NCAA proposals

so where is this survey found?

 

Even kindergartners get to play fall and spring seasons. And some of them play longer fall seasons than what's being proposed.

 

Apparently the NCAA wants to make the decision to go pro early easier for college and would-be college players.

Combined with MLS getting its academy and reserve teams up to speed, taking away more games and training will make it even harder for college programs to convince the elite players not to turn pro early.

 

My son told me about this survey this weekend, If they listen to the athletes input it will go nowhere, but my bet is as with everything concerning the NCAA and its member institutions its about the money and if they think they can get away with it they will.

I can't think of any coach or player who will think this is a good idea.

 

GASoccer speaks truth. I remember back at the College Cup when Indiana beat UCSB on penalties (2005?), both coaches were talking about what a bad idea this would be, basically taking something away from student-athletes that they loved. The idea in some form has been around for a while and while its under the guise of emphasizing academics, you can be sure its support comes from those who want to cut spending.

I keep getting told by university types that it does not have a chance to pass. For those of us who like college soccer, let's hope not.

 

Thanks for the added background. I agree that it's unlikely they'll get everything they've proposed, but you wonder if they might eventually get part of what they're after.

The 2010 season didn't start until September 3rd, and that left quite a few teams with less than two months of soccer. The 2011 season added back an extra week, and I really hope they don't shorten it again.

 

I predict an intercollegiate futsal league. In the Spring.

 

Agree with everyone's sentiments above... definitely would make more kids try to go pro earlier if they were only playing games 2-3 months PER YEAR.

 

I don't think the NCAA is all that prescient, but given that the professional sport has become systematically less reliant on college players, it's probably not the worst thing that could happen. Frankly, it will take the edge off of (or at least delay) the looming crisis associated with the increase in football/basketball scholarship increases.

 

Are there any more details about the elimination of the spring season? I'm assuming this just means an end to playing the half dozen or so games that most of the big teams play in the spring, not eliminating the training.

Do any other collegiate sports have a competitive off-season?

 

Short term this looks bad but may be good long term. If MLS can set up a system where there is an educational component to professional soccer players this may allow professional intensive training while players are working toward a degree or accruing money to be used toward a degree when it may be more feasible time wise.
Please do it NCAA.

 

Ummm...why would MLS want to do that, particularly when they can directly sign U-18 players as it is, without dangling any (higher) educational incentives to the prospects.

 

And what about the 98% of players who wont play in the MLS?

 

As much as I enjoy college soccer, warts and all, I am also a believer that for the most part, the best environment to develop elite pro prospects is by, with and alongside professional players and clubs.

So, if the NCAA reduces the training and playing opportunities for college players while MLS is increasing opportunities for players of a similar age and that results in more college-age players not playing college soccer but instead being in a pro set-up, I think that's good for American soccer.

But, I don't think it's good for college soccer because college soccer will lose more of the elite players altogether or see them stay for even less time with college soccer.

Of course, this directly impacts only about 50-100 players a year out of the thousands that play college soccer, so I can see the NCAA not giving a shit about that small sliver of players.

The question the NCAA, and the college coaches and administrators, must ask is if interest in college soccer, which is finally starting to show it can establish a little toe-hold in the sports landscape, will wane if the public can't get to watch the elite 18-22 year old players in the country.

Because if the trickle down effect of these changes means fewer people will follow college soccer because it's not seen as the stepping stone to the pros it currently is, then the NCAA has done its members no favors.

But, if people will still follow college soccer because of the rivalries and the affiliations with the school and what not, then I don't think this will make much difference at all, save for seeing fewer college names on MLS rosters.

 

Like it or not right now 11/1/11 College Soccer or rather the educational component of college soccer is a drag on professional player development. We have not quite yet crested on the concept that many players look at the educational component of college soccer as paramount over the professional training improvement. The delta in that perception is what my post is about. Even without spring soccer many professional level prospects will go to college even though that will be a detriment to their overall future ability to pursue soccer. You can get professional level training AND be able to puruse higher education when time appropriate. MLS can easily establish methods whereby players can attend local colleges, attend online courses, or provide educational stipends to assist that tipping point of now convincing elite players that the educational argument is off the table. MLS can sign U18 players but that has nothing to do with the perception that college soccer allows that future educational safety net when in fact it burdens player development. Players can now have a safety net for maximizing their skill to be able to pursue professional soccer and if and when that dream dies have a nest egg to get an education. Win Win.

 

98% of the those college potential players who don't play in the MLS will not be offered any optional educational stipend because they won't be offered a contract to play in the first place. Its not for every college player just the elite ones who want an educational safety net while pursuing intensive professional soccer training.

 

To take this a step forward, MLS could offer an even better deal, financially, to elite players by agreeing to pay all of their tuition and book costs.

As most here know, with D-I men's soccer programs only allowed to offer 9.9 scholarships, most players aren't on full rides so an MLS team could offer a player a situation where he lives at home or in housing provided by MLS, gets a salary and gets all of his tuition covered. Sure, it would likely be part-time instead of full, but it might end up being a better deal than what some kids get now.

Of course, there will be some things MLS can't offer. It can't help a player get into a school he otherwise wouldn't have been admitted to if he weren't a good player.

It can't offer the academic support that most athletic departments have for athletes (though they can certainly hire tutors).

It can't offer the appeal of being a BMOC that comes with being an elite athlete, even in a non-revenue sport or of the fun of college dorm life.

But, if the idea is to get an education and get the best soccer training available, MLS could provide alternatives to college soccer and it will likely be more appealing to those that have the drive to be elite players if the cuts discussed on this thread are enacted.

 

Don't the GenAd kids get college paid for if they choose to return after playing? I know the Seattle Sounders will offer that to any Home Grown players they sign. It's really too bad that the elite guys are almost forced to go to college even if all they wish is to go pro. Too bad it is so difficult to,for instance,get trials overseas.

 

Wouldn't this create an issue for the athlete's NCAA eligibility if they took money or support from professional teams?

 

Either you missed the point or I didn't express it clearly enough - the NCAA wouldn't be in play because the kids wouldn't be playing soccer but instead would be getting paid and getting educational stipends to be in the MLS academy and reserve team set-up.

They'd get their training and games thru their MLS team and go to college around that.

 

They could, I suppose, but since they've gone to the trouble of creating and implementing an approach that decreasingly relies upon the college-educated athlete, why would they even bother? They'd be effectively bidding against themselves.

There are about 5000 D1 players in any given year, 19 MLS teams, and 310 million people in the US (legally or otherwise). If the league can find 50+ "elite" players per year willing to bypass college for, say 3-years and a salary equivalent to a construction tradesperson, why would they even want to sweeten the pot? I don't get the economics of that, and, I suspect, neither does MLS.

 

What is the history of soccer's spring season? new ncaa president is probably looking at this season and saying why are they playing games that do not count towards wins/losses, spend money when football, basketball and baseball do not do it?

 

Football has Spring practice, 85 athletes on scholarship, they can have intrasquad scrimmages and a big spring game with those numbers, Basketball season runs for 5 months 30+ games and an overseas "training trip" every 4 years and baseball seasons run for 5 months with 50+ games, compared to soccer for 2-3 months and 18-26 games. Eliminating Spring soccer games isn't going to save much money but easier for schools to do then cut back on funding for football, baseball and basketball