I am so used to the college football landscape as it's what I have followed 30+ years of my 40+ life, I have come to expect the best 18-22 year old Americans to be competing there. Baseball and hockey are sort of in the same discussion. Basketball is, but with rules that don't allow HS players to typically be drafted, it's a bit skewed. So I really only started following soccer the past couple seasons and not at the lowest levels. I did catch some of the college soccer playoffs, which was fun. Yet, it seems like I don't hear positive things about players in the draft. Maybe it's the Superdraft and people saying its only good for the first few picks. Maybe it's rosters filled with foreign players, who you might here couldn't cut it back in their country, etc. Where would you go to watch the best America has to offer in that 18-22 year range? Does college have these players? Do the best just sign pro deals? Just trying to understand it better.
These days, the majority of the best 18-22 year old players in the US and Canada no longer play college soccer. There are some exceptions, like Jordan Morris. But just look at the US U20 youth national team rosters to see how few of those players played college soccer or did so just for a year or two. That said, there's still talent in the college game. But now more than ever, it's like sifting thru sand and silt for a nugget of valuable metal.
For complete teams of players it would be USL now. Of current USL sides whose average age is under 22 New York Red Bulls II 21,8 Bethlehem Steel FC 21,7 Toronto FC II 21,7 Portland Timbers 2 21,6 Whitecaps FC 2 21,2 Los Angeles Galaxy II 20,7 Seattle Sounders FC 21 20,1 NYRB II is probably the best - USL games you can watch on Youtube - Best young team overall this year is Real Monarchs whose average age is 24 and includes a lot of former NCAA player some who left early and some who graduated. This being said I might have this years UNC favorite against those teams above.
Thanks. I have watched quite a few USL games and a handful of USLPDL games as well. Hope they always show those on YouTube. I didn't realize the ages of the UsL teams, but I believe the PDL was like summer games for the college players.
Some of the ACC games can show a lot of talent and nice football, including foreign players who "compensate" for young US talent staying with their MLS reserve team. And obviously outside the ACC you have beautiful teams: the name of the game is to watch a match where two of these play against each other.
This is the biggest problem in American soccer, in my opinion. We do not have an adequate player identification system that helps the players matriculate through the system. Part of that is there simply aren't many opportunities -- 61 professional teams in 3 leagues (23 MLS, 8 NASL, 30 USL). We have several million registered and unregistered youth soccer players with hardly anywhere to play as they develop. High schools cut players early. Clubs weed players out if they aren't good enough, leaving them nowhere to play. College can be expensive, and still many colleges without men's soccer. Add into the whole scheme the "desire" or "need" or "compensation" (as @OverseasView cleverly called it) for international players at one of the highest percentages in all of world soccer -- at one point, we were second highest in the world for international players in top league (only behind Cyprus). Let's use a player like Pulisic as an example, he's good enough to play at Dortmund at 17-19 years old, but he's not good enough for Philadelphia Union at 16?! Not possible. But, Philadelphia has no problem paying Conor Casey $180,000 to score 3 goals in his last season there? How about Rais M'Bolhi (who's considered one of worst DP signings ever) where they paid $400,000 transfer fee AND a DP contract (only got $240,000 guaranteed because he only lasted 9 games, also a $350,000 cap hit). No scouts get players playing highest level that they can play. Few opportunities to play. An old league, that is only getting older and more international. It sucks to be a young American soccer player. As I've told my players, one is probably better off trying to tour Europe, South America, or Asia and trying to trial. There are 31,000 teams in Germany. Americans can get free tuition there for university, which gives a work visa, then possibly opportunity to play with local teams and try to work way up system. Or, trace family history and try to get citizenship in another country, which makes it easier to sign abroad. To answer the question, hard to find a "league" or even "team" to see young pros playing. It's not consistent in the US soccer system. But, seeing you are from Omaha, go watch Creighton...they've had good success with young players.
I think the issue is the content of this forum. The reason why MLS clubs are tentative of signing young players is because they don't want to risk the player loosing his NCAA eligibility. Less of an issue in Canada that is why Vancouver signed Davies. If you look at European leagues and see how few of the teenage prospects in leagues become long term pros I can understand MLS clubs hesitancy. Although if for example Vancouver sell Davies to Europe for 5-10 million dollars I think you'll see many more young players play MLS games.
Curious as to why the MLS would be concerned with a player losing his NCAA eligibility. I doubt it is their #1 feeder (NFL needs stong ties with college football as it is pretty much their only source for talent). Just curious if I misunderstood.
