2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[PaulNewman]

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016

The Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

[PaulNewman]

Two other related considerations...

At the very time when many seem in favor of decreasing subbing in college soccer, the trend in professional soccer, including at the highest levels, has been to increase subbing.  A primary reason for the increase at the professional level is to lower risk of injuries.  Given that college players, especially those not on scholarship, don't have the resources or singularity of purpose of professional players or those in soccer-residency programs, I think one could reasonably conclude that college players are more at risk of serious injuries....a risk compounded by a highly compressed season.

Again, I think the prism one looks through can make a difference in one's view.

As a soccer connoisseur? As a spectator?  As a parent-spectator? As a professional coach?  As college coach?  As an athlete engaged full time in the activity to make a living?  As a student-athlete with other interests and substantial demands, either with or without scholarship obligations?

Who is the game for? And should changes under consideration support the interests of the players, or the preferences of the few hundred fans who take in a game on site and online?

[stlawus]

I look at this from a holistic standpoint.    The rule changes appear to be based on the powers at be wanting college soccer to mimic the professional game.  This ostensibly is to better prepare college players and thus better the quality of the player pool.   Yes, there are individual players that still come through the college pipeline that end up on the US national team or go abroad, but our youth system has improved so dramatically that it feels unnecessary to alter the rules to prepare college soccer players for the rigors of the professional game.  18-22 year old players who are the future of US soccer these days should already be at a professional club or academy, at least they should be if USSF is serious about US soccer improving.    The rule change proposals feel like unnecessary theater in my view.

This does not mean college soccer is any less exciting, I've only grown more fond of the game at this level with each passing year, but I am realistic about the career progression for 99% of these players.  I don't think changing the substitution rule will make college players any more prepared for the professional game than they would under the current rules. 

[Kuiper]

I'm not arguing in favor of using the substitution rules to make the game more resemble the pro game.  My hypothesis is that it could provide more meaningful minutes to the middle third of the roster,  From what I've seen, under the current substitution rules, the bottom third of most rosters only play, if at all, against weaker opponents.  Changing the sub rules won't affect them or mess with D3's role in the college soccer ecosystem (the increase in rosters to accommodate colleges' needs to recruit full pay students is probably already doing that).  I'm suggesting that it would force coaches to give a bit more meaningful minutes in a row and in key moments to those middle third players.

I could be wrong and coaches would simply try to play more players 90 minutes and not use some bench players to give a breather to a set of starters, but I just don't think that's realistic given the compressed schedule.

[EnmoreCat]

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016

The Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not. 

[Saint of Old]

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016

The Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not.

I think we are missing the point here, its not whether or not you go somewhere where you "might line up for 30 minutes a game for 4 years" If you are, the fault is yours not the program or coach.  You should be getting BETTER each and every year. You should be first acclimating to the level, then becoming consistent, even more consistent and by senior year unplayable. The point is this is football and should be played by footballers performing the skills of footballers (Control/Pass/Dribble/Shoot) Running and pushing is key, but that part of it has been taking over wayyy too much of late. Football is running a marathon while playing chess. You need skill to do this thing. We all get worse when we are tired...This is not play station where the guy pushes   the triangle button and goes faster. Playing well when exhausted and maintaining not just your physical attributes but concentration during this time is a skill as well. I personally do not want to see a bunch of 6 foot 3 guys push each other to the ground for 90 minutes in a scuffle with a goal of never having the ball hit the ground.
There are coaches and programs that have had gret success in this model, but as I said before now we will see who the Ballers are.
There is a reason this is called "the beautiful game" and it is not because most of us look like Christiano.... 

[PaulNewman]

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016

The Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not.

I think we're all missing each other a little bit and coming at this from different perspectives, so maybe all of us are right.  Speaking to individual decisions is difficult.  Some students will want to continue with the team even knowing they'll never or rarely play.  Others will think 30 minutes a game for four years sounds like a good deal.  For others, maybe anything less 75 minutes a game the moment they step on campus is insufficient.  A kid also who plays every minute and makes an AA team might decide after two years that the time and energy demands are too much once declaring as pre-med or focusing on chemical engineering.

I don't know what "senior soccer" means and how or why "getting used to" it would be so important.  College is college, and you're at least in part paying for college, not soccer.  I'm personally not as interested in whether an individual player can or should go the full 90 or or whether that individual maxes out from a pure soccer perspective.  I'm looking at what's best for a program or team, and asking whether team chemistry is important or not.  I also don't think anyone has really answered about many if not most of the top programs including those with attractive styles using liberal subbing as a standard practice.

Would be an interesting question for SC to throw into his coach interviews!

