Year round college soccer!

[Unregistered]

I don't agree.

I don't think you got the point of "Ultimately, men's D1 college soccer needs to change or more top prospects are going to skip it." If we're looking at this from the perspective of college soccer at its contribution to the development of professionals, then it absolutely has to change. You can already look at examples like Diego Fagundez of guys who will choose to go the academy route and straight into the pros.

In the case of D1 basketball and football, those sports are structured in a similar fashion to the pro game, so it is a good developmental path. Same is true for hockey, although that also has the junior level path to the pros. Baseball, however, was virtually irrelevant for the longest time at the collegiate level as a serious part of the professional development system. But it changed, and now more good pro prospects are going to college rather than straight to the minors out of high school. If D1 college soccer wants to stay relevant as a part of the pro feeder system, it has to change - these kids who are identified early as the prime prospects to go pro are going to have increasing options - domestic academies, international academies, options to become MLS homegrown players, sign with USL Pro teams, etc. College soccer will be one of them, but the kids who are serious about pursuing pro soccer are going to choose the best path to help them become pros.

We are not talking about a large percentage of players, but college soccer is not built to adequately serve the needs of the small percentage who will end up playing professionally. Whether the NCAA should care about that is entirely up for debate, but I don't think there can be any debate over whether or not the structure of college soccer is insufficient when it comes to player development. It is not sufficient, and it must either change or face total irrelevancy as a path to the pros for most of the best young players in this country.

[Unregistered]

Not going to open that up to all the vultures in here, sorry. We expected to lose some of his scholarship but that was a choice we made with the coach fully on board and in support.

I am curious to know what school too. Not for hateful purposes... I have just never heard of such a thing! Is it D1 or D2?

[Unregistered]

I don't think you got the point of "Ultimately, men's D1 college soccer needs to change or more top prospects are going to skip it." If we're looking at this from the perspective of college soccer at its contribution to the development of professionals, then it absolutely has to change. You can already look at examples like Diego Fagundez of guys who will choose to go the academy route and straight into the pros.

In the case of D1 basketball and football, those sports are structured in a similar fashion to the pro game, so it is a good developmental path. Same is true for hockey, although that also has the junior level path to the pros. Baseball, however, was virtually irrelevant for the longest time at the collegiate level as a serious part of the professional development system. But it changed, and now more good pro prospects are going to college rather than straight to the minors out of high school. If D1 college soccer wants to stay relevant as a part of the pro feeder system, it has to change - these kids who are identified early as the prime prospects to go pro are going to have increasing options - domestic academies, international academies, options to become MLS homegrown players, sign with USL Pro teams, etc. College soccer will be one of them, but the kids who are serious about pursuing pro soccer are going to choose the best path to help them become pros.

We are not talking about a large percentage of players, but college soccer is not built to adequately serve the needs of the small percentage who will end up playing professionally. Whether the NCAA should care about that is entirely up for debate, but I don't think there can be any debate over whether or not the structure of college soccer is insufficient when it comes to player development. It is not sufficient, and it must either change or face total irrelevancy as a path to the pros for most of the best young players in this country.

DF is a bad example. He is on record of saying schooling was never a priorty for him and his goal is to play professionally. The Academy was perfect for him.

The rest I agree with you. And I think college soccer will evolve similar to college baseball and hockey

[Unregistered]

"Every other college sport plays their season and that's it."

This is wrong. Football players play all year, as do basketball, LAX, swimmers, etc. Yes, there is a regular season but they also play a less intense schedule the rest of the school year. They also return early and have scheduled workouts, practices during breaks.

I was a college athlete. We competed all year, and had a split season much like soccer proposes. I knew when I took my scholarship and joined the team, I would be giving up my junior year abroad. I knew I'd have to schedule classes to accommodate for my sport, but I wanted to compete, and I got free tuition. I got to attend a college I would never have been able to afford without the scholarship. Some of my teammates (not on scholarship) did study abroad, but it impacted them and our team. They didn't qualify (individual) for the regional or national competitions that year, and couldn't represent the team either.

Everyone will have to make choices, but don't think for 1 minute that traveling abroad or making academic choices over the team commitment won't impact individuals or the team. I made my choices, and won't judge others for doing the same, BUT keep it real. If you play a college sport, especially if it's D1, or you get scholarship money, your education will come second. That's why they pay you.

It used to be that athletes on scholarship were thrilled to be paid to play a sport they loved. Now, the entitled attitude has overshadowed this as well. If you can afford to pay for your player to attend college without taking scholarship money, then they can feel free to put other aspects of school ahead of the sport they are being paid to play. If they accept scholarship money, it's like getting a job in order to work your way to college. Do you think students who have to work at outside jobs to afford tuition get to study abroad? No, they have to keep working.

One of the best statements I have read on the whole college soccer issue here on TS.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. College sports serve two purposes...to develop players for the next level and to make $ for the college. Soccer isn't there yet in either situation.

Let's consider men's soccer first. Guys who are truly serious about going pro can't even consider the college path as an option. Klinsman is right, they need to go to Europe. That being said, colleges have to be sitting up and taking notice after America's response to the WC. Soccer has a long way to go to compete with the big. 4 (football, hockey, basketball and baseball) as $ sports. However, soccer is slowly taking hold, so colleges need to listen to what is being said and be proactive. College is a business now too, so they must compete for students. The sheer number of people who watched the WC, coupled with Klinsman (and others with influence) denouncing college soccer, means colleges need to make changes or miss the boat.

