Is College soccer dead, I think not.

I wanted to say that I actually agree with the Shipp example, as the value that NCAA soccer could (but I should note, rarely does currently) add in combination with MLS academies. I say that because I'm not very convinced that a European-style system that 'tracks' a player as a top-tier pro or not at age 18 or 19 would have spotted him--especially if that European system is accompanied by American talent scouting.

I mean, it's difficult to begin with, because Shipp is not an 'obvious athlete'; he's not that fast and is not big enough that he 'looks' strong. He's good with the ball, but probably not in the sense that he was just 'going by' two and three defenders at a time at that age.

And indeed, you dig back into Shipp's college numbers/achievements, and they don't really say 'dominant player' until his senior year. Other than the academics, Shipp was second or third team in all his nominations until that last year, when he was suddenly first team everything and a Hermann finalist. This is a pretty big departure from a lot of the guys who make an impression on MLS, that I almost always look back and say "yeah, he could have come out a year earlier, he had nothing left to do in college, he was already All-XXX." I don't really get that vibe from Shipp, I think he got something out of his senior year, as his production nearly doubled.

There's an inherent reduction that goes on between all the kids who, at 18, look like they might become someone like Shipp and the handful who actually do, and I suspect it's prone to a whole lot of mistakes, that a lot of guys get thrown out early who might have had a shot. A problem that would be worse if we tried to do it, being that our scouting is just not as good or as comprehensive.

I don't get the feeling colleges are looking for Shipp-types nearly as often as they should be, but if there's an ecosystem where where a lot of the obvious physical talents are getting mopped up by the professional ranks, college could come in and find a lot of guys whose strengths are in the cognitive and time-developed-skill areas.

 

To add to Stan's post, certain colleges have stockpiled so much talent that it can be hard for the players who have next-level talent to separate themselves from the ones without. In 2012, Notre Dame's midfield featured a senior Dillon Powers, a junior Harry Shipp, and a sophomore Nick Besler, and as a team, they were really good - but it was natural that Powers would get a lot of the attention, as well as forward Ryan Finley, who reaped the benefits of the midfield behind him, scoring 21 goals in 22 games.

Other examples along these lines are Graham Zusi at Maryland and Ryan Hollingshead at UCLA.

 

A young Isco? Maganto is actually 3 months older than Isco.

College soccer clearly has a role to play, but it has big down sides that make it a less-than-ideal place for development. Hopefully the NCAA's anticipated reforms will improve that somewhat, but it's still not going to be a professional environment no matter how much the best programs are able to stockpile talent. College soccer's role in the future is probably to give late bloomers and players who fell through the academy cracks an extra change to play regularly and be seen. It's not likely to produce any Messi-level players.

 

NOTHING produces Messi level players. They happen in a perfect storm from time to time. Due to the size of the US (geography and population), college soccer will continue to fill the role of producing cheap starters and depth while occasionally spitting out someone who is actually pretty good like Steve Birnbaum or Tesho Akindele just last year.

One of the things that you learn when you read Soccernomics is that the academy structure is highly unreliable and a lot more of those 15-17 year old wonderkids turn into nothing than turn into stars. Meanwhile, the 21-25 year old player is the easiest to project and is thus much more reliable. While the US college system doesn't typically develop players at the same rate by the time they get into that 21-25 range, it's got a history of doing a pretty good job.

One last thing, taking college in a bubble is ridiculous at this point. Anyone who is even decent is at least playing some PDL ball in addition to their college team. It's a different structure than the rest of the world, for sure, but it's the only way that we'll even get close to identifying all the talent in the US for the time being.

 

Any development system is going to have hits and misses. The fact that college soccer has produced more national team players than pro development does not mean college soccer is better for development. It just means that, with a lot more top youth players going to college than straight into the pros, and with no MLS academy system prior to 2008, you're going to get some top-quality players out of college teams just as a function of the numbers. I still like the pros' percentage chances better.

 

College development can work. The academy system hasn't allowed Europe to catch up with the US when it comes to basketball development, and switching to an academy system won't cause the US to catch up with the rest of the world. The system does not matter. What matters is popularity of the sport, the individual players, and the competition. If all of the best talent goes to college it will produce talent just as well as an academy system.

 

College development does work. For the NFL and NBA.

It's just now starting to work for MLB; actually has been for the last decade or more.

Slowly but surely, the NHL, is taking advantage of free "professional" development.

