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

Substitute "Michigan soccer" for "iu soccer" and I agree 100%. Because of that, for me it's more enjoyable to watch the Wolverines than any pro team.

I hope everyone enjoyed the college basketball season, and let's have a great 2018 soccer season! Go Blue!

 

I would bet that more than 10% of division 1 athletes have aspirations of playing pro. (i'm going to ignore other divisions, because this entire conversation doesn't really concern them) Whether they make it or is obviously much smaller.

What is the priority of the universities and in what way is the current model doing a better job of achieving that than the proposed model? I would argue that for the top programs, they want to have teams that will eventually be revenue neutral and generate school spirit/camaraderie by giving their students an event that they want to see. They achieve this by bringing in better plays and having an overall better display of the sport on the field.

I feel like if money is one of the main drivers of changes being made, the NCAA is missing a big opportunity to have US soccer and the MLS as a bigger sponsor by not working with them to create a model that is better for all.

 

This is a timely article. Unfortunately it is incomplete. Much of the growth in popularity of soccer in the United States is due to girl's/women's soccer and any further growth will be partly thanks to females playing soccer. There is no mention of the women's game in this article. Both Lindsey Horan and Mallory Pugh have given up college scholarships to play professional soccer. Ignoring the women's game is missing half the picture.

 

As reported in this article -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...im-at-expanded-season/?utm_term=.c968ece564ee -- back in 2016 when the men's D1 soccer players took a survey on this proposal to move to a soccer season schedule spread over two semesters, 70 percent endorsed moving to the two semester schedule. In the same survey, only 17 percent of the women D1 soccer players supported moving to the two semester schedule. So the situation in terms of D1 women's college soccer is quite a different story than what we see on the men's side. Along these lines, as the article linked above also reported:

" ... Florida Coach Becky Burleigh, the NSCAA Advocacy Council representative for all of college soccer, said that attitude could change in the near future.

'The D1 men are further along in their education process than the D1 women, and we fully support their efforts to get this on the table for discussion,' she said. 'The initiative is a well-thought through model that will serve their game and student-athletes well. As we move into the future, with this informational starting point, it may be considered a good fit for us, and this will be decided in time as each college division considers what best serves the needs of their athletes and programs.' ... "

 

There aren't any sports in America that have seasons that are nearly a year long. It would be a strange thing to do, IMO. You're going to take a break for two months and then come back and start playing again in February? Well, you'd have to start practicing again, when--a month before the resumption of the season in February?

I agree that nobody should be playing three games in one week. There should be no more than two games. That said, there is liberal substituting in college soccer, so players do not have to play 90 minutes--and why would they at top programs that have lots of good players? Beyond that, are there ways to extend the fall season by three weeks either at the beginning or end of the season--or, preferably, both? Conferences that have no spring lacrosse could certainly go the two-semester route--the SEC, for example, has only women's soccer and no lacrosse, so they could do it for the women. But I presume that most major conferences now have lacrosse (a sport that I think is a bit weird and overrated and not as "beautiful" as soccer!). I watch both men's and women's collegiate soccer and find the men's game to be quite good. I mean, if the experts say it's gotten crappy, what can I say. The chance to get a degree and play soccer is a great thing as, as many have pointed out, most of the kids who devote their early lives to soccer and becoming pros will never have a fulfilling pro career--and they won't have an education either.

 

More international players than at any time in collegiate history? Nonsense. Back in the 70's and 80's there were so many rosters that were loaded with internationals, some almost exclusively. When I covered Maryland (starting in the the 80's) I remember Jacksonville coming in with a roster full of guys from Serbia and Croatia for an NCAA Tournament game (mid-90's); I can remember Howard Univ. in the 70's with all the African and Caribbean players. Maryland's own roster in the 80's (pre-Cirovski) was loaded with Englishmen and Canadians. The good Dr. Ibrahim at Clemson had teams loaded with foreigners. I could go on but you get the point. Warming is doing rhetorical overkill.

Meanwhile, IMHO the ultimate answer is going to be strengthening the USL. It is true enough that most kids aren't going to make it to MLS, but if any of them are to have a chance, the architecture of the pro system is going to have to look something like baseball. Most college baseball players are never going to even get a look by the majors, but the truly determined kids can attempt the climb through A, AA, and AAA to get there. Make sure the kids playing in USL can make a living wage and then give them the time and game experience to develop. Seems a more reliable system then depending on the colleges.

