OK, I am hearing about a lot of VERY good USSDA male players getting offers, but with no money or very little. Where does all the money go? Let's say a school costs $40K and coach has 10 scholarships. So, he should have $400K to divvy up between, say, 25 players. That should be $16K a year each (obviously there would be more or less depending on the perceived talent level/accomplishments of the player). But since, some players will qualify for financial aid or academic scholarships, the coach should actually have quite a bit MORE money to divvy up for soccer scholarships. Yet, I am hearing about very good players getting no money as freshman, or even as sophomores after contributing as freshmen. I'm not hearing about anyone getting close to a full soccer scholarship offer or even half as a freshman. Who is getting all the money? Do the internationals get a lot of it? Does it all go to the juniors and seniors? What's the deal?
It goes anywhere you (the HC) wants it to go. If you can get an attacking MF who can break down any defense and he won't come without a full ride, I'd say you go get him. Score some goals. Now on ten ships you can only do that a few times. And for the most part programs prefer to back end majority of the money. If most kids don't play the first two years they are likely to transfer anyway and you've dropped nothing on them.
MSO has been getting jipped for years. What other NCAA scholarships sports do not even cover the starting team? Basketball has 12 fulls for 5 starters as an example. WSO has 14, Men should too. Been getting chite on for years........book scholarship is a good scholy on men's side. And yet partial and full scholarship sports are lumped into the same APR? umday.......
It bugs me too. I love american football, but to think they get 85 full (head count) scholarships. I think NAIA offers more soccer scholarships for MSO (12), but I don't know what sort of value is placed on those.
Title IX. Overall, Title IX is a great law for women and American society as a whole. I have no qualms with the intent of the law and many of the pro-female results. However, there's little arguing it has hurt sports like men's soccer grow. From limiting scholarships to giving the women far more votes on the NCAA rule changes (because there are way more female programs... because of Title IX) to forcing some schools to drop or not add men's soccer, Title IX has hurt. Now, the huge amounts of scholarships for football and men's hoops don't help, either, but as long as those sports pay the bills, I can't quibble with them wanting to have the scholarship numbers they do. It's yet another reason why college soccer, in terms of high-end player development, has a limited and shrinking future.
I don't disagree NCAA cares little to none about men's soccer but - being a little trivial here - dropping a men's program is only one of two options. Schools can add another sport on the women's side, which for those SEC/Big 12 schools, they could easily afford to do it financially. Also there are 200 division one programs. We aren't short on more division one programs. If more D1 schools join men's soccer, they're ultimately stealing recruits that would otherwise go elsewhere, hurting those programs. So while it would be nice to have the SEC/Big 12 involved and some more scholarships on the men's side, all things considered, it's a smaller issue. For the players who have actual pro-aspirations, they have resources at their disposal. Could it be more, sure, but we're talking about the bottom 1% who just miss the cut, not the top. For me, it's less about NCAA hurting the sport and just not offering to help it. It turns out MLS-ready players every year, although a small number, so it's not completely void of production. But it's far from reaching its ceiling. The single-semester competition produces sloppy soccer. The substitution rule encourages teams to win by muscle and might. The limited spring does little for developing players out of season. Even small things like having the semifinals/final within two days of each other (in DECEMBER). Can't say I have an answer to everything but NCAA isn't interested in finding a better solution at all.
This is assuming a program is fully funded. What's the numbers look like on that? Probably decently low across Division I. If I'm not mistaken, average DI scholarship is around $8700 -- when not including football/basketball full-rides. At times, conferences have set rules that require member schools to maintain a minimum scholarship limit. Schools will tow that line easily. Why put an emphasis and investment in a sport that loses money? Tough to compete in men's soccer if you only have 3-4 scholarships to share across the team and the school costs $30,000+. They could do it, sure. But, why? It's around a million dollar investment annually for those major conference soccer programs. Then, factor in the facilities again. They don't see a need for it. Why should they? Soccer loses money. They don't care about development or opportunities for athletes.
You also assume that all schools are able to package athletic scholarship and academic scholarship players. There are plenty of schools that have to count any and all outside scholarship amount towards their 9.9 full allotment. It’s an awful system and it’s part of the reason why the sport is dying a slow death at the collegiate level.
If those scholarships are being directed to the athletic programs, where else should they be counted?
