I'll add that this may have been a unique situation for that league at that time. Most fresh out of college players aren't going to be asked to go 90 and can build up to the stamina. The top players (such as the NT U-20/U-23 players) are more used to the 90 minute stint, so would be more easily able to step in as a starter right away. Of course, the WPSLE didn't have much access to NT players from US or Canada because of the Olympics and didn't draw many internationals from other places, meaning they dipped deeper into the college pool faster than they might otherwise.
So MLS is changing their roster rules to allow more foreign players? When did that happen? Do you seriously listen to yourself? If these ready to go foreign players were so readily available to fill up all the extra roster spots, it would have happened by now and the draft would have been eliminated years ago. Well for starters, how many of the guys being drafted by MLS the past several years were Seniors? I honestly don't know the exact numbers, but at a glance, it seems like guys are leaving school early with more and more regularity. And I guess you don't watch MLS, like, at all. Because if you did, you'd know that there are tons of guys in the 23-25 age range that have breakout seasons every years. And you should also refer to the first part of this post with regards to the "competition from the rest of the World" argument. It doesn't hold water. That's great if they get it elsewhere. And you know what will happen to NCAA soccer if the number of players skipping college (which already happens in large, large, large numbers) increases? Abso-f*cking-lutely nothing at all. It will still continue to operate exactly the same way. NCAA soccer programs will continue to lose exactly the same amount of money that they do today (adjusted for inflation of course).
Do they? Other than keepers, I've never seen the majority of college players go 90. I don't watch much college soccer, but I noticed even the top players were rotated out in the College Cup, to get a breather if nothing else, because the rules allow it. Certainly the top college teams like UNC women have the depth to do a lot of rotation.
No. Preparing the 1% for a professional sports career is a by-product, not the main goal of the NCAA. It might be on the forefront of college coaches and universities, because that is how they get better recruits, which equals better teams, which equals more money. But for the NCAA, the main goal, should always remain to provide the other 99% with a pathway to an education.
Not sure how relevant that number is, given that highly-regarded MLB prospects routinely receive six-figure signing bonuses (seven figures, for those in the top 30 draft picks or so). The financial rewards that baseball can provide to young signees are obviously vastly greater than those that MLS offers. Of course, there will always be some players who turn down college scholarship opportunities to sign a small contract with MLS - either because they are uninterested in college for personal reasons, or because they have high (likely excessive) confidence about their chances of playing time. I'd expect that group to remain pretty small, though - and the opportunity to play lower-division ball with the reserves won't make it much bigger.
I don't follow MLB, let alone college baseball enough to know any of that. The mercy rule and the double header rule make sense in the context of scholastic sports, which is what NCAA sports are. The base running rule is a safety issue, and also makes sense. The NCAA does not give a shit about adhering to the standards used by professional sports ---> even in the "big money" sports. Two thoughts on this. 1. The NBA is 100% for profit and uses the extra breaks for more commercial time. 2. The NCAA does halves to speed up the actual game time since so many games are on school nights. Just guesses on both accounts. Both are items that separate the pros from the amateurs. It's a step up in skill and competition. This is seen in most NCAA vs pro sports from baseball (bat composition) to football (in bounds definitions) to lacrosse (shot clock, two point shot). Again, an emphasis on safety. Some are made for safety reasons, like the down without contact rule. Some are changes the pros made to make their game a little more difficult (the inbounds rule). Some are merely stylistic or manufacturer related (stripes on NCAA balls). Exactly. The sub rule is a fundamental change to the way the game is played. None of the examples GVPATS77 provided are anywhere near the same ballpark. All are minor tweaks made for safety or to make the pro level a bit more difficult (as it should be). To make a valid comparison, it would be like NCAA basketball operated under the old womens rules or allowed a sixth man. Quite true Agree Maybe, maybe not. I would be interested to see how many of the successful pros from NCAA were regularly subbed out. The only guys I know that are playing pro anywhere in the US were rarely subbed routinely. Most routinely played the full game or were taken out for 10-15 minutes max per game. This goes for the guys that get regular minutes with the Menace as well. I think the point he is making is that playing a guy for 20, sitting him for the rest of the half and then giving him another 20 in the second half before sitting him again does not provide a realistic scenario for the pros. This, is true. Hell, even the concept of putting players' names on football jerseys is relatively new in the NCAA. Names are not on replica jerseys or included in EA Sports' games. Even die hard NCAA football fans struggle to name players not on the Heisman list. But schools? Everybody knows FSU, USC, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. The schools are the draw, not the players.
