2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[Gregory Sager]

Again, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

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

[Saint of Old]

Again, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

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

Without the "viewing pleasure" the game dies.
These schools also have intra-mural teams most of them, 1+9-20 year olds that are not in the top 25 players at the school can surely do intramurals that are "quite competitive" so that the soccer players can play in the NCAA.

I dont get why this is so hard, everyone does not get a medal in life.

Why dont we have an extra 15 peopleon the swim team that dont play?
Or 12 on the track team who are not running at meets?

Because they are surplus to requirements.
Now the best journey a player can make is the player wo starts off toward the end of that 25 man squad and then works, improve and advances to become a star player or at least a starter.
This journey is the one parents and players should strive to, not the one that you spend 4 years between 30-40 on the depth chart on a soccer team.
That mentality is not raising successful young men or women and is encouraging mediocrity over hard work and discipline.

Do you really think that when this 19-20 year old joins the work force he or she will be kept on a job because of the comradery and after work drinks?
No it will be for ability and improvement overtime.

(modified by GS for formatting)

[jknezek]

That's just it. I don't see much change to the starters at all. Or that much through maybe the first 16 spots?

Starters are going to play the first 20-30 mins of the first half. Pull some early, pull some later, depending on how the game is going. Those 3-7 subs your team really relies on will then stagger in for the rest of the first half, some will start the second and go maybe 10-20 minutes into the second half depending on game strategy.

Then the starters go back in or the portion of the first set of subs you pulled at halftime to save their legs or chemistry for later in the game. If you are blowing out the opposition, or getting creamed, you pull the starters 10 minutes after that and dig deeper into the bench to finish and provide experience. If you are in a tight game, the starters stay on with maybe those 2 or 3 subs from the first half who didn't start the second popping back in at some point to give you a lift.

Either way, you end up playing basically the same 16-18 spots on the bench. You just don't get to micromanage and sub them in and out all second half. You have to trust the players on the field to finish out.

Part of what makes soccer special at the higher levels is the trust in the players on the field. No timeouts, no subbing to micromanage, no calling set plays from the bench except the occasional dead ball, no running subs in and out with short term specific tasks, or just to waste time. Players on the field have to play, and find ways to waste their own time, which they are very good at. Sure, the shouts from the coaches come in, but the disruptions and micromanaging you see in football, baseball, basketball... it's not there. Coaches don't have that control over the flow or the detail. The players do.

It's part of the essence of the game. This rule brings that essence more to D3. And since I really don't see it changing much in actual playing time of the most common players to be on the field, just in the manner in which they have to be on the field in blocks, I see no downside and a rather large amount of putting something important about the game back into better practice.

[PaulNewman]

SOL, I almost always enjoy reading your posts and imo your presence here is a major net plus for the site.  You obviously had a very rewarding and ultimately highly successful experience at SLU.  Also appreciate your love and advocacy for D3 soccer, including knowledge of D3 history and nods to the great programs, coaches, etc. 

That said, and with all due respect, I'm disappointed that you went to "everyone getting a medal," the rags to riches morality play that you've repeated over and over, and the bit about camaraderie and after work drinks.  And oh, the lesson about mediocrity, mentality, and raising successful young men and women.  Just when I thought it was about the beauty of the game and imminent death of the sport if Wellesley vs Mt Holyoke doesn't look great on a video stream.  So is it about character or beauty?

A few things...

I don't know if this is true or not but since you mentioned club/intramural options, I've heard that there are some D1 club teams that could beat many of the better D3 squads.  One could argue that D3 IS like glorified club soccer.  I love D3 and appreciate the talent level and intense competition as much as anyone, but come on, D3 soccer is not qualitatively different than D3 athletics in general.  It's D3.  You're not getting paid to play.  If soccer is that important and you're that good, then you've made a mistake 99+% of the time if you choose D3. 

