|
Post by footy on Mar 28, 2018 11:17:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by infoguy on Mar 28, 2018 13:01:17 GMT -5
I believe there are Spring games, but they are friendlies.
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Mar 28, 2018 20:21:30 GMT -5
I believe there are Spring games, but they are friendlies. Yes they do play spring friendlies but the argument is that they have too many games too close together in the fall and risk injury due to overtraining/ overuse with not enough recovery between games. The other part of the argument is lack of training and games in spring. The theory is that if they were to play spring and fall (like youth sports and pros) they would develop better AND be healthier.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Mar 28, 2018 21:32:34 GMT -5
I don’t think Colleges want to fund Soccer scholarships or care about making it better as the real futbol is not selling as many tickets as the other football. Maryland sells 7,000 tickets per game as the most for any team. Compare that to the D1 or D2 football games and you see where the money is going. OK, take the top Ohio State, Tennessee Vols, Michigan, Penn State football games, they can have over 100,000 + in attendance for 1 game, 1 game, Only Atlanta United can compete with those kind of numbers. Do the math and you see why football in college is outselling futbol and therefore scholarships are allocated for football. I hear more Soccer scholarships are becoming partial more often. I don’t see the colleges wanting to extend the season due to $ Money. $ is killing the game of Futbol in America.
|
|
|
Post by rocko1989 on Mar 29, 2018 7:49:03 GMT -5
Not arguing, just asking: how will stretching out college soccer into two semesters impact the cost? Same number of games, just over two semesters. Field costs should pretty much remain the same. Players, and their scholarships, could remain the same as now-and yes, most are partiial. The same is true at the D-2 level, and the lower D-1 level of football (what used to be called 1AA). Coaching salaries will remain the same. Cost of officials will remain the same.
I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing? How would the cost of college soccer increase if the schedule is stretched over 2 semesters? How is that different from tennis and golf? Both tennis and golf play over two semesters-so I have read.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 29, 2018 8:46:38 GMT -5
I think the players are there regardless of the negative impact college does or doesn't have on players development. When it comes to the senior team, I think the issue is a player selection problem. We have enough talent spread around the world to at least qualify for a world cup and get out of the group stage. Winning a world cup is an entire different story. Only 8 nations have ever won a world cup, and only 4 more have been runners up. thats 12 total with even the chance to play in the final game.
I still think unless your kid or you are considered a can't miss prospect - Carleton, Goslin, Tim Weah - I still think college is the pathway for the vast majority of top americans.
Mabye that means MLS academy teams sign kids to homegrown and USL deals, but at the same time, pay for them to attend college part or full time etc. College could care less about developing athletes for the pros. They "try" to do whats in the best interest for student athletes. The kids are already playing in the spring anyway, seems like no harm extending the season into it. I guess the compact schedule is just too much, but, big but, then thats where quality coaching can come into play and developing players for your school. These teams squads are huge, use your players, nobody said you had to start the same 11 the entire season baring injury. Yes, thats not reality, coaches will always try to play their best players or then they fail to quality for the ncaa tournament.
Either way -- it will take a consensus to be reached from coaches, probably both mens and womens, sounds like we are far from it.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Mar 29, 2018 9:23:10 GMT -5
Not arguing, just asking: how will stretching out college soccer into two semesters impact the cost? Same number of games, just over two semesters. Field costs should pretty much remain the same. Players, and their scholarships, could remain the same as now-and yes, most are partiial. The same is true at the D-2 level, and the lower D-1 level of football (what used to be called 1AA). Coaching salaries will remain the same. Cost of officials will remain the same. I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing? How would the cost of college soccer increase if the schedule is stretched over 2 semesters? How is that different from tennis and golf? Both tennis and golf play over two semesters-so I have read. I think College Soccer year round would be great. I am all for it! However, I don't think this is on the College's radar or highest priority. My opinion is that the Colleges will spend money on Football before spending on Futbol. I believe like you stated that scholarships remain the same, Coaches salaries and officials remain but what about operations and facilities? That takes money because let's face it, College Futbol ticket sales is nothing compared to Football sales. Even those schools that make the most revenue don't have Men's soccer programs. Most of the top money makers have no MEN's Soccer team. Why? Probably has to do with scholarships between genders and different sport programs? This is interesting in looking at the Top 2 revenue makers in College is Texas A&M and Texas. They like Alabama/Auburn/Georgia DO NOT HAVE MEN'S Soccer. Revenue for both Texas Colleges for 2015/2016 = $382,369,608. Why can't they fund Men's Soccer? sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Look at this article about doing away with the soccer program due to FOOTBALL ticket sales is a drop in revenue. Not only doing away with Men's soccer they cut Baseball as well as three other programs. "Budget axe falls on rising men's college program" by Paul Kennedy @pkedit, Apr 4, 2017 Despite one of the best seasons in school history -- including a program-best No. 50 finish in the RPI index -- the University of Buffalo has dropped men's soccer after 46 seasons. It's the 24th school to drop its Division I men's program since 1990 -- and fourth from the Mid-American Conference -- as men's soccer continues to struggle to take hold in football-dominated conferences. I DON'T LIKE THIS AT ALL!