But the substitution rules in the NCAA are for safety. Having unlimited subs vs. 3 subs inherently changes the way that a coach deals with a hobbled player during a game. A coach is more likely to leave a slightly injured player on the field rather than use one of their limited subs. But if they have unlimited subs, that coach can take the player out to get medical attention without having to worry about subs left or if that player can go back in the game if the injury is deemed to be minor. It is ABSOLUTELY a player safety issue.
Is much more of a safety issue to require NCAA soccer players to many times play 3 games in a week and 20 games in 3 months. NCAA talks out of both sides of their mouths.
This line of thinking is based on your experience that players are playing 90 minutes in a professional environment. Which they aren't. Limiting substitutions, which is what you want to do, would only exacerbate the situation. Having unlimited sub rules allows coaches to manage minutes better. The only way the NCAA can accomplish what you want it to do, without completely compromising the health and well being of their players, is to stretch the season out by several months, not have any players go to any classes ever, and to just turn college soccer teams into professional academies. And even including playoffs, you are looking at about 25 games in a 16 week window (Mid Aug - End Nov.) Now, just in case you aren't a math major, that comes out to be about 1.6 games per week. Which kind of makes your argument about playing 3 games a week, well, grossly inaccurate. Why don't you just cut the bullshit. You don't like the NCAA in general, and quit hiding behind a "player development" argument.
I don't know how close you follow MLS but teams are getting their International players green card status and signing more International players. Each team gets 8 but many teams have many more. And that doesn't have anything to do with minutes played. The American player's minutes are on a slow decline since the league's inception. It is happening at a slow pace. As I stated Foreign player minutes are increasing over time. The 4 yr college player is becoming marginalized. It just sounds like you don't follow MLS. 70-80% of the 40 or so of the original 2 round draft are Seniors. The GA budget which only covers around 10 players are reserved for the underclassmen MLS deems worthy. The following rounds now called the supplemental draft which is now 2 rounds are virtually all 4 yr college players. Not as rookies they don't Yes it does. Most all roster spots are competitve Internationally especially most teams are finding creative ways to either get their players citizenships status, green card status, refugee or asylum status so they can shift those roster spots to domestic category and sign not more college players but more international players. For example Chicago had 14 international players while Seattle had 13. You are probably right and then I won't care one iota.
I don't like College Soccer because it hinders professional player development for the elite few.I want college soccer to continue to eternity. It does what it does very well. But those who advocate college soccer generally don't want MLS to have any impact on college soccer. I generally like the people who like college soccer but realize that with its inherent limitations and unwillingness to change to also promote MLS to quicken the pace of professional soccer development without institutional limitations. I want to see an environment where education AND professional soccer development exists for those few who want to pursue it. You can misrepresent my position as much as you want. I do not have any connection to NCAA soccer or MLS but can view objectively what are players aged 18-22 want and need to improve in professional soccer. You are correct NCAA soccer will never be able to compete providing a true integrated, comprehensive, intensive training envrionment to compete on the world stage. NCAA has been great to US Soccer for a great many years it just can't keep up with what we need or want now to incrementally improve as a soccer nation. Its time is waning.
Then why do you care now? Your gripe shouldn't be with the NCAA. Your gripe should be with US Soccer for not opening 5-10 more Bradenton's around the country. Your gripe should be with MLS academies for not investing more money into player development. Your bitching and moaning at the wrong organization. However many years ago it was when MLS mandated all clubs start youth academies I wrote an article about how that rule would eventually render the college system largely meaningless in terms of developing professional talent (similar to college hockey). And they probably will. But that doesn't mean that the NCAA needs to change its rules to "be relevant". It simply doesn't matter.
