# 21st Century Model



## Simisoccerfan

Everyone needs to support this!

https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/more-data


----------



## outside!

Simisoccerfan said:


> Everyone needs to support this!
> 
> https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/more-data


They might get more support if they didn't focus on less than half the college soccer players. It would have been better to just say "NCAA Division 1 Soccer" instead of "NCAA Division 1 Men's Soccer". I think it would open a Title IX can of worms to treat men's and women's soccer differently.


----------



## outside!

Overall I support this move, even though the majority of current NCAA Division 1 women soccer players do not. I do very much disagree with this statement however.

"*POOR FIELD CONDITIONS IN MARCH*
Potential Solutions:


Many teams are already using high quality artificial turf. Artificial playing surfaces are widely accepted throughout the world and sometimes preferred."

Sorry, but I am not a fan of artificial turf for high level soccer.


----------



## warrior49

The players and coaches aren't fans of turf either. Nor are pro players.


----------



## Ansu Fati

Historic vote for 21st Century Model looms | College Soccer
					

The biggest moment of the year in the US Soccer world will not happen on a field. It will happen in a boardroom. The important vote is setting up for a historic change in college soccer.




					www.topdrawersoccer.com
				




Vote coming up for men's game. 

Is this issue not gaining much traction or dead in the water for women's soccer? If so, why? Poor field conditions in March? What else?

Seems weird to me to have men's and women's soccer on different schedules, but maybe just have to get used to it if it ends up being the case.


----------



## outside!

Ansu Fati said:


> Vote coming up for men's game.
> 
> Is this issue not gaining much traction or dead in the water for women's soccer? If so, why? Poor field conditions in March? What else?


My understanding is that the women want to be able to focus on academics during the spring semester.


----------



## full90

If the men pass it the women will follow. Everyone is in favor of it.


----------



## espola

full90 said:


> If the men pass it the women will follow. Everyone is in favor of it.


Everyone?  Does that include the coaches at the schools that will drop intercollegiate soccer due to the increased cost?  They may end up splitting DI soccer into 2 classes, like how football is now.


----------



## outside!

full90 said:


> If the men pass it the women will follow. Everyone is in favor of it.


Who exactly is "Everyone"? As far as I can tell, it does not include the women, who are more than half the D1 college soccer players. Does their opinion count?


----------



## pulguita

espola said:


> Everyone?  Does that include the coaches at the schools that will drop intercollegiate soccer due to the increased cost?  They may end up splitting DI soccer into 2 classes, like how football is now.


Please explain how it will cost more?


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> Please explain how it will cost more?


Please explain why you think it wouldn't.


----------



## Dubs

This is confusing to me as well.  How can you make these decisions without the women's side included.  They are both D1 and should be talked about in tandem.  Strange to me.  Does anyoone have any concrete facts on why the women are not included in this vote?


----------



## espola

Discussion on this topic opened a year and a half ago on BigSoccer.com --









						Expanding the college season appears dead in the water
					

This is not good for college soccer.   [MEDIA]  It is probably good for American soccer as a whole as it will likely push more of the top players into...




					www.bigsoccer.com


----------



## pulguita

espola said:


> Please explain why you think it wouldn't.


You made the comment based on what?  Present the analysis and I will refute them one by one.
Trainers - no they have to work with soccer in the spring anyhow.  They are training 20 hrs per week
Fields -  Lacrosse plays Fri Sun typically - Play Soccer on Saturday only one game per week
Travel -  Usually have to travel 2 different places and accommodate every road trip so one game per week is a wash.

Advantage -  Everyone on the team can play.  Play double header 1 game for record 2nd game training
Parents see their kid play, team is all on same training schedule for the week since everyone played
More development hours
Next?


