Soccerhunter - thanks. So I kind of get the impression that just about every kid at a big time school is on technically a "full ride" of some sort?
Sorry to bring this back to the actual game, but I must give props to UNC for playing a lot of players significant minutes in both the semi and the final game. The fact that some of these players were walk-ons...really, WOW! Couple of good articles on the game: http://www.allwhitekit.com/?p=11010 http://espn.go.com/espnw/college-sp...heels-top-penn-state-nittany-lions-21st-title
No. That is not the case. And I think Soccerhunter's speculation about academic scholarships for so many players is a tad optimistic. There are a bunch of kids/parents of UNC players paying some sort of tuition/board. Until about two years ago, NC (like several other states) allowed state universities to count athletes onany sort of athletic scholarship as "in-state" for tuition purposes (the money the athletic dept had to cover). Keep in mind scholarships for soccer can and generally are broken up to cover more kids--so kids might get 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 of costs covered. So previously a hypothetical kid from CA that got say 1/8 athletic scholarship could be counted as "in-state" so the amount she or her parents needed to cover was the 7/8 of in-state tuition. The NC legislature did away with this provision as did some other states, though there are some that have kept it.
Just to throw some numbers at ur excellent point, Ball's GPA is 3.913 and Brooks is 3.81. Brooks is a 1st team academic All-American as Gay was last year
Randy Waldrum tweet to Amber Brooks: "Congrats Amber! Really proud of you on the title & hanging on the trophy!" Referring to a classic moment from the U-23 campaign - Waldrum (U-23 coach) had teased Brooks for dropping a tournament trophy and Brooks had tweeted (this was March 2012) : "@abrooks22: thanks for the shout out coach! I'll practice my trophy accepting skills so I'm prepared for next December!" Amber made good on her promise.
This doesn't even answer my argument at all. I think the FIFA game is prettier. I think unlimited reentry changes the game with its stop and go effect such that soccer is more like American football or basketball and that such resetting of the game has a detrimental effect. I also think that having more flow where players can have uninterrupted time on the field instead of being used as, say, a basketball sub for energy while the starters rest, would be a better game both for spectators and themselves. I have suggested rule changes that would allow the game to flow more, allow many players to play, AND yes, help potential national team players. Is it the principle that the game that is NCAA should never be changed? If all this can be done, why shouldn't it? For a d1 team, please explain: 1. Why is unlimited reentry better, in your opinion, than no reentry IF you can preserve that many players will play? Is unlimited reentry in and of itself a 'goal' that should be preserved and if so, why? I have seen no coherent argument for unlimited reentry. You persist in flailing about that it changes (everything!) and the NCAA is not a feeder ground for the USWNT (don't worry, it's not). Hahaha. The direct pro. Well, if women's soccer gets enough money, I suppose... But this is probably at least a good 20 years in the future, which unfortunately means, the vast majority of our players will be going through college. Source? What do you mean by 'athletic progress' (how are you defining this?)? And has the NCAA run a comparative study on NCAA players' athletic progress vs. players at roughly the same age that are athletically progressing in a no-reentry league to compare over a time sample? That is, are they controlling to figure out if unlimited substitution or playing time increases athletic progress? Has the NCAA conducted a survey on the latter with a large enough sample size? And is this survey limited only to NCAA d1 soccer players or to all of NCAA? How are they accounting for the difference between playing time in general vs. unlimited reentry? That is, how are they controlling for that to see if it is unlimited substitution spec. that is their enjoyment rather than just the fact that they are getting playing time? I have already explained why I think there is a difference in allowing no reentry and unlimited. So I ask again: Is unlimited reentry in and of itself a 'goal' that should be preserved and if so, why? So far, the only one I see is doing so, your assertion that unlimited substitution increases athletic progress and enjoyment of their experience. Thousands of d1 soccer players that will apparently now languish on the bench. Because, you know, with a smaller roster and a generous sub limit, that limits their chances... Because: " I think the FIFA game is prettier. I think unlimited reentry changes the game with its stop and go effect such that soccer is more like American football or basketball and that such resetting of the game has a detrimental effect. I also think that having more flow where players can have uninterrupted time on the field instead of being used as, say, a basketball sub for energy while the starters rest, would be a better game both for spectators and themselves because they would now, most likely, have to play the rest of the game. I have suggested rule changes that would allow the game to flow more, allow many players to play, AND yes, help potential national team players." IF my suggestions would do all this, why shouldn't it? You seem to think the NCAA experience is this and no, it should never be changed.
1 year only? That seems a bit short to try a change. Half the problem is going to be coaches resisting to get it changed back. So, to clarify, PT is the problem - not the unlimited sub rule? If so, with a smaller roster and generous sub limit, why do you think players would not get playing time? (I would say people seem to do it fine in the U20 WWC tournament and that if your coach tries to do this over the course of a season with the same players, he is probably malicious and stupid.) And in any case, the smaller roster and generous sub limit is, by design, intended to get coaches to use their subs liberally to rest players for the next game (not the next break in the same game) and to change their starting line ups. It would also put an emphasis on coaches that develop the entirety of their team's players because they will have to rely on their subs to play not only a significant number of minutes, but also a significant minute quality, including it must be said to start.
