YNT-eligible MLS players: 2020 In-season thread

All of those points may be valid, but we are still talking about a season thats double the length in USL or USL league One. College soccer has to be so much better in coaching, playing time, facilities, competition to make up the difference that comes with playing half the schedule of these professional leagues. If the college soccer season was year round, it would be a much better pathway.

 

I'd argue that in this country, a lot of those kids would go to college anyway, but simply not play soccer.

I'm not talking about anyone likely to get PT in MLS at 19. I'm talking about players who are 90% likely to live a permanent minor league life.

It's not simply about culture, though some is. It's also about the paycheck.

 

Sure. No doubt. I just think it's a useful supplemental path and I don't really get all the hate it gets for simply being another option.

And it's been surprisingly productive as a path.

 

I know this has probably been answered before but why won't they make college soccer a school year round tournament?

 

There's been petitions to do so. I think one was actually up for vote right before the pandemic; I don't know what happened.

The general thing is that the NCAA limits practice time and season length because the students are supposed to be able to attend class and focus on their studies.

In non-revenue sports, this is even true!

Fundamentally, though, for a University, the point of non-revenue college sports is to provide an avenue for overall development of the whole person, not as a development pathway to a pro career, necessarily.

That's it at the heart.

 

There are still that 10% who don't. Of those 10%, there will also be some who end up being NT level players. Not every great player at 25-30 was a top prospect at 18. Jamie Vardy started out in the lower leagues. Ngolo Kante started out in the lower leagues.

There are still going to be the American versions of Vardy and Kante with our current system. We get guys like Wondolowsi, Dempsey, Long, Besler, Cameron that weren't top players at 18, worked their way up through the college system, and eventually to MLS (Europe after that for a few). I'd still argue that as good as these players did to have a high level pro career, they (or the players that would've made it eventually) are not as good as they'd be had they been playing a full season in the 3rd and 4th divisions in the years they were playing college soccer than a half season in college soccer.

They go hand in hand. Our culture instills in these kids that if they go to Stanford or Duke and graduate, they'll probably be making a few hundred thousand within a few years of graduating. They give themselves a fall back option. I suspect almost all of them still want to be professional soccer players, even if it's not in Europe. They'd like to play soccer until 35, and then they can be an investment banker with their Stanford degree.

In France or England, the kids grow up in a culture where they don't try to give themselves a fall back option. If they did, you wouldn't see so many young kids in the lower divisions of these countries. If by the time they were old enough to sign pro contracts that they weren't getting contracts with a first division club, they would pick up something else, and head to college. I don't believe that kids from these countries are inherently less intelligent or the standard of universities in these countries is such that it renders it not as suitable of an option. I think it's a cultural difference.

 

I have no hate for it. As someone that doesn't work in the sport and didn't spend these years as a professional soccer player, I have no extra attachment than any other fan to the professional pathway. I think if you aren't a top 50 player by 18, you'd be stupid to not attend college. I think if you have any level of high intelligence, you'd probably be best off taking advantage of being admitted into some of the best colleges in the country easier than the general population. You probably should be looking towards a career in something other than soccer. It's likely you'll have a better standard of living.

At the same time, I'm a soccer fan, and I want to see our NT succeed. I don't blame any of these kids on an individual basis or collectively for choosing college soccer over USL. I simply think there's no way around that we are not maximizing the ability of these players with the current system. There either needs to be changes to the college soccer season or these kids need to start shifting more towards the lower divisions as a pathway into the professional game. The longer things stay this way, the longer it'll take until we can catch up to other countries.

I also think that things are starting to change in this respect. I think there's more of a cultural shift towards the USL pathway. I don't know if I'm picking on the college pathway or saying there can't be successful players from college soccer, but I don't see any way around how it hurts the system more than it helps.

 

Are we really sure of that? I just really don't think the gap is as substantial as you think, especially for a late bloomer.

But more importantly, I'm not telling anyone that they should forgo college for a tiny shot.

That's not just culture, that's reality. Painting it as culture-driven makes it sound like it's not incorrect.

A Stanford or Georgetown or whatever degree is absolutely going to be the better money-maker than anything but the top MLS players right now.

Okay, I see what you are saying.

The difference is that in Europe, they don't have college sport. They have to make a choice between pursuing the sport and getting an education.

I think it's great we don't ask players to do that at 18.

 

I've just seen a lot of calls to abolish college soccer or things like that, which I don't get.

On average, I'm sure pursuing something professional is a better option in terms of development.

I just find things to be much more complex than that in reality. Would a player have quit playing soccer and gone to college without it? Did a college coach take a particular liking and focus to the player? Did going away to college allow a player to get a different perspective on life versus a local professional team? Did a college scholarship allow more time than playing USL and getting a part time job.

These things aren't regular things, of course. On average, you are right. But this, by definition, is a Plan B route. And so I don't think it's the end of the world if it's a bit sub-optimized or different. Sometimes that sparks something when you aren't the top dog.

More important to me is that I've known some people who played minor league baseball. After making $20k for 8 years, they head back to college or enter the workforce so far behind. It's a tough price to pursue your dream, and I get that there's something of a motivational benefit to go all in ... but it also seems great to provide options for someone who isn't going to make it.