This is my opinion based on conversations with people I have had who have a connection with MLS. Generally most people working in MLS are learning as they go along so they are very worried about negative PR and about promising something they can't keep. If you plan on signing a teenager you basically have to promise him or his parents that it is good for the players career. Which might not be the case and right now there is no huge upside unless as the example I gave it is financially beneficial to club or league. There is also a concern of long term financial commitment to a player which in MLS historically hasn't paid off and leaves players who are 22-23 in sort of a MLS abyss like Kitchen, McInerney, and now Kekuta Manneh where they are good players in the league at minimum contracts but under the current CBA playing in the league 4/5 years means they are expected to paid a lot more which means they are no longer as valuable. Although I agree with the above the league lacks a commitment to youth again I believe part of the MLS conservative style. If you approach a MLS club with a 18/19 year old player they will not even offer a trial at best they'll suggest a USL club. As well for the most part they will only sign younger homegrown players if the player/parents themselves express no interest in going to College. Of course above is based on how good the player is although I been involved with agents regarding players in these age groups who have signed with clubs in Europe after being turned down by MLS clubs.
Thanks for the clarification. It is so much different than the other sports in the US (maybe hockey is the closest?). This hybrid between what is done in most of the rest of the world, with what is done here.
I'm not sure I buy that from MLS reps. If that's the case, why is the League still not signing younger Americans? Just out of college, and the like? MLS owners and coaches want to win now. They don't want a "project" or focus on development. They want to sell jerseys and try to put butts in the stands. For the American soccer public, the only thing that does that is signing BIG names. Unlike football and basketball, where players are continuously sought for "potential," American soccer isn't that way. There's very little coverage of college soccer, club soccer, and high school soccer, so American soccer fans don't know who may be coming through the system. The public doesn't identify with American soccer players like they do other sports because they don't know who they are. I imagine younger players would much rather sign when/if the American soccer contracts were much better financially -- NASL and USL in particular. Parents and players would have no problems foregoing college when the contracts have much better value.
I agree with what you say although again from my experience MLS clubs will take a shot at players post college or who have professional experience in another country. The issue is the American/NCAA players are generally perceived as not good enough and as I mentioned in another post are now not even considered worthy enough to be scouted. The reality is actually pretty ugly in terms of which players get chances over others although since they mean so little to first team minutes it is not even a story. Unless MLS increases the percentage of American players needed or Pro/Rel becomes a reality the chance of an American player getting interest from a MLS club will become less and less. To your point regarding Pulsic players such as Haji Wright, Ayo Akinola, Weston McKennie, Isaiah Young, Mukwelle Akale to name a few were looked at in terms of signing MLS first team contracts although MLS club or the league didn't feel they were worth the investment/risk. Akinola still open although it is pretty much a given he will leave MLS oppose to signing a long term contract. These players above are the cream of the crop and also probably were not overly ambitious about school either so the second tier of players below are the ones who I said MLS club will not even consider or be blunt and say going to college is much better for your career then turning professional. In terms of the system I agree 100% and one of the reason in Canada we are trying to start our own league, which is getting some resentment from MLS clubs not because of player development but market interest in generating soccer revenue. Truth is there really is no pathway in soccer unless you're an elite talent to play in the MLS.
Really interesting conversation. A few things: 1) Would more scholarships available per school for soccer help? Or, would it just mean that players maybe not deserving of a scholarship would get one. In other words, would more scholarship opportunities make college more appealing to this age range? I think about how soccer has 9.9 scholarships meaning you couldn't field an 11 man starting squad of full-ride scholarship players. Football gets 85 scholarships. You figure you can field three to four defensive units and three to four offensive units. 2) Would a model like NHL where players can be drafted and rights held (at least to 30 days after they leave) during their NCAA career? Would an MLB model with multiple draft opportunities. 3) Are there good , relatively undiscovered players in college that aren't well known? Or can players develop much? Do any non-American clubs take a look at the 24 K playing throughout the NCAA? 4) Should players want to go to college? For NBA and NFL, you sort of have to if even for a season, but if there are other options, how would you sell soccer?
