The looser set of competitive and academic standards is why the NAIA qualifies as a "lower level" division, as Bill Archer posted several pages back. It has nothing to with who can do what to whom on a given day. There's no doubt that there are different eligibility rules ..... but lower academic standards? Would you care to share and compare the higher NCAA D1 academic standards with the lower NAIA standards? I'm not questioning the validity of what you are saying, I genuinely don't know them. However, I'm willing to learn. Thanks for clearing up the It has nothing to with who can do what to whom on a given day thing for me. I'm afraid I missed Bill Archer's earlier post on the subject. TQ
You have now totally confused me Okay, I'm confused...! This is my first post and I have been reading this thread since its start. By way of full disclosure my kid plays naia. I played d1 (many many moons ago, of course...) Which is it? Is naia a "lower" level soccer from that of d1? Or is naia not comparable because of all its "former pros" and "older" players? By the way, when was it ever an issue in high level competitive soccer (if that is what we want to discuss here) to worry about a 18 or 19 year old American male playing against a "23 year old nigerian"? If this has us all worried about it being somehow "unfair", then god help the future of usa soccer development! However, if we we are talking about demanding a "level" or "fair" college playing experience, the certainly naia teams have some advantages that d1 doesnt. But, if these are considered naia "advantages" that d1 doesnt have access to, then how can we then also call the top naia teams (and their players) "inferior" or "lesser" to d1? And the naia does have lesser restrictions on former "pro" players. So, yes, some african players did earn maybe $20 a month playing on a "professional" team in his home country for a year or two. But, then, most of the rest of the world doesnt offer free college tuition, board, books, meals, uniforms, equipment, etc (equivelant to $20,000 to $40000 a year) to their college soccer "amateur" players, who have people pay to watch their game as does America. Confusing...! And it is confusing because some wish to mix the two very different aspects of naia vs d1. Some very good players (including americans) go to naia schools. Some top naia teams can compete and beat the best of the d1 programs. Naia teams can have more foreigners and older players. D1 is composed of only 18 to 21/22 yr old mostly american players. The fact that the naia has former "pros", older or foreign players does not negate that they can field some very strong teams, even better than most of d1. The fact that d1 schools have relatively younger players by a couple of years, or more restrictions on former pros or foreigners shouldnt be a "threat" or detriment to us soccer development of level of play.
Played at a division III school, coached at a division III school then at an NAIA school then at a dvision II school and now coach at an NAIA school. Does that cover it for you? As for your argument about Wayne Rooney qualifying to be an NAIA read this info on the NAIA stance of ex-pros playing at the NAIA level http://naia.collegesports.com/member-services/legislative/currentissues/AmateurStatusRules.htm Then read this rule about the new Gap rule which I have refered to numerous times but you have brushed aside. http://naia.collegesports.com/member-services/legislative/currentissues/CompetitiveExperience.htm
How's Dr Taylor doing? Dear Lord....from whom all blessings flooooow. Gotta love Monday morning convocation.
LOL. Right after the preamble that states "... a significant number of members have been misinterpreting, misconstruing or ignoring..." the rules. Which translates into "we can't enforce what we legislate, so we're leaving it up to you. BTW. If you're going to cite what it is that causes a player to lose eligibility, you should also cite the section of the rules that allows him to get it back (i.e. the restoration of "amateur status"). No such NCAA rule. Once a professional, always a professional.
A few interesting facts from my own studies of college websites. First, Hastings College was mentioned in this thread, so I went there and saw that one of their players was invited to the Los Angeles Galaxy player combine on December 17-18, 2005. Some poster claimed that no NAIA player has ever been invited to an MLS combine. Not sure what he meant. The Hastings player (Adam Schleich) was not on the NAIA All-American list, although two of his younger teammates made second team. I have looked a little at some NAIA schools affiliated with my church. The number of foreign players on their rosters were: 3 out of 23; 5 out of 17; 3 out of 25; and 9 out of 24. It seems to vary greatly from coach to coach. The 9 out of 24 included 7 from Ireland, six of those from Dublin or very close to Dublin. Not sure if that coach has some connection over there, but it is not the distribution one would get from First Point. The typical age upon admission was 20 years old for the foreigners, 18 years old for the Americans on the rosters. It might not be great to play against a 30 year old if you are 18, but a two-year age gap might be good. Isn't one of the perennial criticisms of American college soccer (as a development tool) that seniors don't learn much by playing against freshmen and sophomores? A 2-year age gap might be a partial corrective for that. In any case, the discussion has opened my eyes to another factor to consider when evaluating the best fit for my son. There is a Division II school affiliated with our church (they lost to the NAIA school with 5 out of 17 players being foreigners; the D-II school had 2 out of 25 foreign). There is also a Division I school (out of 23 players, one Canadian).
