http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/24/SP233074.DTL In this article, John Crumpacker of the San Francisco Chronicle 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, and players, and girlfriends and boyfriends, can possibly enjoy it (imho). (I attribute this to unlimited substitution, which destroys the fabric of the game, again imho.) In all, I thought it was a good article. But the general crappiness of NCAA soccer reflects poorly on other levels of the sport.