College Soccer News Podcasts

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not.

 

College sports (and high school sports) drive pretty much every major sport in the U.S. whether football, basketball, or baseball. So to me if college soccer is economically driving youth soccer, it shows soccer is becoming more mainstream.

 

If it's not the European model, it's crap.

 

I think you're joking.

But just in case... I know a handful of European guys who played collegiately here and across the board they have raved about pretty much everything from the facilities, fitness programs, travel, jerseys, food, per diem, sense of team camaraderie, school spirit etc, not to mention the compensation (scholarship). All thought the college experience was far superior to grinding in the minors in Europe.

 

My two sons confirm

 

And best of all, once you crash out of the tournament, if you even make it, the most they can make you practice with the ball is 2 hours a week for the rest of the fall, winter and spring.

If your son wants to play past 22 in any place besides an adult rec league best to avoid the land of the lost years.

 

There are college players in MLS.

Let’s say one were to suggest no US college players play in any league better than MLS.

Possibly true.

But that isn’t a causal relationship. If they were destined for Europe they wouldn’t play in college to get there.

Therefore, the absence of players who go from college to Europe is decided when the players are 17 years old, if not sooner, and the college experience has almost nothing to do with it.

 

You can train 8 hours a week and as much as you want on your own which equates to a 2-hour training session, 4 times a week and usually an unstructured 5th day once a week. A recovery day that doesn't count and an off day... Not too far off line with what many teams do....

 

Yes and I've seen teams playing well in the Spring, even with younger guys getting playing time. The Indiana guys are probably gonna correct me but I believe both Indiana and Notre Dame regularly play the Mexican U20 national team in the Spring. And I think they've held their own.

I also think it was this Spring that Maryland went to England and competed well. I know the Wolverines have scrimmaged professional teams in the Spring and acquitted themselves well.

 

I just listened to the Warming interview. I am from Omaha and apparently not at all versed in the history of soccer in Omaha and probably not as up to date with the current teams.

He did say something else that stood out to me about soccer youth participation is way down. Is that accurate?

 

Yes. Numerous studies have shown that youth soccer participation is down. The percentage of decrease is largely unknown.

USSF says participation is not down. United Soccer Coaches says it is. USYSA has had conflicting comments (from what I've read) saying stayed the same and/or down.

Some of the numbers are pretty alarming -- down 600,000 participants over last 3 years.

 

Is this an issue for all sports or primarily an impact on soccer?

Is there any primary reason? Is it cost to play at a higher level?

I never participated or followed the game until a few years ago when some of my kids took an interest in it.

 

All of these are good questions. It's one that MANY soccer people are asking.

Based on the Aspen Institute study, nearly all sports are impacted negatively. Over the course of 2008-16, only golf, gymnastics, ice hockey, fast pitch softball, track & field, and lacrosse are up (and they are all up by 1% or less). The largest decreases fell on basketball, baseball, and soccer -- the three most popular youth sports.

There's no one factor that causes these issues. Some attributes are:

• Cost
• Specialization
• Travel (fewer and fewer kids play near their homes)
• Interest (example: kids may have lost soccer interest due to birth-year movement by USSF and inability to play with classmates/friends)
• Esports (have to include, but percentage of physically inactive kids aged 6-12 is at its lowest point in last 7+ years)
• Socioeconomic status (largest inactivity comes from under-$25,000 families [29.9%], followed by $25-49,999 [24.9%], then $50,000-74,999 [20.0%])
• Rural areas (always existed, but fewer sport opportunities exist in more rural areas)

The biggest issues with the numbers is: there's no "great" way to track participation. So, while USSF doesn't think there's a problem, others do because the see their own youth soccer numbers. With so many different organizations, there's no adequate count. Add on to that, there's many youth leagues that don't register with USSF or any other organization.

To me, and several others, the most disappointing thing is there really has NEVER existed a plan by the USSF to address anything with youth soccer: numbers, coaching, costs, etc. How can an organization operate effectively without strategic plans or initiatives? No matter what is happening, positive or negative trends.

