Hypothetically, maybe it's not hypothetical. Maybe it's just a really big hint that some coaches could get what they want, which will leave many other coaches becoming insurance salesmen. At this point, nothing is going to change because of our current situation, but going forward, I would rethink whether pushing for change, or flying under the radar, is the best approach for the majority of Division I men’s soccer coaches.
I think this is a loser mentality. Staying under the radar and being irrelevant from a sporting sense is what has college soccer in the mess it's in. The sport generates no money because it rarely produces a product worth watching because most of the top players don't play college soccer and when there is a great spectacle, like the College Cup this past year, which featured some great games, it's in the midst of really crappy weather during finals week so the crowds are tiny. But staying irrelvant means the coaches don't feel pressure to win and let's them keep on keepin' on. But it also means when the budget ax comes, it often falls on men's soccer. And the budget ax is gonna be coming a lot, now. So being invisible is not gonna be the soluton because the accountants are gonna see the costs of college soccer and they're gonna ask the ADs about it and the ADs are gonna shrug and say, "yeah, they're basically invisible. We can probably get rid of them..."
It’s not a mentality, it’s a reality. The athletics directors at P-5 schools with men’s soccer don’t care. That is good, and it’s bad. As long as the sport isn’t a hassle, they don’t care, and it continues to go on, but when it becomes a hassle, it’s not good. If the sport becomes a hassle for the group of athletic directors, you can expect there will be catastrophic changes. I sit in the conference meetings, and similar meetings at the NCAA convention, and I am one of the very few males with a soccer background in those meetings. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for… Staying irrelevant means coaches keep their jobs, and an opportunity for young men to be able to participate in an activity while getting an education. Playing a college sport is a way to enhance the academic experience. Making college soccer something it’s not, will only cause its demise. I can remember the push for changes in the College Cup (making it something it’s not), and those wishes were granted, and IMO, the College Cup has been an embarrassment on a national stage. The only people that care about college soccer are those that have some sort of connection to it.
Can't say I agree 100% with you here. It's irrelevant because soccer is not a spectator sport for most Americans. Let's look at our last two biggest American soccer matches: USWNT in the World Cup 2015 and 2019. In 2015, there was a record 25.4 million viewers on English-language television. It broke the previous record (2018 USMNT v. Portugal) by a million or so. The "soccer is growing in US" fails to recognize that the 2019 World Cup final drew a paltry 14.3 million viewers. Let's cue the excuse "early PT kickoff" as the reason it dropped 43% from 4 years prior! It was also only a 4% increase from 2011. Regularly, MLS matches produce 220,000 (rough average) viewership. MLS Cup finals rarely get 1.5 million viewers -- which is the biggest domestic soccer game we offer annually. The sport struggles for spectators. Regularly. At every level. Sure, we can get 100,000 for an International Champions Cup match, but what's that due to? Those aren't "exciting" by any means. The big-name stars barely play anything and it's holiday for them. Soccer can make money...if programs and departments don't spend absurd amounts. The sport needs to be regionalized at the college level. Imagine a conference of UC, Ohio State, Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana, Notre Dame, etc. That's a major conference right there. Talk about increased revenue for ticketing. How many fans truly will go from Tulsa to UC? SMU to UC? UConn to UC? (or vice versa) Do any of these programs need a $1m budget? Absolutely not. It's the cheapest sport to play, but everyone wants to spend-spend-spend. No one wants to operate reasonably. None of these players need 5 pairs of shoes and 5 jackets. They don't need flat screens in their lockers and iPad hookups for film. They are treated like legends in the sport without truly accomplishing anything. Trim the budgets. Make it a reasonable sport to operate.
Some people have recently built or are in the process : The future standard of excellence Introducing the new vision for our home 😍 ➡️ https://t.co/0EzNe8yTsI pic.twitter.com/pyPSd9Gag4— Maryland Men’s Soccer 🐢 (@MarylandMSoccer) January 8, 2020 I'd say a lot is going to depend on the conference. UC is a large school but they are looking to leave the "CA"--for Big 8-- which is down to a 6-team soccer league now that UConn is re-uping with the BE.
