This weekend in Santa Barbara, there was an estimated 11,000 people on hand to watch UCSB take out VCU 4-1 in the quarterfinals of the NCAA College Tournament. After the game, the ecstatic (and no doubt largely inebriated) crowd poured onto the field and carried away the goals. For all the discussion that goes on on these boards about the failure of the NCAA system as a player developmental tool, is there a missing component of that conversation? Does the NCAA play an essential part in the growing of the game in this country? And is that more important right now for the sport than whether or not the top 100 18 year olds are in a full-time training environment? There are lots of good arguments why colleges shouldn't be counted on for athletic development, but it is perhaps foolhardy for a minor aspiring sport to ignore the institutional fanship that these schools bring. No reserve league will be able to cover as many areas of the country as college soccer can, and no reserve team will be able muster crowds that even remotely compare to what we had this weekend. (The other games drew 4000 each in College Park, MD and Charlottesville, VA and an unspecified number in Bloomington, IN). Maybe I'm reading too much into this - that the crowd was just a function of a lot of drunk Isla Vistans who happened to be within walking distance of a party. But I can't shake my sense that this is good for the sport in this country, that creating these sorts of memories will help maintain an interest in soccer among those who attended. College soccer has clearly helped to maintain soccer fanbases in metro areas that were left out in the cold in the pro scene, like Saint Louis and (until recently) Portland. As a tool for bringing soccer to the masses, the NCAA gives a pretty decent bang for the buck. I'm sure it will continue to be a part of the scene, in concert with MLS' stepped up training opportunities. Seems to me that's a good combination of what's needed.
It's school spirit more than anything. When I was at Rutgers the school had a huge gate for a quarter final against Brown. It was more about rooting for you fellow students and sharing in a winning experience than it was about soccer. You could subsitute soccer for lacrosse or baseball on that campus and you'd see the same thing. Many of the people who went to that game had played in the past, but they didn't become fans because of that game in 1995 and most never went to another game, college or pro. In some cases, maybe having NCAA soccer around helps soccer, but I don't think it does enough to make a real difference.
For me, the argument isn't that the NCAA is bad for development, but that it's pretty much the only way of development right now. I think it serves a purpose and, with the expansion of MLS rosters to create meaningful reserve play and possibly the stabalization of the USL, will continue to serve a purpose. People will just have other options. Regardless, sound sgreat that they got anawesome crowd. Maryland gets some pretty good crowds as well. If soccer is marketed well on campus, kids will come. I remember in college how my friends at Allegheny College absolutely hated going to play at one school (forget, maybe Denison) because the dorms overlooked the field and drunken abuse was rampant.
Probably, yes and yes. Whether or not NCAA soccer is and will be a contributing factor to American soccer at large in terms of player development, the college game isn't in danger of dropping out of existence in this generation or the next. It is anywhere from a decent to an above-average draw come College Cup time, and college players have been drafted every year in MLS history. It is not recognized by FIFA and does not acknowledge FIFA laws, yet it is wedged a mile deep into the American game. Its importance may diminish over time, but its relevance ought to remain constant, backed by the tons and tons of schools under the NCAA banner that play soccer. Beyond that, it is good for the game in this country (I've noticed I keep saying "this country" and I don't even live "here") right now to have more soccer being played, publicized and televised nationally. Bear in mind that any real gripes about the college game appear in a very timely fashion, whenever the College Cup rolls around. The other eleven months of the year, the NCAA barely rates a mention on BS, which means while no one is clamoring for it, no one is vehemently against it. That in itself is a sign that college soccer is nearly a permanent fixture in the US.
I think this is a good point. The biggest obstacle facing professional socer in the USA doesn't have anything to do with the merits or marketability of soccer as a sport - it's the lack of established team loyalties, and the difficulty in establishing new ones in an already crowded market. In order to really enjoy a soccer game, and to appreciate the drama on the field, you have to really care about which side wins. That's why, unlike in most of the world, in the US the national team tends to be a much more marketable product than the league game. WUSA never overcame this initial barrier, and without the presence of Latino immigrants, I don't think MLS would have gotten past it either. What college soccer potentially offers is a ready-made (and often, fairly intense) sense of team loyalty that extends to a very large number of prospective new soccer fans. This seems like an important resource.
If this game got some people into soccer who weren't before then it helped the development of the game in the US. If some of these new fans decide to go to a MLS game or two, then it helped the develop the league and it's fan base. However, I tend to agree with the poster from Rutgers that 11,000 people at a college soccer game were more because the school hyped it and the kids turned out to root for their school and classmates as opposed to soccer as a sport.
