2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[Gregory Sager]

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.

Yep. Money talks, and D1 is where the money is -- although, ironically, to the best of my knowledge men's soccer is not a money-making sport on the D1 level. It's D1 football and men's basketball that foot the bills for the rest of the NCAA, their fellow D1 sports included.

[Shamrock]

Just wondering, how close is D-1 baseball to being a moneymaking proposition?  It seems to be getting more attention on television in the past ten years, and the College World Series is becoming a larger and larger event.

[PaulNewman]

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.

CSO, when you say "D1 men have been quite vocal," are you referring to the coaches, players, administrators, or all of the above?

You pointing out that the divisions have to be in sync is helpful, but my reaction overall rules aside is that D3 players looking for a D1 experience should go D1, and D1 players who want a fully professional experience should try to play professionally.

Part of the problem here beyond all of our omniscience, our various inside takes and anecdotes, and digging in even harder when we disagree is that we end up getting reduced to countering and counter-countering with straw men, like wildly swinging between D3 must mimic professional soccer and D3 is really just intramurals and the participation trophy culture nonsense.

Imo, D3 soccer is wonderful and impressively competitive.  It's not easy to play in good D3 soccer programs.  You don't get there without years of commitment along with some talent.  The players want to get better, they want to feel proud in their affiliations with their programs, and many (most?) have high aspirations of their teams getting to the NCAA tourney and making a deep run.  Imo, the quality of D3 has improved and (I could be wrong about this) D3 is in a great place because a greater number of programs are legitimately competitive.  Coaches also clearly devote a lot of time to recruiting good players who will fit into their programs.  But all that said, why insist on D3 looking like D1 or professional when a result of such a forced comparison is that D3 is always going to be judged as a poor man's version of the others?  Why get stuck in that paradigm? The players who chose D3, even the arguably D1 caliber talents, chose D3.  No need to dance around that.  No need to to try to make it something it isn't.  One would think that when a player chooses D3 he is doing so most often for multiple reasons, and often one of the reasons is precisely because it's not D1 with D1 burdens while still being serious and worthy of a high level of commitment.  Some players choose D3 precisely so that they do have the option to go abroad or do an exciting internship, or to enjoy social and campus lives a little bit broader than what most can do as D1 athletes.

GS said what I was trying to say much more effectively....that much of this discussion seems to overlook or undervalue the experience of the D3 athlete, and that the experience of D3 athlete should be paramount.  It's easy for all 15 of us on this site (kidding but sort of not) to get worked up and talk about national and international ideals.....reminds me of Kevin O'Leary's snark on Shark Tank with "Congratulations...you're making hundreds of dollars!"  Outside of a group of us who love to stream D3 games and post important insights, there really isn't a ton of interest.  Even within the D3 universe, the number of people truly obsessed with D3 soccer and whether there is re-entry or not, is tiny.  ESPN isn't running bracket contests for the D3 tournament.  The people who are the most impacted, by far, are the players first, and second, their parents (who tend to have high involvement during their kids' playing years and then move on). 

Hopkins, even though we seem to fall on the opposite side of arguments frequently, I really appreciate your willingness to hear out arguments with some openness to revising your opinion.  Yes, I agree that for many kids just being part of the group with "one's brothers" can be fulfilling, much like a regular fraternity.  But I'm sure they'd rather play.  At at lot of these programs players tend to live together especially in junior and senior years.  Players sometimes live with 4-6 other teammates in apartment or dorm suite settings.  Imagine being in a 5 man apartment and four play 65+ minutes while the fifth rarely if ever plays.  As a parent, I was thrilled that my kid developed such a bond and made some life-long friends.  The experience was incredibly valuable to him, but I think the experience would have been radically different if he didn't play.  And as much as I love that part of his college experience, I thought they actually spent too much time together...same apartments, eat together, party together, etc on top of the actual soccer.  Very few take advantage of more than 5% of what a college has to offer....like maybe spend a couple of hours a week at the women's center or environmental club or learning another language instead of another round of Fifa 2020 with the brothers.

