A new day, paying college athletes and what it means for college soccer

From a newsletter by a writer named Matt Brown who focuses on (more or less) the business of college sports. The article is on USA Gymnastics trying to find ways to prop up men's college gymnastics (which sounds like it's on life support).
Of all the non-revenue sports, men's college soccer stands out to me as one of the least likely (and possibly the least likely) to get any meaningful support from its federation. I doubt US Soccer cares much one way or the other about men's college soccer since most pros don't go that route.


"My suspicion is that entities outside the NCAA need to get much more involved in advocating for not just the health and well-being of collegiate programs, but youth (and post college) opportunities in just about every Olympic Sport, if federations want those sports to continue at the current scale. Most athletic directors are simply not equipped or incentivized to really advocate for these programs. They need to spend their time fundraising and on developing football and basketball."

His newsletter can be a good read for those nerdy enough to obsess over this stuff: https://www.extrapointsmb.com/?utm_...ign=what-happens-to-ncaa-men-s-gymnastics-now

 

No kidding. Even if there was support within USSF for men's college soccer, it'd be way down the list of priorities right now.

Unfortunately, I think the cuts for non-revenue sports could be coming sooner rather than later (well, maybe both) at a lot of schools.

 

Every non revenue sport should’ve been doing this decades ago.

 

There is almost no chance US Soccer gets involved in supporting college soccer (other than indirectly through its support of youth soccer and ref/coach training) given that the NCAA is not a member organization of US Soccer and college soccer doesn't even follow IFAB rules of play, let alone subject itself to US Soccer organizational rules.

Because of the representation of the pro soccer council on USSF's board, it is far more incentivized to help pro academies develop so they can support promising national team prospects. Even there, it likely would do that by requiring under the Pro League Standards that DI and DII pro clubs have development academies, rather than through direct financial support.

Ironically, if college soccer went the club route entirely to avoid having to pay their players as employees, then US Soccer would be more likely to start getting involved. That's because those colleges' clubs could play in leagues organized under the auspices of the US Adult Soccer Association, which is a member organization of US Soccer and has representation on the US Soccer Board.

 

USSF cannot even manage itself and the soccer infrastructure that’s there. And, we want it to take on another element of soccer?

No thank you.

 

That's part of the problem, though, right? The sportico article references someone saying USA Basketball does it well and has three seats on its board for college representation. And they manage to do that without all of the rules being the same.

I think the bigger problem is that soccer is just different than almost any other sport in how it is such an integrated internationalized system. College soccer both participated in this system by having so many international players who are often coming from professional academies or even teams in their respective national pyramids, but also tries to insulate itself and have its own rules, and not just for play, but for things like transfer/training/solidarity spending.

I think college soccer needs to choose a path. Either fully insulate it from FIFA and just make it a college club sport or integrate it fully with the US soccer system. The first option would limit costs and keep the opportunity to play the sport open for a large number of people. The second option would increase costs, but could also potentially increase revenues to make it a profitable enterprise if done right.

And its in making that decision that I think US Soccer needs to do like in the article and find ways to help get the outcome they want. College soccer will likely continue to decline in how important it is for the national teams, but I feel it could actually be more important in helping to develop and expand the game for the next generation.

 

Since you have skin in the game (or have had?), what do you think about the all-club route if it looks like men's soccer will be one of the places schools make major cuts? I assume that shifts essentially all of the costs to players, which I'd assume means nothing good for coaching, facilities, ... The quality would almost certainly drop, too, I guess. Are there upsides to that I'm not seeing (aside from the obvious, it's better than nothing in terms of keeping the game alive for more participants)?

 

The club scene is largely a joke. Yes, there’s some talent in it — much of it being former players at the school, transfers in from other programs, graduate students possibly, etc.

Some have extremely large numbers. Some barely exist. Facilities are not great. Coaching is not great. Refereeing isn’t even licensed at times. Training may or may not have players at.

There’s mostly no emphasis on college club, until the team makes nationals, then they care. But, no one else does. Fans hardly support the university team…there’s even less at the club games.

 

Most programs already have limits. Is this NCAA or school rules? Notre Dame and Indiana historically have larger rosters, red-shirt and develop their players for the long haul. Marshall is a whole nother level of squad size.

 

The only “rules” that currently restrict rosters is scholarship limitations. If schools/programs have their own restrictions, they aren’t “rules.”

This shift would be from the top.

I’m not so sure it’ll work, or if it would last. Especially if they look to impose them immediately.

 

Believe so....Hearing plan for top conferences is to 1.) Expand or eliminate scholarship limit and 2.) Reduced amount of roster spots.
The big question for the mid-major & smaller schools is what are they now going to do. I imagine this will be very individual decision per school.
Brave New World iand some will need their "gramme of soma" to manage through this....

 

This would be part of an overall NCAA DI rule change that would be across-the-board for all sports to implement the settlement terms of the House lawsuit. Basically, they need an antitrust-free way to limit the costs of the unlimited scholarship amounts (no more distinction between head count and non-head count sports) and revenue sharing from the school's athletic department that would be permitted under the settlement. Roster limits are a way to do so because they can be justified on competitive equity grounds rather than as a way to artificially limit how much players can earn scholarship/revenue-wise. A school could have a smaller roster than permitted and a conference could mandate different-sized rosters for teams in their conference (which is why you see the discussion in terms of roster ranges for the NCAA rule), but the upshot is that for top conferences where they will definitely be sharing revenue and giving out full scholarship there most likely would be fewer bench/squad slots and the bottom half or third of the roster would be churned each year.

