NCAA rule change proposal that could be HUGE for MLS player development

College soccer doesn't cut it re developing great players.

 

Of course, that would have required a couple more years of high school first.

 

Slogans don't cut it re debate.

 

And????

No league is completely populated with great players. The "great" and the "wannabees" aren't going to college now.

We're talking about changes that can help the development of the generic player.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

College soccer is not ideal, but it's the only broad pool we've got.

So, IMO, even if we had 16 MLS academies for 17-20 yr olds, there would be future stars that wouldn't be included.

For example, Clint Dempsey, Charlie Davies, Ricardo Clarke, Chris Rolfe didn't go to top 20 college programs. Benny Fielhaber had to walk on because he wasn't recruited.

It's a big country. College isn't going away anytime soon.

 

You're exactly right.





Clint is yelling because he's mad that you took the bullshit, black and white approach to discussing a topic which has many shades of grey.

 

If college could produce enough good players our National Team would be far better than it already is.

 

So you are telling me that if we produced better players, our team would be better?



This is really a shame because the college system and the club system both have strengths and weaknesses, but any discussion is inveitably ruined by people who feel they need to draw a line in the sand because college soccer stole their lunch money.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm fairly ignorant of the college system, but I do know that even the best players that come out of the system are several years older than you would see elsewhere. This typically means that the college players probably miss one World Cup cycle compared to the best players that skip college eligibility.

I will also say that MLS and US Soccer can probably work together better than either group can work with the NCAA so whatever deficiencies the club system has now they can be better addressed as we move forward. Fixing/improving the NCAA system is probably going to be much more difficult.

 

NCAA soccer is pretty much always going to be important. Too big a country. Pro soccer wages too low.

Not saying there can't be improvements to the pro development track, because there can be.

But in a best case, college soccer plays a role like college hockey or baseball.

 

Well we definetly will not become a first rate soccer nation relying on college soccer for the majority of our development. I know college soccer products will continue being a part of our college soccer player development base but the less of them that we have the better. We definetly can not build up our nation's soccer program around 22 and 23 year old college soccer graduates. Bocanegra left college after his third year and so did Dempesy, Davies left after his second year.

 

Queue the drums of P&R....

 

That's all fine and dandy - and pretty much true - but don't you think that is a better way to enter into the thread instead of " This is nice and dandy but don't forget that the long term goal is to end reliance on college soccer or at least reliance on 22 and 23 year old college soccer grads." when NO ONE was talking about relying on 22 and 23 year-old players and pretty much all the discussion was around making it easier for players to sign early without jeopardizing the eligibility of those players who may need more time in college or may not have a pro career ahead of them?

In other words, you didn't need to grind your axe on the issue because no one had even broached that subject. Why don't you see if people are talking about how we need more 22 and 23-year-old rookies before throwing down the gauntlet first, mkay?

 

This is all true. And the post that this thread started with directly related to opening that path at a younger age for more players while not upsetting the already strong cultural identity that Americans have with college and the affiliated athletic programs. MLS and the USSF are doing that through the USSDA program. This rule change could conceivably make the academy structure even stronger while not taking the NCAA head on.

 

Sorry, Sir.

 

I've typically thought that bypassing the collegiate system would be best but the NFL basically relies on colleges to be a youth system so there is a way to make it work. Anyway, this rule change would be great. With or without colleges I would love to see MLS clubs have the ability to run full academies if they so choose.

 

Are you talking about the USMNT or MLS?

And I know many folks don't want to believe it, but the U.S. is pretty much already a "first rate soccer nation". Are we one of the elite handful at the top? No. But we've gone from obscurity to pretty much a lock to qualify for the World Cup in just 20 years. Twelve years ago we needed one of the all-time great goalkeeping appearances and a bit of Preki magic to upset Brazil. A few months ago we took Spain to the woodshed.

MLS has also improved greatly since its debut. But matching Mexico, much less the top leagues in Europe is going to take years, if not decades. Who knows what "first rate soccer" will look like in 20 years - or where the players will come from.

But hockey and basketball are both popular international team sports, yet large numbers (NHL) and the majority (NBA) players come into those leagues after four years of college - despite overseas leagues featuring pro players in their teens.

MLB also relies on college baseball for a good number of its players. Even some stars and eventual Hall of Famers have done four years in college before moving to the pro game.

Like many others have said, it's a large country with a lot of people. College soccer is going to always be there, and it will always produce players for MLS and even the USMNT.

Better to work at improving player development for college soccer than rail against the gods about it.

 

i couldnt agree more, we should take more pride with our college prospects , heck the number one pick of the last draft came from england to play college bal in the uS... so college soccer is not the problem... But they do need support.