 

In response to #1 I think when I say that they are favoring the student, I am thinking of how having a year-around game schedule affects the current non-traditional season. Let's be honest at present most Division I programs are playing year-round soccer right now; the kids are lifting year round and are playing year round; the difference is that there is a period where is is very intense and a lighter period. The way things stand right now, most students who want to be doctors etc take their difficult classes, the classes that are taxing and require more study time in the non-traditional portion of the year. If the schedule gets moved to a year round games it will be more difficult to take some of those classes. Are the coaches going to want someone to miss practice in regular season to take a lab? Will the coaches adjust their schedule in regular season to allow for that? I don't mind someone missing something in the non-trad part of the season....hate it in season.

The best answer to me lies in some of the other proposals out there that are still in support of a year-round playing schedule, but with a lengthened teaching/non-trad schedule (with more games in the spring) and losing the conference tournament play (making it more like the pros where your conference play not a tournament is what counts), earlier pre-season and stretch the finals out to the end of December instead--this would give the desired effect of stretching games out without any of issues that come up from fully splitting the season. These other proposals for some reason aren't being discussed as much and seem like they may in fact be far more feasible in terms of all schools actually being able to implement them without so much additional time and resources that soccer gets cut instead.

I think if we see the Power5 conferences break-off then there may be a natural Division that will allow the break between schools that will go with the new proposal and those that will not (I still think that the alternate plan is better). Which will end up being a break that is a IA/IAA type break in conferences.

 

I've looked a bit for stats on foreign players in NCAA D1, and didn't find too many specifics. I'll check some more, but if anyone knows of such stats, please do share them.

Also, I looked for stats on the number of teams playing college soccer in the 70s and 80s, and I couldn't find those either. Again, if anyone has those, please share. In any case, I think I recall that there were many fewer NCAA D1 teams back in the most of the 70s and 80s, and so if that was the case then the total number of both foreign players -- and U.S. players for that matter -- would have been likely lower then.

But here article that I found from 2006 which documents that for the top 25 teams in those days, there weren't too many foreign players who were getting a lot of playing time on the top D1 soccer teams:

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/1123/2-survey-mens-soccers-foreign-influence.html

Excerpt from the article linked above:

MEN'S TOP 25 FOREIGNERS
RANK/TEAM (FOREIGN STARTERS)
1. Virginia (1) Yannick Reyering-Germany.
2. Clemson (3) Frederico Moojen-Brazil, Dean Richards-Jamaica, Alan O'Hara-Ireland.
3. SMU (3) Bruno Guarda-Brazil, Paulo da Silva-Brazil, Mynor Gonzalez-Guatemala.
4. Duke (0)
5. Maryland (0)
6. Wake Forest (0)
7. Washington (0)
8. North Carolina (1) Ben Hunter-England.
9. UCLA (0)
10. UIC (4), Jovan Bubonja-Serbia, Pavle Dundjer-Serbia, Adam Ejupovic-Bosnia & Herzegovina, Tonci Skroce-Croatia.
11. Akron (2) Elliot Bradbrook-England, Ossie Michalsen-Norway.
12. West Virginia (4) Matthew Anstey-Australia, Jarrod Smith-New Zealand, Dan Stratford-England, Andrew Wright-England.
13. San Francisco (0)
14. UC Santa Barbara (2) Andy Iro-England, Bryan Byrne-Ireland.
15. Santa Clara (0)
16. Virginia Tech (1) Patrick Nyarko-Ghana.
17. South Florida (3) Yohance Marshall-Trinidad & Tobago, Jason Devenish-Trinidad & Tobago, Kevon Neaves-Trinidad & Tobago.
18. Old Dominion (1) Yomby William-Cameroon.
19. Saint Louis (1) Calum Angus-England.
20. Indiana (0)
21. Notre Dame (0)
22. New Mexico (3) Andrew Boyens-New Zealand, Simon Ejdemyr-Sweden, Lars Loeseth-Norway.
23. Northwestern (0)
24. Fordham (4) Grant Kerr-Scotland, Einar Oddsson-Iceland, Omero Rozen-Italy, Dean Stanic-South Africa.
25. Brown (0)
(Foreigners who have started a majority of their team's games.)