I never argued for playing time going to a core group beyond 18-20 players.  I never argued for larger rosters.  I never advocated for players playing that the coach doesn't think are important to the competitive success of the team.  I have said that a few programs, in fact often the BEAUTIFUL ones, play up to 19-22/23, but obviously they do so because the coaches believe that is helpful...helpful to winning and maybe also have the wisdom to have a feel for team chemistry and knowing that good team chemistry can be a huge support to winning.

I'm also disappointed that you and others haven't addressed points raised...like big boy professional and WC soccer INCREASING the number of subs.  Doesn't FIFA know about "essences"....and D3 women's soccer...or the 80% of D3 programs who aren't vying for NCAA tourney spots year after year...or even how getting rid of one re-entry in a 2nd half can make such a big difference in attractiveness at the same time as some argue they're won't be any real impact on the players already playing...or why the student-athlete experience shouldn't be a legitimate or primary consideration.  I personally would support unlimited subbing, which wouldn't mean coaches had to play more players...just more options.  The idea that removing one re-entry is going to destroy the game and seriously impact what folks watch imo is just ludicrous.  The correlation suggested between re-entry, viewing pleasure, and the death of the sport is hysterical.  D3 soccer has never been stronger...and it's not because of the number of people on a video stream.

Finally, the character stuff.  Please, stop.  My kid went from basically being unrecruited in part due to being genetically positive (but disease negative) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (from me) that causes sudden death in young athletes to not having a jersey to starting to becoming the 12th or 13th man on a team ranked #2 in the country for much of his senior year was a journey that required all of the commitment, sweat and tears that you describe.  And he and our family believe that being part of D3 soccer and what he experienced with his team and teammates played a major role in his overall development, and he's now at a top 4 internal medicine residency, and two of his teammates from his year also are physicians.  There are a ton of D3 athletes from starters to rarely playing who have become very successful and reputable adults.

I'm gonna fire up the espresso machine.  Let's do this.

[PaulNewman]

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

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

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

Straw man.

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

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

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

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

I've never agreed or understood this with USSDA either.  It's a developmental program at least in theory, right?

In any case, USSDA is a totally different thing than playing soccer in college in any division.  USSDA is solely about playing soccer and producing better professional players.  College players play soccer as a part, albeit a significant part, of a bigger college experience.  College soccer is also very much a team sport.  USSDA feels far more individual and less about team.

And, btw, coaches don't just roll the ball out and let the players figure out akin to Brazilians playing pick-up in the park.  Coaches have systems, styles, do's and don'ts, etc, etc and most likely if you don't play within those parameters you'll be sitting on the bench. 

Some seem to think ditching a single re-entry will make soccer more like soccer, but no actual data has been presented to support that...or the various ways coaches might try to get around it (and maybe make it even less "attractive").  Why wouldn't it make sense to do a trial, like have a conference or two play their conference schedule with no re-entry and see that the actual effects are?  Maybe same with the Fall and Spring seasons for D1, which, btw, I also don't think is gonna work.

[jknezek]

You keep bringing up the Premiere League going to 5 subs like it is relevant. None of us have pushed to limit the number of subs. The number isn't the issue, though if you've ever watched an international friendly with 7-11 subs agreed they generally are a pile of disjointed garbage in the second half. Anyway, this rule doesn't limit the number of subs, just re-entry. And only second half re-entry. It's pretty minor and has nothing to do with allowing 3 or 5 subs.

[PaulNewman]

You keep bringing up the Premiere League going to 5 subs like it is relevant. None of us have pushed to limit the number of subs. The number isn't the issue, though if you've ever watched an international friendly with 7-11 subs agreed they generally are a pile of disjointed garbage in the second half. Anyway, this rule doesn't limit the number of subs, just re-entry. And only second half re-entry. It's pretty minor and has nothing to do with allowing 3 or 5 subs.

It's relevant because of some of the arguments presented...like fitness and developing players that can go the full 90, the group on the field figuring out, less changes in general.  Not gonna go back through the whole thread, but it's relevant.

