Collegiate soccer in other countries runs 9 months?

No, not collegiate soccer. the top players in other countries go right to professional teams. More so then in the USA.

When I talk to players one thing I realize is that players in other countries play soccer to go professional...while players in the US play soccer to go to college then professional.

Conundrum715 wrote: No, not collegiate soccer. the top players in other countries go right to professional teams. More so then in the USA.

When I talk to players one thing I realize is that players in other countries play soccer to go professional...while players in the US play soccer to go to college then professional.

Exactly. I think a 9 month soccer season (or any other sport) would interfere with their education. Let non-academic organizations do longer seasons.

Academics seems to be the main response for those who are content with having a 2 month season. However, Basketball has a 5 month season and have much more away games and travel time then soccer teams, yet there academics are not hindered.

At least put soccer as long as basketball.

That way if a player gets hurt and is out 2-3 weeks he wont be missing half of the season.

Hmm, by my count soccer is a 4 month season. At least Westmont plays games from Aug 9 to Nov. 17.

I see SAGU played from Aug 24 to October 27. That is 2 months, but it seems to be SAGUs choice to not start as early, and lack of wins to extend the season.

SAGU's football program played games form 9/1 to 11/10. That's just 10 days past 2 months. Hardly a 4 month season.

I don' t think this is an NAIA issue....

Im not simply referring to SAGU. The majority of teams in the NAIA do not make the post-season tournament which means there seasons truly are 2-3 months. So for the majority of teams in the NAIA, it is not a 4 month season.

SEcond, my hypothesis is not something i have recently thought up. I have talked to many club and Academy Coaches and Coaching Directors and they all agree with me (at least the ones I have talked to).

I have been around club and academy soccer my entire life. If you were to watch the top youth soccer tournaments in the world (Dallas Cup, Disney Showcase Tournament etc.) You would see that the top American club and academy teams are on the same level as many of their European counter-parts. However, once they reach the age of 18 it seems that the European players excel much faster then them. It is my opinion that the reason why at this age European players excel and AMerican players do not keep up is because of the short college soccer season.

If the NAIA were to adopt a longer season, it would allow them to grab the attention of better recruits and the eye of the US Soccer. I do believe the NCAA would be forced to extend there season as well (especially since there are already those in the NCAA who would prefer a longer season).

Come on NAIA, lets be a trendsetter!!!

Conundrum715 wrote: Im not simply referring to SAGU. The majority of teams in the NAIA do not make the post-season tournament which means there seasons truly are 2-3 months. So for the majority of teams in the NAIA, it is not a 4 month season.

SEcond, my hypothesis is not something i have recently thought up. I have talked to many club and Academy Coaches and Coaching Directors and they all agree with me (at least the ones I have talked to).

I have been around club and academy soccer my entire life. If you were to watch the top youth soccer tournaments in the world (Dallas Cup, Disney Showcase Tournament etc.) You would see that the top American club and academy teams are on the same level as many of their European counter-parts. However, once they reach the age of 18 it seems that the European players excel much faster then them. It is my opinion that the reason why at this age European players excel and AMerican players do not keep up is because of the short college soccer season.

If the NAIA were to adopt a longer season, it would allow them to grab the attention of better recruits and the eye of the US Soccer. I do believe the NCAA would be forced to extend there season as well (especially since there are already those in the NCAA who would prefer a longer season).

Come on NAIA, lets be a trendsetter!!!

Love the passion, but this is a very bad idea at a ton of levels. And it's totally dishonest, because the spring season ALREADY adds another 3 months to the season, and it includes what may be the best developmental experience for soccer anywhere in the world, with competitive games and the season coming up, but also games where the score isn't the most important thing and coaches can experiment and give kids opportunities they'd never get if the games counted towards a national championship. So, you're basically campaigning for a logistically nightmarish extension of competitive matches with NO increase (or a minimal one) in training. Hard to see how that's going to help.

First let me start off by apologizing for taking so long to reply. I wrote my last message almost a year ago and I just gave up at looking for someone to respond.