1) Scholarships would probably bring in more foreign players to NCAA which would make it a better brand of soccer. It might also encourage athletes to play soccer instead of football/baseball/basketball growing up. Although I'm not sure it make a big difference in the end. 2) 18 year old draft would be interesting although I think what will eventually happen is the draft will disappear and all players will become free agents if not directly connected with a MLS Academy. Although I could also see MLS clubs having partnerships with non-MLS Academies for player rights. 3) My guess If I can have a pick of all players in NCAA right now I could produce a club that would compete if not win USL. Like always I think there are a handful of guys in NCAA now who will play good minutes in next season MLS. Unknown is debatable, personally I'm aware of most of these players at 15/16 whatever country they are from although I do this for a living. If a player is good and does stay in NCAA for four years or given a GA Contract he is pretty much known by most who follows college soccer. The question always becomes is he good enough to make the jump as a pro. The issue is there 150,000 pro soccer players in the World so these guys are just part of that list of potential talent. Yes some NCAA guys do play in Europe or elsewhere although most at very low divisions. 4) If a soccer player wishes to play pro they should probably make up that decision at 16 years old. After that it's kind of up to the player and what his ambitions are. Most likely he'll be playing for a USSDA program and at that point he'll get a sense of what his options are. If you go the college route most pro clubs have some type of open trials prior to a season so if your good enough you can make it as a professional soccer player as long as your under I'd say 25 years of age. Also MLS is not always the top for example a Cameroon kid Christian Bassogog went to Wilmington a defunct USL club at 20 two years ago. From there he moved to Denmark and was recently sold to a Chinese club for $5 Million dollars. I'm guessing despite him playing in the US most people involved with MLS had no clue who he was, many still now. Although the one thing most people tell me now is a player has to stand out, the problem with US Development Soccer most players are taught and have the same skills so as a player you need some attribute that makes you stick out more then the others. When you watch NCAA soccer you will probably see that yourself and my guess is he'll end up being someone with good draft/playing potential in the future.
Thanks for your detailed response! There is a lot I don't fully understand about the college game, especially when it plays such a larger role in most of our other major sports. I have always liked the collegiate atmosphere for sports. The newness of recruits and players coming and going. Should college soccer be better? Should college soccer be supplanted by something else or does that something else (USL) exist already? Is it a sport that needs to be (or should be) saved? This will likely be my first year really trying to follow the college game a little bit more. Another thread has links to how/when to watch some games and I'll definitely be checking it out more.
My personal view I regard NCAA Soccer as I would a lower division in Europe. For example the Spanish third division has close to 100 clubs and the fourth division almost 400 and the same with the German fourth and fifth. When you add PDL players also have a potential of playing 30 games a season which is equal to a complete year in Europe. In terms of scouting I feel USSDA is passing NCAA soccer because there is a greater chance a top US player will play USSDA now over NCAA. Although USSDA is youth soccer so NCAA is a much better brand and better to watch. The fact NCAA soccer is part of the college sports environment adds something. A good amount of games online/television, statistical and personal information on players and decent coverage of the schools by the schools themselves and some outside media which is better then what you get regarding a comparable lower league of standard in Europe. I have a few issues with NCAA soccer such as the substitution rules and schedule and I would prefer that the game was a spring sport mainly to encourage players who traditionally play college football to also play soccer. Although the biggest issue is not NCAA itself but how MLS has changed to where NCAA is less to no longer needed as a player development resource. Overall I feel it is a great brand of soccer, I think the fact the most soccer players playing NCAA soccer care about their education makes them probably the smartest soccer players in the world and best to deal with. I think the overall atmosphere has improved as people in the US follow and enjoy the game more. Places like Akron, UCSB, and Creighton to name a few are as good as most soccer experiences in US and lower division soccer Worldwide. To answer your question I don't think it needs to be saved as long as the game is supported on campus I think it should be fine. I feel the quality of play will continue to improve as youth soccer improves. USL should be looked as next division above NCAA so either an alternative or a league where top players NCAA could eventually play again like a traditional soccer pyramid in Europe. I think if you live or support a college soccer team you can gain many of the same experiences of following a small club in Europe and see a decent amount of talented soccer players. Creighton for example should be exciting this year and have a few German players Julius Fohr, Sven Koenig, and Kuba Polat who I know from following the German 4th Division and should have an impact in NCAA.
