Rather than clutter up the USC rankings thread, which will become useful later in the year, I created a thread just for the preseason conference coaches polls

American Rivers Conference

https://duhawks.com/news/2023/8/16/mens-soccer-tops-2023-a-r-c-preseason-coaches-poll.aspx

2023 Men's Soccer A-R-C Preseason Coaches' Poll
Rank | School (1st Place Votes) | Points | 2022 Record (Overall, A-R-C)

1. Loras (5) | 59 | 10-6-2, 5-1-2 (Regular Season Conference Champions)
2. Luther (3) | 55 | 12-4-5, 4-0-4 (Tournament Champions)
3. Wartburg | 46 | 7-2-9, 3-0-5
T-4. Nebraska Wesleyan (1) | 40 | 7-8-3, 4-2-2
T-4. Simpson | 40 | 12-4-3, 4-1-3
6. Dubuque | 34 | 8-7-4, 3-2-3
7. Central | 25 | 3-11-2, 2-5-1
8. Coe | 16 | 2-14-1, 1-7
9. Buena Vista | 9 | 0-15-2, 0-8

For those who haven't had a chance to listen to Simple Coach's new podcast "Injury Report," (https://youtu.be/cHsCA6bBkfg) he probably provides the best case FOR high school soccer (as opposed to simply why it isn't that bad for those who want the social experience) that I've seen or heard. 

If there is a flaw in his positive case, it is probably that high school is too local to make certain broad claims about it. SC is generalizing from one type of HS experience that is not universal.  For example, at many schools, very few students OR parents are watching most games, which happen right after school when other activities are occurring and parents are at work (and both parents have to work and not at jobs where they have the ability to leave early for a kids' game).  Moreover, I know a lot of high schools that play at fields that don't even have bleachers for people to watch, let alone have 1000 people in attendance.  This is particularly true in a lot of inner city schools that don't have fields attached to their school (they play in a local park) and in school programs like charters and magnets where the school has no real connection to any particular community (so families live all in opposite directions).  No one is walking down the halls and holding the players accountable for their play at the last game in those schools.  Even the critique of the waiver option, which is a very valid point, is more local than national.  It sounds like in SC's area, waivers are granted pretty freely.  In other areas, however, where the supply of top players is high and the demand for MLS Next spots is strong, clubs won't even consider a player who wants a HS waiver or they tell them they can't promise they will still have a spot when they come back.  They can do that because most of those players want to go pro and they don't care much about HS. 

But I think SC's broader claim is that MLS Next shouldn't prohibit HS play for those who want it and have a school where it is a reasonable option.  That raises the question of why that matters given that I know of no MSL Next team in a place where there are no other options (ECNL or local/regional competitive play).  MLS Next simply couldn't exist without a robust enough population and club ecosystem to develop the kids before they are eligible for the MLS Next level.  So, the issue really isn't whether MLS Next should prohibit HS play since players have choices to play in plenty of competitive leagues that allow HS play.  Rather, the issue is people want to play in HS AND play MLS Next, rather than be forced to choose.   But, of course, life is full of choices.

SC implicitly responds by making the positive case that prohibiting HS is bad for MLS (rather than just unfair to the player to force them to choose) because HS play produces better players and MLS Next hasn't exactly been a pipeline to the pros.  I actually disagree with that latter point, but for reasons that are consistent with SC's views.  I think MLS Next has done a great job of identifying players that MLS Academies sign and Academies are producing more strong players who are getting time in the US and Europe than ever before.  You can argue whether those players are as good as they would have been with HS play (which SC explains well), but MLS will be satisfied if a few of those players are and they don't care much about the rest. 

Where I think SC is probably right is that many (not all) players aren't as prepared for college if they play MLS Next and not any HS play.  The average player is getting pristine field conditions (almost exclusively turf), the best refs, and being managed by coaches who are supposed to be really strong in MLS Next.  MLS Next actually sends site supervisors to observe games to make sure the fields are pristine and other conditions are met so the players won't have to grapple with the problems of bad fields (especially to garner a competitive advantage).  I'm not sure that the play is all robotic though.  If you go to national MLS Next events, you do see different styles of play from teams around the country that reflect cultural and even physical differences.  Nevertheless, SC is certainly right that you don't have as many teams that are trying to bunker, foul to disrupt, and play to win on the counter-attack.  MLS Next officials will even contact coaching staffs if they see that too much in national events because they believe that every player should be developed to solve those problems tactically and technically and not adopt a cynical approach from the get-go.  The problem is that this is absolutely part of the pro game (as we've seen in the Champions League and elsewhere) and it is certainly part of the college game too.

One interesting thing is whether D3 coaches agree with SC.  Coaches always want the best quality players, and they differ on the intangibles where they have a choice.  So, if the best players are gravitating to MLS Next, then coaches will too.  Nevertheless, I wonder if some of the variability reflects differences in opinion over the value of HS soccer.  I see some college commitment announcements that are heavily MLS Next players, others that are heavily prep school players (who also play MLS Next on waivers or because their MLS Next team is the HS team, like in Shattuck St. Mary's or IMG/Barca academies), and others that come from a lot of strong HS programs and mention those rather than their clubs in the announcements.

Last fall, @paulnewman posted this on the Mid-Atlantic Region thread (in an off-topic reaction to a situation where the starting GK was subbed out for a "PK specialist" backup GK):

A little off topic but I've been meaning to ask the GK experts (SC, Hop92, Kuiper, CSO, etc) here....

What is your opinion of the shenanigans and gamesmanship that GKs so often engage in during PKs and especially PK shootouts?  Trying to be the person who hands the ball to the next shooter, coming way out to "show big" until the ref tells them to get on the line, hanging from the bar so it shakes, and all the other tricks?  I also get annoyed with refs who don't pay attention and let a lot of this go.  Anyway, I noticed that the JHU sub GK did the "show big" routine standing 3-5 yards in front of the PK takers for Muhlenberg.