No expansion vote, but the panel "approves soccer rules changes to align with international competition." That is the NCAA's wording, not mine. These "international competition" rule changes are simply: goalkeepers during penalty kicks, attacking players in the wall, and free kicks inside own defending penalty area. What a way to fluff it up by "aligning with international competition." There's a few other rule changes in there too, but nothing major. A good chance to "align with international competition" by nixing overtime in regular season... More information: The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved proposals that align collegiate soccer more closely with international rules.#NCAASoccerhttps://t.co/qBc0o57Kk2— NCAA Soccer (@NCAASoccer) April 21, 2020
I would point out that the 21st century model won't die from budgets. It really won't cost any more than your spending currently, and you may save a few buck to not have to come in early. The real bridge too far is facilities. To be specific shared facilities. How many schools have one turfed field? Now there would be in the spring Men's LAX, Women's LAX, Track and field, spring football, field hockey all lined up for the spring. What AD wants that? The players do want it for sure, the coaches want it, but do the schools want it. Is it much more of a change to add 4 more games to the five they play in the spring? Not really, but that isn't the real stick in the eye. If the men do it AD's know the women will do it too. If it passed for the men - it would have to pass for the women or Title 9 would rear its head.
I would counter the 21st Century Model... The biggest issue I’ve had with the proposal all along, they’ve never truly addressed the budget issues. If you want to make a difference in higher education, and soccer, you have to address the budget. I wrote some thoughts about that a few weeks ago.
I agree that the real crux is the money as a whole, but the money in the 21st Century Model is in my opinion a wash. 3 less games to the 25, no early arrival charges for preseason, and operational (grounds crews game staff) is only increased by 2 real games and not exhibitions. You, Sandon, and Staffstaff have really good points. Sandon is correct it is a loser mentality, but deep down we know that as long as soccer plays nice and doesn't cause problems it can continue to be on the roster like a walk on player. Staff is correct there will be dropped programs and car sales and insurance sales for those coaches. Sandon is correct go big or go home or it's just a activity or club. Ponchat you have the right idea, regionalize the play, cut costs, the game would benefit. The problem for this is the conferences. They don't want to do what's good and right for the sport. They just don't care about it. in the EDDA report for Now EADA does lump all money scholarships, coaching, and operations until you break it down, and it is a bit miss leading because 1 Scholarship at a private has the equivalent value to 1 scholarship at a state school. The dollar amount is different. So I am referencing now just operational expense. The top team spent $15K operationally per player. The Lower end spend just under $1k per player, The 21stCM is a good step, it accomplishes IMO making the game better and the players really like it for rest, training cycles, and they just want to play. Unfortunately I hate to say you are all correct and hence that is the problem. What is best for college soccer? What is it going to be? You three are all wise and logical, but unfortunately the NCAA is neither. Finally the Bowman Curve states that a non-profit will spend more than it takes in creating a deficit to give the illusion of greatness. I believe college athletics programs are the same. I bet Clemson Football is saying we got to spend more because we lost the national championship.
My true solution? It's going to take some "flexibility" by institutions and NCAA, which is completely unlikely. Allow for those programs who want to and who can, create and develop a full amateur "pyramid" throughout the US. Partner it with a strategic initiative by USSF to develop Division 4-whatever in their system. This will allow for intercollegiate model to exist, but also allow for independent organizations to build these amateur divisions. We'd see more incentive for high schools, clubs, businesses, etc. to create more soccer teams to compete in this structure. That won't happen, nor will this...rid the NCAA soccer scene of their current conferences and create more regional ones. Could one imagine a soccer conference of: Indiana, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati (RIP), Ohio State, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Pitt? (Just an example) That is a good conference of regional opponents of similar sized schools and athletic departments. Location is prime for easy travel of teams and fans. Probably a lot more capability of being more sustainable than what currently exists in most areas.
At this point, everything is on hold. I would put the likelihood of a full NCAA Men's Soccer season happening this fall to be less than 50%. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if there are no Fall Sports at all. At least not in the fall. One possible exception would be sports like golf where social distancing could be maintained. And after all the financial carnage of the current pandemic, it's likely that there'll be some structural and permanent changes in the college sports landscape. The whole 20th century/21st century model discussion might just be like debating which of belt drive and direct drive turntables would be the best option back in 1985.