We're probably going around in circles at this point, but I return to who are the rules changes for and who do they benefit (or not).  Without re-entry, Messiah and Tufts are still gonna look like Messiah and Tufts.  "Kick and run" (another straw man wildly overused) programs are not going to start playing a different style, and possession oriented and successful high press teams aren't going to fall off a cliff or play differently.  The benefits some seem to think will occur with increased restrictions are imo way, way overblown.  And that may be part of my own resistance.  I don't think the changes will do much of anything other than limit subbing.  As an aside, does anyone truly believe the European leagues have suffered going to 5 subs instead of 3?

[Hopkins92]

Just wondering, how close is D-1 baseball to being a moneymaking proposition?  It seems to be getting more attention on television in the past ten years, and the College World Series is becoming a larger and larger event.

I mean, we're kind of floating into OT territory, but from what I've read, VERY FEW D1 baseball teams are in the black. I think it's somewhere in the 5-10 percent range.

As mentioned, the only consistent moneymakers in D1 are men's football and basketball. You see a lot of attention for a number of sports come playoff time (softball is a great example) but they don't typically pack out their home games during the regular season, which really helps drive revenue.

[SimpleCoach]

I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations.  If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

[Ralph Turner]

I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations. If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

... or UMHB.

If Clif Carroll wants to stay at UMHB as Head Men's Basketball Coach and not move higher, then he can win as many ASC championships as he can. We will watch what happens at UMHB with football now that Coach Fred has turned over the reins.

Is there not strong alumni engagement at some of the UAA schools? Some Centennial schools? Hope and Calvin? RMC, HSC and W&L? Some WIAC programs? Wartburg? The Johnnies and the former Tommies?

Now I am seeking information as I go longer into the topic. What about NESCAC and some NEWMAC schools? Am I missing any?

[Kuiper]

I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations.  If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

There is actually a pretty significant academic literature on this proposition and, in general, it agrees with Simple Coach's observation

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015611186

There is some controversy on this in the literature, however, arguably because of methodological difficulties involving the use of macro data and confounding variables.  It also is usually based on really big time success that the public easily perceives and cares about because it's on TV and in the news.  In D3, there are plenty of alums who may never realize or care about a school's championships if they don't remain fans of that team.

Some try to deal with methodological problems by looking at confidential data for a single institution, which, of course, has all the flaws of being overly micro in approach.

https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/162rosen.pdf

The stronger connection from the microdata seems to be for giving among student-athletes themselves.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247739539_Athletics_and_Alumni_Giving_Evidence_From_a_Highly_Selective_Liberal_Arts_College

One doctoral student who also used an individual school's data, but confined the analysis to student-athletes on one sport (basketball), found that their probability of giving increased 6-8% for each additional year that they were in the program and their individual success on the court was correlated with higher giving.

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1917&context=dissertations

To bring the subject back to the original topic, this kind of evidence suggests that, at least for D3 schools, the student athlete's experience likely matters in giving, which is at least partly a function of both team and individual success.  Presumably, playing time is a factor there.  That doesn't resolve whether the no second half re-entry rule would affect playing time and therefore how the student feels about their experience.  I suggest it would not affect the bottom of the roster, but would allow more meaningful time among the middle, while PN suggests it would reduce the number of players who would play at all each game. Others contend the rule wouldn't matter because plenty of players just want to be part of the team the same way team managers just want to be part of the team.  Regardless of which would be the case, which is an empirical matter upon which reasonable people can disagree and would likely be affected by how coaches change in response to the new rules, it does suggest that PN and GS are right that even if the administrations of these schools are focused on $, they should be looking at the long-term effect on the overall student-athlete experience from these kinds of rule changes.  Right now, there is probably too much of a short-term focus on effect from increased tuition revenue in the coming year of increasing rosters.

[PaulNewman]

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.

Hello @Kuiper...in your most recent post you again mentioned your view that getting rid of re-entry wouldn't impact the back end of the roster (who most likely would not play or play much regardless), would not impact whether more or less subs play, and would actually benefit the subs in terms of "more meaningful" minutes.  So I thought pulling up your original post on this might be helpful.  I've appreciated your input in the thread and would like to hear more about exactly why you think the number of subs would largely remain the same but especially why you think they'd get more meaningful minutes.