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> You made the comment based on what?  Present the analysis and I will refute them one by one.
> Trainers - no they have to work with soccer in the spring anyhow.  They are training 20 hrs per week
> Fields -  Lacrosse plays Fri Sun typically - Play Soccer on Saturday only one game per week
> Travel -  Usually have to travel 2 different places and accommodate every road trip so one game per week is a wash.
> 
> Advantage -  Everyone on the team can play.  Play double header 1 game for record 2nd game training
> Parents see their kid play, team is all on same training schedule for the week since everyone played
> More development hours
> Next?


It's covered in the bigsoccer thread.


----------



## Soccerhelper

outside! said:


> Who exactly is "Everyone"? As far as I can tell, it does not include the women, who are more than half the D1 college soccer players. Does their opinion count?


Girls don;t really count much in girls soccer.  Girls in youth soccer only make the men millions why the parents have to pay thousands so dd can play and so USA can find that one special super star to carry our country to gold again. What a sport folks.  Competition is so diluted it's now water. The girls reward is to be treated as second class in college to the men and get paid chump change and basically have to pay to play professionally.  What is this? These clubs are ranking in hundreds of thousand of dollars every____________________ and all we do is argue over who the best 100 are in each age group and whose league is better and who has the #1 club in the country with 11 National Championships.  Oh boy, can;t wait for 2020-2021 season.


----------



## full90

I’ll be more clear: if the men’s side (which is where the vote is happening) passes it, the women’s side won’t be far behind. “Everyone” is the women’s college coaches who all want it. Shoot just follow the threads on twitter about it and you’ll see overwhelming support from the women’s side.

I used to be meh on it but to hear it explained it makes a ton of sense. And in the current climate where the NCAA is so mindful of protecting the welfare of student athletes I could actually see it happening.

Feb and April field conditions is a hurdle. But id rather fight that issue than the damage the 2 games in a weekend does. And shoot we all should get some advantage for being so cal people!


----------



## pulguita

espola said:


> It's covered in the bigsoccer thread.


Guess I just blew the big soccer thread out of the water.


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> Guess I just blew the big soccer thread out of the water.


How's that?


----------



## outside!

full90 said:


> I’ll be more clear: if the men’s side (which is where the vote is happening) passes it, the women’s side won’t be far behind. “Everyone” is the women’s college coaches who all want it. Shoot just follow the threads on twitter about it and you’ll see overwhelming support from the women’s side.


Thanks for the reply. I am actually in favor of the change. I do follow the threads and there is no overwhelming support on the women's side. The majority of D1 women players are against the change at this time. From https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/concerns
"The Division I women have developed a proposal to decompress the fall season for similar reasons that the men are pursuing the two semester championship model. In 2016 on an NCAA survey, Division I men’s and women’s coaches and  student-athletes were asked if they supported a two semester championship model, but not specifically the Division I men’s 21st Century Model. On this survey, 50% of D I women’s head coaches expressed support for a two-semester season, but only 17 % of D I women’s players indicated support."


----------



## full90

That survey was given out before the student athletes were informed about the details of the plan. Many of them were under the assumption it would merely lengthen the season as is (2 games a week, lots of travel). It was a flawed survey as there was no information to go with it. I’ve spoken with countless current women’s players and when told it means one game a week, no preseason summer double days compressed into 10 days, a winter break and a chance for the full team to be together all year, they are all for it. The better rest and limited missed class time is a HUGE draw.
That survey shouldn’t be used as evidence either way. It was 4 years ago with no fleshed out info. In most cases the kids didn’t know what they were being asked.


----------



## outside!

So why don't they do a new survey? I believe it is a mistake and a Title IX violation to treat men's and women's soccer differently. Change both our leave both the same. Since women are the majority of college soccer players (due to football), they should be the drivers of this discussion.


----------



## espola

outside! said:


> Thanks for the reply. I am actually in favor of the change. I do follow the threads and there is no overwhelming support on the women's side. The majority of D1 women players are against the change at this time. From https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/concerns
> "The Division I women have developed a proposal to decompress the fall season for similar reasons that the men are pursuing the two semester championship model. In 2016 on an NCAA survey, Division I men’s and women’s coaches and  student-athletes were asked if they supported a two semester championship model, but not specifically the Division I men’s 21st Century Model. On this survey, 50% of D I women’s head coaches expressed support for a two-semester season, but only 17 % of D I women’s players indicated support."


