21st Century Model

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top