2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[PaulNewman]

LOL.  Who's defensive?

I never said the product on the field would be worse with re-entry banned (other than to comment that the suggested improvements have not been compelling).

I don't have an issue with the product in D3 soccer.  I love it...including the the various styles that coaches employ to try to win.  As far as I'm concerned "the product" at D3 schools engaging in D3 athletics keeps getting better and better and the competition for spots (at least in highly competitive programs) stiffer and stiffer.

So far I see mostly red herring arguments...like the non-existent time wasting complaint.

[Gregory Sager]

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I'm not following your thought process at all here. I don't see how you draw the line from D3 being centered around the student-athlete experience to mandatory game participation for everybody. That mandate has never been a D3 policy in any sport, nor have I ever encountered any suggestion from a D3 coach or administrator that it should be a D3 policy, or even that there should be a set minimum for the number of players used that is higher than the number actually required to play the sport.

I go back to something that you wrote earlier in this thread about a D3 men's soccer team being a de facto fraternity. I think that for a significant slice of a team roster, that's the salient part of the student-athlete experience, not the playing time. (That, plus ancillary benefits such as a better approach to time management, improved fitness, a semi-vicarious satisfaction in team success, etc.) There are only 990 minutes of playing time available in each game, divided by a minimum of eleven increments, and every kid on the roster is well aware of that. Some guys will play very little, and some will never play at all. It's always been that way, but the idea that somehow the student-athlete experience is automatically ruined by a lack of varsity playing time, creating a problem that needs to be rectified by mandating player participation rates to some degree, has never arisen. Why? Because it isn't true. A lack of varsity playing time doesn't automatically ruin the student-athlete experience. Some guys came to school wanting to play, but stuck around on the roster for the cameraderie, or are satisfied with playing JV minutes, or both.

I realize that you're artificially setting up two diametrically-opposed and exaggerated positions in order to bracket this conversation, but, really, I don't see how mandating universal player participation is "the logical conclusion to that line of thought," i.e., PN's player-centered position. Mandating player participation rates, all the way to forcing the coach to play every single one of his players who happens to be on the sideline in a kit, isn't taking the current rules (or anything that PN has suggested) to their logical extreme. The status quo is for flexibility, not mandates. A coach can choose to play eleven guys, and only eleven guys, in any given game, or he can empty his bench so thoroughly that he can play thirty-five guys in bite-sized time increments if he can somehow manage to make it happen. It's all up to the coach -- which is as it should be, and which players fully accept as their coach's prerogative. (Of course, D3 tournament games differ in that there is a mandatory limit on the number of players who can suit up for a game.) Why? Because student-athlete satisfaction isn't necessarily dependent upon playing time.

As an aside, this:

But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

... isn't true. It would be true if you removed the word "just" from the sentence.

[Hopkins92]

@Kuiper, I think I'm getting more confused as we go along.

Yes, I am in favor of coaches having flexibility to play more guys rather than less, but yeah, my argument isn't centered on players #18/19 thru #25ish getting a few minutes when coaches aren't playing them even with re-entry.  And I'll come back to this, but coaches aren't going to play those guys with re-entry or without re-entry aside from blowouts.  So yes, I'm more interested in the subs category of players #12 thru #17/18ish.  And it's the latter group that I thought you were suggesting would get more meaningful minutes without re-entry.

This is all sounding quite counter-intuitive...more meaningful time and even more players get to play with LESS subbing options (aka more restrictions).  But I'm also confused because I thought the anti-re-entry advocates were advocating based on an argument about the improved quality, aesthetics, and even character building/moment of truth effects of the rule change.  In your suggestion, if I'm reading it right, I should be happier and the anti-re-entry advocates should be even unhappier if the change goes through.  You seem to be suggesting that the change will yield even more players subbing in with more stoppages, more disruptions and impact on flow, more emphasis on fresh legs and pure athleticism, etc.....in short, the exact opposite outcome desired by those supporting a ban on re-entry.  In your account, they should vehemently oppose a change to no re-entry.

