I don't think that was what his point was. MLS doesn't have direct leverage over the NCAA, and wouldn't dictate to them hiring decisions. But MLS does influence over its academy players. It can tell its academy players the schools that they think will provide the best training environment to give them a chance to go pro, and strongly disapprove of their players going to schools that have poor tactics. You could already see this happening with programs like Akron under soon to be Timbers coach Caleb Porter. Many of the best pro-prospects, including some MLS academy players, go to Akron every year. I mean, do most kids dream of going to Akron? No, but they go there because it's the best place to develop. It has a program that MLS likes. They play soccer in a way that better trains players for the pros. And with all that access to talent, they win a lot. Their winning in turn helps change the culture of NCAA soccer.
That's exactly what I meant. MLS execs can easily tell an academy player, "We like you and we want you to keep improving even if we can't sign you to a pro contract right away. But think carefully before you decide which school you pick. This one is good and that one is good. The other ones, not so good. You go there, you may not even get drafted. In fact, there's a pretty decent chance, no one going to that school you will ever sniff MLS again". Then you set up a friendly meeting with a college coach and say, "We'd like for you to join a coaching seminar given by Thomas Rongen. Your acceptance of this invitation - Miami Beach in January, basic expenses paid - is strongly encouraged". No, what would be the "coincidental" rate? You know, like in the NFL, even a clueless GM will draft a decent player now and again, just not enough to keep his team from being a permanent bottom dweller.
Unless you're saying MLS coaches would blackball good players from successful programs, I don't see the necessity for MLS to butt their heads in. I'm sure this goes on right now between players and their youth coaches, especially with the top prospects, but realistically, players are going to go to the best program that gives them a scholarship. If MLS decides it doesn't like Akron's or Maryland's or Georgetown's coach, that's not going to stop players from going there and that isn't going to stop them from getting drafted. And players going to schools with worse reputations aren't there because they want to be on worse teams with worse coaches; they're there because that's where they could get scholarships. To which the college coach will say, "Screw you. I make more money than Thomas Rongen. Why should I listen to him?" Most kids in college soccer aren't just there for a year or two waiting for their Generation Adidas contract to show up. MLS has very little leverage with most of these kids and their parents. There are a lot of decisions that go into choosing a college, and the vague possibility of earning $32,000 as an MLS rookie is low on the list. Which means there are good players coming out of the draft--which is all I'm saying. That's the reason MLS can't bully high school kids into making their college choices based solely on MLS's convenience--because most youth prospects are crapshoots.
But that has nothing to do with the NCAA. Seriously, Chapka is right, they couldn't care less. It might get some traction with individual schools, which fancy themselves having big time programs and want to stay at the top, but it would have to be a very informal arrangement. MLS trying put pressure on the NCAA is laughable. Not only is soccer insignificant to them, but the NCAA wants anything but to be an "unofficial" development league for MLS because it would undermine the myth of the "student-athlete" which they carefully cultivate so as to keep Men's Basketball and Football as billion dollar cash cows.
I seriously doubt FIFA cares about the NCAA. But MLS does care what the NCAA does. In regard to the SuperDraft all the above players were not four year college soccer players, except perhaps Espinoza. The others were not even 21 when they turned pro or as for Shea and Kitchen not even 20. We need more underclassmen from the drafts in order to become a world class soccer nation But the way MLS goes there are limited opportunities for GA players and underclassmen. That is why players like Zuzi, Berry and Bright Dike are the cream of the crop of young players because when they turn pro at 23 they are ready to go. For now they are the future of US soccer. Coaches prefer a Bright Dike to a Jack McInerney or Beitashour to Andy Najar
All MLS needs is top 10-20 schools. The others don't produce anything but an accidental MLS'er anyway. There are plenty of informal - and occasionally illegal, if you follow the Reggie Bush or the UM scandals - contacts in NCAA. Top coaches want top prospects. Top prospects want to turn pro. If a pro scout visits a program - and pro scouts do it early and often - you better believe that a coach will bend over backwards to make him comfortable because having the players drafted out of a program means more than winning trophies. If you don't get your players drafted, you won't be able to recruit. It's as simple as that. And MLS can put a lot of pressure on a Top 10-20 soccer program by intimating which programs will be scouted, which players will be invited to a combine and which players are going to be SOL.
That's just silly, MLS won't blackball players that didn't go to the right school. This is s league that needs all the cheap talent it can get.
Blackballing is extreme way of looking at it, and that's not what's happening. It's more like MLS is having some influence which is slowly changing the culture. They don't avoid players because they don't go to the right schools, it's more that the wrong schools aren't developing the right players. Which in turn causes a feedback loop where better players want to go to the right schools, and the wrong schools either adapt or have their programs continue to fail. Which improves college soccer. It's really not all that complicated or dramatic; just the results of different people and institutions pursuing their interests.
Clint Dempsey went to Furman. Look at the list of schools here on the last combine list. Good players come from everywhere and respond to different coaching and different styles.
