill up rosters, and there always will be, losing the cream of the crop to MLS academies will NEVER matter.
Well I just told you one with regards to college baseball in the post you just quoted. Guess you didn't read the post. And you also miss the larger point, which is simple. The NCAA does not care about aligning itself with the standards of any professional sport. Period. End of argument.
This is an ongoing point made by professional coaches. That in the need to play everyone, many are not developing the physical skill to go 90 minutes a game and do not know how to play the game as they tire. Many have mentioned a false and frantic pace to soccer games with almost unlimited substituions
True, I was just using engineering as an example as I remember the discussions when I got my degree of the classes we had to take in order of the school to remain accredited under ABET (specifically the electrical engineering course that not even our professors wanted us to have to deal with, much less the students). Not really a narrow view, just an additional view. I agree with you that 99% of student-athletes are not going pro in sports, but that doesn't mean that the NCAA can't or shouldn't also help prepare the 1% that are going to go pro while helping the other 99 get an education in something else.
Yes, but there is a difference between what the NCAA does and what it intends to do. The NCAA has no direct interest whatsoever in developing professional players, in any sport, even those for which it is the primary source of talent (and it's a good thing, considering just how few college players make it in the professional ranks). In those sports, football and basketball, they even pretend that the athletes are there to get college educations and nothing else, regularly delving to new depths of rationalization and sheer bullshit in the process. For all other sports, they have even less desire to develop pro players. They literally have no reason whatsoever to listen to anyone's pleas to change anything that they do.
So you draft them and send them off to play in the USL Pro reserve league for a season or two to get them used to 90 minutes. I think there was a thread somewhere around here about MLS making that happen.
But that is exactly what the NCAA is already doing by providing higher level coaching, better medical/training staffs, better strength and conditioning staffs, better facilities, ect.
OK. Of course you can do anything you want. But those spots will be taken by players from other countries who don't need a season or two in USL Pro. I can't see a 22 yr old being sent to USL Pro just to get in shape and be 24 competing for a spot on a professional team open to almost the world. We're not there yet but there is a slow movement happening in MLS where the 4 yr college player are not getting the minutes they used too. Either the player will demand it from NCAA or get it elsewhere, more likely elsewhere.
I'm not sure that one coach's opinion of one player (who is in the minority, since most players in college soccer do regularly go the full 90 minutes) is a good reason to think that what I said isn't true.
But wait, we started this conversation after you said I was pointing out that yeah, it is kind of one of their responsibilities (or at least they are accomplishing that regardless of intention and IMO it should be their intention). Are we arguing the same side all of a sudden?