By: Victor Olorunfemi

The U.S. Soccer Federation released its analysis of men's and women's Division I college soccer last week. Their main argument is clear from the report's title: "Ensuring College Soccer Thrives in the Modern Era of College Athletics and the Changing U.S. Soccer Landscape."

With that context, I offer an analysis of what I hated, disliked, loved, and liked from the perspective of someone who played Division I soccer, coached at the collegiate level, and now writes about college and youth soccer for a living.

HATE

The Year-Long Calendar

To begin, the aspect I find most problematic is the proposal for a year-long calendar. While this idea seems positive at first, extending the season across both semesters—with a two-month winter break—primarily benefits the small group of athletes at the very top. This change would undermine the core attractions of college soccer, such as spring semesters dedicated to skill and academic growth, as well as the social aspects of a traditional college experience. 

There is also the reality that coaches will find avenues to circumvent that "winter break" as they strive to get an edge over the competition. So, the same report that aims to enhance the student-athlete experience actually asks those same players to engage in competitive games for most of August through April.

And the idea that the new proposal protects vital academic periods by avoiding games during the traditional "finals" period is laughable for two reasons. One, that assumes the only time school matters is during finals week. And two, only a handful of Division I teams in the country are still playing late in the fall, so once again, the solution caters to the minuscule percentage at the top.

The existing model has flaws, particularly with physical fatigue, but it is key to preserving core college experiences.

No International Guidance

A significant topic that is mostly overlooked in the report is the growing presence of international student-athletes in collegiate soccer. Most institutions are adept at maintaining a balance, but it is now common to observe teams composed of 75 to 95 percent international student-athletes. If college soccer is to serve as a cornerstone of U.S. soccer development, as outlined by the committee, there is a case to be made for measures that more directly benefit domestic student-athletes at the Division I level.

This is not to suggest that international student-athletes should be excluded from the opportunity to earn a collegiate education in the United States; such opportunities should be available. Rather, Division I programs should consider carefully regulated measures to support domestic student-athletes. International player regulations are standard in many soccer leagues worldwide to ensure that domestic competitions effectively foster the development of homegrown players.

Ideally, the Division I level would limit international participation, while JUCO, Division II, Division III, and NAIA provide unrestricted pathways for international players to pursue their slice of the American dream. Implementing a regulation, such as capping international students at 33% of a Division I roster, could be an effective approach.

Such measures would incentivize programs to prioritize recruiting and developing players who may become the next American stars. 

Tier Systems

The U.S. soccer proposal for a tier system in men's college soccer seems ironic, given that the federation has not implemented it in MLS. That aside, the different Divisions create enough separation among the levels without further complicating things.

DISLIKE

Professional and National Teams "Need" More Access

One aspect I dislike is the claim that pro and national teams need greater access to collegiate scouting. The committee states, "Professional and National Teams should have better access to identify, track, and interact with players."

Major League Soccer and the National Women's Soccer League have all the access they need; however, most clubs, particularly in the MLS, choose not to invest in scouting college soccer, concluding it is beneath them. As I have previously written, college soccer is a treasure trove of untapped talent that professional teams could leverage through enhanced scouting infrastructure.

So attributing the lack of scouting investment by professional organizations to deficiencies in collegiate soccer was annoying to read.

Losing Relevance in Women's Game

Concerns were also raised that college soccer could lose relevance in the women's game, with the suggestion that a lack of competitive games between December and May could hinder development. The Committee stated: "This includes creating alternatives that, at a minimum, deliver a more competitive environment for elite players to develop in the 'off-season' months . . . Without such change, the Committee believes the women's game faces accelerating risk of becoming less relevant/attractive as a destination for the most talented players."

However, I contend that the January-May period is crucial for individual player growth. If more games are added, attention shifts from skill development to chasing wins, which can undermine a coach's ability to nurture every athlete. 

There are reasons to support a two-semester model, but suggesting it would increase development is misleading.

The aspects that make women's soccer uniquely brilliant are the facilities that rival any in the world, the intense level packed with youth and future stars, the educational opportunities, and the rich history and tradition that surpass those of any women's professional team on the planet. As long as that remains, women's college soccer will be just fine as the leading pre-professional league in the world.

LOVE

Okay, now that I have complained enough, here are a few things I loved.

Regionalized Competition to Reduce Cost and Increase Performance

I do support and appreciate the reality that college soccer must find ways to reduce costs in the modern NCAA era. One way to do that, as identified by the committee, is to reduce travel expenses. Conference realignment driven by college football has taken common sense out of league play, so any proposal that re-invents what conferences look like has my support. Take the Big Ten, no one can tell me there is a world where it is reasonable to place Rutgers in New Jersey and UCLA in Southern California in the same conference. While the costs associated with that travel might make sense for a college football industry that brings in hundreds of millions in revenue, they do not make sense for a sport like college soccer, which operates in the red on most years.

The other benefit is that this is much better for the players' academic, athletic, and mental well-being. It goes without saying that the student-athlete is much better off trading endless hours on the road for more time in the classroom, on the practice field, and on campus. 

Age Limit

I vehemently agree with the committee that college soccer has the potential to be among the best U23 leagues in the world for both men and women. I wrote about that belief in more detail here: College Soccer and Youth Development

So when I saw the proposal to enact a U23 age limit, I was completely on board. Especially on the men's side, college soccer has turned into the wild west with some programs fielding 21-year-old "freshmen" and 26-year-old seniors. Enough is enough. Particularly in creating a better pathway to the professional ranks, teams have to operate on the same playing field, and that starts with an age limit. 

College Cup Partnership With Youth Event

The proposal to have the College Cup partner with a national ECNL or MLS Next event is one I've loved and have proposed for a few years now. It is a no-brainer that everyone would benefit if the College Cup coordinated its final four with a massive youth soccer event in the same city. A packed stadium would do wonders for the sport's commercial opportunities.

LIKE

Opportunity for Pro Second Chance

One aspect I liked but did not love, depending on its implementation, is the idea of giving players a second chance at college soccer. There are too many examples of players who signed a professional deal at 16 and, by 19, no longer look like viable pros and have no landing spot to continue playing/developing while earning an education.

College soccer could operate as a second chance for these players. The primary limitation I would want is that this option is available only to American players, as the primary goal is to develop domestic talent. Another would be that players who played college soccer and then moved to professional soccer cannot return, regardless of nationality. 

Transfer Portal Window

A limit on when a player can enter the transfer portal is one I really liked. It eases roster-building pressures for coaching staffs, brings common sense back to player movement, and protects athletes from avoidable mistakes. As a player who used the transfer portal in its first year, I think it is very important. But what it has turned into—players sometimes enrolling in three different institutions within a 12-month period — defeats the academic purpose of college soccer.

So, a window that limits when and how often players can transfer is a great idea.

Revamped NCAA Process

I also support eliminating the at-large selection process for the NCAA tournament. Selection criteria should be strict, objective, and transparent. Currently, the NCAA committee cites the RPI, yet recent years show they often bypass it to favor specific programs.

I think an automatic bid for each regular-season conference winner and another for the conference tournament champion or finalist would be the fairest and most entertaining, especially if Division I soccer is realigned to make more sense on a regional basis.

Summary

Overall, I support the report's premise that some changes are needed to modernize college soccer. It is just that too many of the proposals lean toward the one percent of truly elite players and do not give enough consideration to the overall student-athlete experience. That said, there were some great ideas I feel would benefit all the parties involved.