2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[Kuiper]

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?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game. I was just pointing out that this is one of the drivers for this rule change. In fact, one of the benefits touted for mid-major D1 programs is they can have smaller rosters and be better able to compete without the compressed schedule. The sub rule is perceived to give an advantage to D1 men's teams in the power 5 conferences. 

I don't know many major (if by that you mean revenue) college D1 sports athletes who go abroad.  Football's spring practice would mess that up and basketball spans over both semesters.  The students I know take summer courses to catch up.

[EnmoreCat]

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.

It might just be me getting used to a different way of doing things, that's fine, I will adjust my mindset.  I think it's something unusual for foreign players to contend with as they will be more likely be used to playing closer to 90 minutes each week back home.  The irony is that it seems defenders do tend to not rotate as much here (they certainly didn't at my son's team), which when you think about it, doesn't make sense if they are coming up against fresher forwards.  Is that good or bad? It's in the eye of the beholder I guess.  And of course, it's education that everyone is there for first and foremost

[Gregory Sager]

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?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

[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.

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?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

[Hopkins92]

First off, I want to tip my hat to PN (and GS) for making really sound points about the quality of play discussion. I have really come around on my thinking on that front. I had a long post teed up yesterday and pulled into work and forgot to post. I don't feel like retyping it, so here's an abridged version re: team chemistry.

I really don't buy the notion that team chemistry is negatively affected by a slightly shorter bench. I have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

(Forgive me, I'm a little nostalgic, as I'm about to see a couple of dozen of these guys in a few days at our reunion.)

WITH ALL THAT SAID: The more this is discussed, the more I'm fairly agnostic on this front. My original stance was that the substitution rules don't jibe with the vast majority of other leagues, both domestic and international. I originally came to that firm stance having watched a MD high school team literally sub off and on entire 11 man rotating squads every 15 minutes. They wound up winning a state title, but it just looked and felt really wrong... an abomination.

But that's not really what's going on with NCAA soccer. So, once again, thanks to this board for a level-headed, intelligent discussion. My position is certainly "evolving" on this front. :-)

[Gregory Sager]

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?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

I'm the play-by-play broadcaster for a national D3 soccer power, and I've seen plenty of that national D3 soccer power's practices as well as games over the years, so, no, I don't think that D3 players are "some so-so dudes that just kick it for fun." I have as good a window as anybody into not only the soccer talent that there is at this level, but at the hard work and time commitment that goes into refining that talent as well. And I've spend an inordinate amount of time over the course of my life explaining to typical American sports fans (who generally consider D3 to be glorified intramurals) that I meet that D3 players care just as much, and work just as hard at their craft, as do D1 players. So you needn't do any salesmanship here in terms of holding up to me the commitment level of D3 men's soccer student-athletes.

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

[Saint of Old]

I played a bit of football for an ok team and then watched that team for the next 25 years.
Its not a competition of credentials, but sound argument.

NCAA Division III Mens Soccer is FOOTBALL.

When it stops being entertaining to athletes and fans, it is dead. No one will watch or play.
The point of the game at the core is improving the control/passing/dribbling and shooting.

Any one playing the game without those things being at the forefront are doing a disservice to themselves and the game.

When players are on the field and going for the 50/50 and pulling a Puscas to get a shot off they are not thinking about the " rounded education provided by a D3 institution" they are  "Playing Ball" Politics aside, the game is the game... this is what makes the game beautiful.

These rule changes will help focus on what makes the game enjoyable... which is the key to any sport.

Like I said, we just simply disagree, but our arguments are laid out for everyone to analyse themselves.

[Ejay]

I originally came to that firm stance having watched a MD high school team literally sub off and on entire 11 man rotating squads every 15 minutes. They wound up winning a state title, but it just looked and felt really wrong... an abomination.

Lebanon Valley subbed 8 guys at time. If this rule changes, it's certainly going to throw a wrench into their system.

[Kuiper]

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?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

I'm the play-by-play broadcaster for a national D3 soccer power, and I've seen plenty of that national D3 soccer power's practices as well as games over the years, so, no, I don't think that D3 players are "some so-so dudes that just kick it for fun." I have as good a window as anybody into not only the soccer talent that there is at this level, but at the hard work and time commitment that goes into refining that talent as well. And I've spend an inordinate amount of time over the course of my life explaining to typical American sports fans (who generally consider D3 to be glorified intramurals) that I meet that D3 players care just as much, and work just as hard at their craft, as do D1 players. So you needn't do any salesmanship here in terms of holding up to me the commitment level of D3 men's soccer student-athletes.

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.  That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.  That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

[Saint of Old]

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.  That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.  That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Thank you-
Exactly where are we going with 30-40 men unless we have a JV team or are invading surrounding campuses??
Work hard and make the 22-24 man cut then work your way up or perhaps soccer in college is not going to happen for you.

The product on the field however will be better.

[SimpleCoach]

Well, based on what I understand, I think two scenarios could play out.

The first one is a roster is redefined and has 20 players who are interchangeable robots.  They all have crazy fitness.  But they have the touch of a rhinoceros and the brains of an ostrich.  They will rotate in shifts to keep legs fresh.  I can see many teams seeing this as an equalizer for them against better teams.

The second version is one where teams take the opposite tack where they will rely on 15 players who can play and have the fitness to last 90.  Maybe even do some rotations against teams that are not as competitive to get more guys in.  These teams will look for more technical players who can move the ball.

I know which one I would prefer, so I suspect we will start seeing even more Ragin' Rhino's and Obtuse Ostrich's masquerading as soccer teams.

[Gregory Sager]

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.