College soccer won't be better because our youth system is so broken. The ability for our 18-22 year olds to be better just in unrealistic. For many soccer players development exists in a short HS season, coupled with club training/games where they train 2x (maybe 3x) per week and play a game or 5 on the weekends. That just isn't ideal. Many club players don't do much outside of official club sessions. Development goes much further with personal training outside of organized training. College soccer won't go anywhere anytime soon. It won't go away. It won't make drastic changes. There is a market for it. There also isn't anything else 95% of 18-22 year olds in the US can do. Unless something crazy happens and there is an explosion of amateur/professional teams that fill the void of college soccer, then college soccer will continue to be a logical step for development. One of the biggest downsides for college soccer in being changed OR saved, it is a top 5 losing sport for NCAA. There just isn't much profit in it at all. Crowds are pretty small overall (yes, there are some outliers). Championships have little-to-no fanfare. I get that NCAA plays a role in this too, but if the public want to see soccer fully develop, they have to invest in it -- not just financially, but with their time and advocacy.
Interesting stuff. I often think about the comparison between football and soccer. My oldest son plays football - he is in 9th grade and had played since the 5th grade. For almost every team, during the season they practiced maybe five times / week, with one of those being a lighter walkthrough, and a game. Practices were 1 1/2 to 2 hours. My oldest daughter is on a select soccer team at the low end of the cost scale. Yet we pay more for that to get two 1 1/2 hours of practices /week than any level my son played where we may get triple the practice time for what is actually a more expensive game on paper to play. I also know that since he is now in HS if he isn't participating in winter or spring sports, they will surely have him in the weight room. While camps might be necessary, just playing for your HS football team might just be enough to get scholarship offers due to the exposure. Our largest unversity in Nebraska doesn't even have a men's soccer team. We do have Creighton and Omaha at the DI level,but that is a total of 19.8 potential scholarships (less than a typical signing class for the lone D1 football team). I am not knocking football, just see how wide the Gap is.
Without a doubt the gap is shocking. I have often had people look at the calendar of sports in America, youth to pro. Look at the gap then. This is considering ONLY interscholastic and intercollegiate sports, the traditional pathway for development. Add in club/select sports and it's going to be more similar because they are gap opportunities. I am NOT including postseason because not every team competes in postseason. Football HS - August to November - 4 months College - August to November - 4 months Pro - August to December - 5 months Basketball HS - December to February - 4 months College - November to February - 5 months Pro - October to April - 7 months Baseball HS - February to April - 3 months College - February to May - 4 months Pro - April to September - 6 months Soccer HS - August to October - 3 months College - August to October - 3 months Pro - March to October - 8 months That is a massive gap for soccer to overcome in America. At least in the other sports there is a "natural" progression of length. If we look at number of competitions, it can look even more drastic (some states have a 10-game regular season in HS while college jumps to 18-20). Football is similar in season length and competitions. Basketball and baseball can have a nice progression. The ratio of meaningful training to meaningful competition in soccer doesn't even compare to the better setup in the rest of the sports. While the "gap" opportunities of club/select/AAU are important, they are largely individual-focused. In team competitions, that hinders development of a team mentality. Sure, an individual can get better with their skill set, but when it comes to the team setting, tactics, and chemistry it'll be behind. It even starts before HS, as there are many areas in the country that still operate youth soccer as a fall-only or a spring-only opportunity. That calendar is even smaller than the HS calendar. Compare this to international soccer development where youth are in the game for 10 month calendars. It's no wonder US soccer is lagging behind.
I haven't heard anything recently about the idea of the NCAA moving to a combined fall and spring (essentially the entire academic year) soccer season, as discussed in the article below. I take it that is likely because there hasn't been anything new to hear about this idea. Is there anything new out there about this proposal, or is it pretty much still dead on arrival? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...im-at-expanded-season/?utm_term=.dd89a62d8c5f
It's never really had much going for it. A few coaches were vocal (and still are) about it. But, overall, it wasn't going anywhere. It has so far to go if anything were to get done. Here's who it'd have to get approval from: SAAC, ADs, Presidents, conferences, and the NCAA. There are way too many people involved to get anything changed for college soccer. First thing they'll say is "Why?" Development? NCAA is not in the business of athlete development -- just ask them, even though we all know they pride themselves on basketball and football pros. Second thing they'll ask is "What are the financial implications?" So, they look...college soccer is top-5 losing money sport for us...why would we make any changes when it possibly costs more money to make a change. I like the battle. But, until players get involved like they did for football and the "cost of attendance scholarship," there will be no dramatic changes in college soccer. Get a union. Say you want to do it because you'll miss less class, better for your health, better for development, etc. and then...maybe you start to make more waves with it. Problem is, I doubt many college soccer players want to actually change the system because it would take away from many social aspects of college.