Hello BigSoccer Family! It's been a VERY long time since I have lurked or posted around here. Back again because....I have been feeling pretty strongly about this...I noticed that during the 3rd and 4th rounds of the recent 2020 MLS Super Draft that many teams passed on picking up players and I read posts where people were saying that the college game is not meaningful to MLS anymore. My proposal: Make college players play a full 90 minutes which would go a long way towards improving the quality of the player coming out of the College system. (I know it might take some time) I know what folks are going to say..."but the NCAA will never go for that because of the number of games played in a season and in a week." My response: Not every player needs to play every game. Institute a rule that a player can't start a game more than once every 7 days and definitely implement FIFA substitution rules. This would lead to better developed players coming out of the college game. It would force coaches to focus on technical ability and stamina of their players. So if the NCAA won't go for it....*RING*...*RING*...NAIA are you listening?, you can sell this to potential recruits that they will get better Soccer player development at NAIA schools. In my mind, the NAIA schools would get a huge advantage if they were the first to implement this, and it would eventually force the NCAA's hand once they start to lose prize recruits to NAIA schools. thoughts? Spread the word.
Unlimited substitutions rather than just 3, but no re-entry. The most significant NCAA departure from FIFA rules is not the number of substitutions. It is that a player can exit for a rest and then return. Oh, and please increase scholarships enough to field a whole team, to at least 11.
Can anyone name a sport in which the NCAA rules are identical to the international ruling organization? Just a question.
I cannot. Not likely to happen here either. However, the NCAA re-entry significantly changes the game, more than any other discrepancy. For example consider FIBA goaltending foul vs. NBA goal tending foul. Is it different? Yes. Very. Does it significantly change the sport? Not so much. Somewhat.
oh, I had forgotten about the fact that players can re-enter a game. Yup, that needs to be nixed too!. I am holding firm on the unlimited substitutions, that needs to go. but I might be open to a higher number of substitutions at the high school level. As for upping "scholarships", fknbuflobo, totally separate and good topic. I'm going to have to post a separate thread on this topic since I work in college administration and have some insight into this. I always remind people that unless I have a donor that has specifically given the money to cover the "scholarship", we should think of it as a "coupon" since said scholarships reduce the amount of money I will receive to pay bills. I don't see universities increasing the number of scholarships offered, since higher ed in general is under tremendous cost pressures.
If the two-semester model is adopted and Division I men are independent of the other groups, you will see changes to the rules. It will not happen now as NCAA Division I soccer is federated with Division III Women's Soccer. So Virginia Men's Head Coach has less input in the rules as the women's head coach of the Fighting Squirrels Mary Baldwin University 45 mins up the road. There are 408 Division III Men's programs and 440 Division III women's schools but 200 Division I men's schools whose needs, wants and goals are completely different. Changes will happen when D1 Men get autonomy and most likely the D1 Women will follow at some point but while they are all together, there is no chance.
adopting FIFA rules would be the death blow to a sport that is barely hanging on. Remember to A.D.‘s soccer is a participation sport. Also it is not the job of college soccer to develop pro soccer players. Not to mention the title nine issues.
Of any rules that need to change, it's the regular season overtime. Just do away with it. So many coaches complain about it, but no one has done anything. A simple rule like that is so easy to eliminate, yet hasn't been. Why even fight major things like "21st Century Model" when they have garbage that still exists right now. These coaches enjoy their paychecks and just do some preaching to act like they are making positive moves for the sport.
In the UK in Amateur level they have introduced unlimited roll on roll off substitutions. It has had a great impact on reducing number of injuries and the quality of players as they get more game time now. Perhaps the introduction of this along with your ideas would help?
One NCAA rule I believe is not good and exhausts players leading to injuries is the fact there is no draw at the end of the 90'. Games played 120' are draining the players, especially when games are played within a 2/3 day span. They should avoid the OT and just accept draws. I don't see why they could not accept the 3/1/0 points rules as for FIFA. Obviously for elimination rounds, OTs (however no death goal) and PKs apply like for FIFA rules.
A game with OT is 110 minutes. FIFA does not mandate 3/1/0 except in some tournaments. That originated in EPL, I believe. The old US professional league NASL used a 10 point system - win was 6 points, tie 3 points, 1 point per goal up to a maximum of 3 per game, and one point for a shutout. Some youth tournaments use that method now. Conferences are free to choose any method they like to decide on a champion who will receive the Conferences automatic entry into the NCAA tournament. I like the idea of 90-minute draws, with the realization that there would be a lot more draws in aa season with no golden-goal OT periods. I dislike the whole idea of PKs deciding a contest that must have a winner chosen for play in the next round.
I have not talked to one coach who thinks the college OT should exist in its current state. All have said they want it to end at 90 minute regulation. Yet, no one does anything about it? Continue to call me skeptical of this whole "21st Century Model" over things like this. They can't and won't do anything about the simple things that they CAN change. But, they think 6-8 coaches will bring this whole sweeping systematic change? Nope.
I don't understand what this means -- "I always remind people that unless I have a donor that has specifically given the money to cover the "scholarship", we should think of it as a "coupon" since said scholarships reduce the amount of money I will receive to pay bills."
A true scholarship is a fund that pays from Fund A to the school to cover the expenses of whatever scholarship amount it is. Otherwise, it's just a discount on the advertised sticker price of the school -- not a "scholarship" in the truest sense. A school that just gives a "discount" is giving a "coupon" because they've chosen to take a hit on their potential profits from their advertised sticker price of tuition. Like Kroger giving a "deal" on Gatorade for 2-for-$3 or regularly $2 each. They've chosen to eat the $1 (or whatever profit) in order to move more products while sacrificing $.50 per product. No one came and gifted that extra $.50 per product for that Gatorade deal.
What is the true cost (in an accounting sense, if you like) of adding one more student to a school, given that the whole apparatus is already up and running?
That’s the thing that no school will advertise. In my opinion, this should be somewhat known/understood from the public school side. The public should know where and how these places are funded. Costs have become outrageous.