2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[PaulNewman]

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.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

[PaulNewman]

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

1000%.

One doesn't have to minimize D3 soccer to recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with elite professional/international soccer.

[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.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3? 

[PaulNewman]

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.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3?

Well, I'm against the rule change for D1 too...but yes, I don't mind D3 having a couple of different rules, especially if there already are gonna be differences like additional Spring season for D1 but not D3.

But seriously, I'd like to know what you're envisioning, even at D1.  Will that bring in a different caliber of recruits?  Like some who go straight to the pros will now do a year or two at a D1?  Do you think ticket sales as big-time D1 venues will go up because a single re-entry is banned?  I'd love to hear the concrete advantages beyond vague ideas about symmetry and beauty.

BTW, there seems to be some assumption that the rule change will yield a better product on the field.  That as far as I'm concerned is a huge assumption.  Coaches (at least some) may go even harder for the big, athletic, fitness freaks and/or have four sets of speedy, super-athletic forwards who sub in and out each half.

BTW, I forgot to ask our W&L friend if he would support no option to sub players in both halves....in other words, like pro and USSDA where you only come in if at all typically at the 60 minute mark or later.  Where's the line on symmetry for the ban re-entry proponents?

[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.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3?

Well, I'm against the rule change for D1 too...but yes, I don't mind D3 having a couple of different rules, especially if there already are gonna be differences like additional Spring season for D1 but not D3.

But seriously, I'd like to know what you're envisioning, even at D1.  Will that bring in a different caliber of recruits?  Like some who go straight to the pros will now do a year or two at a D1?  Do you think ticket sales as big-time D1 venues will go up because a single re-entry is banned?  I'd love to hear the concrete advantages beyond vague ideas about symmetry and beauty.

BTW, there seems to be some assumption that the rule change will yield a better product on the field.  That as far as I'm concerned is a huge assumption.  Coaches (at least some) may go even harder for the big, athletic, fitness freaks and/or have four sets of speedy, super-athletic forwards who sub in and out each half.

BTW, I forgot to ask our W&L friend if he would support no option to sub players in both halves....in other words, like pro and USSDA where you only come in if at all typically at the 60 minute mark or later.  Where's the line on symmetry for the ban re-entry proponents?

There is a great deal of growth in the game in the US, both in numbers and quality, for this growth to continue there needs to be playing conditions similar to other places to attract talent. Colleges are already competing with European lower divisions for talent , improving the product will help in attracting talent. Already we are seeing in the  NE ,quite a few European kids at D3.The rule changes proposed are not going to change the game overnight but is part of  process. The elite athletes who come to college are coming out of leagues where the proposed changes are the rule.
This change has a potential equity benefit for some schools, for some players will go to places where  the chance of greatest playing time is highest.

[PaulNewman]

@camosfan, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think a single re-entry will influence a single potential recruit...at D1, D3, or D17.

It's not like they're making a decision to play in a league that plays 7v7 vs 11v11.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your view leads to only having a few subs usually in the last 30-35 minutes of the 2nd half.  Seems about as anti-collegiate as you can get, and no recruit is gonna stay in Europe, Central America, or South America because of one re-entry (or even three re-entries).

[camosfan]

OK! we will see how it plays out.

[Chargers96]

The substitution rule change will likely reduce roster sizes, as most players considering D3 will not choose that option when the prospect of playing time is further limited.  Many of those players will instead end their soccer careers and go to the larger schools with big-time football/basketball and enjoy that big college experience.

D3 soccer does not need to market itself as similar to the pros -- the players don't expect that -- they choose D3 so that they can enjoy a more traditional college student experience while also playing the sport they love at a competitive level.

Also, the only way this rule change works is to go to the two semester schedule to alleviate the compressed schedule -- another no go for D3.  Soccer is not a D3 student athlete's singular focus.  Looks like there needs to be different rules for D1 vs D3. 

[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.

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.

Of course not. The game is played by the rules provided. It doesn't mean the rules are the best ones, but you play by the rules, you win by the rules, you lose by the rules, and the rules are either changed or not.

And I laugh about your focus on the student athlete because it is so limited in scope. If it really is all about the student athlete as you so fervently claim, you should have no problem, and fully support, a rule that requires playing time for every player on the bench. But you don't. You belittle that concept. You think it's ridiculous. But it's not. It's how the game is played in most rec leagues. Because at that level it's supposed to really be about the players.

