Even make it more than 5, just getting rid of the re-entry rule would go along way to preparing for the pro game.
I was one of those middling college players who benefited from liberal sub rules. I was in a group of a few non-starters who were +/- equal in ability, but there was one guy who often missed practice but also got sub time. I did ask the coach about it and, since this guy was maybe only a little better, my argument was an appeal to fairness. It was noted, and continued to work on my game, etc. But by the mid-point of the season, I was often the first off the bench and ended up getting a lot more PT. This was a D1 school that had a D3 program, but played against a lot of D1 teams (who routinely kicked our asses) and D2 and D3 teams who we often would beat (but sometimes lose to the really good teams like Babson) If there were only 5 subs allowed per game, my experience would not have been as rich, as the more liberal rules worked in my favor to ease me into a better role. But if you're playing at Wake Forest or Indiana, there are different expectations than the kids playing at Fitchburg State, Gordon or Curry.
I guess the subbing I'm more cool with -for the reasons you stated- but the other stuff. No stoppage time, time outs, the clock ticking down, really drive me nuts and to think so many players end their competitive careers playing under these crap rules. PS: My son's team Clark U., played Babson last fall and only lost one to nil!
I completely agree. You can make a case for subbing and all that, since there is an upside to it, but the clock is just insane. In the early MLS years, a lot of people hated the shootout (me included), but I always thought the clock was a much worse travesty, since it actually impacted the way the game was played. If players waste time, too bad, the ref will just add on whatever you wasted, plus another 15 seconds just to spite you!
In the last 5 minutes, the clock is stopped when the team that is winning makes a sub, though it still runs if both teams are subbing at the same time. It actually ends up adding time if the winning team subs in that period. And a ref can always stop the clock if a team is time wasting, assuming you have a ref who knows what he's doing, which isn't always the case, at any level though, not just college. I'm not arguing that the lack of injury time is doesn't make any difference, but I don't think it's as big a factor as one might think.
My comments were geared to D1 programs as that's primarily the pipeline for MLS or other professional leagues. For lower divisions @NFLPatriot's suggestion would perhaps be a better improvement: As long as the clock stopped on subs, it would give the non-starters PT but remove the whole "line change" mentality that some college coaches have. As a side note, I also played at a NAIA school so I know what you mean by players benefiting from subs, although I don't recall hockey-style subs on and off by us or our opponents. I'm not sure if perhaps the sub rules are slightly different in NAIA vs NCAA? Also, on missing practice: while every coach/team is different, at my school, if you missed (without a valid academic/injury etc reason) that meant forget about any PT the following game!
I saw just that exact thing starting with the final 8 minutes of a game last fall. It was a tactic by the opposing coach and we were down by one goal. He spaced out the subs too to lull the ref into not ever stopping the clock. Talk about infuriating.
Sounds like the ref didn't know the rules, and perhaps the people running the clock don't know them either, and maybe the coach on the trailing team as well: NCAA 2014-15 rules 3.6.2 During the final five minutes of the second period only, anytime the leading team makes a substitution, the referee shall signal the clock to be stopped and beckon the substitute onto the field. If I was the coach of the trailing team, I'd be yelling to/at the ref about it, and perhaps getting out the rule book to show him/her the rule, and I would definitely be reporting that after the game.
I guess the debate comes down to: should the effect on the majority of participants have any bearing on proposed rule changes, or is that the effect on the most talented (as well as other factors) more important? Well, I guess that comes down to what one thinks the NCAA's "mission" is (or what it should be). At one time it was to benefit students. It clearly isn't any more.
I think what you're advocating is more along the lines of asking, should the effects of the rules be to create a larger pool of people who play? But if you're talking about majorities, I'd think most D1 squads don't tend to play 22 or more players a game. Meaning, if they further restricted substitution, it would mean that a minority of the guys who get playing time now wouldn't get time in the future. So in fact, the majority of guys who play now would probably end up playing a little more, and might make those guys who make up the majority better players. What you want actually helps a minority of guys, those who are towards the end of the bench, but still play a little.
My coach pretty much had the same rule, with one exception - if the player in question was really good.
In my situation, the guy apparently had a "legit" reason, although I don't remember any details. I had a class 2x/week that got out the same time we were supposed to be in the locker room, so I would wear my practice gear to class and just go directly to the field, and I was ready to go at the same time as everyone else