D1 college soccer under threat

MacDre said:
T

The product isn’t generating money due to structural barriers to entrance in the past. In other words, if women’s soccer would’ve been supported equally for the same amount of time as men it would be very successful currently.
Laws were enacted to exclude women from the game and a prevailing mindset that women belong in the kitchen and the bedroom. And don’t forget real men kept their bitches barefooted, pregnant, and walking like a duck. To deny the impact these factors are having on women’s soccer is dishonest.
Click to expand...

1, I wouldn’t call those people real men. I would call them misogynists. 2, it’s not generating money because companies are not buying ad space and people are not watching it. It does not make money. If the ratings were higher, companies would buy ads. That’s how it works.

The WNBA has been around for 24 years. When was the last time you watched WNBA game? NBA, when was the last time you watched? (Excluding the situation we are in with no sports). Best women’s basketball around and not many people watch. I’m sure it has nothing to do with entertainment value and $$$ and everything to do with what you said.

Kicknit22 said:
Agree Woobie06. But viewership would increase, I believe, with better marketing and advertising. Along with programming on some more accessible channels. The effort simply is not there. I get sick of hearing that the product is subpar. Complete bullshit. But, it’s the people that make those decisions that think along those very lines, that are the problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, investing in marketing would drive viewership. I never said the product was subpar. I enjoy watching women’s soccer and wish there was more available to watch. I don’t run a media company. I’m saying the decisions are being made based on dollars and cents. The $$$ for the media company’s/networks does not justify the effort. They are not altruistic, for the good of the people organizations. These media companies are for profit, public companies and are concerned about share price, EBITDA, and generating new revenue streams. The execs that run them want their bonuses, options, and to keep their jobs. These companies are getting their margins trimmed by new media companies eating into traditional media, declining ad revenue, and viewership behavior. If the return on investment is not there they are not putting money into it.
 
MacDre said:
My kid will go to Cal. She could also attend UCSD. But, the new CEO of USSF went to one (most would say only) of the Mexican schools and he’s doing fine. A degree from Tec is very portable.
Click to expand...

You kid is 12! You need a very High HS gpa along with excellent SATs. Your kid already has these? Or do you know Rick Singer?
 
Woobie06 said:
1, I wouldn’t call those people real men. I would call them misogynists. 2, it’s not generating money because companies are not buying ad space and people are not watching it. It does not make money. If the ratings were higher, companies would buy ads. That’s how it works.

The WNBA has been around for 24 years. When was the last time you watched WNBA game? NBA, when was the last time you watched? (Excluding the situation we are in with no sports). Best women’s basketball around and not many people watch. I’m sure it has nothing to do with entertainment value and $$$ and everything to do with what you said.



I agree with you, investing in marketing would drive viewership. I never said the product was subpar. I enjoy watching women’s soccer and wish there was more available to watch. I don’t run a media company. I’m saying the decisions are being made based on dollars and cents. The $$$ for the media company’s/networks does not justify the effort. They are not altruistic, for the good of the people organizations. These media companies are for profit, public companies and are concerned about share price, EBITDA, and generating new revenue streams. The execs that run them want their bonuses, options, and to keep their jobs. These companies are getting their margins trimmed by new media companies eating into traditional media, declining ad revenue, and viewership behavior. If the return on investment is not there they are not putting money into it.
Click to expand...
I hate to admit but I agree. This is why I think all MLS teams should have a female side that plays before the men’s team. I think that would help tremendously.
 
Ellejustus said:
You didnt answer my question. How much Woobie?
Click to expand...

Haha...I answered your question. We spend too much. It depends...we try to go to as many as we can. Less travel is definitely better. All about choices. Spend as much or as little as you choose. Everybody on here knows what a trip costs.
 
Woobie06 said:
Haha...I answered your question. We spend too much. It depends...we try to go to as many as we can. Less travel is definitely better. All about choices. Spend as much or as little as you choose. Everybody on here knows what a trip costs.
Click to expand...
No you didn;t. I didnt ask if you spend too much woobie. How much for the Woobie family?
 
MacDre said:
I hate to admit but I agree. This is why I think all MLS teams should have a female side that plays before the men’s team. I think that would help tremendously.
Click to expand...

I really like that idea. A lot. We go to a lot of LAFC games and my daughter loves the atmosphere. They are a blast. The supporters section is crazy fun to watch. It would be cool to see the women play before.
 
dk_b said:
That was an incredible ride. I have been reading and reading about D1 College Soccer being Under Threat for a LONG time (you all covered a shit-ton of ground in not that many days). It made me think of the old NorCal board and the string about FC Elk Grove that went on for a couple of years (I had major surgery about 3 or 4 months into that thread and was completely out of pocket for two weeks (ICU, etc.) and commented when I came back that I was reassured that the string was continuing - never imagined it would go for years. But this one . . . so many comments in such a short period of time. As I went down the rabbit hole, I'd occasionally ping back to check my work email so I did not miss anything.