As a practical matter I think you're wrong.  Most coaches aren't going to play that third group you suggest when that group isn't playing even with a 'more options' paradigm.  Not following that logic at all.  The coach would have a dilemma about how to play his or her first-line subs #12 thru 17/18ish, and those are the minutes most likely to get squeezed.  The first-line subs getting squeezed isn't going to yield a third group into the mix.  And no, it's not a matter of trust.  I never argued for a total equity model where players #1 thru #25 are all treated equally.  In general, starters should play more minutes, and almost all coaches (in any sport) will want their starters available in the late phase of a game that is competitive.  It's hard for me to imagine a coach wanting to play his first-line subs for the first 10-15 min of 2nd half, then another second-line of subs for the next 10-15, and save the starters for the final 10-15 (some of whom would have been sitting since the 25 minutes mark of the 1st half). 

The third group needing to make a decision about whether to remain on the team is the one aspect of this where I agree wholeheartedly with the ban re-entry advocates.  If my kid is #20 on the team (or still #20 or lower by soph year), he's got to make a decision and one where I wouldn't have a ton of empathy.  But making a decision that it's worth being part of the team even if you aren't gonna play is a very different psychological dynamic (and less cause for disappointment/resentment/dissension) than a player who has worked his way into the first-tier sub mix or even sometimes starter who sees his time diminish sharply or evaporate entirely.

It's actually pretty simple, so I'm obviously mucking up the explanation.  I definitely never suggested coaches would play the third group of players - quite the contrary as you will see if you read all my posts on this thread.  Nor did I suggest it would result in more subbing in and out.  I don't know where you get that from my "more meaningful minutes" prediction for the middle tier player.  Let me explain by laying out the scenarios more plainly:

1.  Coach doesn't sub out starters in second half. Mid-tier players lose their minutes in the middle of the second half.

2.  Coach continues to sub out starters in second half.  Mid-tier players play until the end of the game.

3.  Coach starts the mid-tier players in the second half and brings back the first half starters to ride out the game.

I think some coaches would do #1, but they have to either have fitter players, which is more difficult in D3 with practice restrictions out of season and somewhat less control of them than in D1 in-season, or switch to a less physically taxing possession game, which requires recruiting different types of players who can play possession-based soccer against coaches who opt for #2 or 3.  For coaches who opt for #2 or #3, they don't have to switch their coaching style or recruiting formula at all and they don't really have to alter the allocation of minutes much if at all. They just have to develop a larger pool of players who they can trust in the middle (start of the second half) and/or end of the game.

Taking out whether the rule change is a net positive for players and/or the "quality" of the games, this is a really breakdown of the practical application or affect of the rule.

So, just wanted to pull this out to commend Kuiper on that front.

=-=-=-=-

One thing I can't my head around: If the primary driver of this is D1 and their desire to spread the season out over the Fall and Spring... And that would allow them to decompress their schedule...  That's laudable, IMO, because this sport just isn't meant played every 3 or 4 days without the quality suffering and more importantly kids getting hurt.

How is this applicable to D3?? As has been well-covered here, D3 isn't going to follow the Fall/Spring model, so why should they have to adhere to this rule?

I  know the NCAA isn't exactly known for making logical rules or decisions, but I'd be pretty upset as a D3 coach having this particular change foisted on me.

[PaulNewman]

I'm gonna take one more shot at this thing (while knowing I'll probably have more lol).

Overall, I continue to maintain that the new proposed rule seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I agree that @Kuiper's outline of what the new options would be broadly speaking is helpful.  That said, as I attempt to look at the options from the pov of a coach instead of a parent, I think it's most likely that many coaches will employ a hybrid model of what @Kuiper outlined....so in other words, various mixes of all three categories with 2-3 players (CBs most likely) going the full 90, a few starting and getting subbed both halves, a few playing the 2nd part of both halves, and other various scenarios with other mixes between scenario #2 and scenario #3.  I don't necessarily think it's most likely for coaches to play all starters and then all subs, and then back again.  And of course there will be times when players intended to go the full 90 in the game plan don't or can't due to fatigue, injury, etc.