 

Right. Like everyone else, I have been cheerleading the massive expansion of pro opportunities for talented teen prospects in the last ~5 years. The quantity and quality of options available are significantly better than they once were.

I expect and hope that the quantity and quality of options will continue to increase.

But still, NCAA will always be useful as a safety net. It is not a reasonable expectation that the US will ever achieve a density of pro academies to catch everyone. (And, in fact, every year the NCAA turns up a few good players who slipped through the cracks in Europe!)

I expect and hope that the role of the NCAA will become more and more marginalized over time, but it's never going to go away. In a healthy system, the NCAA is an asset, not a liability. The liability was always the absence of a pro pipeline causing us to lean on the NCAA way too much, rather than the NCAA itself.

 

One thing MLS and their MLS2 teams have for kids forgoing high school is a relationship with SNHU. While its not Harvard or Stanford, a player could conceivably come out with a college degree in 4 to 5 years with no debt and perhaps a small amount of cash in their pocket even if they never set foot on a MLS field. So the choice isn't completely binary.

 

honestly mls+snhu degree probably puts you in the pole position for harvard/stanford mba/law/whatever and thats really where you want to be in as a probably late 20 to early 30 something?

 

I think the best solution is to make college soccer year round. I don’t think it’s ever going to be eliminated because it’s not something like HG territories that MLS owners can vote on, and then it’s done. This is a cultural/reality matter that is part of the soccer landscape.

The NCAA is also starting to roll back the 100% amateur status of athletes. I think we could eventually get to a point where these players from May-August are playing USL games.

 

Profile Busio:

Profile of Orkun Kökcü:

This guy occupies the same spot that Busio would play in.
That transfer value is a joke, as Arsenal already offered far more.
But no, Busio if bought wouldnot be in the first team.

 

Right now I'd be super worried about college soccer continuing at all. This is a non-revenue sport at a time when schools are bleeding money and in person contact is frowned upon.

But to answer your question, the NCAA doesn't care about non-revenue sports and changing things takes effort they're not willing to expend.

 

1285351410125635591 is not a valid tweet id

 

You certainly could be right about his hypothetical position in the team, but Busio is obviously significantly younger. Kökcü's market value was $3.3 million a little over a year ago (June 2019). If they end up selling him to Arsenal (or another club) in the next 12 months, Busio could be a potential replacement.

But best guess is it won't happen. I don't see Gianluca as that level of player. Hope to be wrong.

 

Atlanta vs. Columbus about to start on ESPN2

Bello, Robinson, and Lennon start for Atlanta. Campbell and Wolff on the bench.

Keita starts for Columbus. Berhalter and Morris on the bench.

 

The broadcast of the Loudoun-Hartford game last night made mention of the NCAA season extension to fall-spring as if it were pretty much a done deal until COVID-19 hit. Maybe they are just assuming or don't fully understand how massive of a change that would be for NCAA to make, but they made it sound like it had been about to pass for the upcoming year. It seemed like they had talked with Cirovski about it so I hope they had some inside knowledge and weren't just going off of Cirovski's optimism/passion.

 

Busio’s market value at €2.5 is spot on actually. The difference between Busio and Kokcu is that Kokcu is faster, has a better shot, is a much better passer, has better vision is much more decisive in the final third, actually creates chances in the final third, and can actually change the game from his ability on the ball.

If Busio was worth that much then at the u17 World Cup we wouldn’t have only scored one goal. Also, if Busio was worth that much he would be an automatic starter for SKC instead of a player who gets maybe 15-20 minutes a game. The transfer value is not a joke, Busio is not the prospect he was in 2018

 

Difficult to take much from any of the Atlanta eligibles because FdB’s tactics are just awful.

Columbus is very good though and they didn’t even start Zelarayan. Strong match from Keita, and Berhalter subbed in late.

 

We are a grand total of about four games into the season and coming off a four-month layoff. There is no reason to try to make definitive statements about precisely where Busio stands on this SKC team, what his market value is, or even where his game is right this moment.

The kid just turned 18 and has over 2,000 professional minutes. A significant portion of those minutes have been really good, too. I fail to see how his stock has dropped so much since 2018?

 

His stock has dropped so much since 2018 because he did not improve at all in 2019. I don’t think a significant portion of those minutes were really good.

Busio is a good prospect. But people hype him up like he is a great prospect. He will have an MLS career but has anyone else seriously watched the kid in the last 2 years and thought that he’s a Europe prospect? I don’t like to see prospects get overhyped when their play doesn’t even come close to backing it up.

 

Yet, Fiorentina offered $4 million for him just a few months ago and he’d be there if SKC accepted. I’m not even a huge Busio guy when it comes to future senior USMNT caps, but you’re taking this way overboard.

You really think Euro clubs only look at him because of US Soccer fan hype? Like they have zero technology to actually scout him?

 

I would say Busio is better than a "good" prospect and not a "great" prospect.

I think it's odd to say that he has not gotten any better over the last two years. He has been better than solid in MLS, and last year he showed that he had the ability to take over USL games. He was not the issue with the U17s -- did you see his performance against Brazil in the first 45 of the warmup game?