D3boards.com

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/2/28/championships-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-change-to-overtime-rules.aspx

I'm not sure if this has been covered already on this forum, but I thought I'd pass it along. No overtime in the regular season would be a big change. Frankly, those overtime periods are tough on athletes playing multiple games over a weekend but man they have been exciting. I have mixed feelings about that one. The No re-entry rule for players subbed off in the second half will hopefully stop all the time wasting in the second half by the team who is winning. Every team is guilty of doing it. Good change.

The extra time in regular season games was a complete waste of time and very risky for students,I would welcome that change more than any other.

Guess I'm in the minority, but I liked how college did OT, especially the "golden goal" rule.  Always thought that was crazy about soccer OT in travel that one team could score an OT goal, but they have to play additional time after that just in case.   I can see where factors such as a strong wind or sun positioning could make it unfair, but...   

And I hate shootouts. 

I'm not a hyper-purist, but I do like both of these rule changes (OT and Reentry) as I think it starts to more closely align the NCAA with what happens in most other leagues.

I really don't like OT in every game. It's the regular season, you know you have a finite amount of time to score, so go out there and get it done. OT just pushes the inevitable late-game scramble off by 5-10 minutes.

And, I'll be honest, I didn't realize the reentry didn't apply in the 2nd half... Just not paying enough attention, I guess. That's a really dumb modification of the reentry rule and should absolutely be instituted for the next season.

(Found it funny they mentioned video review at the bottom. Is that just for D1?)

Quote from: VAFury on March 17, 2022, 09:34:54 AM
Guess I'm in the minority, but I liked how college did OT, especially the "golden goal" rule.  Always thought that was crazy about soccer OT in travel that one team could score an OT goal, but they have to play additional time after that just in case.   I can see where factors such as a strong wind or sun positioning could make it unfair, but...   

And I hate shootouts.

Nope, I'm with you.  I like OT in the regular season.  Most teams will never get a chance to play for something. OT at least gives those players a chance to create a lifetime memory.

And Golden Goal was brilliant. I played two OT game in college and was on the wrong side of a 4-1 and 5-1 scoreline.  That sucked.

I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

Have to agree totally with PN on this one.  No re-entry for D3 soccer is inconsistent with the whole concept of athletics in that division for all the reasons PN identified . . .  Does anyone know if the proposed changes are limited to D1?  The link did not appear to indicate the changes would apply across all divisions.

And I'm on the other shoe here. I like the no re-entry rule but I'm way less concerned with how many players get in the game. Having been the 22-24th player... I was there. I was not going to play, and Coach P was great about telling me honestly what my odds were and asking if I really wanted to sit on his bench for 3 more years.

He was right. I went and played club soccer and intramural soccer, got 2 degrees in 4 years, was editor of a student newspaper, joined a fraternity for some idiotic reason, and was on a bunch of other committees, all while having a great time in college. These were all things I wouldn't have had time to do striving to get some playing time year after year until I was a senior.

It's ok not to make it as a D3 soccer player. It's ok for the rules to encourage a style of soccer more in line with the rest of the world. It's ok to be told you aren't good enough at one thing and maybe you find something else you are good enough at.

I'm all for making rules that encourage soccer, not kickball. And if part of that is rosters of 18, not 24, that's ok also. It's not a bad thing for a first year to have very limited playing time and grow in skill, pick up some team chemistry, and learn the coach's tactics rather than being fresh legs and a long ball target for 10 minutes in each half.

If they are the 14th player as a first year or a second year, they'll probably play as a junior or senior if they want to stick around. And if they are the 19th or 20th player, well, then they can make the same choices countless others have faced. It's not like turnover isn't a big factor on all DIII teams. Outside of a few stars, there are always a lot of first years, fewer sophomores, a few less juniors, and then the survivor core of seniors. That's the truth of all D3, and a player or two extra here or there because playing time is less distributed doesn't bother me at all.

No overtime and no re entry changes the way coaches coach.  Good.  Think Messiah v Eastern and Messiahs wholesale changes.  Williams v Middlebury.. Tufts may not have the season they did without golden goal.  I am for it in playoffs and NCAA s but season end in a tie.  Deeper squads benefit from the sub rule this is the obvious change.

I love getting worked up in mid-March!

I think it depends on the lens one is looking through.

My kid started most of the games in frosh and soph years and was the first kid off the bench for most of junior and senior years....not a star by any means but still an important, regular part of the team.  The pov of players 12 thru 17-18 (and their parents) is different than 20-28 or 20-45, and yes, on the back end of the roster each kid can make a decision about whether just being a part of team with no real expectations of playing is worth it or not.  I'll add that the experience of playing, both at the time and as valuable for future pursuits, was just as important for my kid as the #4 player on the team.  Sure, he could have chosen some other activities that might have served him well, but I no doubt that the soccer experience and everything he learned therein played a role in getting him to where he is now.

Also, at least in the D3 world, the claim that the soccer is better with fewer subs seems pretty fallacious.  Almost all of the best teams that I can think of, including those with a reputation for playing good, attractive soccer, sub a ton, and regularly use 16/17 to 19/20 players. 

And playing at Tufts, W&L, Messiah, Amherst, Calvin, Kenyon, etc, including the expectations around playing for such programs, imo can be wildly different than playing for Hiram, Hendrix, New England College, Millikin, Baldwin Wallace, Medgar Evers, etc.  I don't see any reason why the rule change would be helpful to any the schools in that second group.

Teams will make the adjustments, you will see the subs come in with 20 minutes to go in the first half and leave after 15 in the second, I think that rule change would make it align with some US youth soccer leagues.

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016 (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016)

QuoteThe Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.   

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 17, 2022, 01:52:58 PM
I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

Depends on what you mean by player 12-14

12-14 players may be among the top 5 or even 4 weapons on the team.
Coaches simply have to work harder to switch shape and strategy within the game.

Good for football all round. We will get to see who the real ballers are more now.
College is about evolving and becoming the best version of yourself. Maximizing your potential.
Speaking as someone who was #20-22 on a22 man squad and overtime became a weapon for the team, the journey is what is key here.

Few players are just studs and come in and destroy the competetion, many others had to add a bit of calm/toughness/speed/thinking/fitness to their game to get where they need to be.
I see good things from this change.
Looking fwd to it.

I am not one for the no OT though... this will hurt the teams who win4 of 5 OT games and tie the other.
Not many things better in the game than scoring an OT goal on the road to win a game after almost losing before equalizing with 5 minutes to go on the road to keep a win streak alive, but I digress :)

Having watched last Fall how a highly ranked D1 programme seemed to use substitutions almost like a volleyball rotation at times, I am less convinced about the ability to re-enter full stop.  If players are going to develop then I would think learning how to manage a full 90 minutes is part of that process.  If a player is part of a rotation on for maybe 25-30 minutes and then comes off, it implies to me a more likely disjointed approach to things, this goes for both the players exiting and entering.  Ultimately, coaches do their best to maximise outcomes based on whatever the rules are, but I am not sure that re-entry serves a greater good, particularly if you want soccer to be about skill AND athleticism.  I understand that many programmes run big squads, well perhaps it becomes about having more reserve competitions to ensure those players further down the list do get game time.

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on March 17, 2022, 02:06:27 PM
Have to agree totally with PN on this one.  No re-entry for D3 soccer is inconsistent with the whole concept of athletics in that division for all the reasons PN identified . . .  Does anyone know if the proposed changes are limited to D1?  The link did not appear to indicate the changes would apply across all divisions.

Under the existing NCAA constitution, playing rules must be the same for all divisions.  You cannot have a separate rule book for D1 vs D3.  It is permissible to have different rule books by gender within the same sport.  Basketball, for example, has two different rule books.  If confirmed, all of the proposed changes will apply across all divisions.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 18, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016 (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016)

QuoteThe Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

Two other related considerations...

At the very time when many seem in favor of decreasing subbing in college soccer, the trend in professional soccer, including at the highest levels, has been to increase subbing.  A primary reason for the increase at the professional level is to lower risk of injuries.  Given that college players, especially those not on scholarship, don't have the resources or singularity of purpose of professional players or those in soccer-residency programs, I think one could reasonably conclude that college players are more at risk of serious injuries....a risk compounded by a highly compressed season.

Again, I think the prism one looks through can make a difference in one's view.

As a soccer connoisseur? As a spectator?  As a parent-spectator? As a professional coach?  As college coach?  As an athlete engaged full time in the activity to make a living?  As a student-athlete with other interests and substantial demands, either with or without scholarship obligations?

Who is the game for? And should changes under consideration support the interests of the players, or the preferences of the few hundred fans who take in a game on site and online?

I look at this from a holistic standpoint.    The rule changes appear to be based on the powers at be wanting college soccer to mimic the professional game.  This ostensibly is to better prepare college players and thus better the quality of the player pool.   Yes, there are individual players that still come through the college pipeline that end up on the US national team or go abroad, but our youth system has improved so dramatically that it feels unnecessary to alter the rules to prepare college soccer players for the rigors of the professional game.  18-22 year old players who are the future of US soccer these days should already be at a professional club or academy, at least they should be if USSF is serious about US soccer improving.    The rule change proposals feel like unnecessary theater in my view.

This does not mean college soccer is any less exciting, I've only grown more fond of the game at this level with each passing year, but I am realistic about the career progression for 99% of these players.  I don't think changing the substitution rule will make college players any more prepared for the professional game than they would under the current rules. 

I'm not arguing in favor of using the substitution rules to make the game more resemble the pro game.  My hypothesis is that it could provide more meaningful minutes to the middle third of the roster,  From what I've seen, under the current substitution rules, the bottom third of most rosters only play, if at all, against weaker opponents.  Changing the sub rules won't affect them or mess with D3's role in the college soccer ecosystem (the increase in rosters to accommodate colleges' needs to recruit full pay students is probably already doing that).  I'm suggesting that it would force coaches to give a bit more meaningful minutes in a row and in key moments to those middle third players.

I could be wrong and coaches would simply try to play more players 90 minutes and not use some bench players to give a breather to a set of starters, but I just don't think that's realistic given the compressed schedule.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 20, 2022, 01:28:00 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 18, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016 (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016)

QuoteThe Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not. 

Quote from: EnmoreCat on March 22, 2022, 03:03:34 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 20, 2022, 01:28:00 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 18, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016 (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016)

QuoteThe Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not.

I think we are missing the point here, its not whether or not you go somewhere where you "might line up for 30 minutes a game for 4 years" If you are, the fault is yours not the program or coach.  You should be getting BETTER each and every year. You should be first acclimating to the level, then becoming consistent, even more consistent and by senior year unplayable. The point is this is football and should be played by footballers performing the skills of footballers (Control/Pass/Dribble/Shoot) Running and pushing is key, but that part of it has been taking over wayyy too much of late. Football is running a marathon while playing chess. You need skill to do this thing. We all get worse when we are tired...This is not play station where the guy pushes   the triangle button and goes faster. Playing well when exhausted and maintaining not just your physical attributes but concentration during this time is a skill as well. I personally do not want to see a bunch of 6 foot 3 guys push each other to the ground for 90 minutes in a scuffle with a goal of never having the ball hit the ground.
There are coaches and programs that have had gret success in this model, but as I said before now we will see who the Ballers are.
There is a reason this is called "the beautiful game" and it is not because most of us look like Christiano.... 

Quote from: EnmoreCat on March 22, 2022, 03:03:34 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 20, 2022, 01:28:00 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 18, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016 (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016)

QuoteThe Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.

A few points regarding the above and one or two other posts here.

OWU legendary coach Martin has been one of the leaders in D3 and college soccer in general in terms of regularly playing 17-20 players.  Same with Messiah.  And OWU and Messiah are considered among the most attractive and possession-oriented programs year after year.

RH, the OWU product who authored the piece cited, noted in the article that he was going to do a Part 2 highlighting the advantages of liberal subbing.  As far as I can tell he never got to the Part 2 or at least I couldn't find it.  He also understandably wanted to give a salute to his brother but fails to mention that his brother persevered and earned his way into real minutes in a system that promoted liberal subbing, so, if OWU had utilized a system closer to what he advocated for, his brother most likely would have had even fewer opportunities.

Please correct me, but I haven't seen a lot of teams subbing primarily for the purpose of running out of the clock.  Most good teams I've seen that use 16/17 to 20/21 players sub in the first half between the 20th and 35th minutes and in the second half around the 60th to 70th minutes.  Sometimes subs from the first half play the first 10-15 minutes of the second half, and sometimes starters begin the second half, come out at the 60-70 minute mark, and then go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.

And even if coaches do use subbing for time wasting, an easy solution would be to stop the clock for subs in the last 10-15 minutes of 2nd half.

When I engage in these discussions, whether about D3 soccer or complaining that Calipari at UK lets 4 and 5 star recruits grow mold on the bench, I often get the dreaded "stop with being so soft and promoting a participation medals model" response.  Color me guilty if you like, especially regarding D3, as aside from the divisions having to be in sync, I see no truly legit reason other than viewer preference or some purist mandate why D3 should mirror the EPL.  But more importantly, on the pro-competition side of ledger, I'd love to hear what some of the most prominent coaches and programs think about using at least a handful of subs.  I would argue that more liberal subbing keeps a larger portion of the team engaged and relatively happy, and that team chemistry is a very undervalued item in these discussions.  Imho, liberal subbing often can reflect a program being more competitive and focused on winning than the reverse.

And finally, the fitness argument..."a good, fit soccer player should be able to go the full 90."  This argument strikes me as a real reach on multiple levels.  First, this presumes that going a full 90 has some value in and of itself.  Like why, and for whom?Secondly, presumes many players couldn't go for 90 min.  Thirdly, presumes coaches sub primarily because of fatigue.  It's also an odd argument because often there is a complaint that American college soccer is too focused on fitness.  At any rate, while fatigue may play a role in the coaching decision to sub, there certainly are multiple other possible reasons.  Taken to its ideal logical conclusion, one might conclude that the ideal is not subbing at all or only in case of significant injuries...11 players going the full 90 should be the goal.  Again, this isn't professional soccer or even the highest levels of youth soccer.  Having 25-30 kids on a roster, kids who are in college with multiple demands in addition to athletics, and only playing 11 or only 13 or 14 doesn't seem like a great formula for developing and sustaining a leading D3 soccer program.

At the barest of minimums PN, I can't really see the point in committing to an institution, whatever the division, where you might be lining up for 30 minutes a game at best for possibly four years, especially if you are paying a considerable sum for that "experience".  In Australia where we have close to year round senior competitions in all major cities, once you get to 18s, no re-entry is allowed and I think that is part of the process of getting used to senior soccer, whether you are getting payed for it or not.

I think we're all missing each other a little bit and coming at this from different perspectives, so maybe all of us are right.  Speaking to individual decisions is difficult.  Some students will want to continue with the team even knowing they'll never or rarely play.  Others will think 30 minutes a game for four years sounds like a good deal.  For others, maybe anything less 75 minutes a game the moment they step on campus is insufficient.  A kid also who plays every minute and makes an AA team might decide after two years that the time and energy demands are too much once declaring as pre-med or focusing on chemical engineering.

I don't know what "senior soccer" means and how or why "getting used to" it would be so important.  College is college, and you're at least in part paying for college, not soccer.  I'm personally not as interested in whether an individual player can or should go the full 90 or or whether that individual maxes out from a pure soccer perspective.  I'm looking at what's best for a program or team, and asking whether team chemistry is important or not.  I also don't think anyone has really answered about many if not most of the top programs including those with attractive styles using liberal subbing as a standard practice.

Would be an interesting question for SC to throw into his coach interviews!

Not that this info necessarily impacts the issue in any particular direction, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.

A quick review of games from the most recent tourney involving teams I tend to follow.  The number of subs used in parentheses.

Hopkins (19) vs John Carroll (18)

Conn (18) vs Tufts (17)

Midd (19) vs F&M (17)

Messiah (21) vs Kenyon (18)

Calvin (14) vs OWU (17)

North Park (14) vs Chicago (17)

W&L (19) vs Conn (19)

Wash Coll (21) vs SLU (15)

Wash Coll (14) vs Tufts (18)

Wash Coll (19) vs Montclair (17)

Messiah, the gold standard for attractive soccer at the highest level of D3, played 21 in a game that was 1-1 until the final few minutes.

Among heavyweights, Calvin and North Park played the least with 14.

W&L and Conn both played 19 in a national semi that went to OT.

Wash Coll interestingly played 21 vs SLU, 19 vs Montclair, and then only 14 vs Tufts.

Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 23, 2022, 04:24:43 PM
Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

Number of players who played (directly from box scores).

I learned that previously being stunned doesn't mean I don't continue to be stunned by the level of disagreement on the other side.  My delusion is that if I say something enough times, or with a somewhat different focus, at least a few will be influenced to at least see how the issue may look different from different perspectives.  And I'm amazed that so few seem interested in team dynamics, team chemistry, whether having more players really involved versus not impacts the health of a program medium to long term, etc.

To your point, it's still 11v11, still 90 minutes, same rules other than subs, and the only difference is how many kids can get into the game.  As I noted in another post "real soccer" has moved to MORE subs rather than less.  And I'm not convinced that the actual play on the field is impacted that much by whether Messiah or Tufts plays 3 subs or 6.  I don't see any real benefits and imo the primary consequence is less players on the team feeling like they have a real stake in the team.  If the rules change goes through, do folks really expect to see top programs play significantly differently?

And yes, very curious if coaches were polled about the no re-entry proposal how they would vote.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 04:51:09 PM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 23, 2022, 04:24:43 PM
Yeah, that is a really interesting breakdown PN. Just to clarify, is that the number of rostered players that got into the game, or actual number of subs made during the game? Either way, that both makes your point (wide use of the roster/bench means higher participation) and the counter (total number of subs allowed in most high level leagues is 5, these numbers are kind of staggering in terms adhering to that standard.)

And, I do take your point that additional subbing doesn't (necessarily) led to degraded quality of soccer. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with it is pretty simple: It's a pretty dramatic departure for the rules most people play by. It's the rough equivalent of 7v7 football played in lots of rural areas of the country. Yes, it's football... But it's a pretty big departure and has deep impact on how the game is played.

Would also wholeheartedly endorse throwing some version of that question at the coaches.

Number of players who played (directly from box scores).

I learned that previously being stunned doesn't mean I don't continue to be stunned by the level of disagreement on the other side.  My delusion is that if I say something enough times, or with a somewhat different focus, at least a few will be influenced to at least see how the issue may look different from different perspectives.  And I'm amazed that so few seem interested in team dynamics, team chemistry, whether having more players really involved versus not impacts the health of a program medium to long term, etc.

To your point, it's still 11v11, still 90 minutes, same rules other than subs, and the only difference is how many kids can get into the game.  As I noted in another post "real soccer" has moved to MORE subs rather than less.  And I'm not convinced that the actual play on the field is impacted that much by whether Messiah or Tufts plays 3 subs or 6.  I don't see any real benefits and imo the primary consequence is less players on the team feeling like they have a real stake in the team.  If the rules change goes through, do folks really expect to see top programs play significantly differently?