No one has suggested the simplest solution - if people feel there are too many games, just play fewer games.


----------



## pulguita

espola said:


> No one has suggested the simplest solution - if people feel there are too many games, just play fewer games.


You really are a piece of work and always have been.  You got no skin in the game so please go away.


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> You really are a piece of work and always have been.  You got no skin in the game so please go away.


????


----------



## outside!

pulguita said:


> You really are a piece of work and always have been.  You got no skin in the game so please go away.


Pulguita, I also believe that decreasing the number of games would not be a good solution. The only one's with "skin in the game" however are college soccer players and somewhat less directly coaches and staff. I am not even a soccer player. I am also not in college. I for one welcome discussion. This is a forum.


----------



## Ansu Fati

full90 said:


> That survey was given out before the student athletes were informed about the details of the plan. Many of them were under the assumption it would merely lengthen the season as is (2 games a week, lots of travel). It was a flawed survey as there was no information to go with it. I’ve spoken with countless current women’s players and when told it means one game a week, no preseason summer double days compressed into 10 days, a winter break and a chance for the full team to be together all year, they are all for it. The better rest and limited missed class time is a HUGE draw.
> That survey shouldn’t be used as evidence either way. It was 4 years ago with no fleshed out info. In most cases the kids didn’t know what they were being asked.





outside! said:


> So why don't they do a new survey? I believe it is a mistake and a Title IX violation to treat men's and women's soccer differently. Change both our leave both the same. Since women are the majority of college soccer players (due to football), they should be the drivers of this discussion.


Thanks for the insight re: survey; now it makes more sense as to why there was little support from women players at the time.

I agree with all the above points.  To me the upsides outweigh any potential negatives, and address a lot of concerns my DD has. Not sure why the proposal only include men at this point. Even if it becomes a Title IX issue (which I assume it would be), it is not enough or acceptable to assume women will just follow suit. Women's soccer needs to be at the table, and preferably towards the front.


----------



## pooka

How would this impact the players ability to do things such as internships or any type of work in the spring? They are still students; stretching out the season for the entire school year will eat up any opportunity they have for those type of activities won't it?


----------



## espola

outside! said:


> Pulguita, I also believe that decreasing the number of games would not be a good solution. The only one's with "skin in the game" however are college soccer players and somewhat less directly coaches and staff. I am not even a soccer player. I am also not in college. I for one welcome discussion. This is a forum.


The current scheduling rules allow games from late August to early November, plus games later in the conference and NCAA tournaments.  The limit on regular season games (18 is what I saw last year) means that some weeks there are two games.  If we have a 10-week season and back off to one game per week, played Friday night, Saturday, or Sunday, and allowed two games the first two weeks and two games the last week, that would be 13 games.  Eliminate the conference tournament and just play another regular season game would give us 14 games (many conferences do not have post-season tournaments as it is now).  You don't have to do much to eliminate what some say is the worst part of the Fall-only scheduling.

I am not opposed to playing soccer again in the Spring, but I fear that the result of that would be many schools dropping their soccer programs altogether (or perhaps just on the mens side), or a split into Fall-only and Fall-plus-Spring subdivisions, similar to how DI football is now split into FBS and FCS classifications.


----------



## espola

pooka said:


> How would this impact the players ability to do things such as internships or any type of work in the spring? They are still students; stretching out the season for the entire school year will eat up any opportunity they have for those type of activities won't it?


Some players under the current setup take the minimum allowed class schedule in the Fall and fuller schedules in the Spring (or Winter and Spring if the school uses a quarter schedule instead of semesters).  Playing games in the Spring would require some rethinking of that.


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> You really are a piece of work and always have been.  You got no skin in the game so please go away.


You seem to have run out of ideas to discuss and thus have reduced your input to personal insults.

