That doesn't count the Jucos as well. So probably higher than 50% of all american born players played baseball in college.
Very long article. With numerous quotes from coaches. And graphics about the key issues to be solved. Sounds hopeful. Short extract, the introduction: "If you don’t evolve, you die. That’s the dilemma that college soccer has faced for decades. Now, there is a chance for Men’s Division I soccer to make a change, and there is something you can do to help. The most important moment for the growth of soccer in the United States this year will not happen on a field. It will happen with a vote in April at the 2020 NCAA Division I Council Meeting. " https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/col...ic-vote-for-21st-century-model-looms_aid47760
I've been doing some asking around to friends and colleagues in the DI coaching realm. Taking it nice and easy with the question. The big question, "how will your program vote?" I have 5 "no" votes -- 3 from men's programs and 2 from women's programs (even though they have no vote coming up). Two specific institutions are very respected in men's and women's soccer. One aspect I've not thought about, but it was mentioned (from a women's coach, but coming from the men's side): these college coaches don't want to do the Federation's (or MLS's) job for free. Move to a year-round model that's better "development," but there's no return to the college coach, program, or institution. It should be the Federation (or MLS, if they choose) to create a pathway for U23 development, not the colleges. Other aspects that have come about: budget concerns, facility concerns, staffing concerns, recruiting concerns, and professional matriculation. To specifically address the recruiting side, as it was a major talking point: the recruiting schedule will get flipped on its head. Clubs and tournaments/showcases will not be the money-makers that they currently are. Recruiting schedule will now have to be pushed into the "offseason" or "downtime" of the DI calendar: Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, late May?, or early June. Not ideal for a lot, even though Thanksgiving/Christmas are big times, but the window just got smaller as it completely takes away all spring recruiting (for the most part). The professional matriculation hasn't gotten enough talk, in my opinion. These coaches tout how it's better for development (not arguing that), but what are they developing them for? A season that runs from August-May now will have players miss from January-March professional signing window (which truly starts in November and December with USL/NISA). Is a coach going to be happy a player leaves in January-March to sign a "homegrown"? The program is now in the championship segment of their season, down their best player(s) potentially. Even if the player is capable of going pro, but finishes in May, few teams will have roster spots for players then. These coaches also know their Presidents won't support the change. Which, is probably accurate for 99% of universities in the US.
Let's remember that Jay Heaps quit an eventual NCAA Basketball National Championship winning Duke team his senior year to enter the MLS draft. Even if some sort of deferral system is put in place (like NCAA baseball and hockey) where players are drafted while still playing college ball, players will have to judge the risk of injury during the end of their draft year while still not covered insurance-wise.
To build on this, many players who are drafted are still trying to finish school in the spring semester. They are lucky if their school allows them to do online while in MLS preseason. They are lucky if they (and their coach/program) is smart enough to graduate in December so they don't have to worry about school in spring semester. These players aren't setup for success NOW, this change is not helping anyone succeed.
I think these coaches are being short sighted. If NCAA soccer does not focus more on developing players for future soccer careers, NCAA soccer will become more irrelevant with each passing season.
It doesn’t matter what the coaches think, say, do, or vote. In the end, the decision isn’t theirs. Many coaches are realistic, they know their administration will shoot it all down.
So you pretty much think that Maryland's Cirovski and the other NCAA champion coaches saying they support this two-semester season are wasting their time, and should know that they are not going to get anything out of this proposal and the effort to get it approved? Seems odd that these coaches would continue to even try if there is really no chance ...
I do think they are wasting their time. Why wouldn't they do some championing of things that actually are EASY to change? Example #1: end college overtime in regular season. Several things could have been changed forever ago, and it's so much easier. As I've stated elsewhere, if there was so much support, why aren't players actively campaigning for it? Completely silent. Why aren't the non-"Power 5" coaches truly championing it? Because they know a few things, the primary one being their program could easily be Valpo or New Mexico in a short time.
This. As you say: End regular season overtime Also: Minimum two days between games. Yes, the College Cup and many conference tournaments will be more expensive with an extra day of hotels and other related costs - and while we're at it let's point out that the D3 College Cup is played on consecutive days!?!? One way substitutions. Once you're off, you're off. Use as many subs as your bench allows, but play the same basic game everyone else does. College baseball doesn't have re-entry, it's time for college soccer to fix this "development" hole. Fix the stuff that can be fix. Grab the low-hanging fruit.
Again, Division I Men and Division III men/women operate under the same rule set. If the Division I men could they would change the rules as mentioned. If the new plan comes into play which would make Division I autonomous from the women and other divisions, the changes requested would happen for certain. It is not the low hanging fruit that you think, there are probably 400+ Division III women's programs (twice Division I men) in addition to 350+ men's programs and their needs for development and substitution much different than Division I men and their vote counts the same.
I don't think your definition of "certain" or "autonomous" matches mine. D1 Men's Soccer will never operate in a vacuum, and it's facility and staffing needs are not inconsequential considerations.
Why would college soccer players campaign for this? If I put myself back in college, at the time, more soccer was better, and what does an extra 20 minutes matter if it gives my team an extra chance to win the game. Sure, on the outside looking in we think about workloads on the body and the injuries they cause, but when you are in season, and a realative short season at that, you want as much soccer as you can get. What have college soccer players in recent history campaigned for? You make the argument that if the players are not campaigning for it then it must not be important to them. with classes, training, and some resemblance of a social life, you argue that a majority of the players would be taking the time to campaign for something as small as not playing an extra 20 minutes of soccer? To me it doesn't make sense. Most, if not all student-athletes are concerned with the season ahead and all of the other obligations that fill their daily life. Even if they thought an aspect of college soccer should change, most wouldn't put the time into campaigning for a change, and most, if not all, don't think they have a voice in the matter. I don't think you can equate the lack of a student-athlete campaign to not being in favor of a change to the sport. (that goes for overtime rules or a year-long season.)