And yes, very curious if coaches were polled about the no re-entry proposal how they would vote.

I think the substitution rule change is tied at least in part to the 21st Century Model proposal https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/ (https://www.21stcenturymodel.org/) to extend the Fall season over the Spring semester in Men's D1, which is also on the agenda for the April meeting.  One reason for re-entry, at least in D1 college soccer, is to counteract the adverse effects on player safety (and sporting integrity from missed games due to injuries to starters) of the compressed fall schedule. That concern is lessened if the D1 schedule is spread over two semesters where the overall number of games does not increase and teams are generally playing only one game per week.  If the two semester approach doesn't pass, then I think support for the change to the substitution rules will drop some, at least among Men's D1 coaches.

Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

1) Every coach will use the rules to their advantage, therefore making more subs than they normally would to keep up.
I played in the late 90s and watched y team since and normally there are 16-17 guys who play.

2) I am good with 17-18 people playing, I think the rules will still allow that.Injuries alone will prevent anyone playing with 13-14 guys in a game.

Also as for travel abroad etc... I have to say, in my view, the kids who go to school on top D3teams are there for the football.
The only way you make it there is by dedicating a big portion of your life to acquiring the skills necessary to play for a top program, most of those guys wont give up playing on the team for (trip abroad/other college activities etc...)

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 07:42:22 PM

Also as for travel abroad etc... I have to say, in my view, the kids who go to school on top D3teams are there for the football.
The only way you make it there is by dedicating a big portion of your life to acquiring the skills necessary to play for a top program, most of those guys wont give up playing on the team for (trip abroad/other college activities etc...)

Stunned again!  Gonna watch the Celtics but maybe I'll respond to this tomorrow.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 07:27:19 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game. I was just pointing out that this is one of the drivers for this rule change. In fact, one of the benefits touted for mid-major D1 programs is they can have smaller rosters and be better able to compete without the compressed schedule. The sub rule is perceived to give an advantage to D1 men's teams in the power 5 conferences. 

I don't know many major (if by that you mean revenue) college D1 sports athletes who go abroad.  Football's spring practice would mess that up and basketball spans over both semesters.  The students I know take summer courses to catch up.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 11:50:34 AM
Not that this info necessarily impacts the issue in any particular direction, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.

A quick review of games from the most recent tourney involving teams I tend to follow.  The number of subs used in parentheses.

Hopkins (19) vs John Carroll (18)

Conn (18) vs Tufts (17)

Midd (19) vs F&M (17)

Messiah (21) vs Kenyon (18)

Calvin (14) vs OWU (17)

North Park (14) vs Chicago (17)

W&L (19) vs Conn (19)

Wash Coll (21) vs SLU (15)

Wash Coll (14) vs Tufts (18)

Wash Coll (19) vs Montclair (17)

Messiah, the gold standard for attractive soccer at the highest level of D3, played 21 in a game that was 1-1 until the final few minutes.

Among heavyweights, Calvin and North Park played the least with 14.

W&L and Conn both played 19 in a national semi that went to OT.

Wash Coll interestingly played 21 vs SLU, 19 vs Montclair, and then only 14 vs Tufts.

It might just be me getting used to a different way of doing things, that's fine, I will adjust my mindset.  I think it's something unusual for foreign players to contend with as they will be more likely be used to playing closer to 90 minutes each week back home.  The irony is that it seems defenders do tend to not rotate as much here (they certainly didn't at my son's team), which when you think about it, doesn't make sense if they are coming up against fresher forwards.  Is that good or bad? It's in the eye of the beholder I guess.  And of course, it's education that everyone is there for first and foremost

Quote from: Kuiper on March 23, 2022, 08:12:42 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 07:27:19 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PMThe game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 24, 2022, 12:26:43 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 23, 2022, 08:12:42 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 07:27:19 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PMThe game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

First off, I want to tip my hat to PN (and GS) for making really sound points about the quality of play discussion. I have really come around on my thinking on that front. I had a long post teed up yesterday and pulled into work and forgot to post. I don't feel like retyping it, so here's an abridged version re: team chemistry.

I really don't buy the notion that team chemistry is negatively affected by a slightly shorter bench. I have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

(Forgive me, I'm a little nostalgic, as I'm about to see a couple of dozen of these guys in a few days at our reunion.)

WITH ALL THAT SAID: The more this is discussed, the more I'm fairly agnostic on this front. My original stance was that the substitution rules don't jibe with the vast majority of other leagues, both domestic and international. I originally came to that firm stance having watched a MD high school team literally sub off and on entire 11 man rotating squads every 15 minutes. They wound up winning a state title, but it just looked and felt really wrong... an abomination.

But that's not really what's going on with NCAA soccer. So, once again, thanks to this board for a level-headed, intelligent discussion. My position is certainly "evolving" on this front. :-)

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 12:35:18 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 24, 2022, 12:26:43 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 23, 2022, 08:12:42 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 07:27:19 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PMThe game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

I'm the play-by-play broadcaster for a national D3 soccer power, and I've seen plenty of that national D3 soccer power's practices as well as games over the years, so, no, I don't think that D3 players are "some so-so dudes that just kick it for fun." I have as good a window as anybody into not only the soccer talent that there is at this level, but at the hard work and time commitment that goes into refining that talent as well. And I've spend an inordinate amount of time over the course of my life explaining to typical American sports fans (who generally consider D3 to be glorified intramurals) that I meet that D3 players care just as much, and work just as hard at their craft, as do D1 players. So you needn't do any salesmanship here in terms of holding up to me the commitment level of D3 men's soccer student-athletes.

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

I played a bit of football for an ok team and then watched that team for the next 25 years.
Its not a competition of credentials, but sound argument.

NCAA Division III Mens Soccer is FOOTBALL.

When it stops being entertaining to athletes and fans, it is dead. No one will watch or play.
The point of the game at the core is improving the control/passing/dribbling and shooting.

Any one playing the game without those things being at the forefront are doing a disservice to themselves and the game.

When players are on the field and going for the 50/50 and pulling a Puscas to get a shot off they are not thinking about the " rounded education provided by a D3 institution" they are  "Playing Ball" Politics aside, the game is the game... this is what makes the game beautiful.

These rule changes will help focus on what makes the game enjoyable... which is the key to any sport.

Like I said, we just simply disagree, but our arguments are laid out for everyone to analyse themselves.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 24, 2022, 12:39:09 PM
I originally came to that firm stance having watched a MD high school team literally sub off and on entire 11 man rotating squads every 15 minutes. They wound up winning a state title, but it just looked and felt really wrong... an abomination.

Lebanon Valley subbed 8 guys at time. If this rule changes, it's certainly going to throw a wrench into their system.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 24, 2022, 03:03:43 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 12:35:18 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 24, 2022, 12:26:43 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 23, 2022, 08:12:42 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 23, 2022, 07:27:19 PM

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PM
Depends on the Coach.
Some coaches have made a career out of running a bunch of athletes at people for 20 minute shifts and frustrate the other team.
The consequence here, I think is that the ball will be played on the ground  a whole lot more.

Professional teams have 4 different trophy's playing for (Leaggue/Cup/National Team etc) makes sense they need a squad that has 25+players.
In college soccer that number should realistically be about 22-24.
You want the ability to have a full squad game, have enough horses in case of injuries and also to push the first team for playing time.

besides that you want a bunch of really good players on your team and past 22-24 you will not have that quality in the ranks.

Most quality teams/coaches will not change their back line much. Therefore it is the attacking players who will be subbed in and out 5 or 6 + plus 11 = 17.

It is also not a matter of playing 30 minutes a game and being happy. Some games you might need an attacking player off the bench to play 55-60 minutes depending on the opponent and that player's performance that week at practice. Having a squad of 30plus players just does not make much sense in my opinion (unless there is a specific JV team there). After a while it becomes impossible to keep people happy in order to have a positive unit.

The best players will play with the new changes. The game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Two questions, and not intended only for you.

1) How do you square your opinion about "better" soccer on the ground when many of the best teams that play "the right ways" are the very teams that utilize liberal subbing?

2) In general, do you think team chemistry and overall program strength are best served by playing 13/14 players or 17/18?

And as far the proposal to add a portion of the season to the Spring, I don't know of another major college sport that does that, while acknowledging that bball for example extends over parts of two semesters but not with a significant break in between.  And there are other considerations, which is why I keep emphasizing that this isn't a soccer-only mission when it's attached to being in college.  Kids who want to go abroad?  Or plan their semesters so that they tough some of their tougher courses in the off semester?  And as a practical matter, what will NESCAC do in that scenario?

On the last part, this semester proposal is only for Men's D1. Could change for Women's D1 too the following year, but they aren't ready to consider it yet.  I doubt it ever gets to D3, which can have different rules from D1 on length and placement of season, although not on the rules of the game.

This. Anybody who isn't convinced that extending seasons into a different part of the school year would be a nightmare at the D3 level obviously didn't follow D3 sports as a whole in the spring of 2021. That was an object lesson in just how easy it is to overstretch the athletic training and game management resources of your typical D3 school by dumping extra sports into a spring season on top of the usual spring sports such as baseball, softball, and t&f.

This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, not just because so many good points have been made on both sides but also because it's interesting to see the different mindsets and the different soccer backgrounds at work. Some people are really immersed in the D3 experience, and look at D3 soccer through the institutional and divisional lens; others are more general aficionados of the sport whose driving considerations are aesthetics, preparation for post-collegiate soccer experience, and/or compatibility with international soccer norms. I find myself leaning towards PN's arguments, both because he's making a compelling case that the "beautiful game" teams that the purists love are also the ones who're using more players, and because he's keying his responses to take the D3 milieu into consideration. At the end of the day, what drives any decision made at an NCAA convention regarding D3 soccer is a decision that fits the needs of D3 member institutions, not the needs of their soccer programs specifically. That's as it should be, in my opinion; the dog should wag the tail, rather than the tail wag the dog.

D3's stated ethos is that the division exists to serve the needs of the student-athlete -- not the administrators, not the coaches, not the faculty, not the athletic department, not the fans, not the parents, but the student-athletes who play the game. And they're not simply athletes; they're student-athletes, young people who pay a lot of money for their education who also desire to continue playing the sport(s) that they love for another four years. Their experience participating in the sport is paramount. That is something that everybody who takes part in this conversation should keep in mind. And it's not my preferred paradigm, it's not PN's preferred paradigm, it's the paradigm of D3 as a whole.

The other thing to keep in mind is that D3 soccer players, aside from a vanishingly small number of exceptions, are not going to go on to play professional soccer. They are going to go on to be teachers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, pastors, coaches, actuaries, bankers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and administrators. Their academic and social needs are not the same as those of their age-cohort peers whose future focus is upon playing soccer for a living.

In other words, this:

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PMThe game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

... really isn't the bottom line at all. Would most or all of us like to watch a more aesthetically satisfying brand of soccer at the D3 level? Certainly. Is that why D3 soccer exists? Certainly not.

Yes itis.

Soccer at the D3 level is SOCCER. Its called the beautiful game. D3 players are not some so so dudes that just kick it for fun... atleast not the ones I know.
They are serious footballers who playhard and try to maximize their potential, just like the guys playing D1 basketball... No less.

We just disagree here.
Sports, all sports is at the end of the day entertainment, thats why we have fans like musicians do. A game, any game being pleasing to watch is the bottom line.

I'm the play-by-play broadcaster for a national D3 soccer power, and I've seen plenty of that national D3 soccer power's practices as well as games over the years, so, no, I don't think that D3 players are "some so-so dudes that just kick it for fun." I have as good a window as anybody into not only the soccer talent that there is at this level, but at the hard work and time commitment that goes into refining that talent as well. And I've spend an inordinate amount of time over the course of my life explaining to typical American sports fans (who generally consider D3 to be glorified intramurals) that I meet that D3 players care just as much, and work just as hard at their craft, as do D1 players. So you needn't do any salesmanship here in terms of holding up to me the commitment level of D3 men's soccer student-athletes.

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.  That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.  That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

But you're ignoring the structural element of D3 men's soccer. Unlike D1 sports, in which programs and athletic departments veer uncomfortably close (IMO) to semi-autonomy or even functional autonomy, D3 sports specifically serve the purposes of the institutions that sponsor them, purposes that don't include raising the school's national media profile or functioning as a merchandising and ticket-sales cash cow. And D3 institutions have deemed that the total experience of the student-athlete, as well as the needs of the sponsoring institutions, have priority over everything else -- including any desires that the fans sitting in the stands may have to see the games played a certain way. Yes, D3 sports are entertainment; they're entertainment for the students who play them. Whether you or I or anybody else is entertained by them is utterly incidental to their purpose.

I know that you don't like that. But it is reality. Soccer at the D3 level isn't just soccer -- it's NCAA Division III men's soccer, with all that each of those abbreviations and words entail.

I actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.  That's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.  That's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Thank you-
Exactly where are we going with 30-40 men unless we have a JV team or are invading surrounding campuses??
Work hard and make the 22-24 man cut then work your way up or perhaps soccer in college is not going to happen for you.

The product on the field however will be better.

Well, based on what I understand, I think two scenarios could play out.

The first one is a roster is redefined and has 20 players who are interchangeable robots.  They all have crazy fitness.  But they have the touch of a rhinoceros and the brains of an ostrich.  They will rotate in shifts to keep legs fresh.  I can see many teams seeing this as an equalizer for them against better teams.

The second version is one where teams take the opposite tack where they will rely on 15 players who can play and have the fitness to last 90.  Maybe even do some rotations against teams that are not as competitive to get more guys in.  These teams will look for more technical players who can move the ball.

I know which one I would prefer, so I suspect we will start seeing even more Ragin' Rhino's and Obtuse Ostrich's masquerading as soccer teams.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMI actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.

I didn't ignore that reality. I deliberately omitted it from my post because I think we're all fully aware of it. That's why I've been careful to say that the D3 sports experience not only centers around the student-athlete, but also the needs of the institutions themselves (as opposed to the specific sports programs they sponsor).

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMThat's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.

It's not just a soccer thing. It's also true of other men's sports on the D3 level. A D3 football team that has well over 100 players -- sometimes as many as 150 or 160 -- is not uncommon. Baseball teams often have rosters of 30 or 40 players as well, and men's basketball rosters frequently exceed the 25-player level.

This scenario isn't nearly as prevalent on the women's side of things in D3, because the number of young women who are looking to participate in sports on the collegiate level is not as high as it is for their male counterparts.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMThat's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Why is that a challenge? Anybody smart enough to get admitted to your school is presumably smart enough to: a) do the math; and b) see the writing on the wall if he's not good enough to get playing time, even as a sophomore or a junior. If in spite of that he's willing to hang on as a guy taking up space on the bench for two or three or four years without ever getting into a varsity game, I don't see where the challenge lies -- aside from perhaps the difficulty of finding the coaches to work with so many players in practice and/or assist with the JV team, which can be ameliorated with part-timers, GAs, and volunteer coaches.

It all goes back to what Hopkins92 said:

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 24, 2022, 12:39:09 PMI have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

For some guys, that particular reward is reward enough for being little more than a name on the online roster.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PM
I played a bit of football for an ok team and then watched that team for the next 25 years.
Its not a competition of credentials, but sound argument.

I didn't mention my broadcasting gig as a competition of credentials. I mentioned it in order to establish that I, too, am fully aware of both the talent level and the dedication to perfecting their craft that elite D3 soccer players have.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PMNCAA Division III Mens Soccer is FOOTBALL.

On the pitch, while the ball is in play, that's quite true. But the circumstances and structure surrounding the game? Very, very, very different, depending upon the level, affiliation, amateur/professional status, country, etc. That's the point.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PMWhen it stops being entertaining to athletes and fans, it is dead. No one will watch or play.

Moving the goalposts, are we? ;) This is what you said earlier:

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 23, 2022, 05:24:34 PMThe game will also be pleasing to watch I think this is the bottom line.

Now you're saying that it has to be entertaining to athletes as well as to fans; i.e., pleasing to play as well as to watch. I guess that this is progress. ;) But you're still not fully grasping the thrust of what D3 men's soccer is all about, which is the young men who play it (and, to Kuiper's point, the schools that sponsor it). It is not aimed at those of us in the stands. We are incidental, pure and simple. What's "pleasing to watch" for a handful of old duffers like us doesn't enter into the calculations of any administrator -- unless perhaps the old duffer in question has twenty million dollars he'd like to drop on the school for a new soccer stadium. :D

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PMThe point of the game at the core is improving the control/passing/dribbling and shooting.

Any one playing the game without those things being at the forefront are doing a disservice to themselves and the game.

Nobody's arguing these things. They're truisms. Any and every coach, regardless of level or affiliation, stresses them.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PMWhen players are on the field and going for the 50/50 and pulling a Puscas to get a shot off they are not thinking about the " rounded education provided by a D3 institution"

Who said that they were? We all know that for a great many D3 soccer players, wearing the school colors and playing the game that they love are at or near the top of their collegiate priorities. That's not in dispute.

Quote from: Saint of Old on March 24, 2022, 03:14:27 PMthey are  "Playing Ball" Politics aside, the game is the game... this is what makes the game beautiful.

Not sure what politics has to do with this. Convention delegates will support or oppose whatever proposed NCAA legislation that they think best fits the needs of their respective schools.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 24, 2022, 05:55:25 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMI actually think that the bolded part - that D3 sports don't exist to serve as a merchandising or ticket sales cash cow - ignores the reality that at many D3 schools the administrations consider them a tuition-generating cash cow.  They exist, and the administrations want their rosters to grow, because they are often the most successful recruiting tool for admissions.

I didn't ignore that reality. I deliberately omitted it from my post because I think we're all fully aware of it. That's why I've been careful to say that the D3 sports experience not only centers around the student-athlete, but also the needs of the institutions themselves (as opposed to the specific sports programs they sponsor).

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMThat's why you see rosters in Men's D3 soccer of 30-40 players.

It's not just a soccer thing. It's also true of other men's sports on the D3 level. A D3 football team that has well over 100 players -- sometimes as many as 150 or 160 -- is not uncommon. Baseball teams often have rosters of 30 or 40 players as well, and men's basketball rosters frequently exceed the 25-player level.

This scenario isn't nearly as prevalent on the women's side of things in D3, because the number of young women who are looking to participate in sports on the collegiate level is not as high as it is for their male counterparts.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 24, 2022, 05:09:00 PMThat's the biggest challenge to the D3 men's soccer experience, not a change in the substitution rules.  There simply are too many players on many teams to realistically get many of them meaningful playing time, even with re-entry permitted.

Why is that a challenge? Anybody smart enough to get admitted to your school is presumably smart enough to: a) do the math; and b) see the writing on the wall if he's not good enough to get playing time, even as a sophomore or a junior. If in spite of that he's willing to hang on as a guy taking up space on the bench for two or three or four years without ever getting into a varsity game, I don't see where the challenge lies -- aside from perhaps the difficulty of finding the coaches to work with so many players in practice and/or assist with the JV team, which can be ameliorated with part-timers, GAs, and volunteer coaches.