I think sometimes these discussions benefit from a personalized approach to help us think about these things in concrete terms.

First, with re-entry and as typical starter who gets subbed.  When my son started as a mid/attacking he like most of the other middies would play the first 22-30 minutes of first half, start the second half and play thru to the 58-65th minute, and go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.  The other option would be the same for first half, not starting the second half, coming in around the 60-65 minute mark, getting subbed around the 75-80 minute area, sitting 5 minutes, and going back in for the final 8-10 minutes.  In broad terms, the above seems consistent with what many teams do with their forwards, most or all of the midfield, and sometimes the outside backs.

When he wasn't a starter, he would come in around the 22-28 minute mark in the first half and finish out the half.  He would go in around the 55-60 min mark, play for 10-15 minutes and come out 70-75 min mark, and often go back around the 80-85th.

Assuming the coach wants to play a sub roughly the same number of minutes regardless of the rule, how would my kid get more meaningful minutes without re-entry?

With re-entry no longer an option, the first half obviously would likely be very similar to how first halves currently work.  The coach could then start my kid for the second half and play him 15-20 minutes (but how many coaches are going to sit starters that long after they already came out halfway thru the first half and will have not played for 35-40 minutes straight?) and then he's done by the 60-65 min mark.  Or, the coach begins second half with the starter who goes the full 45 (because won't be able to go back in), or the sub comes in around the 70-75 minute mark and finishes out the game.  I haven't thought all that through in detail, but I'm guessing most coaches will want to have the option of having the starters on the field the last 10-15 min of a tight game.  Beyond the obvious dilemmas, I'm interested in how my kid's minutes become more meaningful.  Because he's playing the middle chunk of the game (last part of first half and first part of second half) and/or because of last part of first half and last 15-25 min of second half?  I'm not seeing where you would reach a conclusion about "more meaningful."

BTW, now I've realized there is another option with no re-entry that the more talented, deeper might employ that would actually increase the number of subs (while admittedly reducing number of minutes for all).  Coaches could adjust by adding a third line of subs for the second half, since the limit isn't on number of subs but rather re-entry.  This scenario doesn't seem to help the "beautiful game" proponents at all and indeed could make things worse.  Very curious to hear thoughts about this very possible outcome.

At any rate, I don't want to shy away from fully owning that my overarching interest is in my own kid.  And obviously that's in hindsight.  He's 29, which blow my mind, because I still think of him as 16/17 and me as like maybe 12.  Anyway, it would be incredibly frustrating for your kid to pick a school among multiple attractive choices in part or largely due to the perceived soccer opportunity, and then to see him not play or have minutes heavily constrained by a rule that in my mind seems archaic and I'm not sure has an analogue with any other major sport (maybe baseball which I don't follow and have zero interest in?).

[Chargers96]

As a parent of a soon to be D3 soccer player (entering freshman next fall), I've been following this discussion with interest.  Without any real context for my opinion (only watched a few D3 games last fall) -- count me in the camp for keeping the reentry rule as-is. 

My son chose a program where he likely will not see many minutes as a freshman over others where there was a much better chance of immediate minutes.  The rule change would only decrease his chances of any minutes as a freshman.  The hope is that minutes will increase with each season.  The idea of having a more traditional college "experience" as a D3 athlete was also an important consideration for him.  That "experience" includes getting playing time before senior year.  Part of the pull to D3 was the chance to see the field sooner -- this rule change impacts that. 

Add to this the fact that the schedule is already very compressed, so the rule change may also negatively impact athlete health.

So, as I see it, the recommendation being made is going to negatively impact the D3 student athlete's college experience (playing time and health for those playing increased minutes due to the change).  Looks to me like the rule change does not have the interest of the D3 player at its core. 

