All current rule talk aside, and back on the topic of the thread, I agree with Clive and think this would be a great change. It would allow for more dedicated practice time and less missed classes as you could schedule games on the weekends. I think it would improve the level of play and in doing so become more relevant. That being said, I don't see the NCAA going for it. The NCAA doesn't care about preparing players for the next level or improving quality of play, and I don't see the NCAA being dictated to by the USSF. If anything, any changes from the O'Bannon case are likely to negatively impact soccer and more specifically men's soccer.
If the negative impact mentioned is the impact from having less money for the non-revenue sports, then I agree. I doubt though that the specific rulings from the O'Bannon case (if plaintiffs win on all issues and ruling is upheld on appeal), would impact the non-revenue sports much at all. For example, if the court rules that athletes must be compensated for the use of their names/images on live TV broadcasts of them playing the games, then I would expect the colleges simply to stop showing the non-revenue sports on television/internet. Of course, that's the big issue in the case and it's not at all easy to imagine the plaintiffs winning on it. It's a lot easier to imagine the plaintiffs winning on the little issues (compensation for use of name/image/likeness on clothes, in video games, playing cards, in advertising up-coming games, and in DVDs compilations of past games) and (as far as I know, which isn't that much!) there isn't much of market for that material in the non-revenuse sport world anyway. The decision is expected in August and it'll certainly be interesting.
Yes, as more money flows in and out of Football and Basketball, there will be less to go around for everyone else. Also, the Title IX issues that will arise will have a more significant impact on men's soccer than women's.
In the current environment, I think you're repeating the received wisdom, but over the past decade the idea that money issues will effect men's non-revs more than women's sports has not necessarily been born out. It's hard to overstate the impact of sexism in athletic decision making, regardless of the law.
As an example of the costs of college sports going up, Michigan's AD says they've run the numbers on adding the so-called full cost-of-attending stipend and it's $3000 per year per full scholarship, which would increase costs by a bit over $1M per year based on the fact that Michigan has fully funded all of its varsity sports. (Note: This means that Michigan is expecting to add the money across all of its sports, i.e., head-count and equivalency and men's and women's. I would have expected nothing less in light of Title IX.) http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/07/michigan_readying_itself_for_s.html#incart_river
Sounds like what's really going to happen is the gap between the haves and have nots is going to get even bigger, especially in non-revs. Kind of goes w/o saying that many mid-majors are going to be trying to go all in to fund football/basketball w/o complying with title IX.
And the next thing you'll get is a resulting Title IX class action lawsuit that will really revolutionize college sports. Plus a US Department of Justice bunch of criminal investigations charging school administrators with intentional violations of Title IX. No, I don't see the schools taking those risks. The lawyers already are involved and the schools no doubt already are developing "due diligence" action plans to be sure there aren't Title IX violations. Really, I don't think the coming changes in college sports are anywhere near defined yet. For example, let's say the player "unionization" efforts are successful. Then, there will have to be collective bargaining. That's a two-way street. If the schools are going to be shelling out more money for student athletes, then they are going to want something back -- such as binding four-year commitments from the athletes, none of this "one and done" stuff. There always are unforeseen consequences, and what the athletes have to give up hasn't yet seen any discussion that I know of. In other words, this is just the beginning of what is going to be a long process that will have unforeseeable consequences.
Respected coach from the women's side expressing her opinion on the proposed change on the men's side. http://thesoccerobserver.com/2014/0...forms-worthy-of-consideration-on-womens-side/
Some of these ideas make good sense but these folks are dreaming! WVU decided to take the Big-12 football money and now realizes its not all that great having all their other teams living half the season in hotels! Laughable. Two of the biggest conferences in the NCAA don't even sponsor men's soccer that's how much they care about it! Fairness or equity with other seasonal team sports is the issue for many in the NCAA on this. Women's soccer of course, but Baseball/Softball and men's and women's lacrosse especially (who would love to play more in the Fall). Even in the ACC very many soccer stadiums are being used in the spring by lax (or snow covered) while baseball fields sit empty in the fall. And College Baseball does just fine with a massive minor-league system all around it so here's exactly what the NCAA folks are thinking but won't say out loud "suck it up soccer, you're just not that special" This is ALL about men's soccer coaches being able to say "we tried" to change college soccer and keep more of the elite men's players considering college. Noonan and Cirovski don't want to coach in the MLS or the PDL. They like their cushy college jobs and long-term contracts and want to keep getting the best players. This is a good example of "Ask for everything you want and then take what you can get" (a few more Spring dates). And you know soccer is often its own worst enemy. Do you see youth or even high school soccer moving to a 'one game a week' format? Seems to me it's going in the opposite direction. Another debate but also not good for the game. Only good thing here is that there's some discussion occurring as the men's coaches stir the pot.
Somebody should tell the coach that, when she identifies Fri/Sun games as a problem, cutting the season in half is as equally valid a response to that alleged problem as is doubling the length of the season.
Great. Having our best players play 10 games a year will surely advance the game greatly. And with Men's football now going to 16 games and a longer season, it'll look really good when the Justice department looks into progress with title IX.
I really hope these coaches aren't arming AD's to cut spring season and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of games overall as a way to address these issues. But I love that they're dreaming big. Naive politically, but we'll see...
Yes, wouldn't that be great. You know there are plenty of pointy football folks sitting around thinking, "OK, you want to complain soccer people? Here's your once-a-week schedule, 10 games in the Fall on Sundays, then a 2 weekend tournament. Good idea that saves us a few thousand bucks and better for students right?" Be careful what you wish for....
Could be a good change for men and women (and most Women's coaches seem to support it) IF they put the students first could be an easy sell. No monday-thursday games Only one game per weekend while school in session dead weeks for final exams, etc... on the plus side everyone seems to acknowledge that playing games with one days rest at a high level is not optimal for injuries/rest with a single game per weekend could optimize time to increase attendance (and not have people choosing which game to attend) (Could also miss less School. UNC left to play UCLA on a Wednesday for Friday/Sunday games.) This only works if the total number of games is NOT significantly increased. Many sunk costs (coaches salaries won't change, fields already exist, stadiums for soccer are already built) Clearly on the international level the US women are now being passed in play, since American female top players play college changing college soccer development could also help US WNT. and yes the impetus may be for the men's game, but there's a reason every big time women's college coach supports it. If they can put the student part first no real reason it couldn't pass - financially or politically. (and yes for title 9 the men and women must have same "opportunity")