As players get older and the game gets more sophisticated, we become more concerned about the shape and purpose of the sport than what is best for the athletes. And so we progress the rules little by little toward the most elite level rules. Every sport does this. I've said that D3 soccer is not the most elite level. It's not the pros, so they don't need 3-5 subs max with no re-entry. Given the choice in the rules, I prefer D3 move the line closer to the top level than you do. You seem to prefer a line that shades the other direction.

But again, this is not make or break for me. It's a preference given a choice between the two options. Both are compromises between the two extremes, pro rules or rec rules. Best for the highest ideal of competition, or best for the players. Somewhere in between is where D3 does and should exist and we are simply differing on where we think that between should be.

[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.

Of course not. The game is played by the rules provided. It doesn't mean the rules are the best ones, but you play by the rules, you win by the rules, you lose by the rules, and the rules are either changed or not.

And I laugh about your focus on the student athlete because it is so limited in scope. If it really is all about the student athlete as you so fervently claim, you should have no problem, and fully support, a rule that requires playing time for every player on the bench. But you don't. You belittle that concept. You think it's ridiculous. But it's not. It's how the game is played in most rec leagues. Because at that level it's supposed to really be about the players.

As players get older and the game gets more sophisticated, we become more concerned about the shape and purpose of the sport than what is best for the athletes. And so we progress the rules little by little toward the most elite level rules. Every sport does this. I've said that D3 soccer is not the most elite level. It's not the pros, so they don't need 3-5 subs max with no re-entry. Given the choice in the rules, I prefer D3 move the line closer to the top level than you do. You seem to prefer a line that shades the other direction.

But again, this is not make or break for me. It's a preference given a choice between the two options. Both are compromises between the two extremes, pro rules or rec rules. Best for the highest ideal of competition, or best for the players. Somewhere in between is where D3 does and should exist and we are simply differing on where we think that between should be.

Oh boy.

You laughed?  I'll take that as an accomplishment.

I bet you've never lost an argument at the office (or at least you think that).

As I said before, you impress as immovable, so at this point this is mostly for other readers.

Your logic is really impaired.  You tried to do this logical conclusion thing before and even went so far as to suggest my response was indicative of defensiveness that I should take a look at.  Wow.

The truth is that you want to drag me to some absurdity and make me drink it.  Are they not student-athletes?  Do you think D3 sports aren't enriching?  Do you think there is nothing worthwhile about playing that goes beyond contributing to a world-wide mandatory project of advancing the standard of soccer?  You really think that's what keeps the Hampden-Sydney coach awake at night?  The point of repeatedly using that term, as GS also did, is to differentiate the players from professional and other purely soccer enterprises like USSDA.  Same with D1.  Are high school athletes student-athletes?  Is high school soccer not competitive?  Whatever you think about the quality, do most coaches play everyone or do they try really, really hard to win.  D3 soccer does not exist...originally, 20 years ago, or now... to protect and advance the standard of international soccer.  It is just ridiculous to insist that those in favor of keeping a second half re-entry, and who include anything about playing contributing to a kid's overall college experience and satisfaction, are required to say we want D3 to be a "rec league."

One of the ironies for me, that makes me laugh, is that for someone so dedicated to freeing up the game unfettered from in game intervention, coaching, more liberal subbing rules, etc your posts feel extremely restrictive, retentive and rule-bound. 

And given your stated preferences why do you follow D3 sports at all, or at least so closely?  Or are you on D1 sites and professional sites on a daily basis as well?  Do you think D3 doesn't have a mission...including one related to student-athlete experience?

[PaulNewman]

Last points tonight while thinking about how exasperated I am with John Calipari.

I've made some references earlier in the thread I believe about the importance of team chemistry.  Let's add the idea of 'culture,' which imo is critical to college sports teams at all levels, and seems like something most of the coaches SC has interviewed have underscored.  I know Tufts nation thinks it's important.  And Messiah.  And OWU.  And Kenyon, North Park, Calvin, etc.  Souders at Calvin is the one coach who seems able to pull off often only playing 13-14 players and keeping a highly and jointly motivated squad, but that may have a little to do with Calvin as an institution and a lot to do with Souders' unique level of charisma, motivational, and team togetherness skills.  On balance, regularly playing 17/18 guys enhances the culture, and some pull that off going with 20-22 players.  There is obviously a point where that collapses, if like the top 2/3 of the starters lose a ton of time or the coach dips into a part of the roster that does not support the team's most competitive approach.  But it's not as much about how many play but rather (and primarily) the quality of the experience for those that do play.  And the more options there are for playing in terms of rules (like re-entries) impacts that whether a coach plays 14 or 18.