 

It is definitely not the #s I had anticipated based on what I perceived as the popularity of the game. Then again, from a rec perspective with our church we are seeing those thing go smaller. They start with 8 kids being almost too much for the U7/8 level, then it's not enough for the U9/10 level...and you seldom add kids.

I agree that it seems like something they would focus on fixing. It seems like a big deal and from what I understand they make lots of changes.

Do you tend to agree with Warming that College rather than MLS is the driver?

 

i don't remember where i read it, but i tend to agree with the idea of making youth soccer a school sponsored sport to help drive numbers. if we have soccer as an after school program with no cost, you probably get more kids involved at a grassroots/rec level. let the clubs continue their travel programs, but have the school programs teach the basics. in my area, i'd like to see our 4 elementary schools run intramural programs. they have the gyms, and they're not used in the fall until basketball season starts.

 

In my opinion, MLS has done a relatively poor job of "growing the game." There are a lot of independent studies out there that do not do any favors for MLS. The "only" growth that MLS has truly seen since the 2000s (when MLS was almost folding) is from expansion and/or new stadiums. Existing MLS franchises have seen horrible growth in fans. Expansion and new stadiums see growth, but it fades after the "newness" wears off (i.e., the honeymoon period). I believe I saw somewhere that expansion/new stadiums is the primary factor of 87% of "growth." One example is NYCFC, they initially started with 20,000 season ticket holders, they've dropped 1,000 EVERY YEAR since they've existed, now down to 16,000.

As I've said elsewhere, without college soccer, we wouldn't be where we are today. For the last 60+ years, college soccer has kept THOUSANDS of players involved in the game from 18-22+ years old. Unfortunately, it has failed to evolve and provide more. At the same time, nothing else has truly sprung up to give that same age group and the adults a truly "ideal" opportunity to continue competing (that "livelong commitment to physical fitness" that is so much talked about by all educational and athletic entities. But, when numerous pro leagues/clubs/franchises have failed, college soccer has continued.

We have hit a bit of a crossroads. There's college programs and athletic departments that are cut every year. This eliminates hundreds of opportunities for MORE soccer players at 18-22+ years old. This only hurts the development of the game. In my research (link) there have been 77 programs cut dating back to 1971 -- I know I'm missing tons of schools too. Of those 77, only 22 are because a school closed. Even more frightening is 52 of the eliminated programs have come since 2000, or when "soccer has been growing" as many people claim. College soccer loses tons of money. It's not in a position to be "cared for" when it loses so much money. It's not great soccer, for the most part. Locals don't support it much. Schools don't typically support it. The exact same reasons why other programs have been cut through the years (namely: wrestling, swimming, and baseball).

 

I think I posted it on another thread...births are down and the competition from iPads, lacrosse and other activities is up.

We also need to understand if less participation but better players is all bad. (Assuming players are better)

The focus on creating better players may cause weeding out, voluntary and involuntary, both before and after the kid would ever start playing.

I knew my kids wouldn’t be piano prodigies after their first lesson...soccer is less likely to be played in isolation, so people figure out sooner what is expected, what skills you need and whether there is any prospect of being in the aforementioned 1%’s

 

Really interesting #s!

Is soccer judged differently than other sports in terms of pro expectations? It seems like for a lot of sports, just getting to college is the KEY -- understanding that the likelihood of it leading to a professional playing career isn't great and making the most of this opportunity to still play.

Also, are there any side-by-side comparisons with club soccer participation. How many are playing club and not HS? How many are developed outside of college? I know they aren't always mutually exclusive, but they do often seem at odds with each other.

 

Great stuff as always.

Is there something MLS could do now that would make a difference for the college game?

Is part of the duty of MLS to grow the game domestically, or is it to be profitable. I know that someone had argued how people aren't generally concerned with the makeup of an NHL team as long as it wins; is this MLS' model as well?

 

If the US could produce 21 players capable of getting out of group play in the WC AND have a professional league stocked primarily with foreign players (of high quality) I don’t think many would complain.

Works for England.

 

Appreciate the discussion @MonagHusker! Always enjoy talking about the issues and hopeful resolutions regarding the game in the US.