Im glad we are having this discussion, it is needed, but there are some points that you made that are just simply not true.

1.) Claiming that the NAIA or the NCAA model of youth soccer development is the best in the world is a pretty unintelligent claim. If it was the best youth soccer devleopment model then we should see some examples of players who come from that model that excel in the Professional soccer world. Which we dont.

2.) I have watched the graduates of the American collegiate system go up against the European or South American system of youth development and it is not pretty. Lets not forget that the U-20 USA National team (players who are in college) just got their butts kicked by River Plates U-20 team 2-0 in the DAllas Cup. That alone shows that America's

suppossed

best collegiate players just got beat by a REGIONAL CLUB TEAM from Argentina.

3.) Competitive games are vital to the development of soccer players. It is very hard to replicate the game speed, quick decision making, and pace, of competitive games in practice. It is during competitive games that one truly sees whether a player can handle that pressure and grows. (Practice can only do so much)

4.) Your argument that you made about how the current model gives

kids who arent good a chance to play in non-competitive matches an opportunity to grow, during the off-season

is backwards thinking. If kids arent good enough to play during a competitive match, then they should re-think whether or not they should be on the team. This is not a recreational league where everyone deserves to play. If they cant hack it on the Varsity team then the coach should find new players to take their place (hence the importance of recruiting).

In Conclusion, If the USA is going to improve as a soccer factory, we need to provide a premier environment for our youth to grow. The current collegiate model is not effective, and it has PROVEN it is not effective for the past 20 years.

Oh and the MLS is finally coming to my side.
----the implementation of Generation Adidas players coming from the Academy ranks
---- the new ruling that MLS teams now can now create feeder clubs wtih USL teams which provide an opportunity for those academy players to get the year-round competitive playing that they need.

First of all, I'll preface this by saying that as a football guy, I actually don't mind soccer.

I'm an athletic trainer, and I spend a lot of my time around academy and select soccer. I cover the bulk of the Scott Gallagher U17/18 and U15/16 teams here in St. Louis. In fact, their home field will soon be home to a new USL team come next spring.

I think what you're saying has some substance. The US training is not up to par with other countries where soccer is THE main attraction. However, you're failing recognize the fact US soccer programs are simply not getting the country's best athletes. They may play as a youth, but many go on to play football and basketball. The reasoning is simple. In the US, kids see professional athletes as those that play in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. That's where you get paid.

Sure you can get paid playing soccer, but it's not on the forefront of American culture like it is with the other sports.

Hopefully you recognize that. I've met many a soccer guru, and it seems that many live in this bubble where they don't really understand the

afterthought

mentality that most Americans really have for soccer.

That is obviously an external problem. But perhaps it could begin to be addressed by taking your suggestions into serious consideration with a longer season.

I don't think a 9 month season would be viable however. It really just doesn't fit into the model of the American sports culture.

Conundrum715 wrote: Academics seems to be the main response for those who are content with having a 2 month season. However, Basketball has a 5 month season and have much more away games and travel time then soccer teams, yet there academics are not hindered.

Soccer teams on average play between 17 and 21 matches during a season, not counting postseason. Basketball plays between 24 to 30 and the Month of December is pretty much an off month for most teams. only a few play in March and most of those just the first week. So the difference is half a month more for basketball and a few more games.

Nine months of soccer would cost too much. What ever your travel cost is for basketball you would have to double and in some cases triple it per road game for sports like soccer where they travel with 20 to 25 players.

This isn't Europe or Latin America. MLS doesn't play near as long a season as EPL or Liga MX. Liga MX has there championship and two weeks later starts a new season.

bigsig50:

I appreciate your input, and the argument that you have brought forward (about the U.S. not getting the best athletes) is a commonly used excuse for the lack of progress American Soccer has experienced. The argument that I use to refute that logic is to simply ask the person to define

an athlete

; and then when he defines it, ask him to compare his definition of an athlete to players like Lampard, Sandro, Terry, Walcott, etc.