As far as I am concerned it is a failure. Back in the 90s we had larger corwds than this when it was being held in Richmond. 20k. 11k for the quarters??? big deal.
you never had 20,000 for a quarterfinals in Richmond in the early 90's. there were 20,000 for the final four - there's a differernce... but anything over 10,000 for an earlier round like this is truly impressive. I tend to agree that for the most part "school spririt" brought most of these fans out. Let's hope it does the same next weekend at the HDC.
This is 100% correct! You can market the heck out of soccer and still not sell it. As long as people care about the outcome and feel some vested interest in winning or losing, i.e. they identify with the team and the fan group, it almost doesn't matter what the sport is. A college sports team has these factors built into it in a way porfessional sports do not. You don't have to like the sport per se when your friends are on the team and your school is being represented. It's a built in fan group and I don't think enjoying your school's soccer team is going to necessarily make you a fan of the game on the whole.
IIRC, the University of Missouri/St. Louis was like that. Of course, I never received any of their abuse, largely because I was on the bench wearing street clothes, but it was noticeable. Which gives me a great idea for designing college soccer stadia: Two college football stadia I know of are also dorms (Tiger Stadium at LSU and the University of Arizona's stadium). When designing college soccer stadia, put dorms at one or two ends or sides, FACING the field (unlike LSU and UofA), and have seats around the other two ends or sides. It's easier to get federal and state money to build a residence hall than it is to build a soccer stadium, but so far as I can tell, regulators don't care what is around the residence hall. Oh, and 11,000, for any college soccer match, is a damn good thing.
I keep having this thought that there must be a way to get the USL and NCAA to work together. Basically, have everyone do what Brigham Young did, that is take soccer out of the NCAA and play a full season (both the current PDL/W-L season and the current NCAA season). That way you get the best of both worlds, the increase in games played of the PDL and the infrastructure and built in brand identity of local colleges. "Independent" teams would be allowed, but I'd imagine most would be colleges. Colleges could decide on the composition of the roster (i.e. how many non-students would be allowed) and what compensation if any would be paid. Now, if they could only get the College Cup final off of Sunday. I'd watch if were up against anything but the NFL. Would Thursday-Saturday work just as well?
I want to take nothing away from the crowd at UCSB this weekend. That was quite an accomplishment and great for college soccer and the sport as a whole. But, it also has to be looked at as an abberation. In the history of college soccer, there have only ever been four games outside the Final Four that drew more than what UCSB got this weekend and all of them were back in the 70's. Even the Final Four has drawn poorly of late. In both its trips to Columbus in 01 and 03 and in Dallas in 02, the crowds were about 6-8K. Not terrible, but not great either. The reality is that college soccer doesn't draw. Sure, for the occassional big game, a team can get a good crowd like was seen at College Park and Charlottesville this weekend. UConn and Saint Louis historically lead the nationa in attendance average and with that, we're usually talking about 3500 a game or so. Certainly good crowds, but nothing to be excited about. For all the resources and advantages that college soccer has over new pro teams like in MLS, the USL and the WUSA, college soccer doesn't draw the fans consistently. So, while what happened in Santa Barbara Saturday night was a great accomplishment, I just don't think it means anything in terms of a gauge in the popularity of the sport in America. If soccer, and college soccer to be specific, was more popular, than crowds like this wouldn't be noteworthy, they'd be commonplace.
I don't think you understand the BYU situation nor do you understand the legal, liability, and control issues that give rise to the NCAA. The NCAA exists so that schools can govern their atheltics programs for the benefit of the schools themselves. There is no way that schools will give up that control to outside authorities like the USSF and USL nor will they pay these entities to run their competitions. They simply will not do it. The NCAA provides the schools with a uniform set of guidelines governing each recognized sport both on the field and in the classroom. Obviously, the interests of a sports organization that has the interests of schools and private owners to meet the universities' needs first the way the NCAA and the conferences will. This would see a horrible precedent for other sports such as football and basketball where real "abuses" could take place. The NCAA, while not eliminating the seedy side of college sports, at least presents the illusion that academics are the primary responsibilities of these institutions. At BYU, my understanding is that one issue was title IX compliance issues have prevented the athletic department from turning a very successful club program into a varsity program. Another issue for NCAA compliance were tournamnents the team played in overseas as part of missionary work which violated NCAA rules limiting when teams could play. The club competition also became too easy, so the alternative to purchase a USL franchise was pursued.