If the numbers of foreign players in D1 soccer have been going up even in the recent past, I don't think that is a good

 

Finishing my last post above:

...If the numbers of foreign players in D1 soccer have been going up significantly even in the recent past, I don't think that is a good, positive development for youth and college soccer in the USA -- which was the main point Warming was wanting to make, I think, in voicing his concern about the increased and seemingly continuing to increase, number of foreign players in US college soccer.

 

Coaches don’t care about nationality as long as they win and progress their own career. This is unlikely to have any impact on the proposed legislation

 

I'm pretty much a broken record on BigSoccer with my thoughts on this. I'm in favor, I've never shied away from my stance on that.

A year-round schedule is 100% doable for all divisions. It should be, if they make that move. It makes more sense for the student-athlete, especially with the emphasis on the health and well-being. Soccer isn't a game to play as regularly as is done in the fall. The schedule is also more favorable for academics -- less time away, less travel, means more time in classroom and with studies.

Biggest question marks:

• Cost -- more or less? Just talking a program's budget, doesn't have to be more, if you don't add more games.
• Facilities -- who can handle it and what are the numbers?
• Personnel -- is there enough staffing for athletic training (as one example) to operate more sports throughout a school year?

Those, to me, are the unknowns about the move. We know travel (bus, air, etc.) is really always there as an "issue." Some schools share facilities and staffing. Unfortunately, soccer is a top-five losing money sport for NCAA. So, why would there be any changes? Plus, there's just too many hurdles to overcome to make a positive change: ADs, presidents, Trustees, conferences, etc.

The question/comment has been posed by several, "X-amount are not going pro, so why make the changes?" What does college exist for? To me, as a former college coach and higher education advocate, it exists to help people get the necessary skills, knowledge, etc. for employment. Professional athletic development can be included in that. It already is in football, basketball (men's and women's), baseball, track & field, volleyball, and swimming -- add any others you want. There is a massive disparity in the professional athletic development calendar for soccer than those others. Only baseball can argue they have such a disparity, and they've been talking about adding games in the fall.

What do we do about the winter? Play more during the summer. Why not? Many [DI] colleges already keep their players there. Why must we hold to the stupid August-April/May school calendar with sports? During the summer players are taking classes, working out, training, etc. They could keep doing that, get a job, and train for games too.

 

Interesting ... here is a 2015 NCAA report of the financials of various college sports:
(from http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4443-division-i-revenues-and-expenses-2004-2015.aspx )

 

This is great information. I would love to see a conference by conference breakdown... Football's net revenue is definitely skewed by the Power Five, so I am curious to know if other sports are equally affected.

 

I think your post gets at the heart of two really big issues with the discussion. First, the situation is less of an obvious right/wrong choice and more like two sides of a sword. For every positive point one side has, there's a fairly even negative to counter it. I think my main frustration (and I would guess many) is that the argument for keeping the system as is is presented like it's the obvious right choice, when I think we can see how it's not that simple.

And then there's the fact that nearly anyone with a mild interest in collegiate soccer can come up with one idea to improve the game, but the NCAA doesn't seem to be interested in advancing the game, as seen by the recent (and incredibly delayed) discussion on having referees keep time on their watches: https://www.ncaa.com/news/soccer-wo...er-referees-could-start-keeping-official-time

Unfortunately all these positive ideas fall of deft ears, instead of stimulating conversation to grow the game for both the athlete and the student.

I like your idea of tweaking the schedule (amongst a number of others, to be honest). Personally I just want to get away from playing so many games in a small time span. Our team played five games in twelve days, then later played six in seventeen days. You can't play at a high level for the entire duration and it becomes a battle of who doesn't crack first. People complain about the collegiate game being too focused on athleticism but one route ball is largely going to be more successful than possession come November when every team is playing in the winter, their legs are exhausted, and carrying a thin roster from a number of injuries/knocks.