So now I think I'm seeing a little more clearly where or why an expansion of the primary sub group could occur (and hence, MORE subs rather than less), and again, not sure about the presumption of better or more attractive soccer.  Thinking about Kenyon, I could see the following which might suggest increased disruption and style issues not fully anticipated by the ban re-entry proponents.  The Lords last year had three forward lines, all roughly equal with some differences in strengths.  So that would still allow for those six players to split the forward time into three segments in each half.  Maybe the coach changes the order in the 2nd half.  Then the same model could be employed with 2 or 3 out of the 4 midfielders, and also with 1-2 of the outside backs.  This isn't that far off from what Loras was doing a few years ago with Rothert (and may still do but idk).  Teams who employed various forms of three subbing lines actually might need 30-35 players.

[PaulNewman]

One thing I can't my head around: If the primary driver of this is D1 and their desire to spread the season out over the Fall and Spring... And that would allow them to decompress their schedule...  That's laudable, IMO, because this sport just isn't meant played every 3 or 4 days without the quality suffering and more importantly kids getting hurt.

How is this applicable to D3?? As has been well-covered here, D3 isn't going to follow the Fall/Spring model, so why should they have to adhere to this rule?

I  know the NCAA isn't exactly known for making logical rules or decisions, but I'd be pretty upset as a D3 coach having this particular change foisted on me.

I don't understand how there can be different rules for D1 and D3 on seasons but they are required to be in sync with other rules like re-entry.

I understand the logic of spreading the season out into two seasons in terms of recovery time, injuries, etc.  I don't see how it's practical and also seems like there are strong negatives from a student-athlete perspective (and the student-athlete piece is why there's always going to be significant differences between academy-level youth soccer and professional soccer).  And as a fan of let's say UVA, I'm having a hard time seeing how I'm going to get excited about the Fall season, and then wait several months for the Spring season and the NCAA tourney? 

[Hopkins92]

One other thing to add on the quality of play angle: My second favorite sport is hockey. If you don't follow the sport, it is a sport that is on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of subbing. They typically carry 4 lines of forwards (3 players) and 3 lines of defensemen (2 players). They will typically roll these lines off every 45 to 60 seconds, and the coach typically likes to play his top 2 lines more than his 3rd, with the 4th line typically seeing dramatically less time than the others.

The point here is that the pace is extremely high and the quality is maintained throughout the 60 minutes of play. So, when I think about collegiate soccer and quality, this has helped me come around a bit on that front. IOW, the entire hockey team knows the system and executes a style of play that is often entertaining and consistent throughout the entirety of a game. F&M is a great example of team that approximates this style of play, but there are many others that are able to "roll lines" on and off but maintain a high-pressure, consistent style of play for 90 minutes.

Now, with that said, one of the gripes about NHL and some collegiate hockey teams is that the play can really get bogged down, and part of that is where a team's tactics rely on clogging up the middle of the rink (the neutral zone) and really focusing almost exclusively on high-pressure defense. Which, of course, can only be sustained by rolling your lines as much as is possible given game circumstances. So, on that end of the argument, and the point I'm trying to make, is that is what many soccer heads are concerned about when they talk about quality suffering or tactics being altered because of the collegiate (and high school) allowing for such liberal subbing.

As you have pointed out, PN, it's not that skillful soccer is automatically voided at the collegiate level, but the rules allow for a kick and run system that simply isn't possible given the rules at the professional/international level. Now, with all that said, we all know certain teams play a modified version of high pressure, counterattacking soccer at all levels. There's a lot of gray area in all of this, which I hadn't really wrapped my head around until recently.

