ESPN Article: Is college soccer too much of a risk for rising U.S. talent?

The main argument I see against going to two semesters is the field situation, which the article hits on. They'd have to deal with lacrosse and kinda playing through the winter (minus the break). But that seems pretty easy to sort out tbh. Just scheduling matters.

They could do something similar to American football where they split D1 and D1-AA. Teams that want to go two semesters can go to the top level and teams that want to stay at one semester can drop to D1-AA. Not that the NCAA would ever do this, of course.

 

It seems perhaps par for the course that Notre Dame and its ex-head soccer coach Bobby Clark both have gone out of their way to make a point of strongly objecting to the proposal endorsed by numerous other universities concerning a move to have the NCAA D1 men's soccer schedule to take place over both the fall and spring semesters, instead of just the fall semester.

ND, which participates in the ACC for soccer and all its other sports -- that is except for ND's participation in the B1G for hockey, and ND's participation as an independent for football -- certainly has never seemed shy about largely ignoring the perspectives of other programs, and leagues, and their policies -- i.e., the other programs that ND actually depends on in terms of providing teams for ND's teams to compete against.

But that is seemingly pretty much the total extent of ND's concern for its fellow NCAA universities, i.e., what can they do for ND? Along these lines, seemingly ND has long seen itself and its own viewpoints as quite special in regards to all other programs that are obviously not special enough to be Notre Dame. Seems yet another egotistical, shortsighted, and unfortunate position on ND's part.

 

Maybe the best article I have read about College Soccer. Very insightful. Thanks for unearthing this jem.

 

I've never hidden my admiration for Bobby Clark as a former player, soccer coach and teacher of the game and of young men.

But he is dead wrong here. College soccer has been stagnating for years but of late it has regressed and it needs some substantial changes to reverse that. Sasho's plan, for lack of a better term for it, is college soccer's best hope.

And it needs all of the games top figures to be unified towards bringing that change.

 

Sasho is college soccer's biggest and most passionate advocate and when he is admitting shit is bad, you know shit has gotten bad.

 

As a current college coach, I think that you all are forgetting that 99% of college athletes don't go on to play pro soccer. This proposal is all about trying to align college athletics to help a very small number of kids who may or may not make it in the pros....I think that the ND argument is in favor of the student which is a large part of student-athlete and I think that some coaches forget that. Most of my kids are going on to be doctors etc and need to take lab classes or do internships etc which they do predominantly in the off-season. This new proposal talks less missed class time but it will add to the constant time pressure year round.

I know that there are many smaller schools that the funding for this just isn't there to support this type of proposal, and the athletic department will just cut soccer (far easier with all the Title IX issues anyways) rather than try to figure out what to do. You say ND's standpoint is short-sighted but the number of collegiate soccer programs that will just be cut because of this will be far higher and the number of athletes that will be negatively impacted (by having no program to play on) will be far higher than the few programs that this will help. This proposal will kill Division III soccer and many other smaller programs, so think about that in terms of a narrow viewpoint... I say if you want to go pro go pro and if you want to coach a pro schedule, go coach the pros but don't kill college soccer for the rest of us ...

As for college soccer being the laughing stock of the world....I can guarantee that all the kids in Europe who get spit out of the pro system having not made it to the pros at any level wish they had the US system in play where they would at least have a college degree to fall back on after they are done. And college soccer hasn't changed, just the kids who want to play pro and I say let them, they will live with their choices lets not change something that works just fine for the majority.

I find this article exceptionally skewed and written from the perspective of programs who have money and financial support. ND is the only big program outwardly against this proposal but if anyone is listening to the little guys out there, they aren't worried about losing players to the pros they are trying to keep their programs afloat.

 

No worries there. Many of them can just find a company like Vertex, P4S etc. and then not only get a US college education but in some cases a second chance at that pro career.

 

As a parent of a D1 runner and a D1 soccer player I would suggest people also consider what the players think. Being an in-season athlete for the entire school year takes a lot out of the college experience.

Coming back early in the fall, leaving late for all breaks, back early from all breaks, no off-time except early summer...let’s say only D1 went year-round, I think that would boost D2 and 3 because a lot of kids want to play but not be a full-time athlete for 4 years.

Mind you, it can be done but only the hard core will opt for programs that are full year, full effort. Thus, the quality of play may decrease further as players who recognize they don’t have a pro future, the 99%, decide they don’t want to spend 4 years with no off-season.

 

Here is an excerpt from an article discussing this issue from a couple of years ago when it was first being proposed and seriously considered:

"In a recent survey, 90 percent of Division I men’s soccer coaches and 70 percent of their players supported a two-semester model. Other NCAA sports play across two semesters, most notably basketball."

So when this issue was raised a couple of years ago, a large majority of D1 soccer players were supportive of a soccer season that took place both in the fall and spring semesters.