Please continue.


----------



## Ansu Fati

pooka said:


> How would this impact the players ability to do things such as internships or any type of work in the spring? They are still students; stretching out the season for the entire school year will eat up any opportunity they have for those type of activities won't it?


I assume it will limit some opportunities i.e. internships, study abroad, undergraduate research. May have to push off to summer. And it may require adjustments in how class loads are distributed between semesters.  I guess if it happens, that will be a factor in deciding whether or not your player wants to play at this level.


----------



## pulguita

espola said:


> You seem to have run out of ideas to discuss and thus have reduced your input to personal insults.
> 
> Please continue.


Lets see,  Freshman year - Came into school beat up from too much activity from club, high school, Nat team etc.  (whole nother discussion)  then had to come into college camp with 2 adays etc to cram for the preseason.  Year round would avoid this.
My player played 2016 won a Naty got hurt during preseason with a strained MCL missed 9 games or 4 weeks - year schedule would have missed only 4 games preseason games
Sophmore year - got hurt in summer WPSL game -  damaged foot ligament was ready to play with 5 games left in season or 2 weeks, sorry not wasting a season for 2 wseeks - red shirted.  Would have had half a season left if year round probably would not have red shirted
Junior year - dislocated shoulder summer game.  dislcated again in season missed 3 games - not so bad.  Would have missed only 2 games and would have had rest of season to play in spring
Senior year - broken leg in May -  nothing would have helped.  Had 1 class last fall and graduated in 7 semesters.  Didn't overload classes and would have loved to have played year round.
Now getting her masters paid for and playing 2 more years.

Without a doubt she is in support of year round 1 game per week.

As far as ideas I just gave you a bunch in the previous post and I have heard no comment from you.  You quote the big soccer post and as Outside pointed out that is outdated and the surveys were with incomplete details.  As posted before this pretty much sums the current state and support https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/more-data with knowledgeable support from all areas of the college game. Please discuss your alternate point of views to all the items discussed in the data. From the perspective of physio, periodization, time management, student athlete well being, scholastics I don't think any of it can be refuted.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

I am clearly in favor of this for the women's game.  A couple of key points.

No one over the age of 14 should be playing more than one game per week.  Soccer players need recovery time.   The compressed fall season results in way too many injuries.  Everyone should be on board with this model just for health reasons.
Youth soccer players play year round but College soccer seriously limits off season on field practice.  How is this good for anyone's development?
My dd played Thursday/Sunday.  If she was on the road she missed all classes on Wednesday through Friday.  Through hard work she still managed to get A's.  In the new model if you play Saturdays you miss very little if any class time.
Soccer will not start August 1st but later allowing for a true summer break including being able to do internships.
If you get injured there is no need to try and rush back since the season will last a lot longer.
So this benefits players from health, development and school perspectives.   The only downside I see is that is cold in late February/March in part of the country but these areas already deal with this for the Spring season anyway.


----------



## full90

What I don’t understand is the argument that it will cause a split in programs that can offer it. Amongst D1 I don’t get it. Nothing is changing other than timing. I’d argue it’s cheaper. I could see D2 and D3 running into issues as they aren’t staffed as well or might not have robust facilities. But why would some D1 not be able to do this?


----------



## pulguita

Simisoccerfan said:


> I am clearly in favor of this for the women's game.  A couple of key points.
> 
> No one over the age of 14 should be playing more than one game per week.  Soccer players need recovery time.   The compressed fall season results in way too many injuries.  Everyone should be on board with this model just for health reasons.
> Youth soccer players play year round but College soccer seriously limits off season on field practice.  How is this good for anyone's development?
> My dd played Thursday/Sunday.  If she was on the road she missed all classes on Wednesday through Friday.  Through hard work she still managed to get A's.  In the new model if you play Saturdays you miss very little if any class time.
> Soccer will not start August 1st but later allowing for a true summer break including being able to do internships.
> If you get injured there is no need to try and rush back since the season will last a lot longer.
> So this benefits players from health, development and school perspectives.   The only downside I see is that is cold in late February/March in part of the country but these areas already deal with this for the Spring season anyway.