It all goes back to what Hopkins92 said:

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 24, 2022, 12:39:09 PMI have a bunch of anecdotes, but I'll spare the trip down memory lane. Suffice it to say, a lot of guys just want to be part of a de facto fraternity, and the "price" might be limited playing time, but the reward is being part of a band of brothers... Lifelong friendships are priceless, IMO. And has been mentioned, at the D3 level, even with elite teams, these guys aren't there solely to progress a soccer "career."

For some guys, that particular reward is reward enough for being little more than a name on the online roster.

I think your last point above is our biggest disagreement and boils down where we see things differently.
For those guys who want to be on a 40 man squad, they can play "intramurals" and have alot of joy.
Love all the guys who were those guys,, and for a time I was,  but that is not what we should be telling high school guys to aspire to.
But granted, I may just not fully understand the "NCAA Men's Division III Soccer  Cannon"

I think the problem is that while Division 3 makes the largest single part of the membership, the structure of the rules committee is that Division 1 gets 4 of the 8 voting members on the soccer rules committee (2 each for men and women), while Division 2 and 3 each get 2 members (1 for men and 1 for women). 

Current NCAA governance does not allow for different playing rules for each division, so the rules have to be the same for all.  D1 men have been quite vocal about making the game look more like the rest of the world, and the committee responded to that.  We will see if these proposed changes actually make it into the book.

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on March 24, 2022, 07:18:57 PM
I think the problem is that while Division 3 makes the largest single part of the membership, the structure of the rules committee is that Division 1 gets 4 of the 8 voting members on the soccer rules committee (2 each for men and women), while Division 2 and 3 each get 2 members (1 for men and 1 for women). 

Current NCAA governance does not allow for different playing rules for each division, so the rules have to be the same for all.  D1 men have been quite vocal about making the game look more like the rest of the world, and the committee responded to that.  We will see if these proposed changes actually make it into the book.

Yep. Money talks, and D1 is where the money is -- although, ironically, to the best of my knowledge men's soccer is not a money-making sport on the D1 level. It's D1 football and men's basketball that foot the bills for the rest of the NCAA, their fellow D1 sports included.

Just wondering, how close is D-1 baseball to being a moneymaking proposition?  It seems to be getting more attention on television in the past ten years, and the College World Series is becoming a larger and larger event.

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on March 24, 2022, 07:18:57 PM
I think the problem is that while Division 3 makes the largest single part of the membership, the structure of the rules committee is that Division 1 gets 4 of the 8 voting members on the soccer rules committee (2 each for men and women), while Division 2 and 3 each get 2 members (1 for men and 1 for women). 

Current NCAA governance does not allow for different playing rules for each division, so the rules have to be the same for all.  D1 men have been quite vocal about making the game look more like the rest of the world, and the committee responded to that.  We will see if these proposed changes actually make it into the book.

CSO, when you say "D1 men have been quite vocal," are you referring to the coaches, players, administrators, or all of the above?

You pointing out that the divisions have to be in sync is helpful, but my reaction overall rules aside is that D3 players looking for a D1 experience should go D1, and D1 players who want a fully professional experience should try to play professionally.

Part of the problem here beyond all of our omniscience, our various inside takes and anecdotes, and digging in even harder when we disagree is that we end up getting reduced to countering and counter-countering with straw men, like wildly swinging between D3 must mimic professional soccer and D3 is really just intramurals and the participation trophy culture nonsense.

Imo, D3 soccer is wonderful and impressively competitive.  It's not easy to play in good D3 soccer programs.  You don't get there without years of commitment along with some talent.  The players want to get better, they want to feel proud in their affiliations with their programs, and many (most?) have high aspirations of their teams getting to the NCAA tourney and making a deep run.  Imo, the quality of D3 has improved and (I could be wrong about this) D3 is in a great place because a greater number of programs are legitimately competitive.  Coaches also clearly devote a lot of time to recruiting good players who will fit into their programs.  But all that said, why insist on D3 looking like D1 or professional when a result of such a forced comparison is that D3 is always going to be judged as a poor man's version of the others?  Why get stuck in that paradigm? The players who chose D3, even the arguably D1 caliber talents, chose D3.  No need to dance around that.  No need to to try to make it something it isn't.  One would think that when a player chooses D3 he is doing so most often for multiple reasons, and often one of the reasons is precisely because it's not D1 with D1 burdens while still being serious and worthy of a high level of commitment.  Some players choose D3 precisely so that they do have the option to go abroad or do an exciting internship, or to enjoy social and campus lives a little bit broader than what most can do as D1 athletes.

GS said what I was trying to say much more effectively....that much of this discussion seems to overlook or undervalue the experience of the D3 athlete, and that the experience of D3 athlete should be paramount.  It's easy for all 15 of us on this site (kidding but sort of not) to get worked up and talk about national and international ideals.....reminds me of Kevin O'Leary's snark on Shark Tank with "Congratulations...you're making hundreds of dollars!"  Outside of a group of us who love to stream D3 games and post important insights, there really isn't a ton of interest.  Even within the D3 universe, the number of people truly obsessed with D3 soccer and whether there is re-entry or not, is tiny.  ESPN isn't running bracket contests for the D3 tournament.  The people who are the most impacted, by far, are the players first, and second, their parents (who tend to have high involvement during their kids' playing years and then move on). 

Hopkins, even though we seem to fall on the opposite side of arguments frequently, I really appreciate your willingness to hear out arguments with some openness to revising your opinion.  Yes, I agree that for many kids just being part of the group with "one's brothers" can be fulfilling, much like a regular fraternity.  But I'm sure they'd rather play.  At at lot of these programs players tend to live together especially in junior and senior years.  Players sometimes live with 4-6 other teammates in apartment or dorm suite settings.  Imagine being in a 5 man apartment and four play 65+ minutes while the fifth rarely if ever plays.  As a parent, I was thrilled that my kid developed such a bond and made some life-long friends.  The experience was incredibly valuable to him, but I think the experience would have been radically different if he didn't play.  And as much as I love that part of his college experience, I thought they actually spent too much time together...same apartments, eat together, party together, etc on top of the actual soccer.  Very few take advantage of more than 5% of what a college has to offer....like maybe spend a couple of hours a week at the women's center or environmental club or learning another language instead of another round of Fifa 2020 with the brothers.

We're probably going around in circles at this point, but I return to who are the rules changes for and who do they benefit (or not).  Without re-entry, Messiah and Tufts are still gonna look like Messiah and Tufts.  "Kick and run" (another straw man wildly overused) programs are not going to start playing a different style, and possession oriented and successful high press teams aren't going to fall off a cliff or play differently.  The benefits some seem to think will occur with increased restrictions are imo way, way overblown.  And that may be part of my own resistance.  I don't think the changes will do much of anything other than limit subbing.  As an aside, does anyone truly believe the European leagues have suffered going to 5 subs instead of 3?

Quote from: Martindale on March 25, 2022, 08:44:55 AM
Just wondering, how close is D-1 baseball to being a moneymaking proposition?  It seems to be getting more attention on television in the past ten years, and the College World Series is becoming a larger and larger event.

I mean, we're kind of floating into OT territory, but from what I've read, VERY FEW D1 baseball teams are in the black. I think it's somewhere in the 5-10 percent range.

As mentioned, the only consistent moneymakers in D1 are men's football and basketball. You see a lot of attention for a number of sports come playoff time (softball is a great example) but they don't typically pack out their home games during the regular season, which really helps drive revenue.

I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations.  If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

Quote from: SimpleCoach on March 25, 2022, 04:11:28 PM
I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations. If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

... or UMHB.

If Clif Carroll wants to stay at UMHB as Head Men's Basketball Coach and not move higher, then he can win as many ASC championships as he can. We will watch what happens at UMHB with football now that Coach Fred has turned over the reins.

Is there not strong alumni engagement at some of the UAA schools? Some Centennial schools? Hope and Calvin? RMC, HSC and W&L? Some WIAC programs? Wartburg? The Johnnies and the former Tommies?

Now I am seeking information as I go longer into the topic. What about NESCAC and some NEWMAC schools? Am I missing any?

Quote from: SimpleCoach on March 25, 2022, 04:11:28 PM
I would also add that while many schools have large revenue as a result of their football and basketball teams, they aren't necessarily "making money."  These programs are notoriously expensive to run.  But where they see a tremendous benefit to having a successful or high-profile program, is in alumni engagement and donations.  If you want to see an example at the D3 level about how important it's been to the school to have a successful football program consistently over the last few decades, look at Mount Union.  A case study for why a school would go all in to build very successful program/s/athletics.

SC.

There is actually a pretty significant academic literature on this proposition and, in general, it agrees with Simple Coach's observation

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015611186 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015611186)

There is some controversy on this in the literature, however, arguably because of methodological difficulties involving the use of macro data and confounding variables.  It also is usually based on really big time success that the public easily perceives and cares about because it's on TV and in the news.  In D3, there are plenty of alums who may never realize or care about a school's championships if they don't remain fans of that team.

Some try to deal with methodological problems by looking at confidential data for a single institution, which, of course, has all the flaws of being overly micro in approach.

https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/162rosen.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/162rosen.pdf)

The stronger connection from the microdata seems to be for giving among student-athletes themselves.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247739539_Athletics_and_Alumni_Giving_Evidence_From_a_Highly_Selective_Liberal_Arts_College (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247739539_Athletics_and_Alumni_Giving_Evidence_From_a_Highly_Selective_Liberal_Arts_College)

One doctoral student who also used an individual school's data, but confined the analysis to student-athletes on one sport (basketball), found that their probability of giving increased 6-8% for each additional year that they were in the program and their individual success on the court was correlated with higher giving.

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1917&context=dissertations (https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1917&context=dissertations)

To bring the subject back to the original topic, this kind of evidence suggests that, at least for D3 schools, the student athlete's experience likely matters in giving, which is at least partly a function of both team and individual success.  Presumably, playing time is a factor there.  That doesn't resolve whether the no second half re-entry rule would affect playing time and therefore how the student feels about their experience.  I suggest it would not affect the bottom of the roster, but would allow more meaningful time among the middle, while PN suggests it would reduce the number of players who would play at all each game. Others contend the rule wouldn't matter because plenty of players just want to be part of the team the same way team managers just want to be part of the team.  Regardless of which would be the case, which is an empirical matter upon which reasonable people can disagree and would likely be affected by how coaches change in response to the new rules, it does suggest that PN and GS are right that even if the administrations of these schools are focused on $, they should be looking at the long-term effect on the overall student-athlete experience from these kinds of rule changes.  Right now, there is probably too much of a short-term focus on effect from increased tuition revenue in the coming year of increasing rosters.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 22, 2022, 12:21:17 AM
I'm not arguing in favor of using the substitution rules to make the game more resemble the pro game.  My hypothesis is that it could provide more meaningful minutes to the middle third of the roster,  From what I've seen, under the current substitution rules, the bottom third of most rosters only play, if at all, against weaker opponents.  Changing the sub rules won't affect them or mess with D3's role in the college soccer ecosystem (the increase in rosters to accommodate colleges' needs to recruit full pay students is probably already doing that).  I'm suggesting that it would force coaches to give a bit more meaningful minutes in a row and in key moments to those middle third players.

I could be wrong and coaches would simply try to play more players 90 minutes and not use some bench players to give a breather to a set of starters, but I just don't think that's realistic given the compressed schedule.

Hello @Kuiper...in your most recent post you again mentioned your view that getting rid of re-entry wouldn't impact the back end of the roster (who most likely would not play or play much regardless), would not impact whether more or less subs play, and would actually benefit the subs in terms of "more meaningful" minutes.  So I thought pulling up your original post on this might be helpful.  I've appreciated your input in the thread and would like to hear more about exactly why you think the number of subs would largely remain the same but especially why you think they'd get more meaningful minutes.

I think sometimes these discussions benefit from a personalized approach to help us think about these things in concrete terms.

First, with re-entry and as typical starter who gets subbed.  When my son started as a mid/attacking he like most of the other middies would play the first 22-30 minutes of first half, start the second half and play thru to the 58-65th minute, and go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.  The other option would be the same for first half, not starting the second half, coming in around the 60-65 minute mark, getting subbed around the 75-80 minute area, sitting 5 minutes, and going back in for the final 8-10 minutes.  In broad terms, the above seems consistent with what many teams do with their forwards, most or all of the midfield, and sometimes the outside backs.

When he wasn't a starter, he would come in around the 22-28 minute mark in the first half and finish out the half.  He would go in around the 55-60 min mark, play for 10-15 minutes and come out 70-75 min mark, and often go back around the 80-85th.

Assuming the coach wants to play a sub roughly the same number of minutes regardless of the rule, how would my kid get more meaningful minutes without re-entry?

With re-entry no longer an option, the first half obviously would likely be very similar to how first halves currently work.  The coach could then start my kid for the second half and play him 15-20 minutes (but how many coaches are going to sit starters that long after they already came out halfway thru the first half and will have not played for 35-40 minutes straight?) and then he's done by the 60-65 min mark.  Or, the coach begins second half with the starter who goes the full 45 (because won't be able to go back in), or the sub comes in around the 70-75 minute mark and finishes out the game.  I haven't thought all that through in detail, but I'm guessing most coaches will want to have the option of having the starters on the field the last 10-15 min of a tight game.  Beyond the obvious dilemmas, I'm interested in how my kid's minutes become more meaningful.  Because he's playing the middle chunk of the game (last part of first half and first part of second half) and/or because of last part of first half and last 15-25 min of second half?  I'm not seeing where you would reach a conclusion about "more meaningful."

BTW, now I've realized there is another option with no re-entry that the more talented, deeper might employ that would actually increase the number of subs (while admittedly reducing number of minutes for all).  Coaches could adjust by adding a third line of subs for the second half, since the limit isn't on number of subs but rather re-entry.  This scenario doesn't seem to help the "beautiful game" proponents at all and indeed could make things worse.  Very curious to hear thoughts about this very possible outcome.

At any rate, I don't want to shy away from fully owning that my overarching interest is in my own kid.  And obviously that's in hindsight.  He's 29, which blow my mind, because I still think of him as 16/17 and me as like maybe 12.  Anyway, it would be incredibly frustrating for your kid to pick a school among multiple attractive choices in part or largely due to the perceived soccer opportunity, and then to see him not play or have minutes heavily constrained by a rule that in my mind seems archaic and I'm not sure has an analogue with any other major sport (maybe baseball which I don't follow and have zero interest in?).

As a parent of a soon to be D3 soccer player (entering freshman next fall), I've been following this discussion with interest.  Without any real context for my opinion (only watched a few D3 games last fall) -- count me in the camp for keeping the reentry rule as-is. 

My son chose a program where he likely will not see many minutes as a freshman over others where there was a much better chance of immediate minutes.  The rule change would only decrease his chances of any minutes as a freshman.  The hope is that minutes will increase with each season.  The idea of having a more traditional college "experience" as a D3 athlete was also an important consideration for him.  That "experience" includes getting playing time before senior year.  Part of the pull to D3 was the chance to see the field sooner -- this rule change impacts that. 

Add to this the fact that the schedule is already very compressed, so the rule change may also negatively impact athlete health.

So, as I see it, the recommendation being made is going to negatively impact the D3 student athlete's college experience (playing time and health for those playing increased minutes due to the change).  Looks to me like the rule change does not have the interest of the D3 player at its core. 

Quote from: Chargers96 on March 26, 2022, 03:12:08 PM
As a parent of a soon to be D3 soccer player (entering freshman next fall), I've been following this discussion with interest.  Without any real context for my opinion (only watched a few D3 games last fall) -- count me in the camp for keeping the reentry rule as-is. 

My son chose a program where he likely will not see many minutes as a freshman over others where there was a much better chance of immediate minutes.  The rule change would only decrease his chances of any minutes as a freshman.  The hope is that minutes will increase with each season.  The idea of having a more traditional college "experience" as a D3 athlete was also an important consideration for him.  That "experience" includes getting playing time before senior year.  Part of the pull to D3 was the chance to see the field sooner -- this rule change impacts that. 

Add to this the fact that the schedule is already very compressed, so the rule change may also negatively impact athlete health.

So, as I see it, the recommendation being made is going to negatively impact the D3 student athlete's college experience (playing time and health for those playing increased minutes due to the change).  Looks to me like the rule change does not have the interest of the D3 player at its core.

To be fair, none of the proponents here of ditching re-entry have argued that such a rule change would enhance the experience for the student-athlete.  It's not clear that this criterion even registers in their assessments.  At best, the player experience aspect is a very distant consideration next to viewer satisfaction and/or the larger mission of improved quality of the game across the soccer spectrum nationally if not globally.  I've seen no evidence that the proposed change has been motivated by the player experience at all.  There instead has been a vague suggestion that a team's usual subs could get more meaningful minutes as a side consequence of the change, and I suppose also a character-building and/or moment of truth consequence where a true footballer starts with little to nothing, works super hard, and climbs the ladder to becoming an important part of his team over the four years OR walks away realizing that he doesn't cut it or won't or stays after that realization because of social/affiliation benefits.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 26, 2022, 12:54:26 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on March 22, 2022, 12:21:17 AM
I'm not arguing in favor of using the substitution rules to make the game more resemble the pro game.  My hypothesis is that it could provide more meaningful minutes to the middle third of the roster,  From what I've seen, under the current substitution rules, the bottom third of most rosters only play, if at all, against weaker opponents.  Changing the sub rules won't affect them or mess with D3's role in the college soccer ecosystem (the increase in rosters to accommodate colleges' needs to recruit full pay students is probably already doing that).  I'm suggesting that it would force coaches to give a bit more meaningful minutes in a row and in key moments to those middle third players.

I could be wrong and coaches would simply try to play more players 90 minutes and not use some bench players to give a breather to a set of starters, but I just don't think that's realistic given the compressed schedule.

Hello @Kuiper...in your most recent post you again mentioned your view that getting rid of re-entry wouldn't impact the back end of the roster (who most likely would not play or play much regardless), would not impact whether more or less subs play, and would actually benefit the subs in terms of "more meaningful" minutes.  So I thought pulling up your original post on this might be helpful.  I've appreciated your input in the thread and would like to hear more about exactly why you think the number of subs would largely remain the same but especially why you think they'd get more meaningful minutes.

I think sometimes these discussions benefit from a personalized approach to help us think about these things in concrete terms.

First, with re-entry and as typical starter who gets subbed.  When my son started as a mid/attacking he like most of the other middies would play the first 22-30 minutes of first half, start the second half and play thru to the 58-65th minute, and go back in for the last 10-15 minutes.  The other option would be the same for first half, not starting the second half, coming in around the 60-65 minute mark, getting subbed around the 75-80 minute area, sitting 5 minutes, and going back in for the final 8-10 minutes.  In broad terms, the above seems consistent with what many teams do with their forwards, most or all of the midfield, and sometimes the outside backs.

