Very telling things about the current state of college soccer

Genuine questions about it all - not trying to be a wise ass:

If player health is such a big concern then why do teams schedule 2x weekly matches that include non-conference opponents? Not bashing him, but just using Sasho and UMD as an example since he is the biggest driving force behind the 21CM - they played 16 regular season games. Only 8 of those games were against Big10 opponents. Why schedule a mid-week non-conference match if the wear and tear on players is a concern? One weekend they had 0 conference games and scheduled in 2 non-conference games.

My staff intentionally leaves open the available match date prior to the start of conference play, and if we have an open match date mid-conference season, we'll leave that open, also. Most teams fill every possible play date, but for us it is worth the rest and recovery that we don't get with a standard friday/money, thursday/sunday, or wednesday/saturday schedule.

 

You know the answer though, they want to get their max-limit matches in. With the congestion that already occurs, they will do what they can to get them in.

The funny part to some of this is, many of these DI coaches driving this are also the ones who reject USL2/NPSL when it's actually a decent setup for players to play 1 match a week (roughly 11-12 week season for 14 matches). Plus, it helps keep the players fit for fall. When they come in for preseason, they're ready for the grind of a fall season.

But...they have their agenda and they're going to drive it as much as they can without addressing the current issues that they could change immediately (or could have changed through the years).

 

Nice typo! I think you've pretty much answered your own question. If soccer moves to Fall and Spring, the games could be a bit more spread out, saving the wear-and-tear from doubling up pretty much every week, but ...

If you stick with Fall only, you're stuck, either 1) playing many fewer games, (say) at football's one/week pace; or 2) doubling up, as most primo programs do now.

Speaking of crowding, the College Cup itself is the most poignant example, with the semis on Friday evening and the Final on Sunday afternoon. The Conference tournaments are also tightly packed.

Anyway, I'm sure most players at most big programs want to play more games (annually) rather than fewer. That doesn't necessarily make Fall and Spring the right answer, and certainly not for every school - hence the strong difference of opinion you see here (and among coaches, I'm sure).

 

Really? Why is the proposal for change going from 25 games (current) to 23 games (fall/spring) then?

Without a doubt, it will be much better on the body and academics, but that's not what and how NCAA makes their decisions on. We all know that.

 

Now that it's been put on hold indefinitely, nothing was mentioned as to next steps. Probably put on hold as it was not going to pass, and need more time to get universities to buy in.

21st Century Model vote put on hold | College Soccer (topdrawersoccer.com)

So maybe revisited in another 2 years? 5?

 

Doesn't the schedule cramming start at the bottom? At the club level, how many tournaments have teams playing 3+ games in a weekend from 8Us on up to 19Us? Our state association routinely schedules same day doubleheaders for 10Us to minimize travel for teams. By the time kids have any agency, they've already been playing doubleheaders and back-to-backs for years. If you really think about it, kids coming from club soccer are playing fewer games per week when they get to high school or college than they have their entire career to that point.

 

You make a good point about schedule cramming, it's really something in every sport except football.

I wouldn't say tournaments are crammed schedules per se, but they have exacerbated the problems. The over-reliance on tournaments have made league play nearly worthless. Nearly every youth league I've seen only plays 6-8 league games, no matter the age level. But, clubs sell the tournament competitions to "add to" the league play. Which is worthless, IMO.

Then, when they get to HS, depending on the state there could be 10-20ish games for a HS regular season. They then get the "rest" of their development games in the spring with club. There are still several states and areas who only do youth soccer in the fall (recreational play NOT club/travel). So, they've already set back their development potential very early on.

 

FYI, this article is from 2020. The vote was supposedly yesterday (4/13), and without any celebratory social blasts, one can probably assume the vote didn't pass.

 

Meant to attach the SoccerAmerica article which "NCAA Division I Council tables 21st Century Model proposal and other legislation". "...everything was put on hold while the work of the NCAA Division I Transformation Committee and Division I Legislative Committee Modernization of the Rules Subcommittee continues."