First . . . good thread here, some folks have definitely done some homework, and others seem to have legit first-hand experience on the nuances of the situation, so there's good insight feeding this forum (as opposed to some of the "rant" threads) . . . Second -- no sarcasm intended, just a question -- What's the problem(s)? If NAIA schools go find these players (or if they are served up via agents or consults), why shouldn't they play them? If these players want to come here to continue their playing careers, why not have them? If the point is that integrating these foreign players prohibits opportunity for developing Americans, then I can understand the criticism . . . but other than that, is the situation so bad? Some of these players do end up with pro careers here and abroad. I know of former NAIA players who moved on to pro clubs. Is it any worse or different than American players going abroad to play out their options for pro opportunities? MLS has some NAIA alums . . . Tyrone Marshall is one, and maybe there are more. And it wasn't that long ago that NCAA D1 teams were loaded up with foreigners too. Certain good programs used foreigners all the time (San Fran, SMU, Huntsville, etc) . . .
The problem isn't having players served up via agents or consultants. NCAA D2 actually provides for players who would be considered professional to play, but there's a hard limit on scholarships (7.7), so teams have got to be judicious. Those players also aren't eligible to transfer to D1 schools (regardless of the ones who've slipped through the cracks). Conversely, the NAIA has provided for the actual recovery of amateur status from similar professionals, recent rule changes aside. Given the "soft" limits on scholarships (where you can you can have as many as you want as long as the grades are there), it's been possible (and probable in many cases) to populate entire teams with former youth professionals who've been re-classified as "amateurs". Transfers of those players to D1 schools has been historically possible, since the NCAA hasn't chosen to be too picky (a loophole they're trying to close). So, if you're in the business of filling orders for those players, the picture you paint is that one way or another, they'll end up in a D1 program. Thus the D1 team names being used in their college "combine". I'll guarantee that most of the players recruited in this fashion have hopes of being "upwardly mobile" when they get here, and aren't particularly concerned with the vagueries (or possibilities) of a higher education. I don't know what you'd call it, but I'd agree with Bill Archer that it's not much more than a meat market under those circumstances. So the "problem" is that the practice is intellectually dishonest, and worse still, is perpetuated by coaches that claim they simply can't recruit US players, and are thus slaves to the well lubricated "foreign pipeline". This, despite the fact that virtually all of the other athletic teams in those schools are comprised almost entirely of US participants who somehow seem to have gotten recuited.
Someone asked how a Division 1 school can "stockpile" players when they only get 9.9 scholarships. Let me relate the practice of a leading Division 1 program with which I am familiar. Scholarship offers are made to regional/national pool players. Some state ODP players are recruited hard without scholarship money, with the promise that it is very possible to earn the money early in their careers. The problem is that 4-5 of these players come in every year, and half the scholarship limit has been tied up by the regional/national pool players, so fewer than 50% of these others can possibly get any significant money (e.g. 25% scholarship). Everything is OK and aboveboard as long as each player knows the situation in advance. If the coaches spell out the odds and tell players up front that their likelihood is less than 50% of fulfilling their dream, then no hard feelings. However, if players show up and are shocked to discover the numbers situation, then we have an "extended tryout" being conducted on their dollars without their advance knowledge. The bottom line in either case is that a lot of players end up on the bench, or trying to change schools, who could have been playing right away somewhere else. Which scenario the players face (full disclosure or not) depends on the school and the coach. This situation is not limited to soccer. Many NCAA D-I football programs recruit walk-ons in this way. Most tout the recognizable names of former recruited walk-ons who became scholarship players and even play in the NFL now. The question is: Do they reveal the PERCENTAGE of former recruited walk-ons who earned scholarships when they are recruiting your son?
This has been my main point in previous posts on this thread, why can't these schools use mainly home grown talent? Maybe the level of play will be slightly lower (maybe) but if the coaches actually got out there and recruited US players they would probably lose little (yes it is more work thatn just going to a field where agents bring you busloads of foreign players). I find it hard to believe that good US players (not national players but the many players at the next level) would ignore these schools especially considering the extra scholarships they have to offer. If their college lacrosse teams can find enough US players then soccer should be easy considering there are 10 times the number of US soccer players as there are lacrosse players. The end result would also benefit the overall US soccer effort as more players got the ooportunity to play at the collegiate level.
No. If you read the new gap rule which is almost identical to the NCAA division II rule and remember rules vary from level to level. That is why there is an NCAA manual for division I, II and III. For every year a player receives compensation whether it be just getting a uniform paid for, traveling, food or lodging expenses they lose a year of eligiblity. That is the case for NCAA dvision II as well as the NAIA.
Except that, in typical NAIA fashion, it's a largely unenforceable honor system. Don't ask. Don't tell. The NCAA now requires a pre-certification (such as it is) about the player's prior professional experience. Any system that's flexible enough to allow for major scholarship limit increases based simply on player GPA's is never going to be inquisitive enough to actually check out the background of its athletes. The NAIA's own admission of schools "ignoring" the rules suggests a major lack of institutional control that the NCAA would never tolerate, much less openly publicize. We can debate the issue ad naseum, but the NAIA's recent rule changes will do little more than stem the flow of significantly overage foreign players. The younger foreign professionals will remain a hot commodity via the recruiting pipeline.