The elite few aren't going to college. They just aren't. So this simply isn't true. The only thing that held back player development was that US Soccer half assed it by only opening up one Bradenton like academy, limiting the number of players that can go into residency. It didn't help that MLS was on the verge of insolvency 10 years ago, and that even today, there are only 16 US teams in the league, who only were mandated to have youth academies relatively recently (5 years ago I think). I just don't understand why you're screaming from the pulpit for NCAA to concern itself with developing MLS ready players when the elite few have other options, domestically and abroad, to develop in an environment whose sole purpose is to develop professional soccer players. So with the development of MLS youth academies, why this burning need to change NCAA soccer then?
Apparantly you don't read all my posts, I've been griping about MLS development static growth for years. Mostly on the youth national team boards. We were talking NCAA on this thread so I took it. My gripe on this side of the fence isn't solely NCAA soccer but the perpetual narrative our historical development structure has undertaken. That the only way to play in this country is a pay for play club model to gain the super important college education. The narrative is the only way for a soccer player to pursue his vocation is to play college soccer for the scholarship. No one questions that many are paying far more than the 9.9 scholarships will pay for your education and the limitations doesn't allow the elite few to get better training while still being able to pursue a formal education or become educated in general. I truly have no problem with what NCAA soccer inherently exists for just with how it tries to hang on to a narrative that skews the facts to convince its role in that overall development structure. The day Sacho Cirovski said with a straight face at the annual convention on FSC that college soccer is the best way to develop professionals because they have a limited season to allow college players the ability for 'free play' when not in season is the day I knew college soccer is trying to hold onto a role and power in this country hindering advancement. Not the role you think they are as some pure, saintly educational organization.
No. I don't really give a shit about your opinion to the point where I'm following you into forums that I don't ever post in. Well, considering that 1% of college soccer players turn pro, I'd say that education is pretty damn important. Well that's not true either. Even before MLS mandated academies, players were skipping college to go pro. Hell, Claudio Reyna was offered a youth contract with Barcelona in the early 90's but turned it down. The same non college avenues that exist for players today were available 20 years ago too. The fact that players choose college is more of a cultural thing than it is a reflection on young players thinking that is the only pathway to a professional soccer career. I'd have to hear the quote for myself because it sounds like your taking comments out of context or didn't understand what he was saying. And even if you do have it word for word, you're taking one man's opinion and attributing that as an example of how the NCAA is power hungry. Tell me this....what does the NCAA have to gain by having college soccer? Why would the NCAA feel a need to hold any power over soccer in the USA? They sure as shit aren't making any money off of it. NCAA soccer loses tens of millions of dollars each and every year. What "power" does the NCAA gain by having college soccer? When the f*ck did I say this?
What is your connection to college soccer? Would love to know. Now we're talking past each other. We disagree. I can live with that. I think the people involved in college soccer are trying to hold onto their power to the detiment of the growth of soccer development in this country.That's my issue in a nutshell. You do not agree. That's fine. Just because NCAA soccer as a whole loses money doesn't mean it isn't a strong and influential participant in how our game develops. Big and small, Old institutions histoically try to hold onto influence and power.. I just don't like it. Do you kiss anyone with that potty mouth?
I played it. Never had any delusions that it would turn into a pro career or anything like that. I don't have any particular affinity for it really. Just pointing out that there are other avenues a player can go down if they are chasing the dream of being a professional soccer player, and that the NCAA has no obligations to bow down to FIFA or US Soccer or MLS, and it shouldn't considering 99% of its players will never kick a soccer ball competitively again post graduation. So you think that the NCAA is actively trying to hinder the development of soccer in this country? Why would they do that?
I thought so. You were getting pretty protective there. I don't see it as bowing down, I think about it as more of a cooperative partnership for the good of the game. You point to alot of correct realities about college soccer. Selfishly as a fan of the quick growth of the game I would like to see NCAA take a more realistic role of what it does well and what it doesn't. You are correct that MLS hasn't done enough to make this argument more relevant but we will soon get to that tipping point where the top players have to seriously consider to go to a fully functioning professional development opportunity rather than college. I don't see college soccer extending to 8 month seasons but do see where they can take a cooperative role where they can. Anyway good debate and may the game progress with both MLS and college soccer.