For women... Well, unless or until women's professional soccer is a viable option, it doesn't really matter if they change formats. I have 2 daughters so I'm not being sexist here. I'm just looking at this from a business standpoint. I also agree 100% with the comment regarding players and families feeling entitled to the all the benefits of a college education! despite the student receiving scholarship $ (being paid to play) to attend. The above poster is right. It's a job, so treat it like one. Students who need to work to pay for school will need to make choices and miss opportunities. That's life.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. College sports serve two purposes...to develop players for the next level and to make $ for the college. Soccer isn't there yet in either situation.

Let's consider men's soccer first. Guys who are truly serious about going pro can't even consider the college path as an option. Klinsman is right, they need to go to Europe. That being said, colleges have to be sitting up and taking notice after America's response to the WC. Soccer has a long way to go to compete with the big. 4 (football, hockey, basketball and baseball) as $ sports. However, soccer is slowly taking hold, so colleges need to listen to what is being said and be proactive. College is a business now too, so they must compete for students. The sheer number of people who watched the WC, coupled with Klinsman (and others with influence) denouncing college soccer, means colleges need to make changes or miss the boat.

For women... Well, unless or until women's professional soccer is a viable option, it doesn't really matter if they change formats. I have 2 daughters so I'm not being sexist here. I'm just looking at this from a business standpoint. I also agree 100% with the comment regarding players and families feeling entitled to the all the benefits of a college education! despite the student receiving scholarship $ (being paid to play) to attend. The above poster is right. It's a job, so treat it like one. Students who need to work to pay for school will need to make choices and miss opportunities. That's life.

Read the comments ... It makes it clear that this is just for Men's soccer and not women's

[Unregistered]

Read the comments ... It makes it clear that this is just for Men's soccer and not women's

The same thing is happening on the girls side. There is money in the women's game in Europe it just isn't the top end money like you see with men. It's enough for them to live and have a decent lifestyle but certainly not enough to retire on. If you look at most sports most pro players only last a couple of years regardless of their gender so most of them realize going in it is not something they will likely do the rest of their lives.

[Unregistered]

I realize that but it seemed to me that the thread devolved into a discussion for both. Besides, if it changes for men, it will change for women.

[Unregistered]

I like the idea. I hope it can be worked out. I d think, some assume once the season is over in November they don't touch a ball till August? Not true.. The amount of hours, days, and games are different for every division, and D3 can not have mandatory winter season organized by the coaching staff, but they are year round. The spring games just don't count. The NESCAC is the only conference I know, in D III, that doesnt allow a non traditional/spring season. Makes the conference success that much, more impressive. Great athletes..

[Unregistered]

The same thing is happening on the girls side. There is money in the women's game in Europe it just isn't the top end money like you see with men. It's enough for them to live and have a decent lifestyle but certainly not enough to retire on. If you look at most sports most pro players only last a couple of years regardless of their gender so most of them realize going in it is not something they will likely do the rest of their lives.

We are talking college soccer and not pro ... Get back on point

[Unregistered]

We are talking college soccer and not pro ... Get back on point

That is the point. A big part of the motivation of this proposal is to support the development of future pro players.

[Unregistered]

That is the point. A big part of the motivation of this proposal is to support the development of future pro players.

No it's not ... Colleges don't care about producing pro players. They are staying relevant.

"Proponents of the switch point to two significant benefits for student athletes – improved conditions to aid their development as players, and a lighter fall timetable allowing for greater participation in other facets of university life"

[Unregistered]

No it's not ... Colleges don't care about producing pro players. They are staying relevant.

"Proponents of the switch point to two significant benefits for student athletes – improved conditions to aid their development as players, and a lighter fall timetable allowing for greater participation in other facets of university life"

Yes, I'm sure that is why the USSF and the MLS are supporting the proposal.

Seeing as the proposal needs to be approved by the NCAA, isn't it a fairly reasonable approach to focus on the benefits of the proposal that are of interest to them?

If you can't figure out why the college coaches care about producing pro players you are beyond help.

[Unregistered]

Yes, I'm sure that is why the USSF and the MLS are supporting the proposal.

Seeing as the proposal needs to be approved by the NCAA, isn't it a fairly reasonable approach to focus on the benefits of the proposal that are of interest to them?

If you can't figure out why the college coaches care about producing pro players you are beyond help.

College coaches are not being blue balled by players turning their noses up at college soccer in favor of the pros. En masse, they couldn't care less.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. College sports serve two purposes...to develop players for the next level and to make $ for the college. Soccer isn't there yet in either situation.

Well I disagree that college sports "exists" for either of those two reasons as its primary reason. Needless to say, if those are the two reasons they did exist - they sure do a lousy job at achieving both of them.
1) Very few players go pro in any sport - so colleges by that measure have a very high failure rate.
2) Less than 20% of colleges operate financially solvent athletic programs. Most Football programs lose money, as do most athletic departments. Without the subsidies coming from students, government/institutions and outside donors, the athletic departments would bankrupt most universities. Even in big time college football, with budgets over $50 million, and huge TV contracts, subsidies to athletic departments run about 20%. At smaller football programs, subsidies are 60%+ of the budget for athletics.

With such a poor track record, who can trust coaches to provide a true win-win-win solution for university-students-athletes? If anything, I suspect lengthening the season certainly will help line the pockets of coaches, but not much more.