 

Change is always resisted - especially when what would be changed is decades entrenched.

The evolution of soccer over the last 20 years in the US is as drastic as any sport out there. It was once very much a crammed, scholastic, sport where kids would (as posters have said) play 4-5 matches in a two day club tournament or play 3-4 matches a week in HS. Those days are rapidly changing - especially at the highest levels. The majority of Division 1 players have not come from a HS / Scholastic background prior to college anymore. Well over 50% (Americans & Internationals) come from 10-12 month academy setups where they play 1 game a weekend and showcases are structured to play 3 games in 4 days with a rest day built in. Players are familiar with, and like, the idea of preparing for a match over time. They don't want to feel as if they're only actually competing 3-4 months out of 12 when the norm for them previously was (at least) 8. That's why they would play LESS matches (23 vs 25) over MORE months (6 vs 3-4). The players are training the exact same number of days anyway - they would only see it as more enjoyable. It's certainly a proposal that was initiated by coaches - but the support from the majority of the players is there. It's logical to assume that, as more and more top level players in the US go they youth academy path to stay competitive, there will be even more D1 players for it each year if asked.

 

I think this is definitely true, but you do have to distinguish between men's and women's soccer. Women's soccer didn't go along with the 21st century model and many of their players eagerly abandoned the academy model when Girls DA folded. Their preferred league - Girls ECNL - doesn't have the same limits on the number of games per day they break for HS play.

 

I've got a question.
In what way is getting kids to soccer training/games more challenging than let's say basketball or baseball?

 

To take a different tact that Ponchat and some others, and BTW, I respect that others hold a divergent view. The 21st Century Model is a real advancement for the collegiate game. To the pro arguments, the current season is based on the high school model. Play 3 or 4 months and then, on to the next sport. They cram the requisite games in and then have a tournament. It is virtually the same. As that is the same in college. The method has no rhyme or reason except pre club team, circa the 80's and 90's. During this time club teams took off.

So in this thought, the current model is based on a time of multi sport athletes and the calendar. As in all sports, the club system has taken off, and led to more specialization. There are "Traveling" teams or Club Teams just about for every sport. Back in the late 80's Jamie Swanner, a goalkeeper for Clemson played both Baseball and Soccer. If memory serves me he was an All-American in Soccer and All ACC in baseball. But he was and exceptional athlete, and today we see very few examples of this at the division 1 level. But enough down the rabbit hole, the real case is with the specialization with sports leads to more one sport athletes.

Also on the historical front, we see that the number of YEAR ROUND sports has exploded and expanded. Basketball with year round contacts and training, Football adds non counting games and extra games for the conference tournament. Baseball has and expanded Fall season, Tennis and Golf are year round. So how do we fundamentally change the soccer experience?

Hence the 21st century model. It takes into account the desire of the vast majority of 79% to 81% of surveyed men's players who want to play year round. Yes they lose two games, but they gain an expanded experience of time to recover and address injuries. Injuries, I would dare say could be the silent biggest reason for this. Why? A player gets hurt an ankle injury. He may miss two weeks. Depending upon the schedule that could be 2 to 6 games. Then they have little time to recover and are susceptible being reinjured. In the 21cm they would have time to recover and not miss a significant portion of the season. It especially makes sense for impact players at smaller schools who may lack the depth.

It broadens the training cycle. Currently a team that plays two a week (and not up for the home away of it) plays Wednesday and Saturday. That Said, They have to have a day off, and the training cycle would look like train Monday, pregame Tuesday, Game, Thursday recovery, Pregame Friday, Game. Day off. Doesn't make a case for player development. Then new 21cm would have more time to devote to training yes, but now you can include proper prehab and rehab into the cycle.

Then lets talk about free time and classes. I believe that it would mitigate the midweek travel to 1) reduce missed classes, 2) allow for more participation in normal class events, and 3) allow players to balance academic loads. In addition, it would actually provide students a better experience with the loads more evenly spread. Some schools are able to manipulate schedules and summer school with loads that players are taking, but with this, they can take the normal loads to graduate without having to do summer school and overloads in the spring.