When he wasn't a starter, he would come in around the 22-28 minute mark in the first half and finish out the half.  He would go in around the 55-60 min mark, play for 10-15 minutes and come out 70-75 min mark, and often go back around the 80-85th.

Assuming the coach wants to play a sub roughly the same number of minutes regardless of the rule, how would my kid get more meaningful minutes without re-entry?

With re-entry no longer an option, the first half obviously would likely be very similar to how first halves currently work.  The coach could then start my kid for the second half and play him 15-20 minutes (but how many coaches are going to sit starters that long after they already came out halfway thru the first half and will have not played for 35-40 minutes straight?) and then he's done by the 60-65 min mark.  Or, the coach begins second half with the starter who goes the full 45 (because won't be able to go back in), or the sub comes in around the 70-75 minute mark and finishes out the game.  I haven't thought all that through in detail, but I'm guessing most coaches will want to have the option of having the starters on the field the last 10-15 min of a tight game.  Beyond the obvious dilemmas, I'm interested in how my kid's minutes become more meaningful.  Because he's playing the middle chunk of the game (last part of first half and first part of second half) and/or because of last part of first half and last 15-25 min of second half?  I'm not seeing where you would reach a conclusion about "more meaningful."

BTW, now I've realized there is another option with no re-entry that the more talented, deeper might employ that would actually increase the number of subs (while admittedly reducing number of minutes for all).  Coaches could adjust by adding a third line of subs for the second half, since the limit isn't on number of subs but rather re-entry.  This scenario doesn't seem to help the "beautiful game" proponents at all and indeed could make things worse.  Very curious to hear thoughts about this very possible outcome.

At any rate, I don't want to shy away from fully owning that my overarching interest is in my own kid.  And obviously that's in hindsight.  He's 29, which blow my mind, because I still think of him as 16/17 and me as like maybe 12.  Anyway, it would be incredibly frustrating for your kid to pick a school among multiple attractive choices in part or largely due to the perceived soccer opportunity, and then to see him not play or have minutes heavily constrained by a rule that in my mind seems archaic and I'm not sure has an analogue with any other major sport (maybe baseball which I don't follow and have zero interest in?).

Interesting. I thought you were coming at this from the perspective of the weaker (but not unplayable) D3 player who you assume wouldn't be able to play their 5-10 minute stretches in the second half because of this rule since the coach would no longer take his starters out and be able to sub them right back on. Worrying about those small minute players would seem to be consistent with the D3 participation/team experience focus I thought you were extolling.  Based on your description of your son and your frustration, however, it sounds like you are instead coming at this from the perspective of how this is going to squeeze out the players who already play most of the minutes. I can understand why a player and his parents who chose D3 over D1 specifically to maximize his minutes might be disgruntled, but I'm not sure why that is critical to the values of D3 sports.

My argument, though, is that the rule change could force some coaches to widen the circle of players they have to develop so they can trust them to play at the end of the game or when the game is in the balance. That's what I mean by meaningful.  The re-entry rule in the second half currently means that coaches can get away with a pretty small circle of players they trust, consisting of the starters and a few specialists or utility players. You even said yourself that coaches wouldn't want to sit their starters that long in the middle of the game and they would want to have their starters in at the end of the game. That's because they only trust their "starters." Without the crutch of re-entry, coaches either have to play their starters the entire second half, which might not be practical, or go through the process of giving kids the playing time so they can trust a wider group of players to play in critical moments.

At least that's my theory. I have some experience with no re-entry in DA/MLS Next at the older age groups and it seems to work that way most of the time there, but NCAA sub rules are so unique, that it's hard to know for sure what would happen with re-entry in one half and not the other.  It is true that a coach could eliminate 2d half subs or minimize minutes to the first few minutes of the 2d half. I just think that's less realistic, although it would be easier if you turn the game into less of a track meet or physical game and more of a passing game. That is what some proponents of the reform hope to see, but that may be difficult if there is a smaller pool of technically gifted players at the D3 level.

@Kuiper, I think I'm getting more confused as we go along.

Yes, I am in favor of coaches having flexibility to play more guys rather than less, but yeah, my argument isn't centered on players #18/19 thru #25ish getting a few minutes when coaches aren't playing them even with re-entry.  And I'll come back to this, but coaches aren't going to play those guys with re-entry or without re-entry aside from blowouts.  So yes, I'm more interested in the subs category of players #12 thru #17/18ish.  And it's the latter group that I thought you were suggesting would get more meaningful minutes without re-entry.

This is all sounding quite counter-intuitive...more meaningful time and even more players get to play with LESS subbing options (aka more restrictions).  But I'm also confused because I thought the anti-re-entry advocates were advocating based on an argument about the improved quality, aesthetics, and even character building/moment of truth effects of the rule change.  In your suggestion, if I'm reading it right, I should be happier and the anti-re-entry advocates should be even unhappier if the change goes through.  You seem to be suggesting that the change will yield even more players subbing in with more stoppages, more disruptions and impact on flow, more emphasis on fresh legs and pure athleticism, etc.....in short, the exact opposite outcome desired by those supporting a ban on re-entry.  In your account, they should vehemently oppose a change to no re-entry.

As a practical matter I think you're wrong.  Most coaches aren't going to play that third group you suggest when that group isn't playing even with a 'more options' paradigm.  Not following that logic at all.  The coach would have a dilemma about how to play his or her first-line subs #12 thru 17/18ish, and those are the minutes most likely to get squeezed.  The first-line subs getting squeezed isn't going to yield a third group into the mix.  And no, it's not a matter of trust.  I never argued for a total equity model where players #1 thru #25 are all treated equally.  In general, starters should play more minutes, and almost all coaches (in any sport) will want their starters available in the late phase of a game that is competitive.  It's hard for me to imagine a coach wanting to play his first-line subs for the first 10-15 min of 2nd half, then another second-line of subs for the next 10-15, and save the starters for the final 10-15 (some of whom would have been sitting since the 25 minutes mark of the 1st half). 

The third group needing to make a decision about whether to remain on the team is the one aspect of this where I agree wholeheartedly with the ban re-entry advocates.  If my kid is #20 on the team (or still #20 or lower by soph year), he's got to make a decision and one where I wouldn't have a ton of empathy.  But making a decision that it's worth being part of the team even if you aren't gonna play is a very different psychological dynamic (and less cause for disappointment/resentment/dissension) than a player who has worked his way into the first-tier sub mix or even sometimes starter who sees his time diminish sharply or evaporate entirely.

Quick reset here, because while I have read the entire discussion over the course of two weeks, I really haven't seen or recall seeing this question addressed and don't wish to read it all again...  Are these rule changes in search of a problem to fix, or was there a stated purpose behind them?

Quote from: VAFury on March 27, 2022, 02:38:29 PM
Quick reset here, because while I have read the entire discussion over the course of two weeks, I really haven't seen or recall seeing this question addressed and don't wish to read it all again...  Are these rule changes in search of a problem to fix, or was there a stated purpose behind them?

Here is the closest thing to an official explanation provided by the NCAA in its press release (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/2/28/championships-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-change-to-overtime-rules.aspx (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/2/28/championships-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-change-to-overtime-rules.aspx)):

QuoteReentry

The committee proposed a change where players would not be allowed to reenter a game after being substituted for in the second half.

This would align the substitution rule with the rest of the periods in the sport (first half, and both overtime periods in conference tournaments and postseason games) where players are not allowed to reenter a game after leaving the field for a substitute.

The committee held thorough discussions on this topic, which has been on its agenda in recent years. Committee members contemplated different possible models before making this recommendation.

Not exactly an explanation for why we have a different rule for 2d half and what has changed that leads to this reform proposal. My understanding is that the whole reform is linked to the 21st Century reform proposal for spreading the season over two semesters (in D1 Men's soccer only) - the idea being that second half re-entry is only needed when the schedule is compressed into one semester -- but the two proposals aren't officially linked.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 27, 2022, 10:25:14 AM
@Kuiper, I think I'm getting more confused as we go along.

Yes, I am in favor of coaches having flexibility to play more guys rather than less, but yeah, my argument isn't centered on players #18/19 thru #25ish getting a few minutes when coaches aren't playing them even with re-entry.  And I'll come back to this, but coaches aren't going to play those guys with re-entry or without re-entry aside from blowouts.  So yes, I'm more interested in the subs category of players #12 thru #17/18ish.  And it's the latter group that I thought you were suggesting would get more meaningful minutes without re-entry.

This is all sounding quite counter-intuitive...more meaningful time and even more players get to play with LESS subbing options (aka more restrictions).  But I'm also confused because I thought the anti-re-entry advocates were advocating based on an argument about the improved quality, aesthetics, and even character building/moment of truth effects of the rule change.  In your suggestion, if I'm reading it right, I should be happier and the anti-re-entry advocates should be even unhappier if the change goes through.  You seem to be suggesting that the change will yield even more players subbing in with more stoppages, more disruptions and impact on flow, more emphasis on fresh legs and pure athleticism, etc.....in short, the exact opposite outcome desired by those supporting a ban on re-entry.  In your account, they should vehemently oppose a change to no re-entry.

As a practical matter I think you're wrong.  Most coaches aren't going to play that third group you suggest when that group isn't playing even with a 'more options' paradigm.  Not following that logic at all.  The coach would have a dilemma about how to play his or her first-line subs #12 thru 17/18ish, and those are the minutes most likely to get squeezed.  The first-line subs getting squeezed isn't going to yield a third group into the mix.  And no, it's not a matter of trust.  I never argued for a total equity model where players #1 thru #25 are all treated equally.  In general, starters should play more minutes, and almost all coaches (in any sport) will want their starters available in the late phase of a game that is competitive.  It's hard for me to imagine a coach wanting to play his first-line subs for the first 10-15 min of 2nd half, then another second-line of subs for the next 10-15, and save the starters for the final 10-15 (some of whom would have been sitting since the 25 minutes mark of the 1st half). 

The third group needing to make a decision about whether to remain on the team is the one aspect of this where I agree wholeheartedly with the ban re-entry advocates.  If my kid is #20 on the team (or still #20 or lower by soph year), he's got to make a decision and one where I wouldn't have a ton of empathy.  But making a decision that it's worth being part of the team even if you aren't gonna play is a very different psychological dynamic (and less cause for disappointment/resentment/dissension) than a player who has worked his way into the first-tier sub mix or even sometimes starter who sees his time diminish sharply or evaporate entirely.

It's actually pretty simple, so I'm obviously mucking up the explanation.  I definitely never suggested coaches would play the third group of players - quite the contrary as you will see if you read all my posts on this thread.  Nor did I suggest it would result in more subbing in and out.  I don't know where you get that from my "more meaningful minutes" prediction for the middle tier player.  Let me explain by laying out the scenarios more plainly:

1.  Coach doesn't sub out starters in second half. Mid-tier players lose their minutes in the middle of the second half.

2.  Coach continues to sub out starters in second half.  Mid-tier players play until the end of the game.

3.  Coach starts the mid-tier players in the second half and brings back the first half starters to ride out the game.

I think some coaches would do #1, but they have to either have fitter players, which is more difficult in D3 with practice restrictions out of season and somewhat less control of them than in D1 in-season, or switch to a less physically taxing possession game, which requires recruiting different types of players who can play possession-based soccer against coaches who opt for #2 or 3.  For coaches who opt for #2 or #3, they don't have to switch their coaching style or recruiting formula at all and they don't really have to alter the allocation of minutes much if at all. They just have to develop a larger pool of players who they can trust in the middle (start of the second half) and/or end of the game.

Re the no re-entry rule. The one thing I hope and expect this rule change to do is limit the purposeful time wasting by teams with the lead in the second half. This may have been mentioned here already, but I recall reading a study that analyzed games and found with statistical significance that the leading team had a disproportionately high number of subs in the second half. We've all seen it.  Coaches with the lead try to kill the game. You can't really blame them, but I absolutely hate it. I hope this rule limits the coaches' ability to ruin the games that we all love to watch. Keep your fingers crossed.

Rule changes often have unintended consequences. We'll have to wait and see what happens this year. Some teams and players will be affected more than others. Coaches and players will adjust and everybody is going to be okay.

Other than limiting time wasting, I'm not sure how I feel about the no re-rule.  I love to watch new players at all levels get a chance and fight their way into the lineup. I am a firm believer that soccer is a game that requires a player to be part of the flow of a game. Yes I know we want players to make an immediate impact.  But the reality is that this beautiful game is a dance and players need time to feel the pace and the rhythm. You either agree or disagree.  I hope the rule change will give the players who do get on the pitch, be it starters or subs, the time to find their pace and place in the game. We've all seen kids put on and pulled off too quickly.  I think some of these athletes will benefit from getting a chance to settle in. That may not happen if the sub comes at the last five minutes, but that same kid will hopefully get another shot in the second half.  Like I said, we'll see.

I agree with previous comments about the quality of these young men.  The many I have met have a impressed me as being great athletes and young men of character.  The Division III soccer experience is overall very positive. Every place is different, but my experience has been that the toxicity often present in youth soccer is largely absent at Division III. Maybe that's true across the college athletic landscape.

I can't wait for the season to start. Many programs will be having spring training. Please post your updates on another thread here. I look forward to reading about what's happening.

Quote from: CC United on March 27, 2022, 06:32:33 PM
Re the no re-entry rule. The one thing I hope and expect this rule change to do is limit the purposeful time wasting by teams with the lead in the second half. This may have been mentioned here already, but I recall reading a study that analyzed games and found with statistical significance that the leading team had a disproportionately high number of subs in the second half. We've all seen it.  Coaches with the lead try to kill the game. You can't really blame them, but I absolutely hate it. I hope this rule limits the coaches' ability to ruin the games that we all love to watch. Keep your fingers crossed.

Rule changes often have unintended consequences. We'll have to wait and see what happens this year. Some teams and players will be affected more than others. Coaches and players will adjust and everybody is going to be okay.

Other than limiting time wasting, I'm not sure how I feel about the no re-rule.  I love to watch new players at all levels get a chance and fight their way into the lineup. I am a firm believer that soccer is a game that requires a player to be part of the flow of a game. Yes I know we want players to make an immediate impact.  But the reality is that this beautiful game is a dance and players need time to feel the pace and the rhythm. You either agree or disagree.  I hope the rule change will give the players who do get on the pitch, be it starters or subs, the time to find their pace and place in the game. We've all seen kids put on and pulled off too quickly.  I think some of these athletes will benefit from getting a chance to settle in. That may not happen if the sub comes at the last five minutes, but that same kid will hopefully get another shot in the second half.  Like I said, we'll see.

I agree with previous comments about the quality of these young men.  The many I have met have a impressed me as being great athletes and young men of character.  The Division III soccer experience is overall very positive. Every place is different, but my experience has been that the toxicity often present in youth soccer is largely absent at Division III. Maybe that's true across the college athletic landscape.

I can't wait for the season to start. Many programs will be having spring training. Please post your updates on another thread here. I look forward to reading about what's happening.

Now seems we've gone full circle.

In 12+ years of following D3 soccer pretty closely I don't recall a single time I noticed a team using subbing to waste time.  See that all the time in the 90th minute or injury time in professional leagues but never once thought this was an issue in D3.  The time wasting in D3 is usually via teams taking forever on throw ins and GKs taking double to triple the time to get a goal kick off.  Also haven't seen coaches putting in subs and pulling them after 2 minutes.

@Kuiper, not sure what to say at this point as it seems we are gonna keep missing each other.  You apparently thought I was advocating for a third group of players ("weaker but not unplayable") who either don't play or play just a little and might get more time with the new rule.  I never advocated for the third group and in any case I don't see how that would increase time for that group.  I think the confusion on my side comes from your references to coaches developing a larger pool of players to play more minutes and hence concluding at least another few players (the mysterious third group) would get into the mix who otherwise might not.  And this seems to be only because of a hunch that coaches would sit or play all the starters at the same time.  I don't see your scenario happening, as most coaches are likely to just keep at least 3-5 starters in for the whole second half rather than go even deeper into the bench.  Basically I'm saying you aren't going to get more meaningful minutes for a larger group of subs or really even for the usual subs that take most of the sub minutes.

I see the rule changes as part of the continuing effort to make the game experience similar to those used by FIFA sanctioned tournaments. The players playing in college are mainly guys coming out of elite youth leagues where the rules are similar to those proposed.

I haven't chimed in since the very beginning but I'll just leave this here. It seems like people fall in 2 categories, those who think D3 should be about the players as much as possible and those who think that sport, whether D3 or not, should more resemble the international acceptance of what that sport should be.

I would say that I've seen some people take the second argument and talk about how bad it is for D3 players, but they won't look at the other side. If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous, but the re-entry rule is about a strategy, not truly about the players, or that's exactly the rule you'd have.

Does re-entry benefit more players by sometimes giving more time than they would get in a no second half re-entry? Yes. But does it serve all the players with some saintly D3 philosophy? No. It's just an arbitrary line. Now if you want that arbitrary line, it's easy to argue how much it benefits more players, but that doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. Sadly, the no second half re-entry is just ANOTHER arbitrary line.

So this whole discussion revolves around where you set that arbitrary line. It doesn't fully serve D3 athletes, or else they'd all play, and it doesn't fully serve the rules of the international standard for highest level competition. And neither will the proposed rule.

So choose your sides and drive some traffic to this site in the offseason, but be honest and decide which arbitrary extreme you'd prefer... everyone who makes the roster plays every game, or the perfect mimic of international soccer rules. Then start sliding and hemming and hawing to find that arbitrary compromise you think you can live with. Because that is really where D3 is trying to exist, some weird compromise that isn't "all player" and isn't "all standard".

Quote from: camosfan on March 28, 2022, 10:46:19 AM
I see the rule changes as part of the continuing effort to make the game experience similar to those used by FIFA sanctioned tournaments. The players playing in college are mainly guys coming out of elite youth leagues where the rules are similar to those proposed.

And what is the purpose of that continued effort?  Why is that a good thing?  Is some D3 kid going to develop into a better player with these rules and some day score a goal for the USMNT at the World Cup?  What is the massive benefit that outweighs the negatives?

More to the point, are you (and others) suggesting that you truly would prefer a fully professionalized D3 where only 3, or maybe 5, subs can come in and can only do so like pro leagues now so that starters are done in whatever minute they are subbed and we'd have a typical scenario of one or two subs at the 60-65 minute mark, and then another couple of subs at the 80-85th minute?

And want injury time as well?

I admit I have no clue about the origins of the re-entry rule, other than to say I didn't realize it was or is a 'strategy' in terms of its origins.

And I don't know what to say about the idea that having a less restrictive environment for subbing slides us right into a "participation medal, trophies for all" model.  Last I checked, the teams most well known for using a good number of subs, like Messiah, Tufts, W&L, etc are trying their very best to win and they also seem quite comfortable carrying a group of players who never or rarely play at all.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 11:13:26 AM
I admit I have no clue about the origins of the re-entry rule, other than to say I didn't realize it was or is a 'strategy' in terms of its origins.