Like most of this has been, my opinion, I don't think it's MLS's job to make college game better. It comes back to NCAA and USSF. Where do they want the game to go in the US? Currently, there's no other avenue for an 18-22+ year old to play competitively except for college. USL and MLS do not give young players an opportunity. That is well documented. The MLS SuperDraft is a scam.

The way that MLS operates, it's business-first. They don't look at developing the game. Same goes for USSF. I have tried to do as much research on their "initiatives" or "strategic plans" as I could. They are nearly impossible to find. I know of two: MLS (1994, to start in 1996 -- was required for hosting the World Cup) and the USSDA (2007, started higher age groups and expand every so often to younger ages). There's been NO planning on how to grow the game and develop players from USSF. That's literally part of their job.

Sure MLS can operate how they want to win an MLS Cup. Most Americans do not care about an MLS Cup or a domestic soccer trophy (probably just like any other soccer/football fan). Soccer fans want to see the World Cup. It's the biggest stage for any sporting event. There are ways that USSF could move US soccer forward, but have yet to do it. They believe hosting a World Cup does more than actually focusing on the issues at hand.

We can see from numerous countries (England, Iceland, Chile, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Belgium, etc.) that strategic initiatives and plans can push player development and National Team success forward. It doesn't happen in one year. But it can happen in a World Cup cycle. It can also happen QUICKER than this "soccer is still new in the US" garbage that is always spewed.

Coming from Bruce Arena's own mouth, "Parity translates to mediocrity. It doesn't translate to excellence." We have a 1st Division (MLS), young adult system (college), and a Federation that operates on parity. Everything is setup for mediocrity and being "fair." It'll hold us back for years to come.

There is a lot to this. But, don't forget, there's a lot that are unhappy with the EPL and its international make-up (same goes for the Serie A).

The English FA is (and has) putting forth initiatives to increase the English player pool in the Premier League. England now has a "Home Grown" rule (player must be on the books for 3 years before they turn 21 to qualify). Max roster is 25 players, but to get 25 players the club must have 8 be Home Grown. There's other aspect of it, but that's the gist of the rule.

In 2011/12, England introduced an "Elite Player Performance Plan" to help improve the quality of young English footballers. Is that a reason they had a more positive World Cup run this year than previous years?

Wouldn't any of this be remarkable if USSF acted with some leadership?

 

There is a lot to unpack here and I am at work so don't have the time I would like to go through it. For now, the quote stood out.

While I don't know that I disagree in principle, I also don't see how it translates for US soccer excelling.

It seems like the same handful of teams dominate their respective leagues in Europe. It seems like for most teams to enter into the discussion it is less about development than money. Find an ownership group that has a lot of money and you can buy your way into the party. It's not that simple, but it seems like that is the most assured path.

If MLS dropped caps and other financial restrictions, it would still not encourage development and lead to more international players.

College could be different, and I believe I unfairly connect it to football or basketball where, especially the former, all your players in the NFL are coming fro there.

 

Sure, buying has taken over much of the global game. Those are individual clubs at work. The Federations of each country have the game in mind, because they want to win the World Cup. They want to be globally recognized. They promote development of youth players. It's all available and around. That is why we see these things like England's EPPP, Germany's Das Reboot, etc.

Changes in USSF policies do not necessarily mean more international players would happen. Numerous countries around the world have international player restrictions -- many Asian countries restrict international goalkeepers, the Netherlands requires much higher paychecks for international players forcing domestic development/inclusion, women's leagues in Scandinavia have maximum roster slots (3) for international players, etc. MLS and USL already have international limits, why not reduce those even more? China saw the money explode too much, so they incorporated international limits.

I don't want to open the can of worms that is pro/rel, but that is essentially the crux of their argument. Instead of spending $150m for an MLS franchise, imagine if we had an open pyramid that that money could be used for investment in the local soccer community and academies. USL is now up to $7m, what would happen if that could be utilized better? Trickle that down to any other league and their expansion requirements. An open pyramid could lead to domestic investment for development AND open up opportunities for more US players because there are more teams in the US to play for.