Once again US Soccer once again gave itself a black eye - scheduling a coaching symposium in Florida during Women's College Cup weekend. Instead of doing something that multiplies the attractiveness of the NCAA Championship (and the NSCAA symposium at the final four site) - the federation chooses to compete head on and force people to choose. What kind of idiots are running the show here?
AFAIK, neither the Final Four, the NCAA, nor the NSCAA are under the auspices of US Soccer so why would they care?
I don't think the professional soccer community takes college soccer that seriously. Most teams prefer younger players than those who go to college for 4 years. You develop them at the pro-level and then can sell them for a higher transfer fee to European clubs because they'll probably have more years left in their career.
1. the health of the sport is based on interest and college soccer is where players aspire to play, where fans can get involved in the game even if they're not former players, and where pro players and coaches come from. 2. most, if not all, of MLS' transfer success stories were from guys who played in college - Ryan Nelson, Tim Howard, Brian McBride, Bocanegra, etc. MLS LOST money on Landon and can't afford the best U-?? nat teamers until they fail abroad (Nelson Akwari anyone?) so . . . 3. if you're growing the game - and soccer isn't unquestionably part of the mainstream sports scene yet - why not maximize EVERY free opportunity to get attention. I'll wager almost no one outside the soccer in crowd has any idea about the Nike friendlies (thank god - who'd want to watch that garbage anyway), but most everyone will see the ND vs. UCLA highlights tonight - why put it down?
No, my understanding is that SocFed scheduled events to conflict with both the men's AND women's college cups. FWIW, if the coach's association is running two symposium all year the Fed ought to avoid both weekends (since they are determined so far in advance and are so easy to schedule around). It just seems to me the Federation should be ENCOURAGING rather than discouraging attendance at these events.
NCAA is technically a 'renegade league' since it won't play bby FIFA rules. It's certainly not irrelevant (it probably had some role in helping players like Clint Dempsey), but at the same time, I don't see the colleges working hard to accomodate MLS, so. . . (And the men's college game isn't going to grow because of the restrictions of Title IX).
What would colleges need to do to "accomodate MLS" besides provide a place to play for the 1000's of non-P-40 prospects that MLS isn't ready to deal with? I mean, when did the NHL or AHAUS schedule things to compete with something like the Frozen Four? (to hit a non-revenue sport) Also, why blame Title IX (it's been such a help to wrestling coaches to pursue that)? I mean, if SocFed isn't backing the expansion of men's soccer (in fact it's doing the opposite) why should individual schools? Before you answer, consider that at the state level, many YSA's have helped high school programs. And while there are certainly elite club teams playing much better competition on a regular basis - there are also many high school programs that have been instrumental in player development and in the development of the game's infrastructure in this country. To me, college coaches and players want to support the National teams, MLS, WUSA, etc? The issue is growing the game - this would seem to me to be US Soccer's central mission (unless you watch what they actually do).
Playing by something approaching FIFA's rules would be nice. And the season is unhelpfully short. And programs are too short of scholarships to provide a very even level of play. But frankly, the biggest thing is that we've gotten to the point where even most college players get far more development from their clubs, from youth national teams, and from the USL than from college ball itself. And it's not so much that I think college is irrelevant, (I've defended college when I've heard that accusation) as that its relevence is declining with every positive player development that happens on the USSF/MLS scene (eg Pro-40, the Super Y-League, reserve teams, etc). It's pretty easy to project the day when it will be irrelevant. Given this, I just think neither one is very central to the development of the other at this point. And of the two, MLS has a lot more to offer in the long term simply by enhancing the credibility of the sport than college could ever possibly offer in return. I just don't see why you would want to throw more and more resources at an investment promising less and less return. -- As for Title IX, it's the most direct of the reasons. One could blame the bloated budgets of college football, and it would also to an extent be true, but beside the point. Most schools that don't offer men's soccer would if Title IX weren't around (though they might not have many scholarships or perks) and at least a few top programs would be likely to raise the level of play. The University of Texas recently built a gorgeous soccer/track stadium right next to the football stadium. It more than strains credulity to believe they wouldn't prefer to have two teams playing in it, ceteris paribus. The reason they don't is Title IX--it doesn't have anything substantial to do with USSF or MLS.
once again, it's not the SocFed is (or should) use resources to HELP college soccer - the question is why is SocFed using resources to FIGHT college soccer and the coach's association? Honestly, I can't figure out what elite player development has to do with this concern - certainly the more things MLS does, the better - but college is still a key part of broadening the talent pyramid (even if it becomes less a part of developing top players - which will be good for management and bad for players just like it is in other sports). I guess a better parallel would be the NBA - even as NCAA basketball becomes less relevant, the NBA understands that supporting the college game (and high school as well) is part of building a base of fans and supporters. But the NBA is a business - increasing fans, etc. is their sole goal. SocFed is more interested in controlling the game than growing it. I happen to think that's pretty sad.
