The increasingly foreign flavor in men's D1 soccer

After looking at some of the recent recruiting announcements it seemed like the number of foreign players was bigger than ever. So I decided to take a look at some of the 2007 rosters I put together when my kid was looking at schools and compare the number of foreign players on the rosters at that time to the number that were listed on the same schools rosters in 2013. Although the sample size is pretty large, it is far from representative. It tended to skew heavily west and towards the more competitive schools both academically and soccer wise (can't say the kid lacked ambition).

In the table below, international players are considered to be players listed from outside the US and Canada, while foreign players are considered to be International and Canadian players. The first two columns are the conference and the number of teams from the conference; Next, the number of International and Canadian players listed on the 2007 rosters and the 2013 rosters; The net change of International and Foreign players between the two rosters; The number of schools that had no foreign players listed in either year; The number of schools that increased and decreased their number of foreign players

	Conf	#	07Int	07Can	13Int	13Can	Net Int	Net Fgn	All US	Inc Fgn	Dec Fgn
	ACC	7	17	1	20	3	3	5	1	3	1
	Big 10	6	2	1	11	2	9	10	1	5	0
	Big West	5	5	1	19	2	14	15	0	5	0
	Ivy	6	8	4	14	0	6	2	0	3	1
	Pac-12	5	1	2	7	3	6	7	1	3	1
	WCC	4	3	0	11	0	8	8	1	3	0
	D2	1	1	0	0	0	-1	-1	0	0	1
	Other D1	6	22	1	31	5	9	13	0	5	1
	Total	40	59	10	113	15	54	59	4	27	5

As you can see from the list, schools have significantly increased the number of foreign players on their rosters. For every team that has decreased the number of foreign players on their roster over 5 teams have increased them. The number of international players has almost doubled from about 1.5 per team to three. While this may not seem like much on a roster of about 25 players, the reality is that most of these players are starters so the number of foreign players on the field for these teams has probably increased from a little over 10% to probably over 25%.

Given the skewed nature of the sample it is difficult to draw accurate conclusions about the other 165 or so men's D1 programs. That said, the 6 teams listed as "other" that are from conferences that are less attractive from a recruiting standpoint in terms academic prestige or soccer success do provide a tantalizing into what one may find as they have moved from almost four foreign players to an average of 6. Whether this large number per team has been a factor for their success or whether it is based on their conference can only be answered by looking into a broader sample.

 

Some other interesting notes:
The team that increased had the largest increase in foreign players was Cal State Northridge which went from 0 on their roster in 2007 to 5 international players in 2013. One of whom, Sagi Lev-Ari has been their leading scorer for the past two season. UConn, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Riverside and Gonzaga all went up by 4. Of note Northridge, Irvine, UCLA all made the NCAA out of the West this year. Gonzaga had their best season in some time and probably of would have received an at-large be with with a less archaic selection system. What people who've predicted the demise of NCAA soccer because MLS and European clubs have been signing a few younger players don't realize is that the level of play is primarily dictated by the weakest players on the field. So even if some younger prospects are getting signed, those losses are being dwarfed by the increase in good quality international talent. Also a hotshot freshman isn't necessary a better player on the field, but is instead a better investment for the professional club due to the dynamics of the transfer market.

The team with the biggest decrease was SMU which went from 3 internationals to a mostly Texas based team in 2013 with no international players (they do have a lot of local to talent almost all to their own). The other 4 teams with fewer foreign players: Virginia Tech (which dropped down to "just 5" international players in 2013), UCSD, Harvard and Stanford (gotta love that range of schools).

The four teams with no international players on their roster either year (which doesn't mean they never had any as you could have a player from somewhere like Greece come in 2008 or after and left by 2012) were Cal, Notre Dame, Indiana and LMU. Well Cal announced a recruit from Rome and announced one from Ireland. Both LMU and IU have announced recruiting classes of all domestic players so it looks like both will have all US based players next year.

 

As I speculated at the start of the thread, there are likely to be a lot of foreign players on some of the more competitive, but less prestigious programs. For example, Coastal Carolina had 11 foreign players in 2013 and I went back to 2002 and counted 10. The reason of course is that using foreign players is not something new - here is the title of article on the 1981 NCAA title game "Witchcraft was out and crafty play in as UConn's homebreds outlasted Alabama A&M's imports for the NCAA soccer title"- http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125118/1/index.htm

What appears accelerating is the scope of the foreign influx (Yes - back in the day UConn fielded a team of 10 US players and a Canadian that was described as "a bunch as American as a Big Mac") and the fact they are increasingly showing up in some of the most prestigious US programs in terms of academics and soccer. St. Louis, located in area that was considered many to be the heart of US soccer had 5 foreign players on their Roster. Scholarship money will be allocated to kids that can help the program win.