[PaulNewman]

As a parent of a soon to be D3 soccer player (entering freshman next fall), I've been following this discussion with interest.  Without any real context for my opinion (only watched a few D3 games last fall) -- count me in the camp for keeping the reentry rule as-is. 

My son chose a program where he likely will not see many minutes as a freshman over others where there was a much better chance of immediate minutes.  The rule change would only decrease his chances of any minutes as a freshman.  The hope is that minutes will increase with each season.  The idea of having a more traditional college "experience" as a D3 athlete was also an important consideration for him.  That "experience" includes getting playing time before senior year.  Part of the pull to D3 was the chance to see the field sooner -- this rule change impacts that. 

Add to this the fact that the schedule is already very compressed, so the rule change may also negatively impact athlete health.

So, as I see it, the recommendation being made is going to negatively impact the D3 student athlete's college experience (playing time and health for those playing increased minutes due to the change).  Looks to me like the rule change does not have the interest of the D3 player at its core.

To be fair, none of the proponents here of ditching re-entry have argued that such a rule change would enhance the experience for the student-athlete.  It's not clear that this criterion even registers in their assessments.  At best, the player experience aspect is a very distant consideration next to viewer satisfaction and/or the larger mission of improved quality of the game across the soccer spectrum nationally if not globally.  I've seen no evidence that the proposed change has been motivated by the player experience at all.  There instead has been a vague suggestion that a team's usual subs could get more meaningful minutes as a side consequence of the change, and I suppose also a character-building and/or moment of truth consequence where a true footballer starts with little to nothing, works super hard, and climbs the ladder to becoming an important part of his team over the four years OR walks away realizing that he doesn't cut it or won't or stays after that realization because of social/affiliation benefits.

[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.

Hello @Kuiper...in your most recent post you again mentioned your view that getting rid of re-entry wouldn't impact the back end of the roster (who most likely would not play or play much regardless), would not impact whether more or less subs play, and would actually benefit the subs in terms of "more meaningful" minutes.  So I thought pulling up your original post on this might be helpful.  I've appreciated your input in the thread and would like to hear more about exactly why you think the number of subs would largely remain the same but especially why you think they'd get more meaningful minutes.

I think sometimes these discussions benefit from a personalized approach to help us think about these things in concrete terms.

First, with re-entry and as typical starter who gets subbed.  When my son started as a mid/attacking he like most of the other middies would play the first 22-30 minutes of first half, start the second half and play thru to the 58-65th minute, and go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.  The other option would be the same for first half, not starting the second half, coming in around the 60-65 minute mark, getting subbed around the 75-80 minute area, sitting 5 minutes, and going back in for the final 8-10 minutes.  In broad terms, the above seems consistent with what many teams do with their forwards, most or all of the midfield, and sometimes the outside backs.

When he wasn't a starter, he would come in around the 22-28 minute mark in the first half and finish out the half.  He would go in around the 55-60 min mark, play for 10-15 minutes and come out 70-75 min mark, and often go back around the 80-85th.

Assuming the coach wants to play a sub roughly the same number of minutes regardless of the rule, how would my kid get more meaningful minutes without re-entry?

With re-entry no longer an option, the first half obviously would likely be very similar to how first halves currently work.  The coach could then start my kid for the second half and play him 15-20 minutes (but how many coaches are going to sit starters that long after they already came out halfway thru the first half and will have not played for 35-40 minutes straight?) and then he's done by the 60-65 min mark.  Or, the coach begins second half with the starter who goes the full 45 (because won't be able to go back in), or the sub comes in around the 70-75 minute mark and finishes out the game.  I haven't thought all that through in detail, but I'm guessing most coaches will want to have the option of having the starters on the field the last 10-15 min of a tight game.  Beyond the obvious dilemmas, I'm interested in how my kid's minutes become more meaningful.  Because he's playing the middle chunk of the game (last part of first half and first part of second half) and/or because of last part of first half and last 15-25 min of second half?  I'm not seeing where you would reach a conclusion about "more meaningful."