You may be right about this last then, but from the first two, this is a remarkably petty example. It's a coaches' symposium. BFD. These two circuits are in a place where they can basically ignore each other and get by. But that's gonna include minor schedule conflicts now and again. And this one's real minor, as those things go. If they were out to get college soccer, they'd have tried to bring in the NCAA players for the U-20 friendlies a couple weeks back. (There'd have been no point in that, but I'm not sure I see a point here, either). I will call attention to the fact that you'd recently called for something that "multiplies the attractiveness" of the College Cup.
That's what I'm saying - it's stupid to do that. SocFed should be promoting in ways that build the college cup - it can't do anything but help them in the long run (and it's free to SocFed - which should count since they can't figure out how to pay either full national team). Instead, SocFed decides to spend time and $$ competing. It really shows a set of priorities that I don't think most people who are SocFed members would want to support.
The vast majority of the benefits each can derive from the other are still perfectly valid in this atmosphere of benign neglect (for no cost), so I don't expect it to change.
how does a coach's symposium at the same time hurt the college cup??? i could see it being helpful... but i rather doubt it's hurtful it would be helpful if they combined together and went on at the same time, same place but who knows if either side wants to work with the other
What kid of idiots?? The same kind of idiot that schedule an International soccer game at Bolitiery Tennis Academy....Attendance 500 ...thats include few mexican grown keepers.....The same kind of idiots that rotate coaches for our U-17 national soccer team over and over .....
The NSCAA runs a coaching symposium as part of the college cup weekend. Running a competing coaching course allows SocFed to moon both the NSCAA and college soccer.
If you think it helps the growth of soccer in the US by all means moon away. Of course, since it's the ONLY championship in this country that a casual sports fan could possibly follow - teams stay the same from year to year and have a recognizable identity and history going back a couple of generations - it seems silly to disrespect it. But if you'd rather follow, for instance, the U18 USYSA championships (quick name the 1995 winner! what are the odds that team still exists?) . . . Obviously, MLS will continue to develop but we're still a few years away from people with fuzzy memories of going to games with their parents/grandparents who also grew up rooting for DC United or whatever. If SocFed had any brains they'd be supporting competitions that raise soccer's profile and don't cost them anything. Instead they're pissing on their own pro players, trying to take $30 million generated by the national team programs and give it to youth soccer for fields, and denigrating the most visible soccer programs in most communities at every turn (my personal favorite was Dr. Bob's interview blaming the Ape's shortcomings on college soccer right before the Olympics - like blaming the unibomber on Harvard). I don't know if people care, but soccer is a team game that needs fans and large player pools to grow - modeling the sport after gymnastics (emphasis on private training and clubs with a "once every four years" national team program) at the federation level seems shortsighted to say the least.
I looked up the 1995 McGuire Cup winner (which is actually U19, but regardless). The tournament winner, runner-up, and semifinalists all, as best I can tell, still exist. Not to say there's not turnover, but at the elite level, I think there's significantly less than you're suggesting. I think the college game has enough of an inferiority complex on campus that it seems like you're way overrating how often this happens with college soccer. Apparently, it will cost them the freedom to schedule their coaching clinics. That's not nothing. There are reasons (travel budgets, timing of other events) why clinics are scheduled where and when they are. And these things aren't training college coaches necessarily, so I have some real trouble seeing how the two are conencted. You might as well ask that they schedule around the entire MLS season, which I'm sure they don't. Then why aren't you on about the high schools? The 18-22 age group is the tail end of the development curve. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that as of now, or even on a hypothetical 2010 team, there's likely to be at least a player or two for whom a college scholarship was a fundamental part of why they are still playing the game. However, somewhere between bloated football budgets and Title IX there's an almost absolute constraint on the quantity of NCAA soccer programs for men, and if the quality improves, it will be because of US Youth Soccer's investment. There'll continue to be slipping through the cracks for some time, but as far as relying on college soccer to produce National Team talent, we've ridden that train as far as it'll go. (MLS talent is another matter entirely. If college soccer collapsed, MLS would lose a valuable resource for 'Plan B' player development.)
yeah, it's totally obvious that rather than play where the kids are already and break even, we should play them half way across the country for an audience of 2,000 and lose money. Friggen' morons.