[PaulNewman]

Not that this info necessarily impacts the issue in any particular direction, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.

A quick review of games from the most recent tourney involving teams I tend to follow.  The number of subs used in parentheses.

Hopkins (19) vs John Carroll (18)

Conn (18) vs Tufts (17)

Midd (19) vs F&M (17)

Messiah (21) vs Kenyon (18)

Calvin (14) vs OWU (17)

North Park (14) vs Chicago (17)

W&L (19) vs Conn (19)

Wash Coll (21) vs SLU (15)

Wash Coll (14) vs Tufts (18)

Wash Coll (19) vs Montclair (17)

Messiah, the gold standard for attractive soccer at the highest level of D3, played 21 in a game that was 1-1 until the final few minutes.

Among heavyweights, Calvin and North Park played the least with 14.

W&L and Conn both played 19 in a national semi that went to OT.

Wash Coll interestingly played 21 vs SLU, 19 vs Montclair, and then only 14 vs Tufts.

[Hopkins92]

Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

[PaulNewman]

Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

Number of players who played (directly from box scores).

I learned that previously being stunned doesn't mean I don't continue to be stunned by the level of disagreement on the other side.  My delusion is that if I say something enough times, or with a somewhat different focus, at least a few will be influenced to at least see how the issue may look different from different perspectives.  And I'm amazed that so few seem interested in team dynamics, team chemistry, whether having more players really involved versus not impacts the health of a program medium to long term, etc.

To your point, it's still 11v11, still 90 minutes, same rules other than subs, and the only difference is how many kids can get into the game.  As I noted in another post "real soccer" has moved to MORE subs rather than less.  And I'm not convinced that the actual play on the field is impacted that much by whether Messiah or Tufts plays 3 subs or 6.  I don't see any real benefits and imo the primary consequence is less players on the team feeling like they have a real stake in the team.  If the rules change goes through, do folks really expect to see top programs play significantly differently?

And yes, very curious if coaches were polled about the no re-entry proposal how they would vote.

[Kuiper]

Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

Number of players who played (directly from box scores).

I learned that previously being stunned doesn't mean I don't continue to be stunned by the level of disagreement on the other side.  My delusion is that if I say something enough times, or with a somewhat different focus, at least a few will be influenced to at least see how the issue may look different from different perspectives.  And I'm amazed that so few seem interested in team dynamics, team chemistry, whether having more players really involved versus not impacts the health of a program medium to long term, etc.

To your point, it's still 11v11, still 90 minutes, same rules other than subs, and the only difference is how many kids can get into the game.  As I noted in another post "real soccer" has moved to MORE subs rather than less.  And I'm not convinced that the actual play on the field is impacted that much by whether Messiah or Tufts plays 3 subs or 6.  I don't see any real benefits and imo the primary consequence is less players on the team feeling like they have a real stake in the team.  If the rules change goes through, do folks really expect to see top programs play significantly differently?

And yes, very curious if coaches were polled about the no re-entry proposal how they would vote.

I think the substitution rule change is tied at least in part to the 21st Century Model proposal https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/ to extend the Fall season over the Spring semester in Men's D1, which is also on the agenda for the April meeting.  One reason for re-entry, at least in D1 college soccer, is to counteract the adverse effects on player safety (and sporting integrity from missed games due to injuries to starters) of the compressed fall schedule. That concern is lessened if the D1 schedule is spread over two semesters where the overall number of games does not increase and teams are generally playing only one game per week.  If the two semester approach doesn't pass, then I think support for the change to the substitution rules will drop some, at least among Men's D1 coaches.

[Saint of Old]

Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

[PaulNewman]

Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

[Saint of Old]

1) Every coach will use the rules to their advantage, therefore making more subs than they normally would to keep up.
I played in the late 90s and watched y team since and normally there are 16-17 guys who play.

2) I am good with 17-18 people playing, I think the rules will still allow that.Injuries alone will prevent anyone playing with 13-14 guys in a game.

Also as for travel abroad etc... I have to say, in my view, the kids who go to school on top D3teams are there for the football.
The only way you make it there is by dedicating a big portion of your life to acquiring the skills necessary to play for a top program, most of those guys wont give up playing on the team for (trip abroad/other college activities etc...)

[PaulNewman]

Also as for travel abroad etc... I have to say, in my view, the kids who go to school on top D3teams are there for the football.
The only way you make it there is by dedicating a big portion of your life to acquiring the skills necessary to play for a top program, most of those guys wont give up playing on the team for (trip abroad/other college activities etc...)

Stunned again!  Gonna watch the Celtics but maybe I'll respond to this tomorrow.