If we are going to look at D1 athletics only as a vehicle to professional $$$ (which, I think, may have been a point made back on page 2), then we can bag nearly all college sports, not just soccer. All but football, men's basketball (which can be scaled back b/c the # of D1 players who play high level pro ball (say, NBA, Euro, even G league) is a relatively small percentage), baseball (again, small percentage) and maybe women's hoops. Everything else . . . bag 'em! The elite tennis players don't play college. Swimming is kinda sorta required but the top, top level swimmers are starting to leave early (while I think Missy Franklin did all 4 years at Cal, I think Katie Ledecky only swam a couple at Stanford and I am not sure if Phelps ever swam collegiately). Golf is still an area where guys play college before pro but they are not honing their game in college so let's bag that, too.

But the schools don't see it that way - they reap benefits even if the program loses money in direct revenues v costs - and the athletes certainly don't (or many don't) see it that way. Getting in to schools that maybe would have chosen another with the same academic credentials, or having some relief in paying for school so that going to college w/o being crushed by debt, or just the intangibles for teamwork, creativity, discipline, etc. that come with being an athlete? I'm glad my kid will be playing sports in college and won't face (or we won't face) a debt load when she's done. I am glad she will have resources available to her as a student athlete that will give her the best chance to thrive in college (her choice in school was a direct reflection of the support she will get in academics - she saw that herself w/o any input from her parents). A short-term career goal IS to play professionally (hell, doing that until you are in your mid-20s . . . that sounds awesome. I was a school teacher out of college and did not do grad school until 27; if I were playing a sport in Europe rather than being in a classroom . . . sounds pretty great) and maybe to see whether her talent, the coaching and her dedication allows her to represent the country. For her, as for most student athletes (since, like the ad says, most will be going pro in something else), playing for the school and the tradeoff of what the school provides will, hopefully, be worth it. (some of the more veteran parents who are following this conversation, like @Simisoccerfan (whom I hope to meet when our kids face off if there is a women's soccer season), can say whether, for their kids, it has been "worth it").

(@MacDre - I have looked into the FIFA rules regarding repping countries and they are different than citizenship rules. That is, each country can decide how it naturalizes citizens but FIFA decides who is eligible. My wife holds dual citizenship with Ireland. My kids are not eligible for the Irish national team automatically. They may be in a different sport - the rules may differ by international governing body - but it would require certain steps to be eligible under FIFA rules. Where it can help is playing professionally since my kids can get their Irish citizenship and being an EU citizen makes some of the administrative burdens much less for playing on a pro (club) team. Not sure how Brexit will impact that for EU players in the UK, however). And, as others have said, I'm really rooting for your kid - I root for all your kids to do well - and hope she gets the rewards she wants. She sounds like a pretty incredible young person, lots of talent that goes way beyond soccer. I love hearing about kids like that).
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if your wife “registers” your kid as a British citizen before your kid turns 18, she’s eligible to play for Ireland under

The general principle, in Article 5.1, states: "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligibleto play for the representative teams of the association of that country."

Also, looks like your kid will be tied to Ireland under the Home Nations Agreement.
 
MacDre said:
It seems to me that if your wife “registers” your kid as a British citizen before your kid turns 18, she’s eligible to play for Ireland under

The general principle, in Article 5.1, states: "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligibleto play for the representative teams of the association of that country."

Also, looks like your kid will be tied to Ireland under the Home Nations Agreement.
Click to expand...

Ireland is not part of Great Britain (Northern Ireland is). But in her case, she’s been part of the YNT program (having competed at the u16 and u18 levels) that she will see where it goes. If she does want to play pro, it will be much better and easier if she can hold dual citizenship.
 
I agree with you, investing in marketing would drive viewership. I never said the product was subpar.


Yeah, @Woobie06 , I didn’t mean to insinuate that you thought they were. Just popping off. I completely understand the realities and just don’t believe it has to be this way. It takes someone or a few someone’s to roll the dice and show a belief. I like the idea of a double header with the men. Could be a great first step. But I can say with a fair amount of certainty, the Men (gutless pansies) would be so insanely threatened, it would cause an uproar.
 
Kicknit22 said:
I agree with you, investing in marketing would drive viewership. I never said the product was subpar.


Yeah, @Woobie06 , I didn’t mean to insinuate that you thought they were. Just popping off. I completely understand the realities and just don’t believe it has to be this way. It takes someone or a few someone’s to roll the dice and show a belief. I like the idea of a double header with the men. Could be a great first step. But I can say with a fair amount of certainty, the Men (gutless pansies) would be so insanely threatened, it would cause an uproar.
Click to expand...

No worries, did not take it that way at all. I agree with you regarding the way it is. Lots of missed opportunities in many areas. One thing is for sure, there is no shortage of engaged parents on here supporting their kids and doing what is right by them. That’s an amazing thing and never gets old.

On a side note, I gotta admit it’s been nice not having to chauffeur the kids around town to practice, events, rehearsals, and everything else. Its good to get a break now and again.
 
MacDre said:
It seems to me that if your wife “registers” your kid as a British citizen before your kid turns 18, she’s eligible to play for Ireland under

The general principle, in Article 5.1, states: "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligibleto play for the representative teams of the association of that country."

Also, looks like your kid will be tied to Ireland under the Home Nations Agreement.
Click to expand...


There you go finally did your research. 4 is an awesome amount of doorways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top