And I don't know what to say about the idea that having a less restrictive environment for subbing slides us right into a "participation medal, trophies for all" model.  Last I checked, the teams most well known for using a good number of subs, like Messiah, Tufts, W&L, etc are trying their very best to win and they also seem quite comfortable carrying a group of players who never or rarely play at all.

Are you not arguing what is best for the players is more subbing so more can play? Isn't that your repeated argument for why D3 should not go to a more restrictive policy? If so, then the goal for D3 would be if you are on the roster, you should play. That is the logical conclusion. It is what is best for the D3 athlete. Now if you aren't good enough to make the team, you still wouldn't play, but, if it's all about the athletes, then all on the team should play. How is that not "best" based on the D3 model of being all for the players?

If that makes your argument feel different and require a snap about participation medals, which is not what would happen, you would still have to make the roster to be a D3 player, it is a very strong defensive reaction. Which should tell you something about your argument. Namely, that it's not all about the players. It's about winning. And winning involves playing your best players at the best times to give you the best chance. Whether that is with unlimited subbing, or limited re-entry, is simply a change in strategy for the coaches.

But since not all players play, it's not really about all the players is it? Just slightly more of the players. And that slightly is completely arbitrary based on the current rule adoption.

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 11:00:32 AM

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Someone pointed out earlier, that the rules are uniform across all  NCAA division, there is no carve out for D3, that may help in understanding the objectives. My experience tells me coaches will respond to the sub ruling by rotating starters; there is enough game time ,playing 2-3 games per week to fit in most players on the squad. Players playing at youth level play one game per week with a 28 player roster.

Quote from: camosfan on March 28, 2022, 11:56:18 AM
Someone pointed out earlier, that the rules are uniform across all  NCAA division, there is no carve out for D3, that may help in understanding the objectives.

Yes, this has been established.  But imo none of the alleged benefits of the change (other than some aesthetic symmetry with professional which I've noted several times has INCREASED the number of subs) have been substantiated.  Do the pros outweigh the cons?  Imo, it's not even a close call.

There's a presumption that college soccer would benefit from being more like professional/international soccer.  Why not the reverse?  What is the origin of the 3 sub standard with no re-entry for anyone?

I'd like to see "real soccer" modernized....one re-entry, more total number of subs allowed, stopping the clock for time wasting, no injury time or add injury time to the clock in real time rather than the ref deciding how a game continues with the practice of allowing an attacking team to finish their possible chance before blowing the whistle, etc....

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 11:49:58 AM

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 11:00:32 AM

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 12:15:45 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 11:49:58 AM

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 11:00:32 AM

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I wasn't feeling defensive before but I suppose we may be edging into that area (you too maybe?). 

I know your story.  I've tried to make clear from the beginning that I'm not advocating for players borderline to make the team or unlikely to play much no matter how long they stick with it.  I was very prepared for my kid to not play at all.  The first few games of his frosh year he didn't even have a jersey (and with a frosh class of 20) and then a couple of games later he was starting which almost seemed like a fluke.

If you think your logic requires me to concede "OK, yes, all players must play and a good amount to boot" then why wouldn't you have to concede that soccer at all levels would benefit from having no subs at all?  Why 3?  Or 5?  I mean, you're good enough and fit enough to start then you can or should be able to play the whole game, and if injuries occur that's just part of the game.

This is college, not WC qualifying...and college with a very condensed 2.5-3 months season.  I'm only arguing for not having an increase in restrictions, and after all this time, I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be better once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 will look or be more legitimate somehow or look prettier).

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 12:15:45 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 11:49:58 AM

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 11:00:32 AM

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I wasn't feeling defensive before but I suppose we may be edging into that area (you too maybe?). 

I know your story.  I've tried to make clear from the beginning that I'm not advocating for players borderline to make the team or unlikely to play much no matter how long they stick with it.  I was very prepared for my kid to not play at all.  The first few games of his frosh year he didn't even have a jersey (and with a frosh class of 20) and then a couple of games later he was starting which almost seemed like a fluke.

If you think your logic requires me to concede "OK, yes, all players must play and a good amount to boot" then why wouldn't you have to concede that soccer at all levels would benefit from having no subs at all?  Why 3?  Or 5?  I mean, you're good enough and fit enough to start then you can or should be able to play the whole game, and if injuries occur that's just part of the game.

This is college, not WC qualifying...and college with a very condensed 2.5-3 months season.  I'm only arguing for not having an increase in restrictions, and after all this time, I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be better once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 will look or be more legitimate somehow or look prettier).

I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be worse once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 won't be able to put as many players on the field).

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 10:29:34 AM
@Kuiper, not sure what to say at this point as it seems we are gonna keep missing each other.  You apparently thought I was advocating for a third group of players ("weaker but not unplayable") who either don't play or play just a little and might get more time with the new rule.  I never advocated for the third group and in any case I don't see how that would increase time for that group.  I think the confusion on my side comes from your references to coaches developing a larger pool of players to play more minutes and hence concluding at least another few players (the mysterious third group) would get into the mix who otherwise might not.  And this seems to be only because of a hunch that coaches would sit or play all the starters at the same time.  I don't see your scenario happening, as most coaches are likely to just keep at least 3-5 starters in for the whole second half rather than go even deeper into the bench.  Basically I'm saying you aren't going to get more meaningful minutes for a larger group of subs or really even for the usual subs that take most of the sub minutes.

Agreed that we seem to be missing each other, so let me just add this for others in the thread rather than as a response to PN and then I'll bow out.

All I'm saying is that the same subs would basically get similar minutes in the game, but potentially at times the coach currently reserves for starters.

Currently, the middle of the second half stretch is where subs often play during the second half. For example, in the Kenyon-Messiah game on Nov. 14, Kenyon made 6 subs between 64.47 and 70.45 and all of those subs were off by 80.15.  Messiah made 5 subs between 63.07 and 68.02 and all 5 were off by 80.15 (a few were subbed at 74.43). Kenyon actually equalized at 1-1 less than a minute after its first two second half subs came on and a little over two minutes after the first three of Messiah's second half subs came on, but Messiah pulled ahead 2-1 after both teams had subbed in their (presumably) first choice players.

So, what happens without re-entry? Either they (1) leave in the starters in the whole time, (2) they let them play until they can't go any longer (so the subs come later, but stay until the end of the game unless subbed for someone else who hasn't played in the second half), or (3) they start the subs and bring in their starters when they usually bring in subs and starters play the rest of the game.  The only scenario that really changes the number of sub minutes substantially is #1.  #2 and #3 might give less minutes to subs, but those players will either start or finish the second half, which coaches currently consider meaningful minutes.  I tend to think the most likely answers for D3 are #2 or #3.  #2 allow coaches to see who needs subs and who can keep going, and, if they both do it this way, it will be a game of chicken between the coaches as to when subs come in.  They will end up both bringing in subs around the same time and in the same spots to counteract each other.  #3 basically just shifts the current "middle of the second half" subs rotation to the "middle of the game," giving starters a breather in the last 10-15 minutes of the first half and first 10-15 minutes of the second half. This isn't a hunch. It's a way this is done in youth and pro programs without re-entry now.

In D1, I do think it will reduce subs (i.e., option #1) because those programs have more control over their players and can demand better conditioning and/or they can switch to a more technical style of play more easily. I don't think either of those options are realistic in D3 and there will be more pressure to play players in D3 programs, which more resembles youth pay-to-play programs.

Bottom line, it's not likely to be worse for players in D3, it might be better in terms of when they get their minutes, and coaches can and will adapt. It's just not the big deal that some think it will be.

LOL.  Who's defensive?

I never said the product on the field would be worse with re-entry banned (other than to comment that the suggested improvements have not been compelling).

I don't have an issue with the product in D3 soccer.  I love it...including the the various styles that coaches employ to try to win.  As far as I'm concerned "the product" at D3 schools engaging in D3 athletics keeps getting better and better and the competition for spots (at least in highly competitive programs) stiffer and stiffer.

So far I see mostly red herring arguments...like the non-existent time wasting complaint.

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 12:15:45 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 28, 2022, 11:49:58 AM

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 11:00:32 AM

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I'm not following your thought process at all here. I don't see how you draw the line from D3 being centered around the student-athlete experience to mandatory game participation for everybody. That mandate has never been a D3 policy in any sport, nor have I ever encountered any suggestion from a D3 coach or administrator that it should be a D3 policy, or even that there should be a set minimum for the number of players used that is higher than the number actually required to play the sport.

I go back to something that you wrote earlier in this thread about a D3 men's soccer team being a de facto fraternity. I think that for a significant slice of a team roster, that's the salient part of the student-athlete experience, not the playing time. (That, plus ancillary benefits such as a better approach to time management, improved fitness, a semi-vicarious satisfaction in team success, etc.) There are only 990 minutes of playing time available in each game, divided by a minimum of eleven increments, and every kid on the roster is well aware of that. Some guys will play very little, and some will never play at all. It's always been that way, but the idea that somehow the student-athlete experience is automatically ruined by a lack of varsity playing time, creating a problem that needs to be rectified by mandating player participation rates to some degree, has never arisen. Why? Because it isn't true. A lack of varsity playing time doesn't automatically ruin the student-athlete experience. Some guys came to school wanting to play, but stuck around on the roster for the cameraderie, or are satisfied with playing JV minutes, or both.

I realize that you're artificially setting up two diametrically-opposed and exaggerated positions in order to bracket this conversation, but, really, I don't see how mandating universal player participation is "the logical conclusion to that line of thought," i.e., PN's player-centered position. Mandating player participation rates, all the way to forcing the coach to play every single one of his players who happens to be on the sideline in a kit, isn't taking the current rules (or anything that PN has suggested) to their logical extreme. The status quo is for flexibility, not mandates. A coach can choose to play eleven guys, and only eleven guys, in any given game, or he can empty his bench so thoroughly that he can play thirty-five guys in bite-sized time increments if he can somehow manage to make it happen. It's all up to the coach -- which is as it should be, and which players fully accept as their coach's prerogative. (Of course, D3 tournament games differ in that there is a mandatory limit on the number of players who can suit up for a game.) Why? Because student-athlete satisfaction isn't necessarily dependent upon playing time.

As an aside, this:

Quote from: jknezek on March 28, 2022, 12:15:45 PMBut if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

... isn't true. It would be true if you removed the word "just" from the sentence.

Quote from: Kuiper on March 27, 2022, 05:32:35 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 27, 2022, 10:25:14 AM
@Kuiper, I think I'm getting more confused as we go along.

Yes, I am in favor of coaches having flexibility to play more guys rather than less, but yeah, my argument isn't centered on players #18/19 thru #25ish getting a few minutes when coaches aren't playing them even with re-entry.  And I'll come back to this, but coaches aren't going to play those guys with re-entry or without re-entry aside from blowouts.  So yes, I'm more interested in the subs category of players #12 thru #17/18ish.  And it's the latter group that I thought you were suggesting would get more meaningful minutes without re-entry.

This is all sounding quite counter-intuitive...more meaningful time and even more players get to play with LESS subbing options (aka more restrictions).  But I'm also confused because I thought the anti-re-entry advocates were advocating based on an argument about the improved quality, aesthetics, and even character building/moment of truth effects of the rule change.  In your suggestion, if I'm reading it right, I should be happier and the anti-re-entry advocates should be even unhappier if the change goes through.  You seem to be suggesting that the change will yield even more players subbing in with more stoppages, more disruptions and impact on flow, more emphasis on fresh legs and pure athleticism, etc.....in short, the exact opposite outcome desired by those supporting a ban on re-entry.  In your account, they should vehemently oppose a change to no re-entry.

As a practical matter I think you're wrong.  Most coaches aren't going to play that third group you suggest when that group isn't playing even with a 'more options' paradigm.  Not following that logic at all.  The coach would have a dilemma about how to play his or her first-line subs #12 thru 17/18ish, and those are the minutes most likely to get squeezed.  The first-line subs getting squeezed isn't going to yield a third group into the mix.  And no, it's not a matter of trust.  I never argued for a total equity model where players #1 thru #25 are all treated equally.  In general, starters should play more minutes, and almost all coaches (in any sport) will want their starters available in the late phase of a game that is competitive.  It's hard for me to imagine a coach wanting to play his first-line subs for the first 10-15 min of 2nd half, then another second-line of subs for the next 10-15, and save the starters for the final 10-15 (some of whom would have been sitting since the 25 minutes mark of the 1st half). 

The third group needing to make a decision about whether to remain on the team is the one aspect of this where I agree wholeheartedly with the ban re-entry advocates.  If my kid is #20 on the team (or still #20 or lower by soph year), he's got to make a decision and one where I wouldn't have a ton of empathy.  But making a decision that it's worth being part of the team even if you aren't gonna play is a very different psychological dynamic (and less cause for disappointment/resentment/dissension) than a player who has worked his way into the first-tier sub mix or even sometimes starter who sees his time diminish sharply or evaporate entirely.

It's actually pretty simple, so I'm obviously mucking up the explanation.  I definitely never suggested coaches would play the third group of players - quite the contrary as you will see if you read all my posts on this thread.  Nor did I suggest it would result in more subbing in and out.  I don't know where you get that from my "more meaningful minutes" prediction for the middle tier player.  Let me explain by laying out the scenarios more plainly:

1.  Coach doesn't sub out starters in second half. Mid-tier players lose their minutes in the middle of the second half.

2.  Coach continues to sub out starters in second half.  Mid-tier players play until the end of the game.

3.  Coach starts the mid-tier players in the second half and brings back the first half starters to ride out the game.

I think some coaches would do #1, but they have to either have fitter players, which is more difficult in D3 with practice restrictions out of season and somewhat less control of them than in D1 in-season, or switch to a less physically taxing possession game, which requires recruiting different types of players who can play possession-based soccer against coaches who opt for #2 or 3.  For coaches who opt for #2 or #3, they don't have to switch their coaching style or recruiting formula at all and they don't really have to alter the allocation of minutes much if at all. They just have to develop a larger pool of players who they can trust in the middle (start of the second half) and/or end of the game.

Taking out whether the rule change is a net positive for players and/or the "quality" of the games, this is a really breakdown of the practical application or affect of the rule.

So, just wanted to pull this out to commend Kuiper on that front.

=-=-=-=-

One thing I can't my head around: If the primary driver of this is D1 and their desire to spread the season out over the Fall and Spring... And that would allow them to decompress their schedule...  That's laudable, IMO, because this sport just isn't meant played every 3 or 4 days without the quality suffering and more importantly kids getting hurt.

How is this applicable to D3?? As has been well-covered here, D3 isn't going to follow the Fall/Spring model, so why should they have to adhere to this rule?

I  know the NCAA isn't exactly known for making logical rules or decisions, but I'd be pretty upset as a D3 coach having this particular change foisted on me.

I'm gonna take one more shot at this thing (while knowing I'll probably have more lol).

Overall, I continue to maintain that the new proposed rule seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I agree that @Kuiper's outline of what the new options would be broadly speaking is helpful.  That said, as I attempt to look at the options from the pov of a coach instead of a parent, I think it's most likely that many coaches will employ a hybrid model of what @Kuiper outlined....so in other words, various mixes of all three categories with 2-3 players (CBs most likely) going the full 90, a few starting and getting subbed both halves, a few playing the 2nd part of both halves, and other various scenarios with other mixes between scenario #2 and scenario #3.  I don't necessarily think it's most likely for coaches to play all starters and then all subs, and then back again.  And of course there will be times when players intended to go the full 90 in the game plan don't or can't due to fatigue, injury, etc.

So now I think I'm seeing a little more clearly where or why an expansion of the primary sub group could occur (and hence, MORE subs rather than less), and again, not sure about the presumption of better or more attractive soccer.  Thinking about Kenyon, I could see the following which might suggest increased disruption and style issues not fully anticipated by the ban re-entry proponents.  The Lords last year had three forward lines, all roughly equal with some differences in strengths.  So that would still allow for those six players to split the forward time into three segments in each half.  Maybe the coach changes the order in the 2nd half.  Then the same model could be employed with 2 or 3 out of the 4 midfielders, and also with 1-2 of the outside backs.  This isn't that far off from what Loras was doing a few years ago with Rothert (and may still do but idk).  Teams who employed various forms of three subbing lines actually might need 30-35 players.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on March 28, 2022, 05:09:12 PM

One thing I can't my head around: If the primary driver of this is D1 and their desire to spread the season out over the Fall and Spring... And that would allow them to decompress their schedule...  That's laudable, IMO, because this sport just isn't meant played every 3 or 4 days without the quality suffering and more importantly kids getting hurt.

How is this applicable to D3?? As has been well-covered here, D3 isn't going to follow the Fall/Spring model, so why should they have to adhere to this rule?

I  know the NCAA isn't exactly known for making logical rules or decisions, but I'd be pretty upset as a D3 coach having this particular change foisted on me.

I don't understand how there can be different rules for D1 and D3 on seasons but they are required to be in sync with other rules like re-entry.

I understand the logic of spreading the season out into two seasons in terms of recovery time, injuries, etc.  I don't see how it's practical and also seems like there are strong negatives from a student-athlete perspective (and the student-athlete piece is why there's always going to be significant differences between academy-level youth soccer and professional soccer).  And as a fan of let's say UVA, I'm having a hard time seeing how I'm going to get excited about the Fall season, and then wait several months for the Spring season and the NCAA tourney? 

One other thing to add on the quality of play angle: My second favorite sport is hockey. If you don't follow the sport, it is a sport that is on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of subbing. They typically carry 4 lines of forwards (3 players) and 3 lines of defensemen (2 players). They will typically roll these lines off every 45 to 60 seconds, and the coach typically likes to play his top 2 lines more than his 3rd, with the 4th line typically seeing dramatically less time than the others.

The point here is that the pace is extremely high and the quality is maintained throughout the 60 minutes of play. So, when I think about collegiate soccer and quality, this has helped me come around a bit on that front. IOW, the entire hockey team knows the system and executes a style of play that is often entertaining and consistent throughout the entirety of a game. F&M is a great example of team that approximates this style of play, but there are many others that are able to "roll lines" on and off but maintain a high-pressure, consistent style of play for 90 minutes.

Now, with that said, one of the gripes about NHL and some collegiate hockey teams is that the play can really get bogged down, and part of that is where a team's tactics rely on clogging up the middle of the rink (the neutral zone) and really focusing almost exclusively on high-pressure defense. Which, of course, can only be sustained by rolling your lines as much as is possible given game circumstances. So, on that end of the argument, and the point I'm trying to make, is that is what many soccer heads are concerned about when they talk about quality suffering or tactics being altered because of the collegiate (and high school) allowing for such liberal subbing.