 

I just swung by the MLS site. There are 126 players listed as having no MLS experience on team rosters. Thirteen are listed as Generation Adidas so that leaves 113 players. A quick look at the 2009 SuperDraft results shows only about 15 non-GA guys who were drafted and are still on teams (at least from names I could recognize). Let's extrapolate that to 25 guys to count in my ignorance, some undrafted free agents and the handful of academy signings (Deric is not listed as a GA and Hamid is not listed at all).

That's 40 college/HS guys coming into the league when there are 126 listed as being in their first year in the league. Maybe 50, tops, but no6 all of them four-year players. So if colleges are supplying less than half of the new players for the 2009 season, why are people worked up about it at all?

 

Comparing the development of American soccer players to those in other sports is sort of wrongheaded, for two reasons.

The first reason is that American soccer has a small, messy, ad-hoc, still-evolving system, and not a lot of money to grow it (yet). Consider other leagues: the NFL uses colleges for their development because IT'S FREE. Seriously, the NFL and NBA have a great set-up; they don't have to fork out a dime to develop players, they just draft them, fully-formed, and toss them into league play. Besides, 18-year-old Americans can no longer be drafted by the NBA, and they would be killed if they played in the NFL. MLB doesn't rely on college players; they're a supplemental source of talent. Baseball mostly relies on high-school and international players, and they also have an existing development structure, the minor league system. The NHL's system has been discussed upthread.


The second reason comparing MLS development to other leagues is problematic is that soccer is a more international sport. The NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB are each the pinnacle of competition for their sports; they pay the highest, and they get the most attention. MLS finds itself looking up at other leagues in terms of money and prestige, and while this is a sport where 18- and 19-year-olds can play at the highest levels, the best young American athletes don't yet see soccer as a viable professional option.


These factors are why I disagree with those who cite other American sports to support the idea that MLS can rely mostly on college soccer for player development. The comparisons are not valid. It would impede our growth as a soccer nation. (And nobody in this thread has even mentioned the silly NCAA soccer rules, like the clock counting up and unlimited substitutions.)

I see MLS adapting a development model similar to baseball. Get the bulk of your team from young players, 17-18 years old, and put them into the "minor leagues", a.k.a. the PDL. Let them play year-round against good competition until they're ready. Supplement those players with college guys and internationals. This allows a young player to choose between going pro after high school or continuing with his schooling.

(Incidentally, I have a friend who moved here from the UK, big Aston Villa fan. He's fascinated with American sports and has seen many baseball, football, and hockey games. He says that the American system of sending athletes to college is much better than anything else, including what they have in the UK, because at the very least it allows them to continue with their schooling.)

This rule change is definitely for the good. It's now a question as to whether the interested parties, including MLS, US Soccer, and USL, can take advantage of it.

 

Can you point to a post where anyone has "support(ed) the idea that MLS can rely mostly on college soccer for player development"? I'm really curious to see who has said this.

I'm with you on the subs, although I also see the coaches point that it allows more players to play. I would like to see a middle ground with more subs and no re-entry.

I thought we wanted the clock to count up. Besides, it's not which direction the clock goes in, it's who controls it and the concept of stoppage time. I saw a game in Europe the other day (forget who) where the stadium clock counted down. The direction of the clock is not important.

I think you would be shocked to know - like most people who use baseball as this good model to compare to soccer - that the pros rely more on college than on high school. It's not as apt a comparison as it was in the past, but it does show how pro development and college can co-exist. The growth of baseball as a revenue sport has made college baseball more attractive for pro scouts. The number of draftees from colleges outweight those from high school and have a for a while now. the 2009 draft was one of the first times in a while that high schools really stood out, but not all those kids sign so college kids tend to outweigh them.

 

Oh yeah, I definitely have problems with subs - except that when push comes to shove the vast majority of teams only use 13-15 guys in games that matter. In the end, it's a bit of a wash. It's definitely much more of an issue in the women's college game where teams like UNC can pretty much wear down teams with an endless supply of talented players.

I cover the ACC/NCAA tournaments every year and to see more than a couple subs get more than cursory minutes (except in blowouts) is pretty rare.

As far as the clock, that's more an annoyance than anything. It doesn't affect "player development" Games are still roughly 95 minutes of playing time if you include the stoppages.

 

But isn't it fair to argue that since MLB has started to rely more on college for baseball player development, the quality of the American player has gone down. Most of the top players seem to be coming from the DR and Venezuela. We are not even an international baseball power anymore as the WBC has shown.

 

That's hard to say because, at the same time, there has been expansion and the growth of the international player, as you say. I don't think the quality of the American player has gone down as much as the expansion of the competition he faces.

It, like most things, is not a simple issue.

 

I agree, and I would put the sub thing in the annoyance category as well. Both would be slightly less so if they stopped the clock for substitutions.

The real problem I have with the college clock is the end of the game, which becomes something other than an exercise in clock-watching so rarely as to be virtually non-existent. Well, that, and the underlying attitude of, "We're American, so we have to change the rules so that we can think that we're smarter than everyone else, even if the change makes no sense." That bugs the shit out of me.