I'll add that, while didn't turn out this way with Muhlenberg, that the "show big' maneuver feels very effective at least from an observer pov.

It turns out that the IFAB agrees, changing Law 14 to add the following text (they were never permitted to touch the goalposts, crossbar or net): 

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/lotg_changes_23_24_en

The goalkeeper must not behave in a way that unfairly distracts the kicker, e.g. delay the taking of the kick or touch the
goalposts, crossbar or goal net.

We'll see whether and how refs interpret and enforce the new language, since "unfairly distracts" is a bit vague. 

https://d3soccer.com/top25/men/2022/final

December 6, 2022
D3soccer.com Men's Top 25, Final

Through games of Sunday, December 4, 2022
#    School (1st Pl. Votes)    Record    Pts.    Prev.
1    Chicago (21)                   22-0-1    1000    2
2    Stevens                           17-1-5    918    4
3    Messiah                           20-0-2    848    1
4    Kenyon                           19-2-1    825    5
5    Williams                           10-2-11    813    —
6    Amherst                           14-1-6    771    3
7    Mary Washington           13-5-4    747    25
8    Johns Hopkins           15-1-8    710    13
9    Bowdoin                           13-2-5    678    8
10    Gustavus Adolphus         15-2-6    661    10
11    Washington & Lee           16-3-4    555    9
12    Oneonta State           15-3-3    450    19
13    Calvin                           17-3-2    430    6
14    North Central (Ill.)           17-1-4    426    7
15    St. Thomas (Tx.)           16-2-3    402    18
16    St. Olaf                           15-5-2    397    —
17    North Park                   15-3-3    346    15
18    Franklin & Marshall           13-2-5    298    14
19    Ohio Northern           13-4-5    272    —
20    Cortland State           13-6-3    252    —
21    Babson                           15-3-3    203    11
22    Catholic                           13-4-4    193    —
23    Chris. Newport           13-4-2    189    16
24    Montclair State           15-2-4    165    12
25    St. Lawrence                   13-2-6    149    20

Dropped out: No. 17 Western Conn., No. 21 Middlebury, No. 22 Pacific Lutheran, No. 23 Tufts, No. 24 John Carroll

Receiving Votes: Western Conn. 131, UW-Eau Claire 122, Pacific Lutheran 58, Rowan 51, Middlebury 46, John Carroll 46, Ohio Wesleyan 32, Luther 30, Tufts 25, New York Univ. 23, Willamette 19, Occidental 6

The D3soccer.com Top 25 is voted on by a panel of coaches, Sports Informa

Pre-Season Rankings are out for DIII Men's Soccer.  Surprises?

https://unitedsoccercoaches.org/rankings/college-rankings/ncaa-diii-men/

National - Pre-season Poll - August 2, 2022
Rank    School    Prev    W-L-T
1    Connecticut College    1    19-4-2
2    Amherst College    2    17-3-2
3    Washington & Lee University    3    18-2-2
4    University Of Chicago    4    16-6-1
5    Messiah University    5    19-2-2
6    Tufts University    6    15-2-4
7    North Park University    7    16-6-0
8    Middlebury College    8    13-5-3
9    Calvin University    9    17-4-2
10    SUNY Cortland    10    18-3-1
11    Christopher Newport University    11    12-5-2
12    University of Redlands    12    17-3-1
13    Trinity University (Texas)    13    14-2-2
14    Washington College (Md.)    14    15-5-1
15    St. Olaf College    15    19-3-1
16    John Carroll University    16    14-4-2
17    Kenyon College    17    16-3-1
18    Hanover College    18    16-5-1
19    Franklin & Marshall College    19    15-4-1
20    Washington University (Mo.)    20    13-3-1
21    Ohio Wesleyan University    21    15-3-2
22    Emory University    22    9-4-5
23    Montclair State University    23    17-4-1
24    Otterbein University    24    15-2-4
25    Stevens Institute Of Technology    25    13-6-3

Records shown are final 2021 records.

Also receiving votes: New York University, Johns Hopkins University, Rowan University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Claremont-McKenna-Harvey Mudd-Scripps Colleges, Kean University, Pacific Lutheran University, Gustavus Adolphus College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

University of Mary-Hardin Baylor just promoted their assistant coach to head coach (the HC was promoted to Assoc. AD) and the story mentioned that the assistant coach had been HC of the reserve team.

https://cruathletics.com/news/2022/5/4/general-bankhead-allen-ralston-set-for-new-roles-at-umhb.aspx

Curious, I checked the website, and to their credit, they are pretty open about their reserve team, even posting a schedule with results (https://cruathletics.com/sports/ms-reserve-squad/schedule).  They played a small number of games against a mix of club teams and others.

On the one hand, I applaud the creation of a reserve team. If the university is going to mandate that coaches increase the size of their rosters, they should at least schedule a few games so those kids can actually play some. It might not be more than a more organized version of college club soccer, but it's better than sitting on the bench the whole season.

On the other hand, the existence of a reserve team should set off some red flags in a recruit's mind because it may be an admission that a large set of kids will never play.

The biggest concern, though, is about transparency or lack thereof.  I rarely see a reserve team mentioned on a team's website. Any idea how many D3 schools have them? Is it that they are really uncommon or are teams kind of hiding that fact until later? If the latter, are they at least transparent in recruiting about it and do recruits know when they are likely to play only on the reserve team? Are they used as legitimate stepping stones to develop freshman and others until they are ready to play in Soph or Junior year or are they basically permanent homes for players who they know will never play?  The former makes sense. The latter seems problematic without adequate disclosure.