I didn't ignore that reality. I deliberately omitted it from my post because I think we're all fully aware of it. That's why I've been careful to say that the D3 sports experience not only centers around the student-athlete, but also the needs of the institutions themselves (as opposed to the specific sports programs they sponsor).

That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.

It's not just a soccer thing. It's also true of other men's sports on the D3 level. A D3 football team that has well over 100 players -- sometimes as many as 150 or 160 -- is not uncommon. Baseball teams often have rosters of 30 or 40 players as well, and men's basketball rosters frequently exceed the 25-player level.

This scenario isn't nearly as prevalent on the women's side of things in D3, because the number of young women who are looking to participate in sports on the collegiate level is not as high as it is for their male counterparts.

That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Why is that a challenge? Anybody smart enough to get admitted to your school is presumably smart enough to: a) do the math; and b) see the writing on the wall if he's not good enough to get playing time, even as a sophomore or a junior. If in spite of that he's willing to hang on as a guy taking up space on the bench for two or three or four years without ever getting into a varsity game, I don't see where the challenge lies -- aside from perhaps the difficulty of finding the coaches to work with so many players in practice and/or assist with the JV team, which can be ameliorated with part-timers, GAs, and volunteer coaches.

It all goes back to what Hopkins92 said:

I have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

For some guys, that particular reward is reward enough for being little more than a name on the online roster.

[Gregory Sager]

I played a bit of football for an ok team and then watched that team for the next 25 years.
Its not a competition of credentials, but sound argument.

I didn't mention my broadcasting gig as a competition of credentials. I mentioned it in order to establish that I, too, am fully aware of both the talent level and the dedication to perfecting their craft that elite D3 soccer players have.

NCAA Division III Mens Soccer is FOOTBALL.

On the pitch, while the ball is in play, that's quite true. But the circumstances and structure surrounding the game? Very, very, very different, depending upon the level, affiliation, amateur/professional status, country, etc. That's the point.

When it stops being entertaining to athletes and fans, it is dead. No one will watch or play.

Moving the goalposts, are we? This is what you said earlier:

The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Now you're saying that it has to be entertaining to athletes as well as to fans; i.e., pleasing to play as well as to watch. I guess that this is progress. But you're still not fully grasping the thrust of what D3 men's soccer is all about, which is the young men who play it (and, to Kuiper's point, the schools that sponsor it). It is not aimed at those of us in the stands. We are incidental, pure and simple. What's "pleasing to watch" for a handful of old duffers like us doesn't enter into the calculations of any administrator -- unless perhaps the old duffer in question has twenty million dollars he'd like to drop on the school for a new soccer stadium.

The point of the game at the core is improving the control/passing/dribbling and shooting.

Any one playing the game without those things being at the forefront are doing a disservice to themselves and the game.

Nobody's arguing these things. They're truisms. Any and every coach, regardless of level or affiliation, stresses them.

When players are on the field and going for the 50/50 and pulling a Puscas to get a shot off they are not thinking about the " rounded education provided by a D3 institution"

Who said that they were? We all know that for a great many D3 soccer players, wearing the school colors and playing the game that they love are at or near the top of their collegiate priorities. That's not in dispute.

they are  "Playing Ball" Politics aside, the game is the game... this is what makes the game beautiful.

Not sure what politics has to do with this. Convention delegates will support or oppose whatever proposed NCAA legislation that they think best fits the needs of their respective schools.

[Saint of Old]

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.

I didn't ignore that reality. I deliberately omitted it from my post because I think we're all fully aware of it. That's why I've been careful to say that the D3 sports experience not only centers around the student-athlete, but also the needs of the institutions themselves (as opposed to the specific sports programs they sponsor).

That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.

It's not just a soccer thing. It's also true of other men's sports on the D3 level. A D3 football team that has well over 100 players -- sometimes as many as 150 or 160 -- is not uncommon. Baseball teams often have rosters of 30 or 40 players as well, and men's basketball rosters frequently exceed the 25-player level.

This scenario isn't nearly as prevalent on the women's side of things in D3, because the number of young women who are looking to participate in sports on the collegiate level is not as high as it is for their male counterparts.

That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Why is that a challenge? Anybody smart enough to get admitted to your school is presumably smart enough to: a) do the math; and b) see the writing on the wall if he's not good enough to get playing time, even as a sophomore or a junior. If in spite of that he's willing to hang on as a guy taking up space on the bench for two or three or four years without ever getting into a varsity game, I don't see where the challenge lies -- aside from perhaps the difficulty of finding the coaches to work with so many players in practice and/or assist with the JV team, which can be ameliorated with part-timers, GAs, and volunteer coaches.

It all goes back to what Hopkins92 said:

I have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

For some guys, that particular reward is reward enough for being little more than a name on the online roster.

I think your last point above is our biggest disagreement and boils down where we see things differently.
For those guys who want to be on a 40 man squad, they can play "intramurals" and have alot of joy.
Love all the guys who were those guys,, and for a time I was,  but that is not what we should be telling high school guys to aspire to.
But granted, I may just not fully understand the "NCAA Men's Division III Soccer  Cannon"

[College Soccer Observer]

I think the problem is that while Division 3 makes the largest single part of the membership, the structure of the rules committee is that Division 1 gets 4 of the 8 voting members on the soccer rules committee (2 each for men and women), while Division 2 and 3 each get 2 members (1 for men and 1 for women). 

Current NCAA governance does not allow for different playing rules for each division, so the rules have to be the same for all.  D1 men have been quite vocal about making the game look more like the rest of the world, and the committee responded to that.  We will see if these proposed changes actually make it into the book.