I would say college soccer, as far as developing professional players, is somewhere between MLB and NHL. Both of these leagues know they need a "youth system" for developing U21 players because college programs for these two sports just aren't where they are for football and basketball.

College soccer is a long way from where college football and basketball is. The major colleges/conferences are labeled as major for a reason. Like it or not, they get the best players. Arguably, major NCAA D1 football and basketball programs are division 2-3 on their respective "pyramids." By default they are youth development programs for NFL/NBA teams.

There are reasons why college football/basketball programs have become some of the best youth development teams in the world, much like why college baseball/hockey are lagging. In this day and age it's called funding/scholarships, but both these sports have a history of, looking at it from a soccer perspective, U21 development.

It's why NHL and MLB teams still have their youth development systems (minor leagues) for players that don't go to college. Actually college is for the player that don't sign a professional contract for one reason or another (education, just not good enough at the moment).

There is a longer history of college soccer in the U.S. compared to youth development. Yet the sport, college soccer, isn't at the level of college football/basketball.

Why?

The problem with youth (u21) development, at the college level, for soccer players in the U.S. is the lack of funding for college programs.

If you don't understand what "level of competition" means, you'll never understand why MLS clubs (USL and NASL as well) need U21 teams. The level of play for MLS is not even close to the international level. It's because of concentration of talent. Any NFL is light years better than MAJOR college football team. It's called concentration of talent.

Players get better by playing against better competition.

Period.

If you take the best players in the land and put them on 20 MLS U21 teams you'll get a finished product that is better then if you take those same players and disperse them among 200 NCAA D1 teams.

 

I don't think the talent is there for MLS to really have an academy system. Which is, essentially the U18/amateur level in this country; in other words all those youth clubs, other than the MLS clubs, in the U.S. Development Academy league.

But that is not why I'm quoting you. Where talking college teams in this thread.

MLS certainly can have a U21 system (see the MLS/USL arrangement) that will development professionals better than the NCAA can.

The academy system (i.e. minor leagues, in this case) hasn't allowed U.S. hockey players to catch up with the Canadian hockey player when it comes to development, and switching to an academy system won't allow the US to catch up with Canada. The system does not matter. What matters is popularity of the sport, the individual players, and the competition. If all of the best talent goes to college it will produce talent just as well as an academy system.

Hockey even has the NCAA to help develop U.S. hockey players. Yet, the Canadian player is still better than the U.S. player.

The latter part of your post hit the nail on the head.

Talented athletes in the U.S. flow to football, basketball, and baseball. Both soccer, and hockey for that matter, are far behind curve.

I don't care that soccer has a participation rate that is equal to, close to, or greater than football, basketball or baseball.

What it is missing is the TALENT, by comparison.

But taking the best 500 U21 players in the land (for debating sake as I know there are MLS teams in Canada and Canadian players to consider) and putting them on 20 different MLS teams is much better than college soccer.

 

Well, I don't think a U21 league is as cheap as you're thinking, it is not likely to be much more economically feasible than an academy system is, for the simple reason that the players will require you to pay them at U21 level, whereas for a U16 academy team, they don't. And on the other side, to the extent that soccer is Gladwellian (which I think is a non-trivial extent), the development that occurs before age 18 is likely far more important than what occurs between 18-21. I don't think you're wrong that college suffers from less than desired talent concentration (1), but a trade of suboptimal 18-21 development for optimal <18 development is likely to be a winning trade if the costs are even close.

--

1- Basically, the reduction rate between HS boys soccer and USSFDA soccer is about 100:1--417k HS boys down to about 4k DA players. The reduction rate between USSFDA and MLS is, as a ballpark figure, probably 50:1 or so--about 1k DA players matriculate each year, where maybe 20 or so Americans in each year group are ever going to get any significant minutes in MLS. But the reduction rate from USSFDA to college soccer is something much lower than that--the NCAA states that about 1.4% of HS participants can make Div I college teams, which is really not any more 'theoretically exclusive' than the DA is.

One conceivable 'solution' to this problem, which has been advocated by people like Sasho Cirovski, is to split the current Div I (at a little less than 6k participants, we're probably talking a little over 200 schools) into two divisions. That way, the relatively small number of schools that are willing to spend a little more on their programs, but are constrained by the NCAA limit of 9.9 Full Scholarship Equivalents could concentrate in a "Div I-A" that offered a greater number, let's say 11, while the "I-B" schools could reduce expenses and enhance Title IX compliance going to something fewer, let's say 6, and still have a league that was competitive to play in. It would be aimed at putting the top ~40 or 50 programs in the upper division. That way you would get an increase in talent concentration without a net new cost (it would be a cost transfer to the teams that chose to bear it, away from those who don't want to).