All excellent points.  Looking at the college baseball schedule for say Boston College, they had their first game Feb 14.  So soccer could start in August with a month of preseason training- first games Sept 1 and have a 10-11 week schedule be done for Thanksgiving, have the next 6 weeks off, start training again mid late January start games mid Feb be done end of April and have tournament in May.


----------



## Ansu Fati

full90 said:


> What I don’t understand is the argument that it will cause a split in programs that can offer it. Amongst D1 I don’t get it. Nothing is changing other than timing. I’d argue it’s cheaper. I could see D2 and D3 running into issues as they aren’t staffed as well or might not have robust facilities. But why would some D1 not be able to do this?


As to the question of how this could affect D2/D3, correct me if I'm wrong, this proposal is for D1 only.


----------



## full90

Ansu Fati said:


> As to the question of how this could affect D2/D3, correct me if I'm wrong, this proposal is for D1 only.


Correct. My question is why some are saying this would create issues for some D1 programs and create haves vs haves not or even eliminate some D1 programs. I understand D2 and D3 might never adopt it, but I don’t understand why some D1 schools would face issues implementing it.


----------



## outside!

full90 said:


> Correct. My question is why some are saying this would create issues for some D1 programs and create haves vs haves not or even eliminate some D1 programs. I understand D2 and D3 might never adopt it, but I don’t understand why some D1 schools would face issues implementing it.


There are schools that would have field use issues with other sports.


----------



## espola

full90 said:


> What I don’t understand is the argument that it will cause a split in programs that can offer it. Amongst D1 I don’t get it. Nothing is changing other than timing. I’d argue it’s cheaper. I could see D2 and D3 running into issues as they aren’t staffed as well or might not have robust facilities. But why would some D1 not be able to do this?


Not all D1's are Stanford or Notre Dame.


----------



## espola

pulguita said:


> Lets see,  Freshman year - Came into school beat up from too much activity from club, high school, Nat team etc.  (whole nother discussion)  then had to come into college camp with 2 adays etc to cram for the preseason.  Year round would avoid this.
> My player played 2016 won a Naty got hurt during preseason with a strained MCL missed 9 games or 4 weeks - year schedule would have missed only 4 games preseason games
> Sophmore year - got hurt in summer WPSL game -  damaged foot ligament was ready to play with 5 games left in season or 2 weeks, sorry not wasting a season for 2 wseeks - red shirted.  Would have had half a season left if year round probably would not have red shirted
> Junior year - dislocated shoulder summer game.  dislcated again in season missed 3 games - not so bad.  Would have missed only 2 games and would have had rest of season to play in spring
> Senior year - broken leg in May -  nothing would have helped.  Had 1 class last fall and graduated in 7 semesters.  Didn't overload classes and would have loved to have played year round.
> Now getting her masters paid for and playing 2 more years.
> 
> Without a doubt she is in support of year round 1 game per week.
> 
> As far as ideas I just gave you a bunch in the previous post and I have heard no comment from you.  You quote the big soccer post and as Outside pointed out that is outdated and the surveys were with incomplete details.  As posted before this pretty much sums the current state and support https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/more-data with knowledgeable support from all areas of the college game. Please discuss your alternate point of views to all the items discussed in the data. From the perspective of physio, periodization, time management, student athlete well being, scholastics I don't think any of it can be refuted.


You say the bigssoccer thread is outdated, but the most recent post there was yesterday.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

outside! said:


> There are schools that would have field use issues with other sports.


No there would not be.  Soccer already has fields for the Spring season.


----------



## espola

Simisoccerfan said:


> No there would not be.  Soccer already has fields for the Spring season.


For a very limited season, and sometimes they hold their Spring games on other fields or even at off-campus locations.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

espola said:


> For a very limited season, and sometimes they hold their Spring games on other fields or even at off-campus locations.


