I think USSF's plan is to have 300,000 qualified coaches by 2022 but that's still only 1 per 180 children aged 5 and over.
I read in other threads to battle corona's messing up competitions mls should reduce the number of matches. How can that be realistic in terms of being a real competition? The schedule used now I already consider iffy, but to shrink it in any way makes it a farce.
I'm not sure it would be a farce, playoffs decide the champion anyway. It would not be ideal for sure. There have been examples in US sports that would seem farcical as to not having a 'proper' fixture list but people seem to get over it quickly. In 1981 the baseball season was interrupted by a strike and the playoff format was changed for a year and teams qualified on unequal schedules. Folks seemed to enjoy and accept the Dodgers World Series victory. In 1987, the NFL players were on strike. Replacement players were brought in to play and those three games counted in the standings and toward playoff qualification and seeding. The Redskins were and are widely regarded as the NFL champs that year. In the 90s due to a lockout, a season was played that was not a 'proper' 82 game schedule. In a situation like this a closed league with playoffs is more equipped to deal with this because there is not much else to worry about. European leagues may have to deal with an incomplete fixture list that opens many questions that need to be answered. Who gets promoted or relegated? Do teams get promoted or relegated? Is the season void and starts over next year with the same clubs? Who qualifies for Europe in an unbalanced schedule? I'm not saying that fear of pandemics is why a league should be closed with unbalanced schedules, just that they are perhaps more equipped to handle variances in schedule.
Remember that in the American system, the first part of the season is about qualifying for the second part of the season where the championship is decided.
There have already been 115 games postponed. It seems highly likely that there will be more. Eventually they are going to reach a point where there are fewer available dates than there are games that have to be made up. They are going to have no choice but to shrink the season.
It's more equipped because there's less on the line. "Playing for better draft choices" is a little different from playing to avoid relegation.
Any promotion and relegation system that sees its season cut short due to an unforeseen catastrophe should just have promotion and SUSPEND relegation until the crisis passes. Reward good performance without punishing teams that were deprived of the chance to save themselves. It may result in an abnormal number of teams in a particular level for a year or two, but... tough.
It's more equipped in a case like this because pro/rel isn't a question that has to be answered. Only who makes the playoffs. It has nothing to do with draft picks at this point.
The MLS superdraft has become virtually irrelevant. The top picks go to expansion teams. Most of the remaining picks will fill out rosters.
Last year's Rookie of the Year was a non-expansion team draft pick. I will agree that outside the first round its pretty pointless.
Ok but it's a bit of a lottery. He was the 5th first round pick, which means the teams "playing for draft picks" passed on him.
It’s more equipped because the bottom teams are playing for little or nothing , ie “playing for better draft choices”. This is a point I’ve been making for years and it’s good to see you coming on board with that.
Except in MLS they aren't "playing for better draft choices" and haven't been for years ... good to see you're STILL harping on OLD/OUTDATED shit that doesn't apply to the actualities of the league.
Drop the draft, create an allocation order-like list where each team gets a pick of one "draft eligible" player per year, optional to use.
I still defend college soccer because in the big scheme of things it's good to broaden the appeal of the sport, it's still of value to the kids who play it, and hey--it helped pay for my kid's education ....but, the current level of play and STYLE of play just isn't something that can be a useful base for developing professionals. It needs to be it's own thing.
Do you think the summer, amateur leagues are more directly useful for developing potential professionals?
I honestly don't know. I'm not saying there's a better option out there; it's just that while I used to think that college soccer was better than nothing, now I'm not so sure. The focus on athleticism and the frantic pace precludes learning anything really useful--I'm worried it comes at the detriment of tactical development. I could be wrong. But my son didn't have much good to say about it as far as his development as a player.
If there was no NCAA soccer the best college kids would be in pro academies (though some would inevitably slip through the net).
I meant with regards to the current system. There are currently a lot more college teams than USL2/NPSL (and those leagues aren't all college players), so you'd think that the competition to make a squad would be higher and, in turn, so would the level of play in general. I have no idea if that's true, which was the basis of my original question. Basically, if the college game isn't preparing players, are the summer leagues able to better fill that role (with the understanding here that the college side is doing other things to prep them for life and that the summer leagues wouldn't really exist without the college system). Also, the rules are more in line with the pro game.