As for some of those who take about the transfer portal. It is here to stay and probably rightfully so. Players should have to option to find the right place for their education and soccer. I lament that it is sometimes players don't want to stay and earn their place, but it is their choice to find that path. However, this model will give players a full cycle to choose and not just the one semester. It would provide a path for better retention. Again, the overload of the Fall schedule and position in the depth chart with lack of reward can cause some to seek greener pastures. Not a real provable supposition, but I think it is a plausible outcome.

To the cons, well it a vast departure from normal. It would require some change of support staff and cause some scheduling snafu's for schools with limited space. It would add to the spring menu of tournaments and games. It would add to the menu of additional woes for the Athletic Trainers. Finally, it would add to the length of the competitive stress. In specific, now the spring is about seeing who fits and opportunity, but the 21cm would be focused on year round competition for places.

Again, all of the above is my read and look at some of the pros. It is not my decision that matters. Nor do I mind those that say nay this is wrong. I do think it is worth the look to revamp the outdated mode of high school. Will it achieve? Will it be better? But if passed, it will take a while to judge its impact.

The real questions are: does this allow for a better experience, can it feasibly work, and are we looking for the best for the students. For those the say yes, and those that say no, we won't know until it is passed and we evaluate it. But then - it may be too late.

Finally, I know most coaches are for it, but they matter little if the AD's and Presidents say no. Whatever happens, it will be and interesting debate.

PS for those that disagree, great, healthy debate makes a better product. I don't want to disrespect any thought, but these are my musings, and not intended to attack a position you may hold.

 

Spot on....Absolutely.... virtually everything soccer clubs do is bad for player development (OK - a little hyperbolic). I'm sure this dead horse has been beaten well past recognition elsewhere on various forums, but it bares repeating until it sinks in widely - most soccer clubs are mostly concerned with their revenue stream. Tourneys make money for the club, and no matter how bad they are for player development, clubs will continue to host them and attend them. So hardly any soccer parents and school sport administrators realize how screwed up everything is. From club tourneys and multi-game weekends and team selections and game priorities to high school schedules and playing rules and ditto for college, it is a giant cluster f.....f....f.....flush. Yeah, that's it, a cluster "flush". Rant over (until next time).

 

Have not seen many schedules yet but take a look at U.Denver slate. Those away games vs. Pac, ACC, BE have the rpi wow factor in mind.
https://denverpioneers.com/sports/mens-soccer/schedule/2022

 

New Hampshire and UC Santa Barbara have released very ambitious non-conference schedules as well.

 

https://denverpioneers.com/sports/mens-soccer/schedule/2022[/QUOTE]

...but with the Summit Leage those RPI power points will get quickly squashed ...

 

Haven't seen this posted here yet but Eastern New Mexico and St. Edwards University, both NCAA D2 former Lonestar Conference members are reinstating the men's soccer programs.

 

It sounds like this UCLA/USC to the Big 10 conference thing includes soccer. That’s going to involve some massive road trips

Sources tell @latimes that USC was the impetus behind this move to the Big Ten.

The move is believed to include all sports except for beach volleyball, sources say.

— Ryan Kartje (@Ryan_Kartje) June 30, 2022

 

The last domino hasn't fallen yet. There will be lots more movement. I expect there to be no Pac-12 (period) and the ACC will not be what we have known it to be.

 

The problem for ACC schools wishing to bolt is that they are locked into grants of rights on media through 2036. No doubt those can be negotiated out of or paid off, but it's still a huge stumbling block.

I expect the Pac-12 to make major moves to keep Washington, Oregon and Stanford in the fold. The Big 12 is the most likely source of football schools that can keep the Pac-12 at a "major" level. The Mountain West has Boise State, San Diego State and UNLV to offer.

Which means hardly any of this will impact men's soccer.

 

unlv is awful..