http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/24/SP233074.DTL In this article, John Crumpacker extols the virtues of "non-revenue" college sports. He talks about how exciting sports like women's volleyball and men's water polo can be. The one exception is soccer, about which he makes some demeaning remarks. Now, before your blood starts to boil, remember: he's talking about college soccer. So, although I hate to agree with him... I do. NCAA soccer fundamentally sucks, and only die-hards like myself and some of you, and parents, can possibly enjoy it. (imho). This is because the NCAA sees fit to have unlimited substitution, which destroys the fabric of the game. In all, I thought it was a good article. But the crappiness of the NCAA reflects poorly on the rest of the soccer community, including the Quakes.
For people like me with OSD, soccer is soccer. I'll take it anyway I can get it. But I have to agree. College soccer needs to come closer to following FIFA rules. I think that would make it much easier to get into. And I think it would help more people become fans of the sport on all levels.
Naw, I read the article. He was knocking soccer, period. Read between the lines, on the lines, above the lines. It had nothing to do with college.
I thought the same thing when I read the article. He means soccer. Not just college soccer. But Bajoro had a good point about college soccer too. It needs to change.
The point about soccer went against the grain of the article. It was filler. He didn't really build up into why soccer doesn't work. All he did was spit out a few cliche anti-soccer remarks and moved on. I agree with the posts made about college soccer needing readjusting. Skyline was one of only a few teams that tried to knock the ball around instead of making line changes to the forwards and wingers being given long balls to the back. The rules aren't designed to support the qualities of the game that make it beautiful.
The NCAA is nothing but a buracratic organiztion that is past its dying point. It does all it can to ruin any sport it gets its hands on.
fyi, I emailed Crumpacker and pointed out the differences between NCAA soccer and real soccer. He wrote back a very nice email and confirmed that yes, he was only talking about college soccer. I think the way he put it was that he wasn't talking about "World Cup soccer". All of his "minor sport" references were about college sports, I believe... so it only makes sense he was talking about college soccer.
What a jerk that guy is. He totally shredded soccer. In 2 different areas of that article. It almost seemed like that was his hidden agenda with that article. He was talking about all forms of soccer the sport, not just college soccer.
metroscum, go play elsewhere. For anyone who's not metroscum, here's the email I exchanged with the writer. Bajoro -- Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate the feedback. You're right, I was referring only to college soccer, not the grand spectacle of the World Cup. Thanks again for taking the time to write. John Crumpacker -----Original Message----- From: bajoro Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:20 AM To: jcrumpacker@sfchronicle.com Subject: on soccer... John, As a lover of soccer, I must sadly agree with your evaluation of the state of the game... as it applies to the NCAA. In contrast to the NCAA, MLS has done wonders in lifting its level of play. The quality of the US men's national team reflects the improvement of MLS in its first seven years. The Earthquakes have been a great story the last couple of years -- the games at Spartan Stadium have been exciting and a good show all around. The college game has many problems. But there's one bastardization of soccer's rules that probably is the single biggest factor in the college game's downfall. For reasons that are no longer valid, if they ever were, the NCAA has its own substitution rule, different than FIFA's rules and different than the way the game is played everywhere but the US. The NCAA allows unlimited (or nearly unlimited) substitutions, whereas the professional game and the international game have very strict subbing. The NCAA therefore allows players with fresh legs to enter a game and run their little asses off, with no regard to the flow of the game, with no regard to a strategic choice of when to exert energy, when to apply pressure on defense, when to make hard runs on attack. These are major considerations in the international game. This turns the NCAA game into a senseless jumble of running and tackling and kicking the ball upfield. When a player has run himself out after 10-15 minutes, they just sub in a fresh set of legs. It's a far cry from the game soccer fans love. And it's a shame, because once talented US college soccer players finish with college, they have to relearn the game if they want to play pro ball. Contrast this with NCAA hoops v. NBA hoops, where the NCAA game (along with the international game) is actually more interesting than the NBA. Anyway, you'll probably get some guff from soccer fans, but you are right -- at least as it pertains to college soccer. Best wishes, bajoro
He probably laughed to himself after your letter and said "theres nothing like kicking someone out the front door and having them knock on the back door".
I'm afraid I have to agree with falcon6 here - take a look at fudgepacker's letter: "right, I was referring only to college soccer, not the grand spectacle of the World Cup." I would imagine he probably places MLS in the same category as NCAA soccer - he is slagging soccer, and merely exempting the world cup and only the world cup. The guy is obviously a world-class jerk who is trying his best to placate you with that comment - I'm willing to bet that he hates all soccer, the world cup included, but admires the 'pageantry' of the cup!
bsman... I appreciate your opinion, but why don't you email the guy and see for yourself? Have you seen any college soccer games recently? imho, the college game sucks. It's not a good ambassador for the rest of the sport. Constrast college hockey, college basketball and a list of other college sports in which the college game is actually superior to their professional game. The college soccer programs have tons of advantages -- experienced players, they have facilities that rival professional facilities in much of the world, and they have compliant kids from the suburbs who've been doing the travel soccer thing most of their lives, and a new generation of coaches who are often accomplished players in their own right. And yet they come up with basically an unwatchable game, with a few teams like Stanford and UCLA providing blessed exception. Try sitting through a USF game sometime. You'll cry if you're not laughing. My main point here is that we shouldn't let our love for the sport blind us to some of the failings of our own community. The college part of our soccer community is, imho, a failure as it relates to fans of good soccer and in helping our sport grow beyond the hardcore base. And I say this as someone who played college soccer at a time when the talent, facilities and coaching that was available was far less than the resources available today. So when people like Crumpacker tell me they're bored to tears by college soccer, I'm not going to argue with them. Again, just my opinion.
Way to totally miss the point. We agree college soccer sucks. This guy didnt write about college soccer. His opinions were about the sport itself.