2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[Chargers96]

I'm gladly doing this pro bono.  I have a vested interest with a son headed to play at a D3 school in the Fall.  Here's a telling quote from the Messiah HC -- "it would crush the soul of my younger players".  I will say that, for an incoming freshman, there is a world of difference between the prospect of potentially getting 10 - 15 minutes from time to time to almost no chance of ever playing for maybe two years.

[camosfan]

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.

I see the opposite effect, faced with a limited number of subs and a compressed schedule, coaches will be forced to rotate more of their starters, so this could be a good development for the lesser players.

[PaulNewman]

@camosfan>Brad McCarty

[PaulNewman]

I did a very quick google search and couldn't find anything.

What is the origin of the college soccer 2nd half re-entry rule?  Since the inception of college soccer competition or at some other point? 

[College Soccer Observer]

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.

But current NCAA governance structure does not permit different playing rules for different divisions. Hence the change has to either be implemented or rescinded for all divisions.

[SimpleCoach]

Just saw the Notre Dame has come out against any changes.

SC

[Saint of Old]

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.

I will not argue one way or the other (in this post), but can we agree as intelligent people that these opinions above must be taken with a grain or 2 of salt.

You have to consider that these men, though both accomplished and  good educators are speaking from a subjective perspective?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but would not be smart in my view to not take that into account.

[camosfan]

There was a time not too long ago when the US national team would have two or 3 college players or recent grads, now graduates are trying to make MLS second teams. NCAA must be aware of the trend and has some desire to keep up with the changes.

[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.

I will not argue one way or the other (in this post), but can we agree as intelligent people that these opinions above must be taken with a grain or 2 of salt.

You have to consider that these men, though both accomplished and  good educators are speaking from a subjective perspective?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but would not be smart in my view to not take that into account.

Aren't we all speaking from a subjective perspective?  What number of coaches would need to roughly agree for you to give 10 grains of salt?

[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.

But current NCAA governance structure does not permit different playing rules for different divisions. Hence the change has to either be implemented or rescinded for all divisions.

I understand that an in-game rule is different than a "when do you play" rule, but how does the governance require consistency with an in-game rule and not require all divisions to play Fall and Spring or Fall only?  For a layperson, this seems contradictory.

[Gregory Sager]

There was a time not too long ago when the US national team would have two or 3 college players or recent grads, now graduates are trying to make MLS second teams. NCAA must be aware of the trend and has some desire to keep up with the changes.

The NCAA isn't some vague bureaucracy with its own mind and motivations. The bureaucracy in Indy is only there to implement the rules and policies that are set for it at conventions. It's those conventions (i.e., the gathering of representatives from each of the member schools) that have governance in the NCAA. And within the NCAA membership, D3 is by far the biggest of the three divisions. While it's true that if D1 and D2 banded together monolithically they could outvote D3, my understanding is that in reality that never happens, and that D1 by itself rarely votes as a solid bloc in conventions. (Somebody more conversant with NCAA convention history can speak to this with more authority than yours truly.)

In other words, ruleswise D3 doesn't get pulled unwillingly in directions it doesn't want to go by the scholarship divisions -- unless it's a financial disbursement issue, which is a whole 'nother thing. And men's soccer substitution rules are not a financial disbursement matter, because D1 and D2 men's soccer programs aren't going to make more money by tinkering with substitution rules.

Of course, the corollary to all of this is that D3's weight is lost at conventions if it isn't voting monolithically.

[Hopkins92]

PN - I think the distinction you just made (in-game versus scheduling) shows the kind of path that allows for a difference when it comes to the latter. Particularly around the way scheduling works, and even more specifically around the "playoffs."

Most notable is the difference between how football handles its postseason, which is vastly different from D3/D2 and D1. Perhaps that allows for a precedent that sees D1 with a split season and D3 retaining a fall-only season. (Not sure where D2 would land... that's a batch of schools where I really have almost zero understanding of the culture/approach/etc.)

I completely agree with the overall sentiment that this rule makes some amount of sense for D1 (aligning the game with the "rest of the world") for a number of reasons, but it just doesn't apply to D3 for all the reasons that have been laid out on this thread.

[PaulNewman]

PN - I think the distinction you just made (in-game versus scheduling) shows the kind of path that allows for a difference when it comes to the latter. Particularly around the way scheduling works, and even more specifically around the "playoffs."

Most notable is the difference between how football handles its postseason, which is vastly different from D3/D2 and D1. Perhaps that allows for a precedent that sees D1 with a split season and D3 retaining a fall-only season. (Not sure where D2 would land... that's a batch of schools where I really have almost zero understanding of the culture/approach/etc.)

I completely agree with the overall sentiment that this rule makes some amount of sense for D1 (aligning the game with the "rest of the world") for a number of reasons, but it just doesn't apply to D3 for all the reasons that have been laid out on this thread.

Great point, Hopkins.  There are big differences with football at least in terms of how they do their championships.  They do stay in generally the same "season," though.  Are there any other sports of the big team sports that have significant differences?  The tournaments for soccer, hockey, bball, and maybe baseball seem similar across divisions.

In terms of D1, it will be interesting to hear about the takes of more D1 coaches (not the Spring season option as much as the re-entry deal).

Would also love to hear from D4Pace, Mr.Right, etc. 

[camosfan]

There was a time not too long ago when the US national team would have two or 3 college players or recent grads, now graduates are trying to make MLS second teams. NCAA must be aware of the trend and has some desire to keep up with the changes.

The NCAA isn't some vague bureaucracy with its own mind and motivations. The bureaucracy in Indy is only there to implement the rules and policies that are set for it at conventions. It's those conventions (i.e., the gathering of representatives from each of the member schools) that have governance in the NCAA. And within the NCAA membership, D3 is by far the biggest of the three divisions. While it's true that if D1 and D2 banded together monolithically they could outvote D3, my understanding is that in reality that never happens, and that D1 by itself rarely votes as a solid bloc in conventions. (Somebody more conversant with NCAA convention history can speak to this with more authority than yours truly.)

In other words, ruleswise D3 doesn't get pulled unwillingly in directions it doesn't want to go by the scholarship divisions -- unless it's a financial disbursement issue, which is a whole 'nother thing. And men's soccer substitution rules are not a financial disbursement matter, because D1 and D2 men's soccer programs aren't going to make more money by tinkering with substitution rules.

Of course, the corollary to all of this is that D3's weight is lost at conventions if it isn't voting monolithically.

OK! but how do new proposal get to the convention?  and are we now in a public review period before the voting?

[PaulNewman]

This is what I've been able to determine so far with some assistance.

College soccer for years and years was unlimited subbing just like it is with high school soccer.

Around 2002 the NCAA introduced no re-entry in either half across all divisions and with men and women.

The new rule lasted only one year, and so since 2003 to the present we've had the one re-entry in the 2nd half as a compromise position, at least partly based on coaches finding the full no-entry practice too limiting.