I find that I very much like the idea of a Pro/Rel system being setup in the US. I also have a soft spot for college athletics and drafts, etc. It seems like the two concepts don't make great bedfellows. Various questions: What benefits would there for a good/known (assuming someone who isn't a late bloomer) player to a to go to college in a pro/rel environment? Are there good skills off the pitch beyond the scholastic education which might be even more beneficial? Would the college game suffer from lack of quality/quality players? Or would it force the college game/coaching to improve in order to compete for those services? Feel free to add or discuss any other thought you have on the topic.
There's no incentive here. What would be the punishment for relegation? Less TV money. Lower attendance? There's no money to be had and attendance already sucks. Unless winning and losing was tied to the number of scholarships, but then you'd just see more coaches go out and sign 22-year old washed out Europeans to win short-term. We already have a form of relegation. It's called not making the NCAA Tournament.
I guess in this situation I was thinking more about college existing separately from the pro models. I was going to say it does need, but a lot of college players play in the NPSL right? I wasn't thinking of much in terms of pro/rel for college itself.
The college game continues to be impacted by professional soccer with each passing year. The MLS academies (and increasingly USL academies) have already broadened the choices for 18 year old players. Unfortunately for college soccer, the NCAA continues to hold to a short season, and the longer the season remains short, the other options will become increasingly attractive to players with pro aspirations. Of course, the season length isn't the only factor to consider, but I think it's relevant and will only become more relevant. I'm a firm believer that pro/rel is needed in the US. It will greatly enhance the incentive for academies to identify talent and then develop that talent (I'm assuming solidarity payments would accompany a pro/rel system). College is an inefficient way to identify talent. First, that talent is discovered rather late. Secondly, the short season doesn't lend itself to developing the late bloomers. I also think that a pro/rel system will elevate the game in the US, and that would include at the college level... like a rising sea lifting all boats. Those marginal pros who value an education will need to decide which endeavor will yield the best ROI in the future. These are players who likely played in academies until 17 or 18 years old, and I think smaller schools would benefit more relative to the high major schools. Screw the MLS draft and screw the lame "discovery rights". IMO, there should be no MLS draft for college players. Let academies benefit from their work. Let players choose where they want to play and negotiate terms. The current system of drafts, salary caps, player allocation, discovery rights, etc all ensure a level of parity within a closed system with limited competition that feeds just the top of the pyramid. A true pro/rel system in the US would impact college soccer, especially if it retains its single Fall season. It would likely further diminish college soccer's role relative to other options, but the quality of the players would likely increase as there will be a higher quantity of quality players. Just look at the Europeans who come to the US at 18 to play college ball. They are oftentimes real difference makers on their US teams and many of them were just decent players on their club teams in Europe. IOW, Europe's pro/rel system produces an over-abundance of talent that can flourishes in the NCAA, and we could see that level of talent coming from US-based academies if we had pro/rel.