But let's simplify.

If there was a vote for college soccer or just D3 soccer to limit subs to 3 or 5 (no re-entry) would you be a yes or no vote?

How about injury time or going by a clock?

[jknezek]

I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

[Gregory Sager]

I gotta say, PN, having been on both sides, it's more fun being your ally than your opponent. You're making very good arguments, and I find myself nodding vigorously as I read them.

[Saint of Old]

SOL, I almost always enjoy reading your posts and imo your presence here is a major net plus for the site.  You obviously had a very rewarding and ultimately highly successful experience at SLU.  Also appreciate your love and advocacy for D3 soccer, including knowledge of D3 history and nods to the great programs, coaches, etc. 

That said, and with all due respect, I'm disappointed that you went to "everyone getting a medal," the rags to riches morality play that you've repeated over and over, and the bit about camaraderie and after work drinks.  And oh, the lesson about mediocrity, mentality, and raising successful young men and women.  Just when I thought it was about the beauty of the game and imminent death of the sport if Wellesley vs Mt Holyoke doesn't look great on a video stream.  So is it about character or beauty?

A few things...

I don't know if this is true or not but since you mentioned club/intramural options, I've heard that there are some D1 club teams that could beat many of the better D3 squads.  One could argue that D3 IS like glorified club soccer.  I love D3 and appreciate the talent level and intense competition as much as anyone, but come on, D3 soccer is not qualitatively different than D3 athletics in general.  It's D3.  You're not getting paid to play.  If soccer is that important and you're that good, then you've made a mistake 99+% of the time if you choose D3. 

I never argued for playing time going to a core group beyond 18-20 players.  I never argued for larger rosters.  I never advocated for players playing that the coach doesn't think are important to the competitive success of the team.  I have said that a few programs, in fact often the BEAUTIFUL ones, play up to 19-22/23, but obviously they do so because the coaches believe that is helpful...helpful to winning and maybe also have the wisdom to have a feel for team chemistry and knowing that good team chemistry can be a huge support to winning.

I'm also disappointed that you and others haven't addressed points raised...like big boy professional and WC soccer INCREASING the number of subs.  Doesn't FIFA know about "essences"....and D3 women's soccer...or the 80% of D3 programs who aren't vying for NCAA tourney spots year after year...or even how getting rid of one re-entry in a 2nd half can make such a big difference in attractiveness at the same time as some argue they're won't be any real impact on the players already playing...or why the student-athlete experience shouldn't be a legitimate or primary consideration.  I personally would support unlimited subbing, which wouldn't mean coaches had to play more players...just more options.  The idea that removing one re-entry is going to destroy the game and seriously impact what folks watch imo is just ludicrous.  The correlation suggested between re-entry, viewing pleasure, and the death of the sport is hysterical.  D3 soccer has never been stronger...and it's not because of the number of people on a video stream.

Finally, the character stuff.  Please, stop.  My kid went from basically being unrecruited in part due to being genetically positive (but disease negative) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (from me) that causes sudden death in young athletes to not having a jersey to starting to becoming the 12th or 13th man on a team ranked #2 in the country for much of his senior year was a journey that required all of the commitment, sweat and tears that you describe.  And he and our family believe that being part of D3 soccer and what he experienced with his team and teammates played a major role in his overall development, and he's now at a top 4 internal medicine residency, and two of his teammates from his year also are physicians.  There are a ton of D3 athletes from starters to rarely playing who have become very successful and reputable adults.

I'm gonna fire up the espresso machine.  Let's do this.

First off PN, congrats to your son.
He might be the perfect example of what I am talking about. That positive example of someone who "Climbed the hill" and had success in college.

I think we might be closer than you think. I have no problem with 19-23 players playing.
That makes sense. #23 with hard work and determination and playing with better players might become #1 or starter or first guy off the bench in a journey I think is the epitome of college soccer.
My issue is with someone who is 35-40 in depth, as I said, unless you are planning on invading other campusses, there is no need to have that many men undergoing training.