I can comment on one mens program Div one that said they only were funded for 7 1/2 scholarships...most given to upper classman starters (if they are lucky) and other money used for one or two offensive players intls. . Also know of a Big Ten team that used a "HUGE" amount of their monetary budget on three internationals and another transfer who got full ride (so they each used one scholarship), but also housing, food allowance and travel (so they additionally used a big portion of the budget...also known as someone else's scholarship). So this program may have had full funding of 14 scholarships, but used up a lot of the budget on three players. Rarely do DA mens players get money for a spot as freshman, so its so important for players interested in a school to get there application in and financial aid set up even before they wrap up a soccer spot. I know of only one player on our DA team that was on a NLI (national letter of intent), and it really was that they needed the money to even attend college (even though both parents were professionals). Once again the curse if you have enough money to send your kid to college, but only because you saved and then you face once again the moral hazard as college coaches take notice...wawa.
Well your answer to your "why" is correct. There is no moral or financial incentive to institute another men's sport. However most sports programs don't make money. Schools could theoretically shut down every sport minus football and maybe 2-3 women's sports (to even out for Title IX purposes) to save money, but they don't. Schools are going to spend money one way or another. A couple million isn't a lot for a school that has 10-60K students and charges them $20-75,000 a year. My main point is that there is a narrative of "oh the schools couldn't afford to have men's soccer so they cut the program". Most schools can certainly afford to do it. Now, if they don't care about development or opportunities for athletes, that's a separate issue. But Title IX hasn't handcuffed schools into cutting men's soccer.
Not even close to correct as to numbers of teams a school can have. NCAA Division 1 member institutions must field a minimum of 14 teams (can be 7 male and 7 female or 6 male and 8 female). They must play in all three seasons as well. It is true though there is no incentive to add sports as all but a few are revenue black holes. Schools do drop one sport and add another from time to time. I had always hoped that as soccer became more popular that more soccer teams would be added than dropped. It seems the number of teams has been relatively stable over the last couple of years at a bit over 200.
Did not know that about the 14 teams. My mistake, although my overall point still stands. Most D1 schools have more than 14 teams, with the majority of those sports losing the school money. Schools are not handcuffed into having to shut down men's soccer. They could as easily add men's soccer as they've down with other sports.
ss-- it's true that Title IX did not handcuff schools into shutting down men's soccer specifically.. it's more accurate to simply say that Title IX handcuffed the school's athletic departments and the effect of that was that many decided they needed to cut somewhere and men's soccer (and wrestling) have taken the inordinate hit. Look no further than the MAC-- home of arguably one of the great college soccer powerhouses but barely able to stay alive. So many of those schools used to have men's soccer but felt they had to drop it so that they could maintain title IX compliance (Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Miami (OH).... Buffalo dropped it recently citing budget issues as well). The entire soccer rich South's premier conference (the SEC) is missing men's soccer not due solely to Title IX, but certainly that is one factor. The addition of women's rowing on numerous campuses has opened up a lot of opportunity for these sports to come back (typically offering 60 full scholarships for women even though the majority have never even competed at the sport before walking into those scholarships), but still schools like Alabama (who would be compliant and could easily afford to add men's soccer without even blinking) say they will wait until there are enough schools ready to go in the SEC to have a conference (or so I have heard from various people). So while Title IX may not be the only impediment that men's soccer faces, it certainly hasn't helped (and that's not to say it was intended to help men's soccer way back when, but it has had consequences in stunting the growth of college soccer in the US in my opinion).
Completely disagree. I'm not sure where the idea of the poor ol' universities - that rake in a quarter million in tuition alone - being treated unfairly came from. Schools aren't staying afloat financially because they cut soccer. They cut soccer because they didn't care to keep it. Over half of D1 schools have men's soccer. Most schools have over the bare minimum of offered programs. Schools have found a way to institute/keep soccer. Most schools without soccer could easily find a way to start a soccer program like the rest of the country has. The schools that don't have men's soccer (typically) choose not to have a team. For every one program like Buffalo who is actually struggling financially, there are a dozen more who have the resources to field a team but just decide not to. (I believe Buffalo's greatest contribution to American soccer is Bobby Shuttleworth. So losing their program isn't really a hit for the USMNT at all.) It is nice to hear that women's rowing may encourage programs to add men's soccer, but to be fair we already have 200+ D1 programs. Are another 100 really going to change the tide for the USMNT? Every year NCAA pushes out around a thousand graduates and how many of them are good enough to start for an MLS team, much less make a splash on the international scene? There are *much* bigger problems to the collegiate scene than Title IX.
In terms of player development and putting on a better product, I don't think the number of programs is the issue as much as the number of scholarships per team is the issue. I'd personally like to see D-I soccer broken up into two subdivisions, a la football, with a D-IA and 1-AA with the 1-A schools going to 14 scholarships (with mandatory full-funding as a requirement for the division) and the 1-AA being at about 7-9. If the top schools all have better talent, they can put on a better show. And if they all are able to give more full rides and bigger partial rides, it will be easier to get more top talent to choose college soccer over the pros.