As you have pointed out, PN, it's not that skillful soccer is automatically voided at the collegiate level, but the rules allow for a kick and run system that simply isn't possible given the rules at the professional/international level. Now, with all that said, we all know certain teams play a modified version of high pressure, counterattacking soccer at all levels. There's a lot of gray area in all of this, which I hadn't really wrapped my head around until recently.

One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

I'm still a little bit "whatever, don't carry a 30 man roster if you don't want guys to not see the field," but I do think that overall, given injuries and the compressed schedule, this rule change is not good for D3 soccer players/athletes.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 07, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 07, 2022, 02:43:42 PM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 07, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

I've said it in YouTube comments but will reiterate... Kudos on ALL of what you are doing... Full stop.

But, for my money, when you break these out, it's a real bonus when I don't have time for the full run... And the topics are very interesting on their own.

Every interview you do should include a discussion about this probable rule change and should include questions like:
1. Are you in favor?
2. Will this influence how you currently sub?
3. Do you anticipate this will have material impact on game outcomes?

I would venture a guess that most are opposed (seems to be counterintuitive to the spirit of D3), and it will impact their current game day strategy, but it won't really have an impact on the game outcome.

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 07, 2022, 02:43:42 PM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 07, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
One coach's opinion, via the a la carte service being provided by SimpleCoach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHCJioiqBvA

Trying to do at least one of those per coach.  Kind of nice.  Short and sweet.

SC

I understand that the coach is answering that question thinking what is best for his particular team, but how does he think the level will go down when there are better technical players on the field?? Again, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

Quick story that I think is interesting or at least humorous although on this board humorless often seems to win out over humorous so who knows.  There of course is my treatment-resistant pathology of pursuing deadlocked disagreements way past their expiration dates, forever deluded that one last point will change minds.

I knew my ex-wife was calling right after a text this morning for one of our regular check-ins, and I didn't answer until like the third ring.  She hit me right away with why I didn't answer more briskly.  I laughed and said you're not gonna believe this but I was trying to finish glancing at a post on this site.  She immediately started howling with "OMG, what in the hell are you doing on the D3 soccer site in April?!  What could you possibly be talking about!?"  So I said, you don't wanna know...the usual...I'm in another argument about something.  She asked about what, and I said a rule change proposal, and I gave her an overview of what the discussion has been about.

Bottom line is that she ended up strongly agreeing with my pov, and the surprise wasn't that she agreed but more that she cared at all.  She actually got fired up and we joked about her joining and starting to post (which, no worries, that will never happen).  I admit to my chagrin that I had not spent a single second thinking about the re-entry rule having an impact on the women's game, but that was immediately where she went, thinking about daughters of friends of ours playing at D3s like UMass-Boston, University of New England, Clark, ECSU, etc.  Anyway, she went on and on about a couple of the young women that she knows especially well in terms of what playing D3 soccer and all of the benefits athletically and really non-athletically means to them and will mean in the future even though they had no illusions about playing professionally, D1, or even high level D3.  Some may jump on me for gender bias, but I thought the gestalt shift was helpful in bringing greater perspective to the issue.  Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much.  And then also if you do continue to play 5-8 subs regularly telling the starters they won't be able to go back in once pulled to allow subs to come in.
Anyway, thought it might be helpful to think about it from the perspective of both men's and women's programs and what is the real intent and purpose of D3 athletics.  Those scouting for the national team or for artistry free from other considerations won't be watching Westfield State on the road at Framingham State.

UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 03:18:00 PM
UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Straw man.

We've established for the most part that we're not talking about players 20 or 22 thru 39 or 60.  That group is "participating" for the most part knowing they won't play much or at all.  I've been focused on players 12-18, maybe 12-20, and the starters who also will experience far more than a "tweak."

And the substantial benefits of the change for the student-athlete haven't been established (imo) at all...and for that matter, even beyond the student-athlete to the greater glory of the soccer gods. 

At the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 08, 2022, 03:53:13 PM

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 03:18:00 PM
UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Straw man.

We've established for the most part that we're not talking about players 20 or 22 thru 39 or 60.  That group is "participating" for the most part knowing they won't play much or at all.  I've been focused on players 12-18, maybe 12-20, and the starters who also will experience far more than a "tweak."

And the substantial benefits of the change for the student-athlete haven't been established (imo) at all...and for that matter, even beyond the student-athlete to the greater glory of the soccer gods. 

At the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

Not sure if the change will have much of an impact on starters; the proposed changes are the rules in USSDA  and for the most part teams have like 8 regular starters with rotation in the other 3 spots.

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 08, 2022, 07:14:47 AMAgain, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 08, 2022, 03:53:13 PMAt the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

(https://acegif.com/wp-content/uploads/gif-eating-popcorn-56.gif)

;)

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 08, 2022, 07:14:47 AMAgain, people have differences  but better more technical players will equal a better looking product.

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 08, 2022, 03:53:13 PMAt the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

Without the "viewing pleasure" the game dies.
These schools also have intra-mural teams most of them, 1+9-20 year olds that are not in the top 25 players at the school can surely do intramurals that are "quite competitive" so that the soccer players can play in the NCAA.

I dont get why this is so hard, everyone does not get a medal in life.

Why dont we have an extra 15 peopleon the swim team that dont play?
Or 12 on the track team who are not running at meets?

Because they are surplus to requirements.
Now the best journey a player can make is the player wo starts off toward the end of that 25 man squad and then works, improve and advances to become a star player or at least a starter.
This journey is the one parents and players should strive to, not the one that you spend 4 years between 30-40 on the depth chart on a soccer team.
That mentality is not raising successful young men or women and is encouraging mediocrity over hard work and discipline.

Do you really think that when this 19-20 year old joins the work force he or she will be kept on a job because of the comradery and after work drinks?
No it will be for ability and improvement overtime.

(modified by GS for formatting)

That's just it. I don't see much change to the starters at all. Or that much through maybe the first 16 spots?

Starters are going to play the first 20-30 mins of the first half. Pull some early, pull some later, depending on how the game is going. Those 3-7 subs your team really relies on will then stagger in for the rest of the first half, some will start the second and go maybe 10-20 minutes into the second half depending on game strategy.

Then the starters go back in or the portion of the first set of subs you pulled at halftime to save their legs or chemistry for later in the game. If you are blowing out the opposition, or getting creamed, you pull the starters 10 minutes after that and dig deeper into the bench to finish and provide experience. If you are in a tight game, the starters stay on with maybe those 2 or 3 subs from the first half who didn't start the second popping back in at some point to give you a lift.

Either way, you end up playing basically the same 16-18 spots on the bench. You just don't get to micromanage and sub them in and out all second half. You have to trust the players on the field to finish out.

Part of what makes soccer special at the higher levels is the trust in the players on the field. No timeouts, no subbing to micromanage, no calling set plays from the bench except the occasional dead ball, no running subs in and out with short term specific tasks, or just to waste time. Players on the field have to play, and find ways to waste their own time, which they are very good at. Sure, the shouts from the coaches come in, but the disruptions and micromanaging you see in football, baseball, basketball... it's not there. Coaches don't have that control over the flow or the detail. The players do.

It's part of the essence of the game. This rule brings that essence more to D3. And since I really don't see it changing much in actual playing time of the most common players to be on the field, just in the manner in which they have to be on the field in blocks, I see no downside and a rather large amount of putting something important about the game back into better practice.

SOL, I almost always enjoy reading your posts and imo your presence here is a major net plus for the site.  You obviously had a very rewarding and ultimately highly successful experience at SLU.  Also appreciate your love and advocacy for D3 soccer, including knowledge of D3 history and nods to the great programs, coaches, etc. 

That said, and with all due respect, I'm disappointed that you went to "everyone getting a medal," the rags to riches morality play that you've repeated over and over, and the bit about camaraderie and after work drinks.  And oh, the lesson about mediocrity, mentality, and raising successful young men and women.  Just when I thought it was about the beauty of the game and imminent death of the sport if Wellesley vs Mt Holyoke doesn't look great on a video stream.  So is it about character or beauty?

A few things...

I don't know if this is true or not but since you mentioned club/intramural options, I've heard that there are some D1 club teams that could beat many of the better D3 squads.  One could argue that D3 IS like glorified club soccer.  I love D3 and appreciate the talent level and intense competition as much as anyone, but come on, D3 soccer is not qualitatively different than D3 athletics in general.  It's D3.  You're not getting paid to play.  If soccer is that important and you're that good, then you've made a mistake 99+% of the time if you choose D3. 

I never argued for playing time going to a core group beyond 18-20 players.  I never argued for larger rosters.  I never advocated for players playing that the coach doesn't think are important to the competitive success of the team.  I have said that a few programs, in fact often the BEAUTIFUL ones, play up to 19-22/23, but obviously they do so because the coaches believe that is helpful...helpful to winning and maybe also have the wisdom to have a feel for team chemistry and knowing that good team chemistry can be a huge support to winning.

I'm also disappointed that you and others haven't addressed points raised...like big boy professional and WC soccer INCREASING the number of subs.  Doesn't FIFA know about "essences"???....and D3 women's soccer...or the 80% of D3 programs who aren't vying for NCAA tourney spots year after year...or even how getting rid of one re-entry in a 2nd half can make such a big difference in attractiveness at the same time as some argue they're won't be any real impact on the players already playing...or why the student-athlete experience shouldn't be a legitimate or primary consideration.  I personally would support unlimited subbing, which wouldn't mean coaches had to play more players...just more options.  The idea that removing one re-entry is going to destroy the game and seriously impact what folks watch imo is just ludicrous.  The correlation suggested between re-entry, viewing pleasure, and the death of the sport is hysterical.  D3 soccer has never been stronger...and it's not because of the number of people on a video stream.

Finally, the character stuff.  Please, stop.  My kid went from basically being unrecruited in part due to being genetically positive (but disease negative) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (from me) that causes sudden death in young athletes to not having a jersey to starting to becoming the 12th or 13th man on a team ranked #2 in the country for much of his senior year was a journey that required all of the commitment, sweat and tears that you describe.  And he and our family believe that being part of D3 soccer and what he experienced with his team and teammates played a major role in his overall development, and he's now at a top 4 internal medicine residency, and two of his teammates from his year also are physicians.  There are a ton of D3 athletes from starters to rarely playing who have become very successful and reputable adults.

I'm gonna fire up the espresso machine.  Let's do this.

Quote from: camosfan on April 08, 2022, 04:16:13 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 08, 2022, 03:53:13 PM

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 03:18:00 PM
UMass Boston's women's soccer team has 39 players listed on the roster. They played 21 games. I give the coach credit. Every player played in at least one game. 11 played in less than 10 games, of those 7 played less than 75 minutes all season. Why am I pointing this out?

Imagine the coach at UMass-Boston, Springfield College, or Smith College looking at her or his bench seeing 10-15 young women sitting there with hands tied about how many can play and for those that do how much. 

They already do this. All the time. This whole conversation is about HOW MUCH they have to do this. This isn't a big shift in anything, it's a tweak.

Straw man.

We've established for the most part that we're not talking about players 20 or 22 thru 39 or 60.  That group is "participating" for the most part knowing they won't play much or at all.  I've been focused on players 12-18, maybe 12-20, and the starters who also will experience far more than a "tweak."

And the substantial benefits of the change for the student-athlete haven't been established (imo) at all...and for that matter, even beyond the student-athlete to the greater glory of the soccer gods. 

At the end of the day I'm far more interested in 19 and 20 year old D3 student-athletes having as optimal and rich of a college experience as possible and still doing something that is quite competitive.  Imo, the mission of D3 athletics and the benefits to the student-athletes are well-documented and far more important than the streaming viewing pleasure of middle age and above men and women...and almost any of those that have/had a kid playing/played get that.

Not sure if the change will have much of an impact on starters; the proposed changes are the rules in USSDA  and for the most part teams have like 8 regular starters with rotation in the other 3 spots.

I've never agreed or understood this with USSDA either.  It's a developmental program at least in theory, right?

In any case, USSDA is a totally different thing than playing soccer in college in any division.  USSDA is solely about playing soccer and producing better professional players.  College players play soccer as a part, albeit a significant part, of a bigger college experience.  College soccer is also very much a team sport.  USSDA feels far more individual and less about team.

And, btw, coaches don't just roll the ball out and let the players figure out akin to Brazilians playing pick-up in the park.  Coaches have systems, styles, do's and don'ts, etc, etc and most likely if you don't play within those parameters you'll be sitting on the bench. 

Some seem to think ditching a single re-entry will make soccer more like soccer, but no actual data has been presented to support that...or the various ways coaches might try to get around it (and maybe make it even less "attractive").  Why wouldn't it make sense to do a trial, like have a conference or two play their conference schedule with no re-entry and see that the actual effects are?  Maybe same with the Fall and Spring seasons for D1, which, btw, I also don't think is gonna work.

You keep bringing up the Premiere League going to 5 subs like it is relevant. None of us have pushed to limit the number of subs. The number isn't the issue, though if you've ever watched an international friendly with 7-11 subs agreed they generally are a pile of disjointed garbage in the second half. Anyway, this rule doesn't limit the number of subs, just re-entry. And only second half re-entry. It's pretty minor and has nothing to do with allowing 3 or 5 subs.

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 10:46:18 PM
You keep bringing up the Premiere League going to 5 subs like it is relevant. None of us have pushed to limit the number of subs. The number isn't the issue, though if you've ever watched an international friendly with 7-11 subs agreed they generally are a pile of disjointed garbage in the second half. Anyway, this rule doesn't limit the number of subs, just re-entry. And only second half re-entry. It's pretty minor and has nothing to do with allowing 3 or 5 subs.

It's relevant because of some of the arguments presented...like fitness and developing players that can go the full 90, the group on the field figuring out, less changes in general.  Not gonna go back through the whole thread, but it's relevant.

But let's simplify.

If there was a vote for college soccer or just D3 soccer to limit subs to 3 or 5 (no re-entry) would you be a yes or no vote?

How about injury time or going by a clock?

I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

I gotta say, PN, having been on both sides, it's more fun being your ally than your opponent. You're making very good arguments, and I find myself nodding vigorously as I read them.

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 08, 2022, 08:21:16 PM
SOL, I almost always enjoy reading your posts and imo your presence here is a major net plus for the site.  You obviously had a very rewarding and ultimately highly successful experience at SLU.  Also appreciate your love and advocacy for D3 soccer, including knowledge of D3 history and nods to the great programs, coaches, etc. 

That said, and with all due respect, I'm disappointed that you went to "everyone getting a medal," the rags to riches morality play that you've repeated over and over, and the bit about camaraderie and after work drinks.  And oh, the lesson about mediocrity, mentality, and raising successful young men and women.  Just when I thought it was about the beauty of the game and imminent death of the sport if Wellesley vs Mt Holyoke doesn't look great on a video stream.  So is it about character or beauty?

A few things...

I don't know if this is true or not but since you mentioned club/intramural options, I've heard that there are some D1 club teams that could beat many of the better D3 squads.  One could argue that D3 IS like glorified club soccer.  I love D3 and appreciate the talent level and intense competition as much as anyone, but come on, D3 soccer is not qualitatively different than D3 athletics in general.  It's D3.  You're not getting paid to play.  If soccer is that important and you're that good, then you've made a mistake 99+% of the time if you choose D3. 

I never argued for playing time going to a core group beyond 18-20 players.  I never argued for larger rosters.  I never advocated for players playing that the coach doesn't think are important to the competitive success of the team.  I have said that a few programs, in fact often the BEAUTIFUL ones, play up to 19-22/23, but obviously they do so because the coaches believe that is helpful...helpful to winning and maybe also have the wisdom to have a feel for team chemistry and knowing that good team chemistry can be a huge support to winning.

I'm also disappointed that you and others haven't addressed points raised...like big boy professional and WC soccer INCREASING the number of subs.  Doesn't FIFA know about "essences"???....and D3 women's soccer...or the 80% of D3 programs who aren't vying for NCAA tourney spots year after year...or even how getting rid of one re-entry in a 2nd half can make such a big difference in attractiveness at the same time as some argue they're won't be any real impact on the players already playing...or why the student-athlete experience shouldn't be a legitimate or primary consideration.  I personally would support unlimited subbing, which wouldn't mean coaches had to play more players...just more options.  The idea that removing one re-entry is going to destroy the game and seriously impact what folks watch imo is just ludicrous.  The correlation suggested between re-entry, viewing pleasure, and the death of the sport is hysterical.  D3 soccer has never been stronger...and it's not because of the number of people on a video stream.

Finally, the character stuff.  Please, stop.  My kid went from basically being unrecruited in part due to being genetically positive (but disease negative) for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (from me) that causes sudden death in young athletes to not having a jersey to starting to becoming the 12th or 13th man on a team ranked #2 in the country for much of his senior year was a journey that required all of the commitment, sweat and tears that you describe.  And he and our family believe that being part of D3 soccer and what he experienced with his team and teammates played a major role in his overall development, and he's now at a top 4 internal medicine residency, and two of his teammates from his year also are physicians.  There are a ton of D3 athletes from starters to rarely playing who have become very successful and reputable adults.

I'm gonna fire up the espresso machine.  Let's do this.

First off PN, congrats to your son.
He might be the perfect example of what I am talking about. That positive example of someone who "Climbed the hill" and had success in college.

I think we might be closer than you think. I have no problem with 19-23 players playing.
That makes sense. #23 with hard work and determination and playing with better players might become #1 or starter or first guy off the bench in a journey I think is the epitome of college soccer.
My issue is with someone who is 35-40 in depth, as I said, unless you are planning on invading other campusses, there is no need to have that many men undergoing training.

How good is D3 soccer?

I guess, this might be the biggest issue/gripe that we have on this topic.
This is not Basketball.
This is not (American) Football.

This is Football, the gap between your top d3programs and your average D1 is not as big as you or many may think.
It does not work that way, atleast not in my view.
D3 can be split into 3 groups.
The Elite/The Dancers/Average teams.

A player who can play in elite D3 schools can play atthe D1 level.
Yes, there are levels to football and D1 is at a higher level, but a good player simply needs time to acclimate.
Thanks for the shoutout for the SLU Camelot era, but my assessment is also from some of the boys and programs I competed against:
The National team level Jamaicans who played for WILLIAMS, the crazy 6 time (between them) All American Strikers from Wheaton. Basically the entire Messiah team and Chris Waterbury's crazy Plattsburgh teams. Some of these guys were playing in World Cup qualifiers for their country while in school and professional after.

The point is D3 is not D1, but the best D3 players and teams can certainly compete at that level with time to acclimate to the competition.

I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 09, 2022, 12:16:35 AM
I gotta say, PN, having been on both sides, it's more fun being your ally than your opponent. You're making very good arguments, and I find myself nodding vigorously as I read them.

Same here, and I appreciate you jumping in a couple of times.  Maybe the one bit of deliciousness I've gotten out of this thread, and given how many of us old-timers seem to align with the same folks against other folks so often I think this turn of events brings some fresh air to the site.  It also happened pretty organically, and I think that's cool.  There's plenty of time for you and I to get back to going at it lol.