I don't think you are wrapping your head around the fact this already happens and has been happening for the last 20 years. Since before MLS existed. Its not like Landon Donovan, Michael Bradley or Jozy Altidore were forced to go to college. There have always been other avenues available for the elite players. I'm not really being protective of college soccer. I didn't need it to go to college. My parents could afford college and I got good grads. I didn't see it as a pathway to a professional career. I saw it as a chance to keep playing. Plain and simple. And that is the way that 99% of all kids who choose to play college soccer see it.
I think we still disagree. By listing 3 players over 13 yrs who didn't go to college does not now indicate we have a fully functioning smooth integrated domestic professional development pyramid where pro level prospects have a great place to get full year training. MLS is to blame for that. The GA program is only 10 players a year, the HG has so many restrictions and limited budget MLS is losing its top prospects to overseas academies like Mario and Stevie Rodriquez A. Guido soon to be P. Arriola et al. We needour top 30 prospects a year getting full year pro training. College still plays a role in that I can be rest assured any top coach recruiting a player will ever say you are too good to be in college or that you need 10 months of intensive training that NCAA can't provide you. Its about critical mass not a few players a year.
Apologies in advance, as this veers well off thread, but this thread has already been off topic at times for several pages, and I wanted to address this. While I fully agree with the overall wider point you are making here, the bit that I've highlighted is overreaching, and not just a little bit either. I've been following along the thread closely, and I only chime in here because I'm an avid follower of college hoops and I just think this is a gross misrepresentation. There just isn't any "bs" being peddled with respect to the role that college basketball plays in the lives of nearly all of the student-athletes that play it. Yes there are the "one-and-done's" but annually this is no more than a handful of over 3,000 D-1 scholarship players. Now football, yes I will grant that, because it has changed the landscape of college athletics going back to the early 90's. IMO (and I'd like to think the opinions of most reasonable people as well) for the worse. I believe this has developed more or less in spite of the NCAA, not because of it. But you can't lump basketball in with football. Even in Lexington, Kentucky's moribund football program rakes in twice the amount of revenue of their near-mythic men's basketball team. First, the NCAA is now aggressively imposing post-season bans for those that don't meet APR standards. Degrees matter. Secondly, until recent weeks literally all of the conference re-alignment that has made so many fans weary of college athletics has had only one thing in mind. And it definitely isn't hoops. It's worth noting that the Catholic 7, otherwise known as the Big Priest, have made waves in recent weeks because they've decisively moved to isolate themselves from football's out-sized influence. And wouldn't you know it, some have actually had the cheek to criticize them for protecting their collective traditions and commitment to collegiate athletics, including hoops. The thing that has maybe interested me most about the sport is that in recent years we have seen the rise of mid-majors, where schools with four-year players can confidently take their chances against your Kentucky's, UNC's and UCLA's.
======= Too short of season and the tweaks to the FIFA laws. But as I finished stating, and I agree with the other poster, we need a non-NCAA path to developing our players as professionals. Just because they lack college, should not preclude them. Once we have that pathway set , we can minimize the NCAA involvement. I just think currently MLS takes the easy way out and drafts college players like all the other sports. Heck players leave early for NBA and NFL all the time. I wonder what % of college players leave early to play "pro soccer", either here or elsewhere?
I'm not really directing this at you. It's ironic that folks think that 1) the NCAA is a problem affecting the development of soccer players in the U.S. and that 2) one of the problems is the too short season. It's not like the college players (at least those with pro ambition) are sitting on their couches eating Doritos and playing XBox the other 9 months. Any player that's actually going to make it to the pros likely plays for a local club travel team and/or a summer amateur PDL/NPSL level team. Yet, somehow, the NCAA is the big problem. I just don't get it. No, I don't like the unlimited in/out/in substitutions, but it's not like that for 15-25 games over a 3 month period once a year is going to stunt a player's development. At least any more than what they're doing the other 9 months out of the year. As the financial risk/reward calculation changes we'll see more and more players forgo college soccer, or at least leave early. But, just like the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL there'll be plenty of players - including eventual Hall of Famers - that don't go pro until after graduation.
Actually Reserve Division games can be very meaningful. Not in the standings, but in player evaluation and preparation.