 

Some NCAA programs and conferences are already meccas for talent. I don't see any shortage of concentration. It isn't comparable to the DA, where most of the teams use nearby affluent suburbs as their base.

 

I know a full blown, professional, MLS U21/23 team isn't going to be cheap. It's easily $1-million, but should probably be in the $2.5-million to $3.5-million range. Taking into account the number of players and staff needed to operate the team, this would be similar to what each program in the NFL's development league (major college football) has for budgets.

So yes, professional development isn't cheap. But it is needed.

I know Sasho Cirovski has been advocating change in college soccer. His idea of splitting D1 is funneling talented players into a smaller pool. In other words he is advocating what I'm saying. He's been doing this for the better part of a decade. I would imagine part of my opinion is based on his.

I also think development is just as important after the U18 level (essentially high school and younger age). The U18s being developed in the U.S. are on par with, say players in Mexico. The club system in the U.S., with it's shortcomings, does a good job. Of course, the U17 residency program provides a good band-aid (not that band-aids actually heal wounds!) to whatever shortcomings our club system has.

But it's the college-age player that suffers. Our U20s and U23s have traditionally struggled against players in a professional environment. There is still development to be had for these players and it's just as important.

Keep in mind, I think there are talented players and great programs in D1 college soccer. If, over the years, you had dropped Maryland in the German 3.Liga (where many Bundesliga Reserve/U21 teams play) or the England Professional U21 Development League (it's 2nd division) they could compete.

But if you took the best 25 players from the ACC and put them on one team in the same environment, now we're talking.

 

The US Soccer Development Academy isn't just for MLS teams.

It also includes long-time club teams, such as Crossfire, Chicago Magic, Pateadores, Colorado Rush, Concorde Fire, PDA, and Oakwood. It's these clubs, and similar, that have been providing that talent to D1 soccer.

And both, club and D1 college soccer, have historically used a substantial number of players from affluent neighborhoods.

 

Just FYI major college coaches make $3.5 million.

 

I know. Any your typical major college football program has a budget in the $15-25 million range, with revenue twice that.

 

I read something earlier that stated that 80% of US youth soccer players quit the game by age 13. That's a staggering number.

 

Of course, but there's a huge difference between the talent pool for a school like Notre Dame (all over the country, plus international) and that of a typical DA (mostly nearby suburbs).

 

Not really. That's the age where they hit high school and start to play gridiron instead, for the popularity in the community and with girls.

 

Have you seen the Euro chicks at soccer games? If there's any sports groupies I'm aspiring to impress, it's them

 

Not really, there aren't enough spaces on football teams to account for that kind of drop off. I am willing to bet if you look at any sport where there is a large amount of youth playing prior to high school sees a huge drop off in high school. High school is when limited roster spots begins. Prior to that clubs will create as many teams as there are parents willing to pay for their kids to play. A single club can have 3 to 5 teams for a single age group. Once they hit high school there are suddenly only three teams for 4 age groups. The only reason why gridiron might increase is because in a lot of areas you either do not have the option to play prior to or mothers won't let them play prior to high school.

 

Yeah, but they have to be there. I suspect that there are more gridiron groupies outside the major cities than there are football groupies.

Didn't know these numbers, thanks!

Do you think maybe the sport as perceived here in the States encourages a bunch of kids who wouldn't normally be participating in any orgainzed athletic activity to play soccer at a very young age (maybe becauee it's become a Thing among upwardly mobile parents), only to admit in a few years that they ain't really ready and never were?

AFAIK there have always been middle school teams- I know there are in my own town, and I haven't heard anyone say they're not in theirs. But yeah, the concussion scare is keeping a ot of talent from starting earlier. I don't think gridiron increases in the way that you're implying. Meaning that I don't really see that as an "increase" in the sense that more decide to play, but that HS is now the starting point.

Also, the demographic for soccer here is kinda focused on education maybe a bit more than the gridiron kids. The suburban gated-community teen is pushing for academic schollys and high board scores at that point, with sports being relegated to "extracurricular" status.

 

No idea where you are referring to, but I've literally not been anywhere in the US that doesn't have Pee Wee/Pop Warner football and middle school/junior high football.