The only way golf would exist is if universities are back in school. I'm not sure that's truly happening, at this point. I know it's real early, but no one wants this mess on their hands especially with the whole planning of how to operate.
Right. And just like you could open up professional sports tomorrow, but who would actually go? Some people, certainly. But I wouldn't expect many sellouts. I suspect a lot of parents will not want to send their precious babies off to college in a few months if things are pretty much as they are now. Nothing is going to be normal this year.
after having their spawns at home for months, I think parent may start go-fund-me to get back to that empty house....
Currently a lot of courses are taken online to complete the academic year (ditto for Summer courses). If the situation does not improve for fall, it is likely it will restart with online "presence". So sport will not happen…… Edit: just saw similar info in the thread "Very telling things about the current state of college soccer".
I don't think secondary education will ever return to what it was. If we enter a severe recession or depression because of this, that will only force things along. College educations are now exorbitantly expensive. If online classes are legitimized and accepted practice, you'll see a lot of parents seeing that they can save a huge amount of money by not having to pay room and board. Yes, the on campus non-curricula fraternizing is important, as is the ability to work in teams and grow as a person, but at the end of the day, money matters. I could see a big drop in the demand for student housing as traditional brick and mortar universities and colleges find ways to expand their online offerings. The schools themselves will see lower facility costs as the ability to reach more students with less facilities - especially housing, but also classrooms, recreational, and so forth. I'm guessing the main state schools and other "power conference" private institutions, as well as prestige schools like the Ivys, will continue to have demand for on-campus enrollment, but I wouldn't be shocked to see some smaller institutions fail, and others move to somewhere between the online for-profit (Phoenix, DeVry, Trump) schools and the traditional on-campus schools with more and more instruction moving online. We could see a huge decrease in D2/D3/NAIA athletics (and other extracurricular activities), but possibly a rejuvenation of club sports. Cincinnati men's soccer is just the tip of the iceberg. And, to be brutally honest, I'm not too bothered by it. College athletics, at its core, wasn't supposed to "develop professional athletes". As the commercials point out, 99% of athletes go pro in something other than their chosen sport. College athletics was a way to hold one over on your academic rivals. It was a fun activity for the students. To play, to manage, to cheer on their classmates. Let professional sports worry about developing professional athletes. I'm pretty sure there'll still be club soccer at Cincinnati. There are professional rugby and quidditch leagues in the U.S. and I see plenty of organized intercollegiate rugby in quidditch in my area, all without the imprimatur of the NCAA. College soccer is never going away. 110 years ago the peak of American Football was often Yale vs Harvard. Yale vs Harvard is still a "big game" despite the fact that lists of Yale and Harvard NFL players isn't particularly long or noteworthy. "State" will still want to beat "Tech". Rivalries will still exist.
The club soccer scene is actually pretty big, two teams and nearly 60+ players go out every year for it. The only reason I'm "bothered" by athletic programs getting cut is this: they are selling lies of "budgets" to cut opportunities to students when they are truly hiding behind financial benefits for other athletic programs. Athletics are a benefit to being a student, mainly it does help make college more financially feasible. Any scholarship help is nice. I 100% agree that college athletics isn't to develop professional athletes, but we all know that's a lie. Just like HS athletics isn't to develop college athletes, that is a lie too. All opportunities to play equal opportunities to develop. Every HS celebrates college athletic signings. Every college celebrates professional signings. Everyone knows that college football and basketball are for developing professional athletes. So, naturally, that mentality is there for other sports where it can exist. Now, the ultimate problem lies here: there is NO true alternative for players to develop professionally. It truly doesn't exist. Where can a 16-22+ year old go to develop into a professional? There's less than 1,000 professional American soccer players in the world. The US pro soccer scene is 50% international. I've said this for years (even when I was in college coaching), an alternative needs established. The US needs more than three divisions, and it needs recognized amateur divisions where players can play just like they do across the world. College soccer kept amateur soccer in the US afloat for 50-60+ years. Without college soccer, we wouldn't have 80,000+ 18-22ish year olds playing competitively. The Federation has failed in developing or encouraging a system to exist where that age group can continue playing. Even when they get done playing competitively in college, their careers are [largely] over. They deserve a place to continue playing, staying active, living a healthy lifestyle, and developing more soccer culture in the US.