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Mar 29, 2018 9:25:55 GMT -5
Not arguing, just asking: how will stretching out college soccer into two semesters impact the cost? Same number of games, just over two semesters. Field costs should pretty much remain the same. Players, and their scholarships, could remain the same as now-and yes, most are partiial. The same is true at the D-2 level, and the lower D-1 level of football (what used to be called 1AA). Coaching salaries will remain the same. Cost of officials will remain the same. I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing? How would the cost of college soccer increase if the schedule is stretched over 2 semesters? How is that different from tennis and golf? Both tennis and golf play over two semesters-so I have read. I think College Soccer year round would be great. I am all for it! However, I don't think this is on the College's radar or highest priority. My opinion is that the Colleges will spend money on Football before spending on Futbol. I believe like you stated that scholarships remain the same, Coaches salaries and officials remain but what about operations and facilities? That takes money because let's face it, College Futbol ticket sales is nothing compared to Football sales. Even those schools that make the most revenue don't have Men's soccer programs. Most of the top money makers have no MEN's Soccer team. Why? Probably has to do with scholarships between genders and different sport programs? This is interesting in looking at the Top 2 revenue makers in College is Texas A&M and Texas. They like Alabama/Auburn/Georgia DO NOT HAVE MEN'S Soccer. Revenue for both Texas Colleges for 2015/2016 = $382,369,608. Why can't they fund Men's Soccer? sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ Look at this article about doing away with the soccer program due to FOOTBALL ticket sales is a drop in revenue. Not only doing away with Men's soccer they cut Baseball as well as three other programs. "Budget axe falls on rising men's college program" by Paul Kennedy @pkedit, Apr 4, 2017 Despite one of the best seasons in school history -- including a program-best No. 50 finish in the RPI index -- the University of Buffalo has dropped men's soccer after 46 seasons. It's the 24th school to drop its Division I men's program since 1990 -- and fourth from the Mid-American Conference -- as men's soccer continues to struggle to take hold in football-dominated conferences. I DON'T LIKE THIS AT ALL! Sorry left off URL for the article www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/72897/budget-axe-falls-on-rising-mens-college-program.html
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Mar 29, 2018 9:45:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 29, 2018 9:56:21 GMT -5
It did also generate some controversy as following the traditional path of US soccer and exclusivity. If I'm not mistaken, I also believe they were all Nike schools as well.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Mar 29, 2018 10:06:39 GMT -5
It did also generate some controversy as following the traditional path of US soccer and exclusivity. If I'm not mistaken, I also believe they were all Nike schools as well. Ahhh, sponsorships. Might as well throw Oregon (ALL NIKE!) in the mix. Oh wait, no Men’ soccer. 😜
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Mar 29, 2018 16:07:03 GMT -5
Title IX is what killed men's soccer and other non-revenue generating men's college sports. Because schools have to have either the same number of male/female scholarship athletes or male/female scholarships equal to the general population of the school, and D 1 football has 85 scholarships, non-revenue generating men's sports have been eliminated while additional female sports have been added.
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Mar 29, 2018 16:50:37 GMT -5
Title IX is what killed men's soccer and other non-revenue generating men's college sports. Because schools have to have either the same number of male/female scholarship athletes or male/female scholarships equal to the general population of the school, and D 1 football has 85 scholarships, non-revenue generating men's sports have been eliminated while additional female sports have been added. This is true. The biggest issue there is football's scholarships. You have to have a lot of womens sports to make 85 scholarships. Strangely even colleges with football only allot 10 (rounding up) scholarships to women's soccer. I don't know how the numbers add up. I went to college during a time when schools were not quite meeting the correct number of scholarships for women. They just had the same number of sports. That loophole was closed and my alma mater now has soccer, lacrosse and softball (none of those were there when I was there). Women's soccer was first then softball then lacrosse. They never had men's soccer or lacrosse where I went to college.
|
|
|
Post by atv on Mar 29, 2018 17:10:38 GMT -5
Often women’s soccer programs are added at colleges in part to comply with title ix. The same prevents men’s soccer from being added and why there are significantly more D1 women’s programs. Good and bad, I guess, depending on your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 29, 2018 17:14:54 GMT -5
Football should have been thrown out the equation when talking title IX.
The fact that the gators, dawgs, miami, FSU and ga tech do not have men’s teams is a tragedy!
|
|
|
Post by atv on Mar 29, 2018 17:52:40 GMT -5
SEC men’s soccer would simply be awesome but it will never happen. IMO
|
|