I laughed the first time a bunch of wild eyed, unrealistic coaches threw this out at the NSCAA Convention. BUT it seems the drumbeat is continuing. Don't know how realistic it is to think this proposal will be more than birdcage lining in the end, but there is certainly more trumpeting (and more consistent trumpeting) about this than I expected. http://thesoccerobserver.com/2014/0...-full-year-schedule-to-bolster-its-relevance/ Thoughts?
Thanks for the link! My initial thoughts are that the NCAA isn't going to do anything (i) just to improve the potential professional careers of soccer players, (ii) that increases the costs for a non-revenue sport, and (iii) that treats women's teams and men's teams differently. Nonetheless, the rage these days in the NCAA D1 (all because of the various lawsuits going on) is to embrace changes that improve the health and welfare of the student-athletes. So, if it could be shown that these changes did those things, it would probably have a shot at passing. Because of the likely additional costs, though, it might just be the Power 5 conferences that go this route. Overall, I'd guess the odds of this happen are low.
I think you are spot on about the concern that this will increase the costs for non-revenue sports like soccer. The men's programs have already taken a pretty big hit from this across the country. An article today from the Big 12 commissioner indicated that non-revenue sports may be in jeopardy outside of the the Big 5 conferences if they follow suit with the changes wanted by the Big 5 conferences like stipends for student athletes and actual cost of attendance models being thrown around.
I find it incredible that a bunch of coaches are so blind to the overall economics/politics of college soccer that they think THIS is a good use of their time. BUT, hey, it's the guys with no realism who get in Mayflowers and found Americas. So, either I'm right with my first impression, that this is an idea & bunch of geniuses who have all the tactical acumen of General Custer, and could actually manage to endanger the sport at the college level; OR they're visionaries who are going to lead all non-revs to split-season year round competition (because what, you think softball or volleyball is going to let soccer run away with this and not want to follow suit?) Yeah, the more I think about, these guys are seriously delusional...I'm sure the Athletic Trainers, Administrators, and Student-Athlete Advisory Committees will be totally supportive of this...what could possibly make them opposed to longer seasons with more games only a couple of years after they shortened the season for everyone, right?
why would the NCAA allow this. All sports would want to have a full year model. Think lacrosse, field hockey, longer basketball season, baseball/ softball starting in the fall. -there would be a huge gap between fall and spring are these sports going to compete from Aug to thanksgiving and then take 4 months off for old man winter to come and go and then compete from Spring break to June. that just seems silly.
Is this proposal very simply a desperate attempt to try to keep men's college soccer relevant in terms of being the training ground for the best players who will be the future professionals. In the other college sports, colleges serve as the development leagues for all of the America major sports with the exception of Tennis. Basketball, Football, Track & Field, and yes, even baseball see colleges as a free developmental ground. The truly international professional sports, and in particular tennis and soccer are more and more bypassing college and going after the younger players directly. If men's college soccer saw itself as being able to get the top players before they went professional, that era is rapidly passing. This scheme looks like a desperate attempt to keep more of the best players in the college game as a prestige and relevance issue.
I agree 100%. So far as tennis is concerned, about which I actually know something having played at a pretty high level myself back in the dark ages and having coached at the high school level for just short of 20 years, you're right on point. Now and then, I hear parents at high school competitions marvel at the level of players they are seeing and suggesting that the players ultimately could be world class players. I nicely let them know that no young player who ultimately could be a world class player plays high school tennis. It's true that there are one or two college players, now and then, who might be world class players. But essentially, top level tennis players play neither high school nor college tennis. Men's college soccer, in the US, is becoming like that. I don't think it's the case with the women, since some of the best women's soccer in the world is played at US colleges.
I do see the possibility that programs will leave the NCAA and migrate to PDL leagues. BYU has already done it. But having a sport that goes across two seasons isn't all that bizarre. Rowing, which for men has never been an NCAA sport, has been doing it for almost two centuries. Track and field / cross country has also followed that model, as is now Volleyball. In those cases, it is often the same players doing " different" sports ( if you call cross country and steeplechase different). The issue appears to be time on the ball and hours of coaching in the off season. When I played Lacrosse before it was an NCAA sport we were not restricted as to how or where we played in the off season. We often played in leagues in the with former All Americans in it in the summer and in Box Lacrosse leagues in winter. And college coaches often did the coaching. I don't think a split soccer season would take any more from a player's academics than basketball currently does (5 1/2 months from the start of the season to the end of March Madness. In fact, last year they voted to start practices 2 weeks earlier). The only difference is that there would be a hiatus in mid winter. And anything that ends the madness of one day's rest between games is worth examining.