Provide some facts to back this up please.


----------



## outside!

Simisoccerfan said:


> No there would not be.  Soccer already has fields for the Spring season.


I was just repeating what I read elsewhere. Some schools have a conflict with lacrosse or maybe it was field hockey (one of those stick and ball games anyhow).


----------



## espola

Simisoccerfan said:


> Provide some facts to back this up please.


You didn't know already that it is a very limited season?  Here is the UC Davis Spring schedule - 7 games over 5 dates, sometimes 2 games a day with the opponents playing each other in between.  









						Defending Big West champions announce spring schedule - UC Davis Athletics
					

The 2019 Big West Conference regular season and tournament champions will prep for their their 2020 title defense this spring by competing in seven games throughout




					ucdavisaggies.com
				




A few years back UCD played Cal at a community college field in Pleasanton.


----------



## Simisoccerfan

espola said:


> You didn't know already that it is a very limited season?  Here is the UC Davis Spring schedule - 7 games over 5 dates, sometimes 2 games a day with the opponents playing each other in between.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending Big West champions announce spring schedule - UC Davis Athletics
> 
> 
> The 2019 Big West Conference regular season and tournament champions will prep for their their 2020 title defense this spring by competing in seven games throughout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ucdavisaggies.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few years back UCD played Cal at a community college field in Pleasanton.


Of course I know it is a short season! My dd plays! And just because you say UCD played a game at a community college field doesn't mean that field issues are a problem that would prevent this plan from working.  The facts I wanted were actual schedules at alternate fields because the primary field was not available since you were implying that field space is an issue.


----------



## Glen

Shouldn't we really be focusing on taking off the dumb limits on men's and women's soccer scholarships?  Although incredibly popular, women's soccer and volleyball are afforded fewer scholarships than women's ice hockey, rowing (that's not a typo), and track and field.  Unless I read it on the NCAA website, I wouldn't have believed that women's rugby gets 12 scholarships (the same as volleyball).  And, of course, the men's side would also benefit without the cap.  Schools without football programs could become soccer powerhouses and hopefully lift the overall level of the men's game by providing more post-high school opportunities to play.


----------



## espola

Simisoccerfan said:


> Of course I know it is a short season! My dd plays! And just because you say UCD played a game at a community college field doesn't mean that field issues are a problem that would prevent this plan from working.  The facts I wanted were actual schedules at alternate fields because the primary field was not available since you were implying that field space is an issue.


What did I get wrong?


----------



## full90

Agree. Soccer should have 17 (ish) full rides and everyone either on a full or walk on. 
Also change to year long model. 
Also you can’t make the NCAA’s if you aren’t at least .500 in conference.

as long as we are putting out our wish list.


----------



## outside!

full90 said:


> Agree. Soccer should have 17 (ish) full rides and everyone either on a full or walk on.
> Also change to year long model.
> Also you can’t make the NCAA’s if you aren’t at least .500 in conference.
> 
> as long as we are putting out our wish list.


IF they go to a year long season, they should also limit substitutions to be more like the international game. I would be in favor of just adopting FIFA laws across the board.


----------



## pulguita

outside! said:


> IF they go to a year long season, they should also limit substitutions to be more like the international game. I would be in favor of just adopting FIFA laws across the board.


Yeah something like limiting bench to 18 players, play a doubleheader first game for record second a training game.  Players from first game can only play if they played less than XXX minutes.  This way everyone on the team plays on that day, parents get to see their kid play, and the team recovers the following week all on the same schedule.


----------



## Soccerhelper

outside! said:


> IF they go to a year long season, they should also limit substitutions to be more like the international game. I would be in favor of just adopting FIFA laws across the board.