I don't claim to be a legal expert or anything. I'm just saying that finding an agreement between the two makes sense in soccer that is different enough from other sports. Maybe it isn't, but it would be nice. I'd think if the current NCAA members provided 200+ clubs to the USL, they'd have a pretty big say in how the USL is run, and some voice with the USSF that I'm guessing they don't have now. And it doesn't have to be a precedent, it could be for soccer and nothing else. The point of this was that it there would be no pretense. If a school wanted it to be just for academics (as determined by that school and that school alone), then they could run their team accordingly. If not, they are free to run things differently. If they wanted to pay players, they could (not that it would be very much). If not, then that's fine. Obviously nothing like this will happen anytime soon, and probably not ever. I was just thinking out loud.
"institutional fanship" That's an excellent descriptive term. MLS has failed so far to develop this. I'd just think college soccer would benefit from creating soccer specific conferences (hockey has these), to pool the talent into fewer schools. Additionally, the USSF ought to create an invitational cup competition similar to what the NIT used to be. That way they could enforce FIFA rules for the competition, and the NCAA can go scratch.
As a UCSB '00 alum and pro soccer fan, let me put that crowd in perspective. For most all of my time at UCSB, the soccer team was average to poor. I went to a game or two per year and there were never more than a few hundred fans. The coach has led the team on a dramatic rise to the top over his five years at the helm. FYI, Thiago Martins is a UCSB alum. This really was the perfect storm in terms of fan support for these reasons: 1. How often is an NCAA qfinal held on a campus? Especially at one that has never won a major NCAA national championship. 2. Saturday night is party night on campus. There was almost a full week of hype for the game, and this was the last party night before finals. Everyone is on campus and it's the last chance to party. 3. In general, UCSB does not charge students for admission to sporting events, although for women's basketball and volleyball NCAA's there was a student charge for admission. I don't know what the policy for this game was, but it wouldn't surprise me if the tickets were free to students. 4. Even at relatively sparsely attended games, there is always strong school spirit. People love to have a good time at UCSB. 5. The game was played in the old football stadium instead of a small soccer field. UCSB no longer competes in football. The stadium probably seats 20K. 6. I could always find pick up soccer games around campus and intramurals are a big part of campus life. While I wouldn't say that it's a "soccer crazy" school, there is strong support for the sport. When people graduate, they usually move to SF or LA. There are marketing opportunities for MLS if they can create an atmosphere and sense of spirit like Saturday night.
I believe that this is wrong. I think my college team played in a quarterfinal at UConn in the mid-80's that drew more. UConn certainly filled its stadium, and that included stands on all sides of the field. I can't really be sure at this distance. But then, I'm more than a little surprised that anyone else would claim to be sure, as in the post I'm quoting. Nobody was compiling such stats, and there's no database of it on the web.
No, I believe you are wrong. I can make such a confident statement because the NCAA actually keeps track of these things and, low and behold, you CAN check it on-line. http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/soccer_records_book/2004/2004_soccer_records.pdf According to this site, the biggest game at UConn was 10/24/82 when 9,200 saw the Huskies play Alabama A&M, which at the time was a college power. That's one of the biggest non-NCAA Tournament crowds ever. 9/2699, UConn hosted St. John's and got 6,070, the second biggest regular season crowd in UConn history, again according to the above link.
I was also at UCONN in the mid-80s, '83 and '84. This was about three yeasr after they won the national championship. UCONN regularly drew 5,000, and there was one tournament game that drew 9,000. UCONN football wasn't well-attended, and this is pre-Calhoun before Husky basketball was any good. Soccer was definitely the big sport on campus.
Saint Louis University consistently draws 4,000+ for games at Hermann Stadium, even for regular season games. The atmosphere is actually really good too, the fans are educated about the game, they are loud, and the Billikens play extremely well too. We have lead they nation in attendance averages for the last few years, too.
It's a great site, Sandon. It doesn't answer the question as thoroughly as you imply. For instance, it doesn't tell us whether that was really the biggest crowd ever at UConn. It merely tells us it was the biggest regular season game, and that the NCAA isn't aware of any tournament games at UConn with more than 10,300 in attendance (which would have put it in the Top 30, which are the only ones listed.) I tracked down the game I was talking about at the Boston Globe site. Their report, a long article which really brought me back, included this sentence. >Morrone, who was coaching his 500th game before a home crowd of 7,182 (sixth largest in UConn history), lamented Donigan's illness. God, did we hate Donigan. Anyway, our 7,182 was only the 6th largest crowd in UConn history till then. So in addition to the 9,200 they drew to that regular season game, they drew four other crowds bigger than 7,182 that you can't find in the NCAA records. Presumably that means they were tournament games, since the NCAA record book says it shows the biggest regular season crowds. It's possible that all 4 tournament crowds were smaller than 10,000. I wonder, though, whether the NCAA simply doesn't have complete records of attendance in non-Final Four games. You were right that my crowd wasn't as big as I remembered. But I think the facts of UConn's attendance suggest the record isn't as bleak as your original post.