The key here is BYU NEVER played NCAA men's soccer. They were a club powerhouse, that was never part of BYU's athletic department. From a soccer standpoint, the split season is definitely an interesting idea (although competing across semesters would be unprecedented for a fall sport, and a little weird, you could compete in the NCAA tournament with players who weren't on the roster when you won your conference in the fall). My point is that the soccer argument for it (basically getting rid of 2 games in 3 days each week schedules) seems to me to be flying in the face of institutional imperatives that will render them simply irrelevant. I kind of hope I'm wrong, but this is also the same kind of argument college men's soccer has been making for a long time...and it's not football/basketball (a minor league), but it's also not tennis. And there are a LOT of reasons for top level men's players to go to college rather than straight to MLS (actually, there are still a lot of top male players who go to work/med school/law school rather than MLS after college as well based on financial incentives). Also, it's important to point out that NCAA soccer and volleyball have the same split season rules (men's soccer plays in the spring now, it's just not part of the "championship season" - which is actually a unique and useful NCAA feature for player development that these guys are - in my opinion - devaluing while administrators are looking to eliminate it). Your other example xc/track can feature the same athletes, but it's two separate seasons (actually 3) with separate NCAA championships and events.
The rules aren't the same. Volleyball players can play the Beach game and the indoor game with full access to coaching virtually year round.( so, 20 hrs/wk for two seasons) schools that don't support both sports are losing the recruiting wars. The current rules for men's soccer in the non championship season are currently the same as the women. They are allowed 5 competition days over 8 months and coaches are only allowed to coach ball skills two hours a week. There isn't a ball sport invented where two hours is even close to adequate. Certainly not soccer at any level. I know u8 teams that do better. And European players play almost twice as many matches over the course of a year, none of which games are they expected to play on one day's rest, the norm in the NCAA. While there are good reasons for kids to go to college, and even some great players have done it, ( from Portland, Kasey Keller and now Luis Robles pop to mind), usually the best of the crop play ncaa only a year or two until they get stronger for the international game and then move on. ( since there is no limit on weight and conditioning work, college is actually pretty good there) Keller lagged a little behind And didn't get selected for the Nats right away. He had to play in a Europe to become seasoned enough for the international game. And that's taking into account that Keller and others played for the USL Timbers semipro team in the off season. The rules were different then. Steve Cherundolo, Conor Casey, Nate Jacqua, Josh Simpson are examples from Portland of players who left early. There are only a couple on the National team currently who actually stayed four years. If they stay longer, they lag behind their EURO competition which are playing 50+ games a year. If a Euro coach looks at two players who are close developmentally, my guess is he will choose the younger euro player. From a story after Clive died: (Both players had long productive Nat and Pro careers. Cherundolo retired as captain of Hannover 96 this year. Connor still plays) Whether it serves the player who will enter medicine or the stock market is a separate issue, IMO. But they can choose ncaa programs that fit their needs. And the running sports example is a good comparison. Athletes compete for three seasons ( I forgot indoor) and can still run competitively in the fourth without penalty. During all that time their allowed coaching is 20 hrs per week, not two. The best track athletes have full access virtually year round. I actually think this trial balloon will never fly anyway. The NCAA mindset just isn't tuned to the idea that college ball is for developing professional players. It is only tolerated in Football because the schools insist on it because it is a cash cow for them, and Basketball March Madness funds virtually the entire NCAA budget. I'll note the time with coaches is substantially longer with both sports and the seasons are getting longer. Until soccer becomes a cash cow, it will remain a backwater. But if they do go to a more year round structure, I think they should drop the NCAA rules and adopt the international rules. I don't think the substitution or clock rules are good for the game for players wanting to play after college. Maybe they need to split the sport. In S America, Futsal is viewed as a great developmental tool. It would mirror what is done in volleyball.
You are a little bit fuzzy on your rules. 20 hrs/wk in both your Championship and non-championship season (once spring season starts, back to 20 hours). There is a cap on weight lifting in the off-season at 8 hrs/wk and only 2 of those can be with the ball. The "off-season" would be the time between the fall season and the spring season, and the time after the spring season.