Yes, but having a roster of 35 with those rules is tough.  Let's get these rosters down to 24 and then 18 suit up with 18 scholarships and switch to fifa for Power 5 only.   Have regulation D1 for those looking to knock out a power 5 team that's only in there because of football.  A school like CBU could join a power 5 just for girls soccer for one year because they won and beat Goliath.  Just a thought I had to fix some of this.  All the other conferences can keep the same rules or change them to fifa.


----------



## dad4

I really like the idea of eliminating double headers and delaying all games until a month after classes start.  

Using FIFA substitutions is a bad idea.   The limit on subs gives coaches a reason to keep injured players in the game- and risk worse injury.    I don't want to see someone's son or daughter get permanent brain damage so we can find out whether USC is better than UCLA this year.

( Yes, I know that, in theory, coaches remove all players who are suspected of a concussion.   I've also seen far too many FIFA players wobbling on the sideline, but still in the game, after a big hit.  The rule isn't enforced. )


----------



## outside!

dad4 said:


> I really like the idea of eliminating double headers and delaying all games until a month after classes start.
> 
> Using FIFA substitutions is a bad idea.   The limit on subs gives coaches a reason to keep injured players in the game- and risk worse injury.    I don't want to see someone's son or daughter get permanent brain damage so we can find out whether USC is better than UCLA this year.
> 
> ( Yes, I know that, in theory, coaches remove all players who are suspected of a concussion.   I've also seen far too many FIFA players wobbling on the sideline, but still in the game, after a big hit.  The rule isn't enforced. )


Good point. Do you have any ideas on how to eliminate the massive substitutions teams like UNC do? The near unlimited substitutions warp the game. Maybe limited rosters? Maybe limit the subs to 6?


----------



## full90

I think going to a head count sport (like 17 full scholys and you can only be on a full or walk on) would distribute talent to more schools. That might trickle down to impact unc playing 25 people each game. Roster spots 18-25 might go elsewhere for a full ride

I also think limiting subs helps the game. And if the season is year long you will have more kids healthier and one injury isn’t season altering. That might encourage actual soccer and not teams who just wreck the game (not just unc with the press but Arizona, Arkansas, Baylor and others who just bang it forward, create chaos and foul) as that style works in a short season where it’s easy to implement with little development and hard to defend with a rapid slate of games coming at you.

well a person can dream right?


----------



## dad4

outside! said:


> Good point. Do you have any ideas on how to eliminate the massive substitutions teams like UNC do? The near unlimited substitutions warp the game. Maybe limited rosters? Maybe limit the subs to 6?


If you really like the endurance element, limit the total number of players.  Sub all you want, but only 15 players can participate per match.  

Limiting the season roster is weird once you consider injuries.  Better just to limit the game roster.


----------



## espola

espola said:


> You say the bigssoccer thread is outdated, but the most recent post there was yesterday.


There are some new posts in the bigsoccer thread on this topic.  









						Expanding the college season appears dead in the water
					

I thought I'd look to see these stats and such for baseball. It's been awhile since I've paid any attention to the sport.  27% are foreign born --...




					www.bigsoccer.com


----------



## Glen

dad4 said:


> If you really like the endurance element, limit the total number of players.  Sub all you want, but only 15 players can participate per match.
> 
> Limiting the season roster is weird once you consider injuries.  Better just to limit the game roster.


Then the game will be as crappy and slow as American football.  Nor does that resolve the endurance problem.  Rotating girls in and out provides recovery time that leads to press and kickball soccer.  NC has perfected it; it's ugly and ruins the game.  And there is no evidence that coaches take out kids more for injuries when they have unlimited substitutions - none.


----------



## outside!

It seems like limiting the game roster may be the best answer thus far.


----------



## dad4

Glen said:


> Then the game will be as crappy and slow as American football.  Nor does that resolve the endurance problem.  Rotating girls in and out provides recovery time that leads to press and kickball soccer.  NC has perfected it; it's ugly and ruins the game.  And there is no evidence that coaches take out kids more for injuries when they have unlimited substitutions - none.


If you dont like kickball, put in a 3 line rule like indoor.  Or copy hockey's icing rule.


----------