I'm aware. And that's why I haven't said they will blackball anyone. More that as time goes by, top players will tend to gravitate towards programs that play soccer the right way. "The right way" is debatable mind you, I'm not a one size fits all guy. But a lot of college programs have played soccer with tactics that do not translate to the pro game, and that doesn't serve players that want to be pros. So it's not MLS bullying or blackballing, just a natural evolution of the system. I really don't think I'm actually saying anything controversial here.
It can get it from the NASL just as successfully. And outside of what I am recommending, MLS won't have any pull with any NCAA program whatsoever. By law, NCAA is a king onto itself but varied b-ball/football interests have learned how to work - and occasionally rig - the system. That's what you do to a large and seemingly unyielding bureaucracy.
So where are those NASL players coming from? They tend to be the ones who didn't make the MLS draft grade the first time around or who were replaced after a season or two on an MLS squad with limited chances to play.
Yes and some will rise above that level and some won't ... and, after a previously vaunted prospect rides the buses for a year or two there, other will silently acquiesce to the MLS recommendations.
Personally, I'd rather see more Donovans, Conveys (skip college) or Maurice Edus, Kitchens (leave college by 20) than players like Zusi, Luis Silva, Berry and Bright Dike but the current MLS set up favors the latter and this is why the future USMNT will most likely be built around the type of player who turns 23 during his rookie year. Of course we always have European based players to bring in some youth prospects. This is evident in Bryan Leyva and Ruben Luna being waived, the same will happen to Luis Gil and the teenagers that Philadelphia uses. Coaches feel more comfortable with the Bryan Gauls, Dan Keats and Michael Lahouds because they are cheaper to develop and seem to bring more bang for the buck. It was not much investment to develop Zuis or Luis Silva as opposed to teenage prospects who demand more time. This is depressing because we have been bypassed by Mexico in the region. I thought we were on to something with the generation of Convey, Donovan, EJ, Beckerman, Quaranta, Beasley and Beckerman. Unfortunately, and as my brother sadly seems to be right, our future will be based off Zusi, Luis Silva, Austin Berry types. Four year College soccer types will play a larger and larger role.\ MLS should do what Mexico does and require that teams field at least one or two players who is under a certain age in their games.
I'm beginning to see why you have only 15 rep points in 13 years. Are you trolling or just really poor at looking at data? Highlighting isolated examples does not prove jack squat. If your concern is about improving youth development and making a better pathway for young players to make an impact in MLS, then sure, I share those concerns. It is an issue. But just because it is an issue does not mean we can conclude that 4 year college players are becoming - or inevitably will become - more important for the national team. That's a viewpoint that is inane and unsupported, and pretty much everyone disagrees with you. Let's focus on players 27 and under who have been called up by national team in the past year to see if things are changing toward this college direction. Doing so, we see there are numerous pathways to the national team that don't involve 4 years of college. Dual citizens born and raised abroad (F.Johnson, Chandler, Boyd, Williams, Diskerud) Mexican-Americans that choose to develop at Mexican clubs (Torres, Corona, Castillo, Fiscal) Other college skippers (Altidore, Bradley, Gatt, Gyau, Spector, Agudelo, Shea, Hamid) Player that left college early (S.Johnson, Gonzalez, Bunbury, Edu, Kljestan, Feilhaber) 4 year college players (Cameron, Zusi, Pontius, Beitashour, Besler, Loyd, DeLaGarza, John, Evans, Sapong) From this list we can see the only 4 year college players 27 or under that have contributed significantly to the national team are Cameron and Zusi. And those players are 27 and 26. Bradley and Altidore meanwhile are 25 and 23 and have been major contributors for years. I'm not counting out the 4 college player mind you. Pontius, Deleon and Besler in particular are players I think are promising. But there's no reason to think that path is becoming more important, not when there are so many other options. This is especially true given that the academy program has only been around for a few years. Often times in years past, players only had the choice of going abroad or going to college because outside of a few, there wasn't a direct path to MLS. But the academy program is rapidly expanding, with more and more youth clubs becoming affiliated with MLS academies. This will increasingly allow paths to MLS through the homegrown initiative for younger players. Oh, and pointing out that guys like Ruben Luna have been waived is incredibly irrelevant. Should I point out how many 4 year college Superdraft players get waived every year? Most players fail to make an impact, it's just a fact. What matters is there are more American players getting quality training at younger ages than ever. Are there flaws and gaps? Sure, but it's improving, despite what whiners like you would insist.
I don't necessarily disagree with all the content of your post. Just wanted to make a comment regarding one line of reasoning you brought up. And to do that I will ask you a question. How much do you think the NCAA cares about Women's Volleyball? Because, from my understanding, the recent NCAA rules changes regarding amateurism and letting players play on the same teams as professionals without losing their eligibility came from those involved in Women's Volleyball pushing for those changes. Yes, it later had support from many of the other sports. Basketball supposedly is benefiting from this change as well. And many small sports that are not revenue generating sports do have exceptions to some NCAA rules that allow them to do things a differently than other sports.