I'm a bit fuzzy with the rules because with the exceptions the rules are fuzzy. The 8 hrs weight lifting is with a trainer. There is absolutely NO limit on lifting or conditioning where coaches and trainers aren't involved, however. You could do it 24/7 if you want. Often team captains 'voluntarily' organize the conditioning programs at the schools I know about. By laws say results can't be reported to the coaching staff. The Off season work allowed is about 48-54 days in D1., depending on what exceptions are used. The total limit on practices is 132 days per year, as it count it. About 78-84 are for the competition season. Non-competition season allowed practices have to be when classes are in session, and whatever is left of the 132 days is all that are allowed in the off season. And it is still only two hrs per week with the ball in those 50 or so days. A euro player gets maybe 240 days a year with the ball.
This sounds like a horrible idea. You don't generate interest by dragging out the season. That'll just turn people off. They won't care about the Fall games at all. Think of a sport you don't like watching... would YOU start watching it if they added more games over a longer period? I sure wouldn't.
That's exactly what the EPL and La Liga do. It seems people watch them. Make a conference season and an out of conference season. Mke both matter. There are ways to make the fall count.
You missed the point. Of course people would still watch the games, but it wouldn't grow the sport. I'll ask again, would you start watching a sport that you don't currently watch if they made the season significantly longer?
I'm not sure you have a point. If you weren't watching the sport before it isn't growing the sport either. What would make you start watching a sport if nothing changed? If the answer for one person is yes it is a victory. People will watch the sport if the competition gets better. The NCAA has to find a way to allow that. People don't watch men's soccer right now because the level of competition isn't very good. The best players are in the pros or Europe. A big reason is because of how soccer is currently structured in the NCAA. There just isn't enough quality competition during the year for players to get better, so the best leave. Right now the women stay because there are no real options. It's not like they can start out with a living wage elsewhere.
Both leagues take two breaks a year, one in the winter, and one mid summer. La liga, for instance starts August 24 this year and has 38 fixtures. They take a two week break between fixture 11 and 12 and the season ends May 24 , so three months shy of a year. A better example perhaps is South American leagues, which start soon in Argentina, for instance, around 10 days before Christmas and start up again in February. For years they divided the competition into a aperture and Clausura, then called it an inicial and final. There were cups for each half with copa Libertadores slots allotted on combined results.. Now the season is all counted together, but they still take the break. Mexico liga MX also has an aperture and Clausura. Let me know when they do it with coaching. I'll watch all week.
dude - the sport would have to take off from Thanksgiving to Spring Break. That is ridiculous. There is a reason outdoor sports are either fall sports or spring sports. if they don't take off - then there will be a lot of games played in snowy conditions and basically screw all the northern schools.
You're wrong and you just dig your heels in and double down. You get 20 hours/week for practice, weights, meetings, etc. I doubt any coach uses all 20 hours with the ball as that would be over 3 hours a day, and they would probably have a mutiny on their hands if they did, but I know for a fact they use more than the 2 you think happens.
17.1.6.1 Daily and Weekly Hour Limitations—Playing Season. A student-athlete’s participation in countable athletically related activities shall be limited to a maximum of four hours per day and 20 hours per week. In Season - Fall (regular season) + Spring Season = 132 day limit (17.19.1) 17.1.6.2 Weekly Hour Limitations—Outside the Playing Season. (a) Sports Other Than Football. Outside of the playing season, ...<snip definition>... , only a student-athlete’s participation in required weight training, conditioning and skill-related instruction shall be permitted. A student-athlete’s participation in such activities per Bylaw 17.02.1 shall be limited to a maximum of eight hours per week with not more than two hours per week spent on skill-related workouts....<snip stuff about finals> Off Season = rest of the year = limit of 2 hours of skill-related work (ie supervised activity with a ball).
Actually Clive is wrong. from the NCAA 17.19.1 Length of playing season. the length of an institutions playing season in soccer shall be limited to a 132-day season, which may consist of two segments (each consisting of consecutive days) and which may exclude only required off days per bylaw 17.1.6.4 and official vacation, holiday and final-examination periods during which no practice or competitions shall occur. According to the NCAA the spring season is considered to be part of the "playing season" as all of those 132 days fall under playing season (it's just broken up into 2 segments). As the rule is coaches are permitted to work with all of their players during a 20 hr week during the playing season they are permitted to work in the spring with this. The 8 hour week situation doesn't count in the 132 day season. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/genrel/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/ncaa-manual.pdf