The excuse of amazing athleticism IMO only applies to maybe the top 10 percent of soccer players. The majority of the players who play are not TOP ATHLETES at all. They are not the fastest, they are not the strongest, and they cannot jump the highest when compared to the Gareth Bales, Christiano Ronaldo, Luis Suarez and etc.

Lionel Messi is not the fastest (Bale, Ronaldo, and even Real Madrid's outside back Marcelo are faster then he is) , he is not the quickest, HE DOESNT EVEN HAVE THE BEST On-the-ball skill, and for goodness sakes he is nowhere near the strongest. What makes Messi so great is that he has intelligence: AND INTELLIGENCE CAN BE TAUGHT.

In order for America to progress, we dont need our top athletes to stop playing football or basketball. We need to find out WHY our Academy teams, from the ages of U-12 - U19 are on the SAME LEVEL as their European counterparts, but for some reason, between the ages of 19-23 their players progress MUCH MUCH FASTER then ours. Do they go through a second puberty or something (that was said with sarcasm). The reason why this is, is OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF HOW OUR COLLEGE SOCCER PROGRAM DRASTICALLY DECREASES THE PROGRESSION OF OUR SOCCER PLAYERS DURING THAT TIME.

So the lack of athleticism is not to blame for America's soccer conundrum. I believe its the 4 month college soccer season which screws it up for our players. 4 months of soccer where they play 15-17 games (not including post-season) and then simply practice for the next 8 months (with a few non-competitive scrimmages interspersed). While their European counter-parts are playing soccer year-round.

OLLUMike wrote: Conundrum715]Academics seems to be the main response for those who are content with having a 2 month season. However, Basketball has a 5 month season and have much more away games and travel time then soccer teams, yet there academics are not hindered.

Soccer teams on average play between 17 and 21 matches during a season, not counting postseason. Basketball plays between 24 to 30 and the Month of December is pretty much an off month for most teams. only a few play in March and most of those just the first week. So the difference is half a month more for basketball and a few more games.

Nine months of soccer would cost too much. What ever your travel cost is for basketball you would have to double and in some cases triple it per road game for sports like soccer where they travel with 20 to 25 players.

This isn't Europe or Latin America. MLS doesn't play near as long a season as EPL or Liga MX. Liga MX has there championship and two weeks later starts a new season.

OLLUMIKE:

I agree with you 100 percent, I never thought to figure in the cost of expanding the soccer season. That, in my opinion, is the best argument ANYONE has given me yet. If that is the excuse the NAIA uses then I will have to accept that.

But in the end, I still believe, the way to get American soccer better is to either expand the collegiate season or bypass college soccer all-together. (Which the MLS is now beginning to do).

I think you misunderstood my argument.

I agree with you 100 percent that America's top athletes are not playing professional soccer. I also agree with you that European top athletes are playing professional soccer.

My argument, is that you do not need to be top notch athlete to play professional soccer. There are numerous professional soccer players who do not fit the description of an athlete that you described. Look at Steven Gerard or Frank Lampard for Chelsea, OR BETTER YET, LOOK AT CLINT DEMPSEY. Clint Dempsey did very well for himself when he played for Fulham. By no means is Clint Dempsey the athlete that you described. Yet he made it to the elite levels.

The type of athlete you described represents maybe the top 10-15% of professional soccer players in Europe. What about the other 85-90%? They are not top-of-the-line athletes that you described, yet they excel at the sport.

My argument is that the majority of soccer players are not the super-star-athletes that people think they are. They dont have explosive speed or agility yet for some reason, they have the talent to make it to that level.

The question of How they are able to be so good at soccer when they don't have those top-athletic attributes is the question im trying to answer. I believe they are able to make it because the training they receive between the ages of 18-23 surpasses the training that our players receive at the collegiate level. Hence why collegiate soccer needs to adapt its methods or face losing the top young players that America produces, due to their ability to go right into the MLS, USL, or play abroad, right out of high school.