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 11:24:26 PM
I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

I like this better because I think it gets us closer to what is going on barely below the surface or not below the surface at all.  Your last lines above make me wonder if your tunnel vision and refusal to budge even an inch is more about your desires for the future of D3 soccer or just reacting more to me (and of course it's fair to wonder how much that might be true from my end).

My frustration is not just your disagreement but your apparent lack of interest in how the actual student-athletes might be impacted (which, you're right, could turn out to be minimal...or not).  And as much as you, SOL, and myself try to make this about grand principles, all of us really fall back on our very personal perspectives....your Coach P story, SOL's SLU glory ride, my take as a parent of a former player who would have been impacted either a little (if you're right) or a lot (if I'm right).

We both seem to be making a similar argument.  I'm suggesting that the very marginal aesthetic benefit does not outweigh the potential high negatives, and you're saying that the very marginal negatives or complete lack thereof of keeping re-entry don't outweigh the benefits of the ban.  I'm stunned that you seem not to care about potential negative impact, but even more stunned that you seem to view any potential negative impact as immaterial to the discussion from your pov.

Here's what I am 99.99999% sure about.  If W&L wins a title playing a very ugly style and with 25 kids getting into the games where there's four re-entries, you aren't gonna lead a campaign to give back the trophy.  And same with me with Kenyon if the Lords gets a title with a new rule and have zero subs.

SOL, I think you know by now that I have a deep love and respect for the quality of at least top 50-75 D3 soccer, so I won't go on about that.

I know there are outliers and players who "coulda gone D1."  But they ARE outliers and the fact is that they DID go D3.  I actually agree with you that D3 high end soccer is probably closer to D1 than some other D3 sports, although we likely disagree about how close.  But I'm guessing we'd agree that there is no argument there to be made for 80-85% of D3 soccer programs. 

Please remember that I've never argued for the very large rosters or for playing anyone just to play them.  Coaches imo should play who they believe will help them win. 

Big picture I am less concerned about how much D3 mirrors the WC, and I'm more concerned that when the Utica College coach looks down his or her bench he or she can't sub a player in and out just one time in a whole game.  As I said above, any potential benefit is so small compared what I view as a coach having more options (again, with student-athletes, not USSDA or WC) that I just don't see this as a close call.

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 10:33:18 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

1000%.

One doesn't have to minimize D3 soccer to recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with elite professional/international soccer.

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 10:50:25 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 10:33:18 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3? 

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 11:06:25 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 10:50:25 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 10:33:18 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3?

Well, I'm against the rule change for D1 too...but yes, I don't mind D3 having a couple of different rules, especially if there already are gonna be differences like additional Spring season for D1 but not D3.

But seriously, I'd like to know what you're envisioning, even at D1.  Will that bring in a different caliber of recruits?  Like some who go straight to the pros will now do a year or two at a D1?  Do you think ticket sales as big-time D1 venues will go up because a single re-entry is banned?  I'd love to hear the concrete advantages beyond vague ideas about symmetry and beauty.

BTW, there seems to be some assumption that the rule change will yield a better product on the field.  That as far as I'm concerned is a huge assumption.  Coaches (at least some) may go even harder for the big, athletic, fitness freaks and/or have four sets of speedy, super-athletic forwards who sub in and out each half.

BTW, I forgot to ask our W&L friend if he would support no option to sub players in both halves....in other words, like pro and USSDA where you only come in if at all typically at the 60 minute mark or later.  Where's the line on symmetry for the ban re-entry proponents?

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 11:06:25 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 10:50:25 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 09, 2022, 10:33:18 AM

Quote from: SimpleCoach on April 09, 2022, 10:01:11 AM
I don't understand the need to "align" with the way the game is played at the professional level in any collegiate Division.  It's a solution in search of a problem.

SC

The product has to be marketed eventually, so NCAA has to weigh offering a unique product against a traditional product. I would gamble there is a bigger audience for the game with traditional FIFA rules.

I don't even know what this means.  Please explain.  Marketed?  Concretely give a picture of what you're envisioning.  Where is the bigger audience coming from?  And do you see this happening for all D3 sports?

Viewed from a D3 point of view your concerns are understandable but when looked at across all divisions, the  administrators seem more concern about conditions at the top divisions. Do you think they should make exceptions at D3?

Well, I'm against the rule change for D1 too...but yes, I don't mind D3 having a couple of different rules, especially if there already are gonna be differences like additional Spring season for D1 but not D3.

But seriously, I'd like to know what you're envisioning, even at D1.  Will that bring in a different caliber of recruits?  Like some who go straight to the pros will now do a year or two at a D1?  Do you think ticket sales as big-time D1 venues will go up because a single re-entry is banned?  I'd love to hear the concrete advantages beyond vague ideas about symmetry and beauty.

BTW, there seems to be some assumption that the rule change will yield a better product on the field.  That as far as I'm concerned is a huge assumption.  Coaches (at least some) may go even harder for the big, athletic, fitness freaks and/or have four sets of speedy, super-athletic forwards who sub in and out each half.

BTW, I forgot to ask our W&L friend if he would support no option to sub players in both halves....in other words, like pro and USSDA where you only come in if at all typically at the 60 minute mark or later.  Where's the line on symmetry for the ban re-entry proponents?

There is a great deal of growth in the game in the US, both in numbers and quality, for this growth to continue there needs to be playing conditions similar to other places to attract talent. Colleges are already competing with European lower divisions for talent , improving the product will help in attracting talent. Already we are seeing in the  NE ,quite a few European kids at D3.The rule changes proposed are not going to change the game overnight but is part of  process. The elite athletes who come to college are coming out of leagues where the proposed changes are the rule.
This change has a potential equity benefit for some schools, for some players will go to places where  the chance of greatest playing time is highest.

@camosfan, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think a single re-entry will influence a single potential recruit...at D1, D3, or D17.

It's not like they're making a decision to play in a league that plays 7v7 vs 11v11.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your view leads to only having a few subs usually in the last 30-35 minutes of the 2nd half.  Seems about as anti-collegiate as you can get, and no recruit is gonna stay in Europe, Central America, or South America because of one re-entry (or even three re-entries).

OK! we will see how it plays out.

The substitution rule change will likely reduce roster sizes, as most players considering D3 will not choose that option when the prospect of playing time is further limited.  Many of those players will instead end their soccer careers and go to the larger schools with big-time football/basketball and enjoy that big college experience.

D3 soccer does not need to market itself as similar to the pros -- the players don't expect that -- they choose D3 so that they can enjoy a more traditional college student experience while also playing the sport they love at a competitive level.

Also, the only way this rule change works is to go to the two semester schedule to alleviate the compressed schedule -- another no go for D3.  Soccer is not a D3 student athlete's singular focus.  Looks like there needs to be different rules for D1 vs D3. 

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 10:37:13 AM

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 11:24:26 PM
I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

I like this better because I think it gets us closer to what is going on barely below the surface or not below the surface at all.  Your last lines above make me wonder if your tunnel vision and refusal to budge even an inch is more about your desires for the future of D3 soccer or just reacting more to me (and of course it's fair to wonder how much that might be true from my end).

My frustration is not just your disagreement but your apparent lack of interest in how the actual student-athletes might be impacted (which, you're right, could turn out to be minimal...or not).  And as much as you, SOL, and myself try to make this about grand principles, all of us really fall back on our very personal perspectives....your Coach P story, SOL's SLU glory ride, my take as a parent of a former player who would have been impacted either a little (if you're right) or a lot (if I'm right).

We both seem to be making a similar argument.  I'm suggesting that the very marginal aesthetic benefit does not outweigh the potential high negatives, and you're saying that the very marginal negatives or complete lack thereof of keeping re-entry don't outweigh the benefits of the ban.  I'm stunned that you seem not to care about potential negative impact, but even more stunned that you seem to view any potential negative impact as immaterial to the discussion from your pov.

Here's what I am 99.99999% sure about.  If W&L wins a title playing a very ugly style and with 25 kids getting into the games where there's four re-entries, you aren't gonna lead a campaign to give back the trophy.  And same with me with Kenyon if the Lords gets a title with a new rule and have zero subs.

Of course not. The game is played by the rules provided. It doesn't mean the rules are the best ones, but you play by the rules, you win by the rules, you lose by the rules, and the rules are either changed or not.

And I laugh about your focus on the student athlete because it is so limited in scope. If it really is all about the student athlete as you so fervently claim, you should have no problem, and fully support, a rule that requires playing time for every player on the bench. But you don't. You belittle that concept. You think it's ridiculous. But it's not. It's how the game is played in most rec leagues. Because at that level it's supposed to really be about the players.

As players get older and the game gets more sophisticated, we become more concerned about the shape and purpose of the sport than what is best for the athletes. And so we progress the rules little by little toward the most elite level rules. Every sport does this. I've said that D3 soccer is not the most elite level. It's not the pros, so they don't need 3-5 subs max with no re-entry. Given the choice in the rules, I prefer D3 move the line closer to the top level than you do. You seem to prefer a line that shades the other direction.

But again, this is not make or break for me. It's a preference given a choice between the two options. Both are compromises between the two extremes, pro rules or rec rules. Best for the highest ideal of competition, or best for the players. Somewhere in between is where D3 does and should exist and we are simply differing on where we think that between should be.

Quote from: jknezek on April 09, 2022, 08:45:32 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 09, 2022, 10:37:13 AM

Quote from: jknezek on April 08, 2022, 11:24:26 PM
I wouldn't be upset by it but I wouldn't lobby for it either. Compressed schedule would be a bear. 3 subs a half, no re-entry per half wouldn't be a bad compromise in my opinion. You can go 17 deep if you want. Re-entry allowed at start of OT, two extra subs in OT, if OT survives, no re-entry for those subbed.

Injury time always irritates me because its not accountable. I wish they kept a timer on the scoreboard showing when injury time goes up through the half. Not at D3 obviously, but that tech should be easy at the pro level.

As for OT, I guess I like it. More soccer is better, right? Players like to play. But if they did away with it I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not real concerned if they pass this re-entry rule or not. I just think it's not a bad idea  as opposed to the way you seem so strongly opposed.

I like this better because I think it gets us closer to what is going on barely below the surface or not below the surface at all.  Your last lines above make me wonder if your tunnel vision and refusal to budge even an inch is more about your desires for the future of D3 soccer or just reacting more to me (and of course it's fair to wonder how much that might be true from my end).

My frustration is not just your disagreement but your apparent lack of interest in how the actual student-athletes might be impacted (which, you're right, could turn out to be minimal...or not).  And as much as you, SOL, and myself try to make this about grand principles, all of us really fall back on our very personal perspectives....your Coach P story, SOL's SLU glory ride, my take as a parent of a former player who would have been impacted either a little (if you're right) or a lot (if I'm right).

We both seem to be making a similar argument.  I'm suggesting that the very marginal aesthetic benefit does not outweigh the potential high negatives, and you're saying that the very marginal negatives or complete lack thereof of keeping re-entry don't outweigh the benefits of the ban.  I'm stunned that you seem not to care about potential negative impact, but even more stunned that you seem to view any potential negative impact as immaterial to the discussion from your pov.

Here's what I am 99.99999% sure about.  If W&L wins a title playing a very ugly style and with 25 kids getting into the games where there's four re-entries, you aren't gonna lead a campaign to give back the trophy.  And same with me with Kenyon if the Lords gets a title with a new rule and have zero subs.

Of course not. The game is played by the rules provided. It doesn't mean the rules are the best ones, but you play by the rules, you win by the rules, you lose by the rules, and the rules are either changed or not.

And I laugh about your focus on the student athlete because it is so limited in scope. If it really is all about the student athlete as you so fervently claim, you should have no problem, and fully support, a rule that requires playing time for every player on the bench. But you don't. You belittle that concept. You think it's ridiculous. But it's not. It's how the game is played in most rec leagues. Because at that level it's supposed to really be about the players.

As players get older and the game gets more sophisticated, we become more concerned about the shape and purpose of the sport than what is best for the athletes. And so we progress the rules little by little toward the most elite level rules. Every sport does this. I've said that D3 soccer is not the most elite level. It's not the pros, so they don't need 3-5 subs max with no re-entry. Given the choice in the rules, I prefer D3 move the line closer to the top level than you do. You seem to prefer a line that shades the other direction.

But again, this is not make or break for me. It's a preference given a choice between the two options. Both are compromises between the two extremes, pro rules or rec rules. Best for the highest ideal of competition, or best for the players. Somewhere in between is where D3 does and should exist and we are simply differing on where we think that between should be.

Oh boy.

You laughed?  I'll take that as an accomplishment.

I bet you've never lost an argument at the office (or at least you think that).

As I said before, you impress as immovable, so at this point this is mostly for other readers.

Your logic is really impaired.  You tried to do this logical conclusion thing before and even went so far as to suggest my response was indicative of defensiveness that I should take a look at.  Wow.

The truth is that you want to drag me to some absurdity and make me drink it.  Are they not student-athletes?  Do you think D3 sports aren't enriching?  Do you think there is nothing worthwhile about playing that goes beyond contributing to a world-wide mandatory project of advancing the standard of soccer?  You really think that's what keeps the Hampden-Sydney coach awake at night?  The point of repeatedly using that term, as GS also did, is to differentiate the players from professional and other purely soccer enterprises like USSDA.  Same with D1.  Are high school athletes student-athletes?  Is high school soccer not competitive?  Whatever you think about the quality, do most coaches play everyone or do they try really, really hard to win.  D3 soccer does not exist...originally, 20 years ago, or now... to protect and advance the standard of international soccer.  It is just ridiculous to insist that those in favor of keeping a second half re-entry, and who include anything about playing contributing to a kid's overall college experience and satisfaction, are required to say we want D3 to be a "rec league."

One of the ironies for me, that makes me laugh, is that for someone so dedicated to freeing up the game unfettered from in game intervention, coaching, more liberal subbing rules, etc your posts feel extremely restrictive, retentive and rule-bound. 

And given your stated preferences why do you follow D3 sports at all, or at least so closely?  Or are you on D1 sites and professional sites on a daily basis as well?  Do you think D3 doesn't have a mission...including one related to student-athlete experience?

Last points tonight while thinking about how exasperated I am with John Calipari.

I've made some references earlier in the thread I believe about the importance of team chemistry.  Let's add the idea of 'culture,' which imo is critical to college sports teams at all levels, and seems like something most of the coaches SC has interviewed have underscored.  I know Tufts nation thinks it's important.  And Messiah.  And OWU.  And Kenyon, North Park, Calvin, etc.  Souders at Calvin is the one coach who seems able to pull off often only playing 13-14 players and keeping a highly and jointly motivated squad, but that may have a little to do with Calvin as an institution and a lot to do with Souders' unique level of charisma, motivational, and team togetherness skills.  On balance, regularly playing 17/18 guys enhances the culture, and some pull that off going with 20-22 players.  There is obviously a point where that collapses, if like the top 2/3 of the starters lose a ton of time or the coach dips into a part of the roster that does not support the team's most competitive approach.  But it's not as much about how many play but rather (and primarily) the quality of the experience for those that do play.  And the more options there are for playing in terms of rules (like re-entries) impacts that whether a coach plays 14 or 18.

Anyway, and this is partly in response to the idea that advocating for players having a better experience must mean rec league crap...I have been complaining for months about Calipari at UK not playing several 5 and 4 star players, and most of them are now in the portal to transfer.  The culture suffers, recruits who were planning to come may change their mind, fans become frustrated, and on and on.  I will happily admit that when it comes to UK basketball the overall college experience in terms of being a student-athlete doesn't rate very highly for me, in part because for at least a percentage of the top D1 bball players who are in the one and done scenario or 2 year scenario are there with the very clear goal of getting to the NBA or at least overseas professional leagues.  Me watching dissension build into transfers and wishing those players played have zero to do with wanting equity or a rec league approach.  Indeed, it's the complete opposite.  Every year UK doesn't win a national title is unbearable and unacceptable.  An unhappy team is a team that isn't going to win.

You seem to think this is something that needs to be won. I don't care about winning. I have an opinion and I'm good with the logic I have. You have a different opinion. Great.

But I really don't see this as a huge deal. I've said it a lot, this is about drawing a line somewhere in the middle of pro rules and rec rules. Your opinion on where that line should be drawn and why is fine, I just disagree. I just don't see this great harm you see, and you don't see the small benefit I see, so we draw the line in different places.

That doesn't mean I think your logic is "impaired" or absurd or whatever else you've tossed at me. You just get more and more strident as people don't fall into your line of thinking.

Quote from: PaulNewman on March 17, 2022, 01:52:58 PM
I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

Here's my very first post in this thread, expressing my disagreement with getting rid of a single re-entry.

Now, first of all, I wildly failed about not "going on and on," but in fairness, most of us knew I wouldn't be able to stop at one post.  But the going on after wasn't because I care so much about any of these rules, but rather, I got hooked in as the discussion/arguments unfolded.  I don't have any personal stake in this issue going forward.  I don't have any grandkids yet, and by the time I do and them becoming All Americans at UCLA, I'll very likely be dead.

More relevantly, the group that I highlighted was players 12-14 AND starters.  And I made a point that a good portion of this group and any additional players the coach would want to play on the merits would see their time compressed or disappear entirely.  Now iirc @Kuiper was the primary poster countering that the difference in total minutes among the group that the coach wants to play competitively might be only marginally impacted.  That's a different debate, as well as is the presumption that the rule change will make the game more attractive and won't lead to perhaps even more subs and disruptions.  My references to the "student-athlete experience" has been very specifically geared to the experience of those who do play or who the coach would want to play for competitive reasons with the argument that putting more restrictions on the actual playing group/desired playing group is not ideal when considering a multitude of factors that include college vs professional and the D3 (and for that matter) D1 missions.  I never once made this about being #24 on a roster and life lesson dilemmas.  Kids in that category can be happily non-playing members or they can drop off and pursue whatever else they want to pursue.  Not my concern.

What I don't have to accept, and especially in terms of the rules of logic, is that my preference must by definition be cast in a rec league vs international/professional standard.  My preference doesn't require Souders to play more than 13-14 at Calvin if he doesn't want to, and doesn't make Dezotell play 18 at Tufts...or McCarty 21 at Messiah.  I mean, does McCarty play 21 to make Messiah more rec leagueish, or more probably for a combination of reasons, including talent, strategy, earned time, culture, team chemistry, mission in developing young men, etc?  Arguing for less restrictive and more options available to a coach doesn't yield by definition anything having to do with rec leagues.  When the professional/international standard moved to 5 subs vs 3, that is a move towards less restrictive, but I doubt anyone is going to argue that the professional/international standard thereby has become more rec leagueish.  If the MLS goes to unlimited subbing the motivation for that isn't required to have a single thing to do with rec leagues.  This discussion doesn't require that anything said within it must fall and be evaluated based on the continuum being artificially imposed.

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.

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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.