[Hopkins92]

One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

I'm still a little bit "whatever, don't carry a 30 man roster if you don't want guys to not see the field," but I do think that overall, given injuries and the compressed schedule, this rule change is not good for D3 soccer players/athletes.

[SimpleCoach]

One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

[Hopkins92]

One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

I've said it in YouTube comments but will reiterate... Kudos on ALL of what you are doing... Full stop.

But, for my money, when you break these out, it's a real bonus when I don't have time for the full run... And the topics are very interesting on their own.

[Ejay]

Every interview you do should include a discussion about this probable rule change and should include questions like:
1. Are you in favor?
2. Will this influence how you currently sub?
3. Do you anticipate this will have material impact on game outcomes?

I would venture a guess that most are opposed (seems to be counterintuitive to the spirit of D3), and it will impact their current game day strategy, but it won't really have an impact on the game outcome.

[Saint of Old]

One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

I understand that the coach is answering that question thinking what is best for his particular team, but how does he think the level will go down when there are better technical players on the field?? Again, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

[PaulNewman]

Quick story that I think is interesting or at least humorous although on this board humorless often seems to win out over humorous so who knows.  There of course is my treatment-resistant pathology of pursuing deadlocked disagreements way past their expiration dates, forever deluded that one last point will change minds.

I knew my ex-wife was calling right after a text this morning for one of our regular check-ins, and I didn't answer until like the third ring.  She hit me right away with why I didn't answer more briskly.  I laughed and said you're not gonna believe this but I was trying to finish glancing at a post on this site.  She immediately started howling with "OMG, what in the hell are you doing on the D3 soccer site in April?!  What could you possibly be talking about!?"  So I said, you don't wanna know...the usual...I'm in another argument about something.  She asked about what, and I said a rule change proposal, and I gave her an overview of what the discussion has been about.

Bottom line is that she ended up strongly agreeing with my pov, and the surprise wasn't that she agreed but more that she cared at all.  She actually got fired up and we joked about her joining and starting to post (which, no worries, that will never happen).  I admit to my chagrin that I had not spent a single second thinking about the re-entry rule having an impact on the women's game, but that was immediately where she went, thinking about daughters of friends of ours playing at D3s like UMass-Boston, University of New England, Clark, ECSU, etc.  Anyway, she went on and on about a couple of the young women that she knows especially well in terms of what playing D3 soccer and all of the benefits athletically and really non-athletically means to them and will mean in the future even though they had no illusions about playing professionally, D1, or even high level D3.  Some may jump on me for gender bias, but I thought the gestalt shift was helpful in bringing greater perspective to the issue.  Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much.  And then also if you do continue to play 5-8 subs regularly telling the starters they won't be able to go back in once pulled to allow subs to come in.
Anyway, thought it might be helpful to think about it from the perspective of both men's and women's programs and what is the real intent and purpose of D3 athletics.  Those scouting for the national team or for artistry free from other considerations won't be watching Westfield State on the road at Framingham State.

[jknezek]

UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

[PaulNewman]

UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Straw man.

We've established for the most part that we're not talking about players 20 or 22 thru 39 or 60.  That group is "participating" for the most part knowing they won't play much or at all.  I've been focused on players 12-18, maybe 12-20, and the starters who also will experience far more than a "tweak."

And the substantial benefits of the change for the student-athlete haven't been established (imo) at all...and for that matter, even beyond the student-athlete to the greater glory of the soccer gods. 

At the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

[camosfan]

UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Straw man.

We've established for the most part that we're not talking about players 20 or 22 thru 39 or 60.  That group is "participating" for the most part knowing they won't play much or at all.  I've been focused on players 12-18, maybe 12-20, and the starters who also will experience far more than a "tweak."

And the substantial benefits of the change for the student-athlete haven't been established (imo) at all...and for that matter, even beyond the student-athlete to the greater glory of the soccer gods. 

At the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

Not sure if the change will have much of an impact on starters; the proposed changes are the rules in USSDA  and for the most part teams have like 8 regular starters with rotation in the other 3 spots.