 

Defenders like Birnbaum, Dean from Cal. Peay from Washington or a DMid like Koval certainly where challenged more by facing a UCLA team augmented by foreign attacking players like Stolz, Munoz and Vale. That is fact that the could do well against higher quality competition was a big part of the reason they were all drafted as high as they were.

Age and maturity are certainly a factor, but the impact is nothing like it as U14-U17 when many kids are deemed to be stars due to their selection in various ODP/US national team pools. While UCLA freshman attacking players didn't get minutes (and that is deceiving because possibly their best one, Raygosa missed all but a few minutes to injury), two of the kids with the most minutes were freshman defenders Nathan Smith and Michael Amick. In contrast, Javon Torre, who was a starter for the US U20 world cup team got less than half the minutes of either, even though he seemed perfectly healthy every game.

The reality UCLA is also a special very special case. Year after year Salcedo and his assistants convince a flock of the nations one time US National players to commit to the school when it is quite obvious most will be on the bench. For example this year, College Soccer News has 8 of their top 100 players committing to UCLA and owhentheyanks.com has 7. Yet the kid that is probably going to get a bunch of the minutes Loyola University Maryland tranfer Larry Ndjock who was from Germany. It is really baffling to me. Certainly the foreign kids that UCLA has signed all get the concept of getting time on the field and transferring in when they have proven they can play at that level and will likely get a lot of minutes.

 

I'm sure that was Raygosa's thinking but I'm not sure why Antognoli burned a year for 13 minutes of playing time.

 

I think we both agree that when a foreign kid play gets a position or gets some scholarship money it prevents a US based kid from doing so. You've made it pretty clear you think this is a bad thing and while I agree it could be, I don't think it currently is. Our colleges attract and give aid to a large number of foreign students. In doing so, I think they create a global network of value and contacts centered around our universities. Seems to me creating an environment that attracts the worlds best and brightest is better than having a second rate, totally domestic environment where our best an brightest are forced to leave. In terms of soccer it has had a significant positive impact on the standard of play and has helped the development of our players and will create an even stronger environment for our future players.

IThe fact that the end up on a mix a different teams allows you to attempt to make some of the specious arguments about UCLA that you are making which I will address shortly. To help simplify my argument, lets say were able to aggregate all the foreign players on a few teams - like put all the foreign players in the Pac-12 on UCLA, in the Big West, put them all on UCSB and in the ACC on Maryland and so on. In turn we could take all the domestic players from those teams then shift them to the team the foreign players theoretically came from. What you would see is that these foreign teams are significantly increasing the level of competition for the large majority of American players those leagues through league games, non-non league games and playoff games. Because without theoretical teams of foreign players, the replacement teams be on the level of UNC Ashville, VMI, Howard, Long Island, Presbyterian etc. (actually you'd probably get some kids from D2 and D3 but I'm pretty sure would agree the level of competition would be significantly lower).

I'm one of the first people to argue playing time is critical, but it is not as if the one time youth nats sitting on the bench for UCLA were lacking options to play. If they wanted to play in the Pac-12 most would certainly be able to get significant playing time with San Diego St or Oregon St or possibly even Cal. If they wanted a UC school in a very good league they could have chosen Irvine, Davis or Riverside as well. UCLA was a special case developmentally when Sigi was the coach. Now UCLA seems to be the special case simply by how many national team players and transfers they are able to bring in every year. In terms of player development in the Pac-12, that role seems to have gone to Grimes as Cal. He starts with a small fraction of the blue chip prospects but ends up getting a fair number of his players drafted and in the pros.

Rowe was the Pac-12 freshman of the year and all league first team. Which of UCLA's freshman attacking players do you think were anywhere close to all league caliber? Hollingshead who was player of the year started just 12 of 20 games as a freshman. In contrast Brian Iloski who was beset by injury problems last year started 7 of the 9 he was able to play in. How is Iloski's playing situation last year a step backwards as compared to Hollingshead - other than getting hurt?

You write all it takes are a couple of 22-year-old defenders and all three of them (Smith, Amick and Torre?) are afterthoughts. Well guess what, Salcedo had a 22 year old transfer from Ohio State that played defender in his line up named Ryan Lee. He also a transfer from from SMU named Aaron Simmons that started as a CB but was pushed up to DM to make way for Amick. Freshman are always going to have a disadvantage due to age, experience and maturity. If soccer is their primary focus they can start less competitive programs like Lee, Simmons, Stolz and Munoz and then transfer.