Here is the entire article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...im-at-expanded-season/?utm_term=.9e83e1547b51

 

Wow, 70% of them are wrong?

Clearly our limited view limits us...

We have seen the effect in relation to the college experience: internships, semesters abroad, even summer semesters abroad, spring break and general college fun are constrained by full-year sports.

As the parents of a prospective student that wasn’t in our field of vision, several years in we see the trade offs.

As the commercials reference...99% won’t play a sport after college. And, as many here have pointed out, few soccer players are getting full rides, or any rides.

 

Speaking of "limited views" ...

All three of my children competed in college D1 sports; one in soccer at Penn State, one in swimming at Boston College, and one in swimming at the U.S. Naval Academy. And, of course, all three made big trade-offs and sacrifices throughout out their childhoods and young adulthood in order to reach those levels with these sports, and to then continued to compete throughout their college years for their universities. One example of such sacrifices -- for years getting up at 4 in the morning for swim practice before school, and then going directly from school to the pool for a second swim practice most days. None of them got full athletic scholarships. Not one of them thought they would be a professional athlete, and none of them became professional athletes. Yet all of them cherished their youth and college sports experience as one of their very best and most rewarding of their lives.

Nevertheless, the two swimmers never had to swim multiple meets within the same week -- as the soccer player too often did with games. Nor did the two swimmers see their schedule crammed into three months, but instead competed over two semesters and six months. That swimming approach was a much better, more logical, and more appropriate one -- a schedule that actually recognized and respected the level of commitment and dedication that these young people had made for many years and over thousands of hours to the sport and the competition they loved. As 70 percent of D1 soccer players know and have requested, they deserve the at least the same level of respect and opportunities to compete.

 

It seems to me that this split-season proposal should be for D-I only. And if the women don't want to do that, the don't need to follow suit.

And, within D-I, it's probably time for a split to go 1-A and 1-AA. The latter would keep the status quo or perhaps even go down to seven scholarships.

The former would go to the new two-semester model and, ideally, go up to 12-13 scholarships.

That way, the programs that don't want to do this don't have to.

Kids who don't want to play two semesters don't have to. And kids that do still get that chance. Give the players and teams options.

We all know what schools want to switch. We all know what schools want to emphasize soccer more. We all know what programs the top players go to and are the ones who are competing with MLS, USL and foreign teams for top players. Give them a chance to compete.

We are probably only talking about 60 programs at first that go to the new model. And that's fine.

 

my personal opinion on college sports has been evolving over the last few years as i've given more thought to the entire system. i don't think college athletics should be pro-development systems. i think interscholastic sports should be supplemental to the players' education. that's my opinion for everything from football and basketball to waterskiing. i don't like the ncaa's rules, the money involved, or the business of big time college sports. i don't see any of that changing any time soon, but

the current college soccer system has major issues with player health and player education. the compressed schedule makes it impossible to have proper training and recovery cycles. they play hurt. they can't afford to miss training or games in such a short season. they also have the in-class issues mentioned as well. the two-semester season helps with both aspects. then, if you are looking at college soccer as a pro-development system, the longer season looks better too for those players.

i watch iu soccer because i like iu soccer. i don't think losing top tier recruits to the pros will change that. i'm not watching because it's the best on-field product available. i'm watching because it's my team. it's my school, and those are my colors they're wearing. unless there's a tackle football ban and the ncaa needs a sport to put in those stadiums and spend that money on, i don't think college soccer has the potential to grow from where it is now. i think i'm ok with that.

 

Thank you for your insight. Some really good points there. I have two questions for you.

1. You mention the Notre Dame argument being in favor of the student. It seems like the condensed schedule is actually viewed in favor of the institutions first, instead of the students. Extending the schedule is viewed poorly for the institutions' sake, but would obviously affect the students if the program was cut. But the institutions wouldn't be cutting the program because they think it's a bad fit for the students.

If schools were truly in favor of putting the student first, wouldn't a less condensed schedule actually benefit the student? There are many positives to extending the season for the student-athlete that aren't related to developing professionals. Issues like injuries due to over exhaustion and an immense loss of classroom time (in the fall) seem to be downplayed when it comes to soccer. Surely the student would have a more positive time if the schedule was extended, which would mirror other sports' season length as well.

It feels like the NCAA and universities have worked to make other sports as successful as possible, yet with soccer it's an odd hostage situation where the threat of cutting soccer programs looms overhead if any changes were made.

2. Could you see a D1-A and a D1-AA split being a feasible option? D1-A could be reserved for programs with a budget and desire to help the small percentage of players go professionally, while D1-AA and below could stay on the old schedule.

 

Also along these lines, this is from an recent public exchange found on long-time college head soccer coach Bob Warming, who recently left Penn State and is now the recently hired head coach at University of Nebraska Omaha:


Comment on Warming's FB Page: "Welcome back to the Midwest! We still have quality players - they just need a chance."