How good is D3 soccer?

I guess, this might be the biggest issue/gripe that we have on this topic.
This is not Basketball.
This is not (American) Football.

This is Football, the gap between your top d3programs and your average D1 is not as big as you or many may think.
It does not work that way, atleast not in my view.
D3 can be split into 3 groups.
The Elite/The Dancers/Average teams.

A player who can play in elite D3 schools can play atthe D1 level.
Yes, there are levels to football and D1 is at a higher level, but a good player simply needs time to acclimate.
Thanks for the shoutout for the SLU Camelot era, but my assessment is also from some of the boys and programs I competed against:
The National team level Jamaicans who played for WILLIAMS, the crazy 6 time (between them) All American Strikers from Wheaton. Basically the entire Messiah team and Chris Waterbury's crazy Plattsburgh teams. Some of these guys were playing in World Cup qualifiers for their country while in school and professional after.

The point is D3 is not D1, but the best D3 players and teams can certainly compete at that level with time to acclimate to the competition.

[SimpleCoach]

I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

[PaulNewman]

I gotta say, PN, having been on both sides, it's more fun being your ally than your opponent. You're making very good arguments, and I find myself nodding vigorously as I read them.

Same here, and I appreciate you jumping in a couple of times.  Maybe the one bit of deliciousness I've gotten out of this thread, and given how many of us old-timers seem to align with the same folks against other folks so often I think this turn of events brings some fresh air to the site.  It also happened pretty organically, and I think that's cool.  There's plenty of time for you and I to get back to going at it lol.

[camosfan]

I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

[PaulNewman]

I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

I like this better because I think it gets us closer to what is going on barely below the surface or not below the surface at all.  Your last lines above make me wonder if your tunnel vision and refusal to budge even an inch is more about your desires for the future of D3 soccer or just reacting more to me (and of course it's fair to wonder how much that might be true from my end).

My frustration is not just your disagreement but your apparent lack of interest in how the actual student-athletes might be impacted (which, you're right, could turn out to be minimal...or not).  And as much as you, SOL, and myself try to make this about grand principles, all of us really fall back on our very personal perspectives....your Coach P story, SOL's SLU glory ride, my take as a parent of a former player who would have been impacted either a little (if you're right) or a lot (if I'm right).

We both seem to be making a similar argument.  I'm suggesting that the very marginal aesthetic benefit does not outweigh the potential high negatives, and you're saying that the very marginal negatives or complete lack thereof of keeping re-entry don't outweigh the benefits of the ban.  I'm stunned that you seem not to care about potential negative impact, but even more stunned that you seem to view any potential negative impact as immaterial to the discussion from your pov.

Here's what I am 99.99999% sure about.  If W&L wins a title playing a very ugly style and with 25 kids getting into the games where there's four re-entries, you aren't gonna lead a campaign to give back the trophy.  And same with me with Kenyon if the Lords gets a title with a new rule and have zero subs.

[PaulNewman]

SOL, I think you know by now that I have a deep love and respect for the quality of at least top 50-75 D3 soccer, so I won't go on about that.

I know there are outliers and players who "coulda gone D1."  But they ARE outliers and the fact is that they DID go D3.  I actually agree with you that D3 high end soccer is probably closer to D1 than some other D3 sports, although we likely disagree about how close.  But I'm guessing we'd agree that there is no argument there to be made for 80-85% of D3 soccer programs. 

Please remember that I've never argued for the very large rosters or for playing anyone just to play them.  Coaches imo should play who they believe will help them win. 

Big picture I am less concerned about how much D3 mirrors the WC, and I'm more concerned that when the Utica College coach looks down his or her bench he or she can't sub a player in and out just one time in a whole game.  As I said above, any potential benefit is so small compared what I view as a coach having more options (again, with student-athletes, not USSDA or WC) that I just don't see this as a close call.