BTW, now I've realized there is another option with no re-entry that the more talented, deeper might employ that would actually increase the number of subs (while admittedly reducing number of minutes for all).  Coaches could adjust by adding a third line of subs for the second half, since the limit isn't on number of subs but rather re-entry.  This scenario doesn't seem to help the "beautiful game" proponents at all and indeed could make things worse.  Very curious to hear thoughts about this very possible outcome.

At any rate, I don't want to shy away from fully owning that my overarching interest is in my own kid.  And obviously that's in hindsight.  He's 29, which blow my mind, because I still think of him as 16/17 and me as like maybe 12.  Anyway, it would be incredibly frustrating for your kid to pick a school among multiple attractive choices in part or largely due to the perceived soccer opportunity, and then to see him not play or have minutes heavily constrained by a rule that in my mind seems archaic and I'm not sure has an analogue with any other major sport (maybe baseball which I don't follow and have zero interest in?).

Interesting. I thought you were coming at this from the perspective of the weaker (but not unplayable) D3 player who you assume wouldn't be able to play their 5-10 minute stretches in the second half because of this rule since the coach would no longer take his starters out and be able to sub them right back on. Worrying about those small minute players would seem to be consistent with the D3 participation/team experience focus I thought you were extolling.  Based on your description of your son and your frustration, however, it sounds like you are instead coming at this from the perspective of how this is going to squeeze out the players who already play most of the minutes. I can understand why a player and his parents who chose D3 over D1 specifically to maximize his minutes might be disgruntled, but I'm not sure why that is critical to the values of D3 sports.

My argument, though, is that the rule change could force some coaches to widen the circle of players they have to develop so they can trust them to play at the end of the game or when the game is in the balance. That's what I mean by meaningful.  The re-entry rule in the second half currently means that coaches can get away with a pretty small circle of players they trust, consisting of the starters and a few specialists or utility players. You even said yourself that coaches wouldn't want to sit their starters that long in the middle of the game and they would want to have their starters in at the end of the game. That's because they only trust their "starters." Without the crutch of re-entry, coaches either have to play their starters the entire second half, which might not be practical, or go through the process of giving kids the playing time so they can trust a wider group of players to play in critical moments.

At least that's my theory. I have some experience with no re-entry in DA/MLS Next at the older age groups and it seems to work that way most of the time there, but NCAA sub rules are so unique, that it's hard to know for sure what would happen with re-entry in one half and not the other.  It is true that a coach could eliminate 2d half subs or minimize minutes to the first few minutes of the 2d half. I just think that's less realistic, although it would be easier if you turn the game into less of a track meet or physical game and more of a passing game. That is what some proponents of the reform hope to see, but that may be difficult if there is a smaller pool of technically gifted players at the D3 level.

[PaulNewman]

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

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

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

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

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

[VAFury]

Quick reset here, because while I have read the entire discussion over the course of two weeks, I really haven't seen or recall seeing this question addressed and don't wish to read it all again...  Are these rule changes in search of a problem to fix, or was there a stated purpose behind them?

[Kuiper]

Quick reset here, because while I have read the entire discussion over the course of two weeks, I really haven't seen or recall seeing this question addressed and don't wish to read it all again...  Are these rule changes in search of a problem to fix, or was there a stated purpose behind them?

Here is the closest thing to an official explanation provided by the NCAA in its press release (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/2/28/championships-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-change-to-overtime-rules.aspx):

Reentry

The committee proposed a change where players would not be allowed to reenter a game after being substituted for in the second half.

This would align the substitution rule with the rest of the periods in the sport (first half, and both overtime periods in conference tournaments and postseason games) where players are not allowed to reenter a game after leaving the field for a substitute.

The committee held thorough discussions on this topic, which has been on its agenda in recent years. Committee members contemplated different possible models before making this recommendation.

Not exactly an explanation for why we have a different rule for 2d half and what has changed that leads to this reform proposal. My understanding is that the whole reform is linked to the 21st Century reform proposal for spreading the season over two semesters (in D1 Men's soccer only) - the idea being that second half re-entry is only needed when the schedule is compressed into one semester -- but the two proposals aren't officially linked.

[Kuiper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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