Could NCAA help alleviate this? Of course but the conversation seems stalemated : /

 

It should be no more than two games per week, possibly three games over a week span. One on the weekend and one midweek; this is what lacrosse currently does. That is probably the best comparison in terms of physical demands due to the amount of continuous movement and field size. That said, there are definitely more stops and subs in lax, which further demonstrates the silliness of so many soccer games being played in a week (high school soccer is the same way).

 

That's a good table. Not to "pick holes" in it, but it is only reporting on FBS schools.

The Chronicle of Higher Education did the study I was familiar with. Soccer was number 3-5 in losingest financially in NCAA. Maybe (can't remember it's been a few years) it included all NCAA divisions?

 

The link I provided ( http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4443-division-i-revenues-and-expenses-2004-2015.aspx ) where that FBS-schools-only table came from also includes tables that cover other divisions. But I don't think that NCAA report did a table that combined all the stats from all the schools in all the different divisions into a single table.

 

Thanks for sharing that NCAA link above with news about possible rules changes. I was also interested to see this listed as one of the rule changes under consideration:

"- Allowing bands, musical instruments and artificial noisemakers while the ball is in play."

Years ago I had a discussion with a stadium official regarding whether or not a drum could be allowed into a stadium during a NCAA soccer tournament game. Said drum and a good number of other musical instruments had already been allowed in the same stadium during the entire regular season without any issue. Yet at this playoff game I was told by the stadium official that NCAA tournament rules prohibited any musical instruments from even entering the stadium. The drum went back to the car.

I actually wrote to the NCAA about this matter after the game, pointing out that I had never known of this rule previously, and that at the very least the NCAA should try to let fans know about the rule in information provided before the game. I had read the pre-game info sheets provided by the teams involved, and there was no mention of this no musical instruments provision. I also wrote that it seemed a shame that a practice which had been allowed and which provided a festive, exciting, and supportive atmosphere for supporting the teams during all regular season games -- i.e., allowing musical instruments and artificial noisemakers during regular season games -- was no longer allowed during NCAA tournament games.

I never got a response from the NCAA ... surprising, right?

 

If only ...

 

University of Portland Villa Drum Squad ...

 

Soccer will someday be one of if not the most popular sports in the US, just like it is worldwide. Next time you are out in public, pay attention to how many kids are wearing either their own team's or a replica of a professional team's soccer jersey. Now look around for kids wearing NFL gear. I see many more kids wearing soccer gear in public. One of the reasons is that girls play soccer, not football.

If the NCAA wants to remain relevant in US soccer culture and development, they need to start preparing for the future now. Unfortunately the NCAA is mostly old football and basketball people who still treat soccer as an inconvenience.

 

You do realize that this has been said multiple times over the last 40 some years dating back to the original NASL's formation, right? I love soccer. I've played and coached soccer.
As far as the "gear" goes, part of that is your location. I see lots of kids wearing youth soccer jerseys, but that number starts decreasing as the kids get older. The other side of that is, if they are wearing pro clubs, are those MLS or Euro sides?

 

I didn't give a time frame, but around 20-40 more years sounds about right. That will be time enough for the current crop of youth players to have children in the sport. Forty years ago, soccer was coastal/large city sport in the US. In small town America, you would get laughed at for asking for a high school soccer team and it was difficult if not impossible to buy soccer balls and cleats. Those small towns now have soccer leagues and many even have dedicated fields. The growth of the sport will be like compound interest. Soccer has a huge advantage over football since almost half the youth soccer players are female. Football largely ignores females.

The pro jerseys I see on kids in SoCal are mainly EPL and UEFA with the occasional LA Galaxy.

 

I went to a D3 school in PA for undergrad, they had a good soccer program, in the late '70s, when soccer was even less popular. One thing they did that was pretty cool, and drew a lot of fans, was in their basketball gym which held around 3000, they'd have a winter indoor tournament that went on for an entire weekend, they where D3, but D1 schools would send teams, there where like 16 teams total, mostly small schools, but Penn State, tOSU and Pitt where there too. It was fun to watch, 3 of my frat brothers where on the team. Do other schools do this? Is it still done?

 

My high school in PA has won like 11 state football titles. I don't live there anymore, but out of curiosity I looked it up and was sad to see they STILL don't have a soccer team! While most around them now do! I just know their big football/anti soccer attitude keeps them from doing it!