Henceforth, I am subcontracting all of my posting out to you.  On the money AND succinct.

Now please tell me your fees are reasonable.

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.

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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.

@camosfan>Brad McCarty

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? 

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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.

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

SC

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 11, 2022, 08:25:53 AM

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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?

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on April 10, 2022, 09:14:07 PM

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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.

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 08:46:21 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 11, 2022, 12:24:31 PM
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. 

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 08:46:21 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 02:41:33 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 08:46:21 AM
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?

This is a very good question. I assumed people on this board understand something about this given the amount of argument this topic of playing rules changes has generated, but apparently that is not the case.  Let's just say that DIII's size has no relationship to its influence on rule changes. 

The substitution rule change was proposed by the NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee.  The Rules Committee has 9 members, 2 of whom are from DIII (currently, 1 from the SCIAC (an Asst AD from Claremont-Mudd-Scripps who played DIII when she was in college at Juniata) and 1 coach (Bianco from Denison)), and is supposed to be divided between men's and women's reps.  (see http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES))

It will go before the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on April 20.  This committee has 12 members, 3 of whom are from DIII.  They are all athletic director/commissioner types.  No coaches. (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP)).  This committee reviews rule changes in all sports.  It's not soccer-specific.  For example, the committee reviewed changes proposed to the Volleyball rules at its February meeting.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the last step for NCAA rule change proposals.  There is no vote by another body. 

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 11, 2022, 09:35:25 AM

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 11, 2022, 08:25:53 AM

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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?

The men referenced above are both "non-disinterested parties"
There. Fixed it for you.

Quote from: Kuiper on April 11, 2022, 05:44:55 PM

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 02:41:33 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Quote from: camosfan on April 11, 2022, 08:46:21 AM
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?

This is a very good question. I assumed people on this board understand something about this given the amount of argument this topic of playing rules changes has generated, but apparently that is not the case.  Let's just say that DIII's size has no relationship to its influence on rule changes. 

The substitution rule change was proposed by the NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee.  The Rules Committee has 9 members, 2 of whom are from DIII (currently, 1 from the SCIAC (an Asst AD from Claremont-Mudd-Scripps who played DIII when she was in college at Juniata) and 1 coach (Bianco from Denison)), and is supposed to be divided between men's and women's reps.  (see http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES))

It will go before the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on April 20.  This committee has 12 members, 3 of whom are from DIII.  They are all athletic director/commissioner types.  No coaches. (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP)).  This committee reviews rule changes in all sports.  It's not soccer-specific.  For example, the committee reviewed changes proposed to the Volleyball rules at its February meeting.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the last step for NCAA rule change proposals.  There is no vote by another body.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that there was a Playing Rules Oversight Panel. I thought that proposed rules changes went from the rules committee of the sport in question to the convention at large.

The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules committee voted in its rules changes for 2022 and 2023 during its annual meeting in February.  Following that meeting, there was a two week period from March 14 to March 28 for coaches from all divisions to comment on the proposed changes.  The committee met last week to consider the feedback provided in those comments.  I am not yet at liberty to say what the outcome of that meeting was, but the committee has the freedom to make changes in what gets sent forward to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP).  In other words, it is able to withdraw proposals that do not generate substantial support from the coaching community.  PROP is the final step in the process.  They will meet on April 20.  After that meeting, there will be clarity on what the final changes are for the next two seasons. 

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on April 11, 2022, 11:53:30 PM
The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules committee voted in its rules changes for 2022 and 2023 during its annual meeting in February.  Following that meeting, there was a two week period from March 14 to March 28 for coaches from all divisions to comment on the proposed changes.  The committee met last week to consider the feedback provided in those comments.  I am not yet at liberty to say what the outcome of that meeting was, but the committee has the freedom to make changes in what gets sent forward to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP).  In other words, it is able to withdraw proposals that do not generate substantial support from the coaching community.  PROP is the final step in the process.  They will meet on April 20.  After that meeting, there will be clarity on what the final changes are for the next two seasons.

You Sir, have an appropriate name.

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 11, 2022, 08:01:08 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on April 11, 2022, 09:35:25 AM

Quote from: Saint of Old on April 11, 2022, 08:25:53 AM

Quote from: Chargers96 on April 10, 2022, 02:47:08 PM
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?

The men referenced above are both "non-disinterested parties"
There. Fixed it for you.

What?

One of us (or both) are gonna tear an ACL in here.

Are there any "disinterested parties"?  Do you contend that posters on this board are disinterested and therefore more reliable as a gauge than coaches?  Like who exactly falls into the disinterested category?

You're making a bold move here.  One of the most important stakeholder groups when it comes to the issue at hand is the coaching group (and so far we have a small sample size about their views and recommendations so perhaps the majority will still side your way), but in your opinion we should cancel this highly relevant and highly knowledgeable group?

Thanks to CSO and Kuiper for VERY informative contributions to the process question. Very interested to see how the feedback is factored into the panel's recommendation.

21st century model was tabled by the D1 Council until at least the May/June meetings. 

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/13/media-center-di-council-tables-most-pending-legislation.aspx (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/13/media-center-di-council-tables-most-pending-legislation.aspx)

That isn't the same as the re-entry and OT rule changes, which are not legislative proposals and are at a different stage, but I've always viewed the D1 support for not allowing re-entry in the 2d half to be linked to the legislative proposal to extend the season over two semesters in D1.

D1 men have been asking for much closer adherence to FIFA rules for a long time.  The 21st century model would also be a desired change for them, but the two are not necessarily linked.  If they don't get the 21st century model, they would still want the re-entry restrictions.

Official announcement made today by PROP.

Substitution rules will be status quo from this year.  Rules committee heard and acted on feedback that D2 and D3 men and all divisions in women's soccer were opposed to this change.  All other proposed changes were approved, including the elimination of overtime in the regular season and getting rid of golden goal for post season.  All post season OT will now be played to completion, regardless of number of goals scored. 
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/20/media-center-prop-approves-changes-to-soccer-overtime-rules.aspx

Fire away with questions/comments on the process.

That's about what I expected. The OT changes are reasonable as is the no vote on the sub rules. Obviously not what I would have preferred, but it all makes sense given the compact season.

Now it's time to get ride of the backward counting clock and to give the ref control of the time. 

Quote from: CC United on April 20, 2022, 10:07:35 PM
Now it's time to get ride of the backward counting clock and to give the ref control of the time.

Excuse the typos. I'm watching Arsenal v. Chelsea.

The clock issue raises as many problems as it solves.  Feedback from coaches was split on this.
Some wanted timing done like it is done in the rest of the world.  Others basically said we can't get enough good refs right now, why would I want to place more on their plate?  Many coaches and administrators have pointed out that there are fancy scoreboards in a lot of places, and that knowing the exact time is part of the game day experience.

Here is my analysis of the situation:

A move to change the timing rules would get rid of controversy about whether the ball went in the net before time expired, because when referees control the time, almost no one ever chooses to end the game while a shot on goal is being taken.  On the other hand, the controversy would now be about the amount of stoppage time.  Add in that many games at the D3 level do not have 4th officials, and this becomes a pretty cumbersome process.  My own experience as a high school varsity coach is that whenever the referees keep time on the field without a scoreboard clock, the full and correct time is never played.  In other words, without a visible game clock, refs do not follow the existing timing rules. 

Bottom lines is that I do not see this changing any time soon.

I don't think this is OT... 3 guys that played college soccer and went on to play professionally and for the MNT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjLmvF7V_Ew

Skip ahead to about 18:30 (third segment) if you want to skip ahead to the discussion of the proposed split schedule.

All 3 of these guys think it's a good idea for D1. Hard to argue with their experience and opinions. This is a really good example/discussion of the difference between high level D1 and D3.

The argument against the split schedule has nothing to do with the game itself but everything to do with the logistics.   A split schedule is going to stretch athletic departments very thin.  Most won't have the resources to handle an added sport on top of their full spring sports slate.

Quote from: stlawus on April 25, 2022, 09:41:43 PM
The argument against the split schedule has nothing to do with the game itself but everything to do with the logistics.   A split schedule is going to stretch athletic departments very thin.  Most won't have the resources to handle an added sport on top of their full spring sports slate.

I'm not just being argumentative, because I really don't know the nitty-gritty/inner workings of a D1 AD, but...

Wouldn't the fact that the fall season would see a dramatically reduced schedule, with a correspondingly shorter spring schedule, result in a less strained staff? I don't have the proposal in front of me, but off the top of my head it was 3 pre-season and 12 regular-season games in the fall, and then 1 pre-season and then 8 regular-season games in the spring. Tack on whatever post-season respective teams are eligible for...

Genuinely curious. I know guys like Sager have talked about the stress of multiple teams being in post-season and hosting complications. But I don't know that you can compare a D3 AD to a D1 situation. Not saying it's not an issue (split schedule), but I don't know that jamming 25+ games into 3 months, on top of football and the beginning of basketball and hockey is any less stressful.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 26, 2022, 10:23:45 AM

Quote from: stlawus on April 25, 2022, 09:41:43 PM
The argument against the split schedule has nothing to do with the game itself but everything to do with the logistics.   A split schedule is going to stretch athletic departments very thin.  Most won't have the resources to handle an added sport on top of their full spring sports slate.

I'm not just being argumentative, because I really don't know the nitty-gritty/inner workings of a D1 AD, but...

Wouldn't the fact that the fall season would see a dramatically reduced schedule, with a correspondingly shorter spring schedule, result in a less strained staff? I don't have the proposal in front of me, but off the top of my head it was 3 pre-season and 12 regular-season games in the fall, and then 1 pre-season and then 8 regular-season games in the spring. Tack on whatever post-season respective teams are eligible for...

Genuinely curious. I know guys like Sager have talked about the stress of multiple teams being in post-season and hosting complications. But I don't know that you can compare a D3 AD to a D1 situation. Not saying it's not an issue (split schedule), but I don't know that jamming 25+ games into 3 months, on top of football and the beginning of basketball and hockey is any less stressful.

This is probably an issue where it varies greatly from school-to-school, or conference-to-conference, depending upon financial strength and support.  It also depends upon what expense you're talking about. 

Personnel is likely the easiest to move around, even though they would complain about it.  At top D1 programs, for instance, the revenue sports have their own dedicated athletic trainers and then there is a pool of athletic trainers who work for multiple non-revenue sports.  It's not all that difficult to arrange schedules or juggle sports to make that work with fewer soccer games/practices in fall and more in spring, especially since some of the AT's are part-time and you can just change the semester in which you have a larger pool available.  Some of those AT's already pick up extra hours working for the school's rec dept or doing private training, so they are definitely available and willing to shift things around.  It's harder with other dept personnel, like sports information directors, where there are small staffs, but some of the hue and cry about that is simple resistance to change.  Universities are typical bureaucracies and staff always have trouble envisioning how they can possibly do things differently than they have always done it. The AD's job is to figure out a way.  Schools already have imbalances in sports events in semesters, so a decline in one and an increase in another, as you say, does create some opportunities.  It's certainly better than just adding more sports and growing roster sizes, which lots of schools have done over the years, often with only minimal increases in staff sizes.

Field/gym/workout space is probably the biggest nut to crack from shifting schedules.  Some schools are in the middle of nowhere and have acres of fields, while others are in urban or suburban settings and field space is at a premium.  Even there, the change over the years from natural grass to turf and the addition of lights for night games and practices makes it somewhat easier to handle than it might have been when sports were first allocated to the various seasons.  Plus, it's only absolutely mandatory to have space for games and there aren't really that many of them. Practices are the harder part, but schools can shift some practices, or portions of practices, to alternative sites to make things work.  For example, first 30 minutes of practice is on the track while the lacrosse/field hockey etc team is finishing up or they can do hill work or practice on the beach sand volleyball court once in awhile or inside even when the weather is good etc.  In addition, they can be required to practice at unpopular times once a week or be forced to use smaller spaces if they are unwilling to shift to those times.  Youth clubs have been doing all of of those things for years, but college coaches have been used to getting exactly what they want and some may not be able to do so.  It's do-able in most cases.  Plus, if it's really bad, then the AD can view this as a fundraising opportunity and try to get money for more fields. 

A school could even demand that soccer pay extra (basically levy an additional overhead tax or reduce their budget for other things) for extra staffing/space to cover the additional costs, which soccer teams would cry about, but they too could shift around budgets or try to raise funds from alums.  If the change increased revenue for soccer teams (e.g., because the spring games attracted more ticket sales than the fall or because the Spring championships got more TV money than the Fall championships), that also could help pay for any extra costs.

The transition would be painful, but in the end, everyone would adapt and might even come out better off in terms of staffing and facilities.  The bigger issue from a two semester schedule might be that students are under the gun in terms of practice/game pressure for a longer part of the year, but that's already a difference between D1 and DIII that students are signing up for when they go to D1.

I think the real issue might be that once soccer does it, other sports might want to follow. And I really don't think the NCAA wants that. It would make a ton of sense for baseball, especially in the northern half of the country, to play part of their games early fall and part late spring. How many northern baseball teams start with long southern road trips or tournaments in warmer climates?

Field hockey has as compressed a schedule as soccer, so why wouldn't you switch if it makes sense for soccer. Lax, though they tend to play fewer games, could make a case. Volleyball is pretty compressed because they want it done in one semester though weather is obviously not a factor.

On the other hand, you already have sports like tennis and golf that play events fall and spring, so...

The B1G baseball and softball programs have been kvetching about that issue for decades.

Does anyone know If with the rule change taking away overtime are they going to add extra time added by the ref on top of the 90 mins or any type of clock stoppage. If they just play the 90 minutes down to the buzzer and end the game then that's just like high school soccer. I personally hope they give the ref to ability to add additional minutes at the end of ninety, especially since they are trying to mirror European soccer.

 They don't need to add extra time,when the clock is stopped the time showing reflect the true time of play.

Quote from: justakidfromakron on April 28, 2022, 01:51:47 PM
Does anyone know If with the rule change taking away overtime are they going to add extra time added by the ref on top of the 90 mins or any type of clock stoppage. If they just play the 90 minutes down to the buzzer and end the game then that's just like high school soccer. I personally hope they give the ref to ability to add additional minutes at the end of ninety, especially since they are trying to mirror European soccer.

Timing rules remain as they were last year and similar to HS where the official time is on the scoreboard clock.

Quote from: jknezek on April 26, 2022, 01:30:56 PM
I think the real issue might be that once soccer does it, other sports might want to follow. And I really don't think the NCAA wants that. It would make a ton of sense for baseball, especially in the northern half of the country, to play part of their games early fall and part late spring. How many northern baseball teams start with long southern road trips or tournaments in warmer climates?

Field hockey has as compressed a schedule as soccer, so why wouldn't you switch if it makes sense for soccer. Lax, though they tend to play fewer games, could make a case. Volleyball is pretty compressed because they want it done in one semester though weather is obviously not a factor.

On the other hand, you already have sports like tennis and golf that play events fall and spring, so...

I'm not really disagreeing, as this is a logical post. I'd just point out that it's guys like Sasho Cirovski at MD that are pushing these changes so they don't have as many players "poached" by MLS and their academies. Those other sports don't have that type of "pressure," unless I'm missing something.

I see this as VERY roughly analogous to D1 college hockey, which has made a number of alterations to eligibility rules so that college is a viable option for NHL-caliber prospects.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on May 04, 2022, 12:16:20 PM

Quote from: jknezek on April 26, 2022, 01:30:56 PM
I think the real issue might be that once soccer does it, other sports might want to follow. And I really don't think the NCAA wants that. It would make a ton of sense for baseball, especially in the northern half of the country, to play part of their games early fall and part late spring. How many northern baseball teams start with long southern road trips or tournaments in warmer climates?

Field hockey has as compressed a schedule as soccer, so why wouldn't you switch if it makes sense for soccer. Lax, though they tend to play fewer games, could make a case. Volleyball is pretty compressed because they want it done in one semester though weather is obviously not a factor.

On the other hand, you already have sports like tennis and golf that play events fall and spring, so...

I'm not really disagreeing, as this is a logical post. I'd just point out that it's guys like Sasho Cirovski at MD that are pushing these changes so they don't have as many players "poached" by MLS and their academies. Those other sports don't have that type of "pressure," unless I'm missing something.

I see this as VERY roughly analogous to D1 college hockey, which has made a number of alterations to eligibility rules so that college is a viable option for NHL-caliber prospects.

Baseball definitely has that pressure, with HS kids deciding between college and the opportunity to get a bonus and start playing minor league ball through the draft.  Having said that, I think kids are making the decision in baseball to go the college or minor league route based on the $, not the length of the season per se. 

What I think has happened is that soccer has gone from a game played during a season (different times in different parts of the country) to a game played year-round, including indoor in colder places, in most of the country at both the elite and merely high club level.  There isn't much money in going to MLS Next Pro, for example (as compared with top MLB draft picks), but a lot of kids who don't even really think pro is a realistic option like the idea of playing year-round.  It's how they structure their lives now and they can't really imagine giving that up.  Others have always played multiple sports or have taken time off during the winter months etc.

For D3, it would be helpful if coaches and players explain to recruits, in a pretty detailed fashion, how their days/weeks/months will look when they aren't in-season or in the short spring training window.  That is where I think D3 men's soccer programs has such a huge variance and how some schools can differentiate themselves, attracting kids with different interests.  Some schools have regular lifting and conditioning schedules, as a group, plus captain-organized pick-up three times a week, and their coaches help place them with a summer USL League 2 or UPSL team before training resumes in August (Washington & Lee's coach talks about that in an interview with Simple Coach or maybe another video on their website).  Other schools seem to just give their kids an exit plan at the end of the season and maybe some conditioning expectations upon the return to spring practice and summer training camp and just kind of hope that the kids are working on their own, without much of an ingrained student culture that offers some of the structure they had during the season.  Some schools in that latter group actually take ownership of the flexibility they offer to their players, bragging to their recruits that they encourage their players to take semesters abroad or do internships or even play other sports, while others basically sound like they really don't know (or perhaps even care) what their players are doing as long as they come back in shape. 

I think there are D3 programs out there for the wide range of player interests, but it's not easy for kids to figure out where each schools fall in that spectrum when they are picking the schools to target early in the process.   It wouldn't be hard for D3 programs to record videos and post them on their websites giving kids some insight into what their programs are like year-round.  It would also help them self-select the kind of players they want.  I've heard coaches say that whether things are really organized outside the coach-led sessions depends upon the kids in their program any particular year and the type of captains they have, but if that's something a program wants, it can also consider that as part of recruiting and try to attract the types of kids who fit the type of program they are selling.

This is data from D1 games - possibly men and women - and from one small set of games on Day 1 that are the first of the season.  Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to get an early peek at how the No OT rule may be affecting outcomes.

https://twitter.com/tom_hindle_/status/1560649681708888065?s=21&t=m10lJwFG3JwJXY8XSmjlBQ

Day 1 without overtime in college soccer, there were 8 draws, of which 4 finished 0-0.