You're not talking about outside pressure: you're talking about inside pressure from coaches and athletic directors involving a large number of sports (not just women's volleyball). If college coaches wanted to play FIFA rules, for example, that would be a different story. MLS is not going to talk them into it.
I don't think Bright Dike is a good example to use here. Despite being a 5th year senior, he was anything but "ready to go" when he turned pro. When he came out of college he was drafted by the Crew, but then they decided he wasn't good enough and released him instead of signing him to a contract. He had to go to the Timbers in the 2nd division to start his pro career. He had a good rookie season in the minor leagues, but after the Timbers moved to MLS he found himself buried at the bottom of the depth chart. It was only in his 2nd year in MLS (3rd year as a pro player) that he managed to start an MLS game and get significant minutes in MLS.
First of all, that statement may well not be true. Secondly, if it were, that's just more motivation to make sure your recruiting goes well enough that you keep such a cherry job. I think SFS is largely right--while the NCAA itself has big money and would be hard to sway, individual college coaches that want every recruiting advantage would be a whole lot easier to play off against each other, especially if the MLS academy program is steadily producing strong recruits. If you think they'd hang up the phone on major figures at the better MLS academies, I think you misjudge how the recruiting process really works. In real life, it wouldn't be about any 'blackballing'--the mere perception that MLS might habitually give advantages to some other coach than oneself would already go a long way to motivate the guys who want the best recruits. (And they pretty much all want the best recruits, and they are all willing to 'play the game' to one extent or another to get them.) You mean, for the kids other than the same 1 or 2% that the college coaches crave the most. Kids are usually at an academy program in the first place because they respect the coach--which, because it's still teenagers you're talking about, tends to give that coach a big sway over those kids. It's not going to be presented as some kind of ultimatum to the kids, and it's not going to be perceived as bullying by them. If the coach says 'you really ought to look at X, X has a better playing system than Y', that coach will usually be listened to. In fact, that's been a source of both recruiting and recruiting abuses since time immemorial. You're looking at it as the rod, when it would really be presented as the carrot.
At this point, given most parents' priorities, I think the colleges have more leverage on MLS than vice versa. The top prospects, the young Messis, probably aren't going to college at all anymore; they're getting homegrown contracts. If they are going to college, it's because their parents care about more than coaching. For the rest of the kids, I'm sure they do get advice on colleges from their academy coaches. But I think their parents care more about whether the academy can get them a scholarship to a good school than whether the school will prepare them to go pro.
I do think MLS academy players that do attend college (and are viewed somewhat highly by the MLS club) need to consider location proximity to their MLS club. With the NCAA rules that were established over a year ago allowing college players to play/practice with pros (as long as only their expenses are paid for) allows some of these kids to play/practice with their MLS club during the long college offseason. Galaxy are obviously very fortunate in this situation and we should see this example with Javan Torre next year. They have Willie Raygoza, Paul Arriola, and Nathan Smith committed to UCLA for next season (though Arriola will likely sign with the Galaxy or Tijuana), and other kids committed to schools within a couple hours of L.A. (Justin Dhilon, Drew Murphy, etc.) Some clubs obviously aren't as fortunate with the proximity of Div. 1 schools though.
This is a good point. I did a cursory search, and it does seem that most MLS teams have potential local partners. New York : Rutgers, UConn, St. Johns Chicago : Northwestern, Notre Dame Columbus : Akron, Ohio State DC : Georgetown, Maryland Philadelphia : Villanova, Temple New England : Boston College LA : UCLA. Seattle : Washington. Portland : Oregon State, Portland Dallas : SMU San Jose : Stanford, Cal, San Jose State Colorado : Denver BYU would have been a good partner for Salt Lake, but they bizarrely left college soccer and play in the PDL instead. The Canadian teams this obviously wouldn't work for. Houston and Kansas City I didn't really see anything worthwhile. I think a "go local" approach would be helpful for MLS teams. Obviously such an approach would work best for teams with numerous local options. DC United for instance could prefer its elite prospects to go to great programs like Georgetown or Maryland, but it also could keep an eye on other players at American or George Mason. However a club like FC Dallas faces a different situation. Seems like SMU is the major local option, and they do have a couple former academy players there. But they also have a few in the ACC, including at an elite program like UNC. I think the question then is whether it's preferable for a player's pro prospects to go to a local school to have more access to club coaching, or to go to an elite program elsewhere if they have the opportunity. As you point out, there's no such problem for the Galaxy and their top prospects at UCLA. Players get to stay local and go to a great college with a great program. Perhaps the Galaxy though have the solution. If I'm not mistaken, their U-18 coach is also an assistant coach for UCLA. If more MLS clubs start sharing academy coaches with local colleges, they can help ensure that the coaching quality at the local school meet their standards. Seems like a win-win all around. Colleges get access to a pipeline of top local players as well as quality coaches, clubs get to monitor and train their potential investments, and potential pro players get more professional training while also getting the game opportunities and education that college provides.
Kenny Arena was an assistant at UCLA, but is now the HC at Florida International. The lack of Div. 1 schools in Texas that play soccer has always surprised me.