Nowhere did I say that college players should/would be campaigning for college overtime regulations (although, if they care about their health and well-being, they probably should speak up more). I said that if this year-round model was truly supported, we'd hear from more -- including college players. I first started supporting it when I finished my college career. The spring was absolutely dreadful when I was done. I started thinking, "why isn't the career actually 4 years instead of 4-partial semesters?" But, college students campaign for numerous things. It's called being an activist, especially a lot in social activism. See what happened at University of Dayton last night? College students were upset they had to leave the dorms, so they "campaigned" out in the street. The downfall of EA Sports' NCAA Football and the addition of the "full cost of attendance" scholarships were brought on by current and former college players. Guess what also exists? SAAC, which is the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. For as long as sports have existed, there's always been players fighting for players. Do you actually think some of these things would actually happen if coaches and/or administrators were the ones who fought? Look at this "player likeness" benefit that is now at the forefront of college athletics. That's players behind that. Not coaches. Not ADs. Not college presidents.
Something I still do not get. If college soccer is a money loosing sport, why so many programs have so huge rosters? It has a cost. What would be the benefits? A lot of players do not play at all or only few poor minutes and then disappear. I saw rosters with 4 goal-keepers…. With only two getting playing minutes. I guess a roster of 24/26 players max should be enough. (e.g. 22 + 2 or three Gks)
Players still are paying tuition, books, room and board. That goes a long way with schools. But, the most important thing...schools are always looking for those next donors. Come here, enjoy time here, and give money once you are done. Endless cycle.
Adding players does not increase the cost much since the basic nut is already covered (coach and assistants, field costs, etc). Especially since those players at the end of the bench are not getting any scholarship money, are not going on road trips, etc., and are actually paying to be there.
You've just explained NCAA Men's Lacrosse. I've worked a couple of off-season "alumni events" for some local schools, and you couldn't swing a lacrosse stick without hitting a Wall Street bigwig. And most of the overheard conversations were basically "call my secretary, we'll set up a summer internship"....
It's mainly the same reason for all sports outside of football and basketball. Know another one? Crew (or rowing). Wow...some of those rosters are ridiculous. 60+ on them. It's a great Title IX balancer, but it's major for the "you're an intercollegiate athlete, but you don't necessarily have to compete."
No one brought up the "21st Century Model" vote being delayed/cancelled? I'll say this much, I'm not surprised the vote didn't happen. I won't say this is a pandemic move, but it happened to be "convenient" the vote didn't happen. Not only did it not happen, the lead-up to the vote was extremely quiet. Hardly anyone talking about it for months.
It has been delayed by the NCAA. Obviously all of college sports will be shifting into a different gear with massive budget cuts, cancellations, etc. Interestingly enough, one contingency plan is you may see the fall sports moved to the spring which could make a path for future changes.
Hypothetically, let’s say I am an athletic director. Like the majority of athletic directors, I don’t really care much about soccer. I know I must have women’s soccer, but I don’t really need the men’s program. Now, my men’s soccer coach is pushing to have a two-semester soccer season. It was bad enough I had to deal with it in the fall, while having football season going on, along with preparation for basketball, but now I might have to deal with men’s soccer during the football, basketball and baseball seasons. Needless to say our resources were already stretched, but do we really need this additional aggravation? At the end of the day, our conference supports soccer, but all the universities within our conference offer men’s lacrosse as a club sport, which would be easy enough to convert into a conference- wide varsity sport with the elimination of men’s soccer. Most men’s lacrosse coaches are in favor of a limited a nontraditional segment, and like sticking to their traditional season. Of course some of us would just want to move our men’s soccer programs to club status, and continue forward with men’s lax as is; but if admissions, or our development office thinks we need the additional men’s sport for giving, we can move forward with men’s lacrosse as a varsity sport. Men's lax is pretty low maintenance, limited aggravation; out of sight and out of mind. -These discussions have been going on with athletic directors for years, but the concept of splitting the sport of soccer into two semesters has magnified that discussion. Athletic Directors are talking about men’s soccer, and it isn’t good. Soccer was better off out of sight, out of mind, but now it’s on their minds, and it has become an aggravation. I love soccer, and would never suggest elimination, but I know many athletic directors that look at Richmond, Towson and East Carolina as the models for men’s soccer. Sometimes it is better to stay out of sight.
Actually, the real appeal to men's lacrosse is the demographics. Men's Lacrosse is a country club/elite fraternity type sport. You can't swing a lacrosse stick at a college men's lacrosse alumni day event without hitting a handful of Wall Street executives. It is the "old boys club" and it exudes casual wealth and the "team/school loyalty" that is baked into team sports. It creates long term well heeled donors and financially invested alumni.
I'm not sure the discussion is that big of a deal to ADs. They say "no" and they won't have a two semester model. It's that simple. Soccer has been in the spotlight for quite sometime. That's why it's been cut regularly (34 men's DI programs, to my count). Other sports have had their time of being cut too (baseball, wrestling [ahem, Old Dominion], swimming and diving). All of those are largely "out of sight, out of mind." This decision by UC was one that wasn't done overnight. It has been talked about for quite some time. I'd venture to say they've had some major AD turnover partly due to the fact that few ADs want a "reduced sports offered" on their résumé. My guess is UC hired an AD who would finally make a tough decision, and it was a decision that could possibly help them get into the Big 12 -- and it happened at a "convenient" time.