If the U20 and U17 r the argument than a better case could be made that they shouldnt be playing under FIFA sub rules than the reverse. The fact that ud expect 17 yo to play under the same rule pros use is wrong by nature. NCAA and Scholastic rules r designed with built in safety measures and geared for the greatest common denominator. They arent designed to protect Kealia Ohai who has a WNT motor, they r to protect the 2nd string girl from East Diddlihop A&T. It's the needs of the many, not the few.
What FIFA tournament operates under a 6 sub rule? And I do expect them to play under the same rules - you know, like most people do the world over. Does this mean I expect them to play exactly like pros? Or at the same speed and pace? No. I expect them to play slower (if only due to physical limits), pay more attention to using passing to get to spaces and make the ball do the work rather than themselves. There's an East Diddlihop A&T in NCAA d1 ball? And if there is, why are they trying to run an offense at a speed / energy that is harmful to them? Please at least stick to what I've said. For d1 ball, what is the benefit of unlimited sub rules in and of itself? The unlimited sub rule, mind, not playing time. If you can create a system that rewards teams who play their subs quality and significant minutes (i.e. many people will get playing time) AND that will preserve flow and increase player development, why shouldn't it be used?
Just a quibble . . . there is NO unlimited sub rule in NCAA soccer - the rule is no re-entry in the 1st half (and OT periods), 1 re-entry per player in the 2nd. So there are limits. To the other guy, if you have smaller rosters, fewer kids are playing.
I don't think any reentry rule would make the women's college game pretty. Nor would I expect it to make coaches or players pay more attention to technical or tactical aspects of their game. So why argue one way or the other, it just doesn't matter.
Well, that's one way to view it! I think it can be improved which is why I offered some suggestions to allow for meaningful game time and development for many players with greater flow. But if the consensus is that the college game can't be improved, then I'll agree that it doesn't matter.
Actually, what I remember is that a little before that the NCAA allowed unlimited reentry just a couple years before that, then went back to the more limited reentry only in the second of the four possible periods, except for keepers. So I checked, and I found this post from you in 2002 about reentry and about settling regular season games with PK's And I'm not sure anybody is advocating player going at it again with one days rest, whether it is 90 or 45 minutes. Studies show increased injury rates in either case. No FIFA tournaments run on that model.
That part referenced the committee allowing 1 re-entry per half. the next year they went to no re-entry in either half. then back to the rule college soccer has had for most of the least 40 years, which is no re-entry in the first half and 1 re-entry per player in the 2nd.There hasn't been" unlimited" subbing in college soccer in my memory.
Not sure why your post is all messed up. I call it unlimited subbing, but I suppose that's a wrong description for it. There are no specificed total limits on subs (although in practice, it is technically limited by the number of players on your team) and combined with the reentry rules, I find it figuratively unlimited subbing. I am open to calling it something else. But we're getting further and further away from people pointing out why a smaller roster with a generous sub limit and no reentry for d1 teams wouldn't work for both meaningful playing time, greater flow, and better player development. And if the implications are true, why would this be worse than the current NCAA regime (and thus, not adopted)?
While this is an interesting argument and both sides have made valid points, I think it does a great disservice to NC. Carolina didnt win because it subbed more. Anyone who watched Dunn and Ohai play U20 know they both can play hard for 90 minutes. Dunn defended on the back line and made runs up the side including setting up the winner. Ohai's work rate all over the field was incredible. With those two playing 90 minute NC could still have pressed PSU most of the game and that was what pinned back their stingy offense. Second, Carolina got scoring from unexpected places. What r the odds two deep backs Gardner and Murray would account for 2 goals and an assist. I dont believe Murray score a point before that in her two years. Carolina won because they out worked their opponents and could have done the same thing under FIFA rules with 3 subs.
No one's made this argument until you... I think the only thing it has to do with NC is because Dorrance brought up the NCAA system of subbing in his comments. I will say I have thought the NCAA game could be changed before he brought it up but I guess it is more topical to have it if it's already brought up than to randomly bring it up.
I'm still in awe that Morris20 was posting here in 2002. Whole generations of BSers have come and gone since then.
Yeah, I've stagnated . . . #lifefail sorry K, tried to respond from my phone . . . evidently that's not all sorted out yet.
Correction - this was brought up after UNC beat Stanford. And if you listen to the press conference AD did not bring this up a reporter asked him the question. It was weird because it was almost as if the reporter had been reading this website after the Stanford game.
I'm not sure that was necessary to visit this site. Everytime UNC wins with their walk-on subs playing key minutes, the people around the more highly recruited kids who just got beat start whining about subbing. There's just been an uncommonly long gap between UNC wins this time.
Totally agree, what allot of people don't realize is Anson has been severly critisized on this forum by his own UNC fans for subbing too much. The old saying winning takes care of everything is true, today among UNC fans he is once again a genius!. UNC had a shoot out with Baylor, double overtime with Stanford and double overtime with BYU, they had a big win over Penn State and all of a sudden it must be their depth and all the subs . I don't believe mass subsistution made allot of difference when you look at the teams that could have beat UNC, trust me when it came too crunch time Anson had his starters in.
I think the usage of subs (with the exception of the Illinois game) is not necessarily to have the game won by subs. I think in the tournament they were used to keep things steady while the starters were out -- the subs didn't have to go out there and score goals but they could not go out there and give up the game.
Exactly. If Stanford scores two goals while Ohai, Brooks and Dunn r off the field I guarantee we arent having a rules discussion but a how stupid is AD for not playing his stars discussion.