Anyway, and this is partly in response to the idea that advocating for players having a better experience must mean rec league crap...I have been complaining for months about Calipari at UK not playing several 5 and 4 star players, and most of them are now in the portal to transfer.  The culture suffers, recruits who were planning to come may change their mind, fans become frustrated, and on and on.  I will happily admit that when it comes to UK basketball the overall college experience in terms of being a student-athlete doesn't rate very highly for me, in part because for at least a percentage of the top D1 bball players who are in the one and done scenario or 2 year scenario are there with the very clear goal of getting to the NBA or at least overseas professional leagues.  Me watching dissension build into transfers and wishing those players played have zero to do with wanting equity or a rec league approach.  Indeed, it's the complete opposite.  Every year UK doesn't win a national title is unbearable and unacceptable.  An unhappy team is a team that isn't going to win.

[jknezek]

You seem to think this is something that needs to be won. I don't care about winning. I have an opinion and I'm good with the logic I have. You have a different opinion. Great.

But I really don't see this as a huge deal. I've said it a lot, this is about drawing a line somewhere in the middle of pro rules and rec rules. Your opinion on where that line should be drawn and why is fine, I just disagree. I just don't see this great harm you see, and you don't see the small benefit I see, so we draw the line in different places.

That doesn't mean I think your logic is "impaired" or absurd or whatever else you've tossed at me. You just get more and more strident as people don't fall into your line of thinking.

[PaulNewman]

I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

Here's my very first post in this thread, expressing my disagreement with getting rid of a single re-entry.

Now, first of all, I wildly failed about not "going on and on," but in fairness, most of us knew I wouldn't be able to stop at one post.  But the going on after wasn't because I care so much about any of these rules, but rather, I got hooked in as the discussion/arguments unfolded.  I don't have any personal stake in this issue going forward.  I don't have any grandkids yet, and by the time I do and them becoming All Americans at UCLA, I'll very likely be dead.

More relevantly, the group that I highlighted was players 12-14 AND starters.  And I made a point that a good portion of this group and any additional players the coach would want to play on the merits would see their time compressed or disappear entirely.  Now iirc @Kuiper was the primary poster countering that the difference in total minutes among the group that the coach wants to play competitively might be only marginally impacted.  That's a different debate, as well as is the presumption that the rule change will make the game more attractive and won't lead to perhaps even more subs and disruptions.  My references to the "student-athlete experience" has been very specifically geared to the experience of those who do play or who the coach would want to play for competitive reasons with the argument that putting more restrictions on the actual playing group/desired playing group is not ideal when considering a multitude of factors that include college vs professional and the D3 (and for that matter) D1 missions.  I never once made this about being #24 on a roster and life lesson dilemmas.  Kids in that category can be happily non-playing members or they can drop off and pursue whatever else they want to pursue.  Not my concern.

What I don't have to accept, and especially in terms of the rules of logic, is that my preference must by definition be cast in a rec league vs international/professional standard.  My preference doesn't require Souders to play more than 13-14 at Calvin if he doesn't want to, and doesn't make Dezotell play 18 at Tufts...or McCarty 21 at Messiah.  I mean, does McCarty play 21 to make Messiah more rec leagueish, or more probably for a combination of reasons, including talent, strategy, earned time, culture, team chemistry, mission in developing young men, etc?  Arguing for less restrictive and more options available to a coach doesn't yield by definition anything having to do with rec leagues.  When the professional/international standard moved to 5 subs vs 3, that is a move towards less restrictive, but I doubt anyone is going to argue that the professional/international standard thereby has become more rec leagueish.  If the MLS goes to unlimited subbing the motivation for that isn't required to have a single thing to do with rec leagues.  This discussion doesn't require that anything said within it must fall and be evaluated based on the continuum being artificially imposed.

[Chargers96]

So far, both Messiah HC and Scranton HC are of the opinion that the rule change will not be beneficial to D3 schools, players, teams.  Limits getting younger players game minutes, will negatively impact player buy-in/team culture, does not account for compressed schedule, and on and on.  It's not even a close call -- let D1 go forward with the change.  D3 is a completely different set-up and should not have to follow the lead of D1 on this.

[PaulNewman]

So far, both Messiah HC and Scranton HC are of the opinion that the rule change will not be beneficial to D3 schools, players, teams.  Limits getting younger players game minutes, will negatively impact player buy-in/team culture, does not account for compressed schedule, and on and on.  It's not even a close call -- let D1 go forward with the change.  D3 is a completely different set-up and should not have to follow the lead of D1 on this.

Henceforth, I am subcontracting all of my posting out to you.  On the money AND succinct.

Now please tell me your fees are reasonable.