Warming's Response: "The trend is disturbing. I am not xenophobic in any way. And have signed international players previously. But now many of the top rosters have 8-16 internationals. Just look around. Even non top programs have this many. We need to do a rethink in college soccer. I believe now there are more international players than at any time in collegiate history. If I had used our scholarships for internationals primarily, Kevin Kalish would not be the head coach at SLU today. Rosse Paule would not be the head coach for women at Creighton. and Tim and Jason would not become the head coaches at UNO. Johnny Torres and Mike Gabb would not be coaching at Creighton. The list goes on and on. These men are great coaches. Where are the next ones coming from if we primarily recruit internationals. What happens to the inspiration to play youth soccer in America? Despite all our flaws, Collegiate soccer is the economic driver of youth soccer in America. It is the economic driver because parents want to give their kids a chance to play the sport they love in college. Major League Soccer (MLS) will never be the economic driver of youth soccer and we need to think carefully the way ahead."

 

Let's see how he backs up his words. His current roster is mostly American (and mostly Midwestern) but will he stick to that or start bringing in more international players like his former school across town is doing.

 

When at Penn State, this was Warming's record with foreign players on the team:

- 2010 (Warming's first year at PSU, so most of roster already in place): 2 foreign
- 2011: 2
- 2012: 3
- 2013: 3
- 2014: 2
- 2015: 2
- 2016: 4
- 2017: 7

 

So.... trending up?

 

I agree that most schools would ax soccer and bring in another sport, most likely lacrosse given its rapid increase in popularity and its potential for financial success. Soccer is not a huge money maker for schools. Part of that comes from its current season occurring during football season. An academic year-long schedule would not change that conflict, but it would add to it. NCAA soccer is not going to oust basketball in the early spring and would probably have an uphill battle against lacrosse at this point, again based on the latter's status as the fastest growing sport in the country. The B1G has monetized lacrosse thanks to the BTN and the ACC has been sniffing that money for a while as well.
Like it or not, the NCAA and fans of college athletics seem to have a preference for sports with distinct seasons. Throwing in a year-long sport that overlaps with the top two collegiate sports and the hot new toy of lacrosse - whose entire season is February through May, a nice parallel to football - won't jive. Like NCAA hockey, NCAA soccer has its niche in the shadow of a more popular and (financially) successful sport. The best bet for a season change would have been moving soccer to spring prior to the rise of lacrosse, but that ship has sailed.
Looking at it another way: A good number of American soccer fans already dislike the "quality" of MLS. Why would they tune in to subpar American soccer? How many fans watch the games that area already on the air (BTN plays quite a few, provided there is no conflict with a larger sport)? If nobody is watching, then it's not making money. If it's not making money, then it cannot justify the added expenses.
There is a fix, but it has to make sense financially and academically.

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the brutality of 3 games/week.

Also, why can't D1 change the schedule and the rest keep the present schedule?

And, as a person who doesn't make his living from the sport, I don't see the shutting down of a bunch of men's college soccer teams as a tragedy. The best players will always have teams that want them. The roster spots that are lost will go to some other sport. If you're saying that schools will shut down soccer and start teams in other sport, or award more scholarships in other sports, that's a wash - unless one makes his living in men college soccer.

 

EXACTLY THIS^^^

It's like people complaining about the MLS not being good enough! It's like EVERYTHING has to be geared to the top 0.1% of players and developing played for the WC tournament every 4 years above all else. . Want to be a pro, go play pro. Colleges shouldn't cater to the needs of the pros or the USMNT. The vast majority of college players will never play pro and probably even don't want to.

 

Let me turn that on its head, why gear the infrastructure towards teams that draw hundreds in attendance and aren't leading the competitiveness of the sport forward. If we are being honest, there isnt much of a difference between lower tier teams and club soccer at bigger universities, so what advantage is there to catering to these teams to keep soccer around.

I agree with the thought of having two different divisons in division 1, but the problem with this is that there will be even less teams out west and travel costs may go through the roof with less local universities to play.

Again, those arguing that one season helps the student, I have to disagree with this. If you have a year long season, all games can be on the weekend and a student never has to miss a class. At highly competitive programs, the Spring season time pressure is about the same, except instead of having training or games, teams lift, do yoga, or have more team meetings, because they arent allowed to train with a soccer ball. The rules the NCAA implements are asinine (especially in the Ivys) as they don't relieve the time pressure, they just make athletes worse soccer players.

 

Well basically because college soccer has nothing to do with moving the sport forward in this country in general. 90% of the players aren't going to these teams with becoming pros being a top priority, most of even the top rosters don't even get full scholarships.

 

Because in all honesty, making them better soccer players is not the priority of universities.