For men's college soccer, it's probably better for the top 1/3 to 1/2 of players who are comparing college soccer with low-level pro soccer since full scholarships and some revenue sharing/NIL might tip the balance in favor of college, which could improve the D1 game overall. For other players, especially on the fringes, it reduces their chances of D1, or high D1, but might make DII, DIII, or NAIA more attractive and distribute the quality more evenly across teams. In that sense, it could be better for raising the college game more generally by reallocating good players to their "highest and best uses" to express it in economic terms.

For DI schools, roster limits might also be what pushes them to leave D1 altogether, because it would limit their ability to use sports teams to drive tuition revenue higher.

Here's a Twitter source for some of this describing it from a soccer perspective

Update on NCAA Division 1 College Roster Sizes.

-Roster sizes any where from 24-28. Some Power 4 conferences are voting on a smaller number.

-They will NOT grandfather in the current roster. What does this mean? That if there are current rosters beyond the roster limit they… https://t.co/oTUk1XmLRY

— College Soccer Truth ™ (@ImCollegeSoccer) July 22, 2024

 

I cant imagine this being implemented this fall.

if the number is 26 (for example) and a school has 30. They will be forced to cut 4 players two weeks (or less) from the start of preseason? I don't see that being possible or going over well with schools. Not to mention its just wrong for the players and coaches involved with little to no time to inform players and families when a large majority (if not all) of the players wouldn't be at their current school if they weren't recruited to go there.

Definitely scary times for college athletics, not just men's soccer

 

I think the bigger issue is for current recruiting. There also wouldn't be grandfathering in for players currently on the roster (but that is always true - no roster spot is guaranteed just because you were on the team last year). To the extent it would affect current players, it would just make coaches less interested in developing those players at the end of the bench because they know they will be gone next year. Here's a tweet that suggests this is all throwing a wrench in recruiting right now

1816217157144867010 is not a valid tweet id

 

My sources are saying the roster limit will be 27 for soccer https://t.co/8KaqftoSyU

— DiscoverCollegeSoccer.com (@Discover_CS) July 25, 2024

 

On the plus side, hearing strong whispers that young pros who sign MLS NEXT PRO contracts early in their youth career, will be allowed "back" into college eligibility-land if they don't see their professional careers panning out as planned later in their teen years. I, for one, think this is a strong positive for all parties.

 

What I hope is not lost amidst these current changes and is IMHO "Mission Critical", is the top teams that benefit from increased scholarship go to a 10 month season. Otherwise, this benefits the players but not the game.
I think it's terrific that we can have more players on scholly, but from the 50,000ft perspective I only see more talented players in schools sitting the bench in a 3 month season. Good for them, but not for the game. However, if it can be stretched to a 10 month season, we could reap the benefits of competition (internal & external) over a longer period with real coaching (1 game per week) and a Spring finale that we can sell and all be proud e.g. LAX

 

It seems to me if schools don’t want to participate in the settlement, they are not beholden to the NCAA roster limits. Their scholarship limits would be capped at 28 though. Many of the D1 schools don’t offer football, or football is D1-AA. It will be interesting to see how many schools opt out. This really looks to impact the big football conferences … Big 10 and the ACC. The PAC 12 is no more. The only SEC teams are Kentucky and South Carolina. The only Big 12 teams are West Virginia and UCF. All 4 of these schools play soccer in the Sun Belt Conference. The other question I have is how will basketball play into this? The Big East has a number of top 25 basketball programs and soccer is considered a flagship fall sport for the conference with no football in the mix. What path will the schools of this conference take moving forward?

 

Also, there are 212 NCAA Div 1 schools for soccer. Only 30 come from Power 4 conferences (31 if you include Oregon State from the defunct PAC 12). The 4 schools from the Sun Belt Conference that are primary members of the SEC and the Big 12. The BIG 10 now has 11 members with soccer and the ACC has 15. Perhaps there won’t be too much change felt in soccer, depending on who accepts the settlement terms.

 

I'm of the opinion we'll see some smaller schools cut soccer. It's a sport that requires a decent amount of travel and with the increases in scholarships in other sports (namely baseball) and the lack of potential buy game opportunities (only B1G, ACC, and BE) they might go after the diamond. Sports for a lot of these schools is for name recognition, they know they're not winning any championships but if they can spring an upset or two they can get more student applications. An upset in baseball/softball gets more eyeballs than one in soccer. Add in the requirements of the House settlement and having to pay players in general and the costs add up.

 

And to add to all this, there's no certainty the House settlement will be approved by the judge and a settlement is not immune from an antitrust lawsuit that could scuttle the whole set-up. Unless they either get federal legislation or the players are declared employees, unionize, and enter into a collective bargaining agreement (which would be covered by an antitrust exemption), there will be continued instability in this area.

Of course, the NCAA could on its own remove scholarship limits and impose roster limits for schools that take advantage of the ability to provide more scholarships.