 

Let's be realistic. At the this point of the sports development, the players that make the national team are exceptional athletes with exceptional skills that have a very good understanding of the game. With increasingly better training at the critical younger ages, very few of these players are ever going to get in a college environment. If they do, the kids like Yedlin, Morris, Dean, are going to be on the field getting plenty of minutes. It is even very unlikely that professional prospects won't get playing time. There are obviously exceptions to everything, but in general this is true.

There are trade offs to everything. If you win the lottery you have to deal with the government, charities, relatives, friends all constantly asking for some of your new found wealth. One of the costs of raising the quality of the player pool with foreign players is that a US kid won't get those minutes. At some point the costs will be greater than the benefit. Hararea thinks we are already there, I disagree. Where I am in complete agreement is that the difference in ages is a problem but I believe the NCAA has been working to address that.

I see soccer increasingly transitioning from one that was traditionally played by lower class kids in the big soccer nations to one that is increasingly played by middle and even upper class kids. The US college system offers a unique environment where kids can pursue their education yet still have facilities, coaching and competition that will allow them to compete professionally. As the level of player of American players continues to rise as does the level of foreign players, I foresee some of the more enterprising clubs will start realizing that it will be a good place to find players which in will serve to benefit US kids in that it will provide wider exposure and increased opportunities for those that want to play beyond college.

On the other hand one of the unintended consequences is that it could stifle involvement at the grass roots level, if a lot of parents think it is a dead end because most of the opportunities will go to foreign kids. I don't think we have the volume yet, but I acknowledge there is the potential. I maintained that USSF's decision to try to force such a large percentage of likely D1 college kids to forego playing High School does much the same.

 

College coaches aren't going to be able to fix at 18-22 things that are ingrained at 6-10 years of age. It is not going to happen. Go watch the 30 for 30 film Jordan rides the bus. In that film it describes how one of the most elite players in the history of basketball, with an almost unmatched work ethic, working one on one with a guy considered to be one of the top hitting coaches several hours every day barely made it to being a mediocre hitter at the AA level in one year (and many of the baseball people were amazed at the progress he made and some said the believed he could have made to the major league level in 3 or 4 years). Yet you are trying to argue any coach "worth his salt" can take a group of 25 kids within the limited contact hours allowed by the NCAA and turn them into Leo Stolz, Andre Blake, Pedro Ribeiro etc. It is not even remotely realistic.

My kid went through a transition similar to Jordan. He played soccer growing up much like Jordan played baseball. But my kid only really practiced hitting a baseball when he was younger but grew bored of the sport and quit. So the summer before High School decided he wanted to focus on soccer. So every day I worked with him eliminating his bad habits and painstakingly re-taught him proper movement patterns that are easily ingrained in younger children.

When he said he wanted to wear number 10, he said that a lot of the kids on his club soccer team laughed because of his lack of technical skill on the ball. Even when he made it to college, I was told that sometimes the coaches and kids on the team would be shocked at the occasional lack of control he displayed. But on the other hand he did have enough good coaching when he was younger and did work hard enough that he had a fair amount of success so it is not like you cannot improve. However, it is incredibly hard and takes a lot of motivation and individual coaching.

 

In a way I'm surprised that you didn't use Feilhaber or David Estrada as your example. But just because players do not get scholarships, it does not necessarily mean they weren't recruited. I'm sure OSU club team will also have players try out again for the team this year. Think they will find one average starter like they did last year? Getting a single upper classman every few years at the level of an average starter in the weakest program in big 10 in a huge school like OSU is very different that fielding a competitive team in one of the top conferences. Can you field a more competitive team than LIU with US replacement players? Maybe. Or maybe not.

Sure there are some exceptions that don't get scholarship offers and not everyone that can play chooses to do so. These are exceptions, just as Howard was the exceptionally bad school in the group of schools I named. But I'm not basing my position on exceptions, but instead am pointing to the general case. The odds are very close to 0 that there were kids walking around UCLA campus that can play like Stolz, Munoz, Vale, Volbejda, or Ndjock and the odds that similar kids were walking around places like Oregon State or San Diego State were even more remote. If you look at the all conference teams - especially in the weakest, like the Atlantic Sun, Big south etc, you will a lot of foreign players. If you are convinced there are all these similarly talented US kids walking around if only coaches would find them or magically develop them, I'm not sure what else anyone can write to convince you otherwise. For whatever reason, I don't think you are viewing this subject very objectively.