Big vote coming up in April that could change the college soccer landscape.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inq...outputType=amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inq...outputType=amp
-
-
Was discussed on the MA board. http://talking-soccer.com/TS4/showthread.php?t=160312
I can't imagine schools would want this. They would face challenges to do the same for womens soccer and other sports. That means more expenses for schools. I think it would also be a turnoff for some players. They are trying to also get an education after all. D1 already is challenging enough for certain majors, internships or study abroad. Making it all school year long would be even worse -
I think much of this is driven by college coaches trying to remain relevant. Most players with potential are bypassing college altogether, as most know college soccer stunts development.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Kids do not go to college to become pro soccer players.....they are there to get an education and prepare for the next phase of their lives.Comment
-
Men’s soccer is not driven by the Power 5 schools like women’s soccer so I doubt this will pass. Soccer does not generate any money and this will cost more for the schools More overall games. More overall travel. More in coaching salaries. Doubtful to go throughComment
-
The thought processes shared here is why our national team will continue to struggle and sht the bed against the rest of the world.
This is a great idea, particularly for those late bloomers who will benefit from year long competitive soccer. As a former D1 player I would have been ecstatic having a year long season. Opens up the door for a whole lot of good. Education will always be there, classes will always be available. Online classes make it even more plausible.Comment
-
The Logical Voice
1. How is it more expensive for schools? What specifically will cost more?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Why would a player be turned off by this? Reducing games and playing them across a longer schedule has a greater impact on education than the current structure does now?
3. There may be merit for the internship and study abroad athletes, but I suspect this a small minority of rostered college seniors and juniors (typically the level that does internships and study abroad programs).Comment
-
The Logical Voice
Two less games per seasonal year. Played across a period of time near double the current period used by the NCAA. Where do the "more overall games" come from? Where does the "more overall travel" come from? Coaches are paid on a salary, not by the hour. They work the full calendar year now. How would there be more coaching salary monies needed?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Show us some facts before you make such declarations!Comment
-
1. Travel transportation and accomodations.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Many very good soccer players know they have 4 years left and are going for an education to get a real job after graduation.
3. It's all about soccer and very little about 4 years of education and transitioning to a responsible, organized, self sufficient and social adult via college.Comment
-
I don't believe it. The season will be at least 50 percent bigger to be worthwhile. Isn't it apparent that it must be to be worthwhile .... They already have a short spring season ..... Surely the new structure would have far more substance to be worthwhile.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Why do people comment without actually reading the proposal? Do you just like to spew your opinion without facts gained by actually reading the article?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Less games not more. How does that increase travel and accommodations? I’ll answer that for you...it won’t. Games spread out to limit the current 2-3 games per week scenario is a very good thing. More games will be played on weekends which will limit missed classes.Comment
-
-
The Logical Voice
1. The proposal calls for a reduction in games, not an increase. That would be less travel and accommodations expenses. Specifically, how would they increase?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
2. How does this differ if the season is played over 7 months instead of four, when there will be a clear break between Thanksgiving and spring startup? How does stretching out the season, reducing the number of midweek games and likely adjusting training as well as making more allowance for that exam period just before Christmas undermine the pursuit of an education, regardless of the objective of that education?
3. How is this any more or any less about soccer than it was before?
These are pretty broad conclusions on your part, but not real facts or arguments offered to substantiate them.Comment
-
The Logical Voice
Clearly the spring season, as it exists today, would be eliminated and replaced by this.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Two preseason camps? Worrying about playing time for 8 months of the year? 8 months of the trainers office? Yeah. Thank you, next.Comment
-
The Logical Voice
You must live under the delusion that D1 college soccer doesn't already demand a 12-month commitment from each player.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
D1 players need to always be worried about their playing time. Makes for proper focus and intensity in fitness training over the summer and keeps them in the weight room in the off season as well.
You should really try to see the exact requirements even an average D1 program places on its players across the year. The ones that played ball for me have shown me things like having to report their running times and lifting achievements through their individual summer work. They have to be able to show they are reaching certain objectives that, of course, will be verified/validated when they return to their pre-season training with the team in August. Or about having to make required weight room sessions in the winter, after the holiday break, at 6 AM three mornings a week.
This kind of stuff is now common even at D3.Comment
Comment