(10-30-2018 11:06 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Soccer at the college level is an amazing sport. It takes Americans a while to understand the nuances of the game but once they do, they are usually hooked.
CJ

I think you're selling Americans short. We've seen enough soccer to understand the nuances of the game. Many of us just don't care to watch a sport where nuance is more important than action. And while college soccer isn't as bad as pro soccer on this score, many of us are turned off by all the flopping in the men's game.

When you combine those things with the Title IX issues, men's soccer has a lot to overcome.

(10-29-2018 07:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 07:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  All of the schools in the ACC with the exception of Georgia Tech and Miami play men's soccer.

I don’t think Florida St has a team.

My bad, you are correct.

I don't think that the lack of men's soccer programs has anything to do with popularity (whether spectator or participant). Revenue is generally not much of a factor for adding a sport outside of football and basketball (plus a relative handful of schools for men's hockey and baseball). Whatever people might personally feel about the entertainment value of watching soccer, there are certainly more than enough males playing soccer at a high level in this country to fill up every Division I school and then some (certainly more than virtually every sport outside of basketball and football).

Instead, this is a straight cost issue - any school with an FBS football team is starting out at 85 scholarships on the men's side of the ledger right off the bat. As a result, FBS schools generally have a de facto cap on non-football/basketball men's scholarships and soccer has generally fallen in the category of "nice to have" as opposed to "must have".

Note that all 10 of the Big East schools have men's soccer teams despite have much smaller budgets than Power Five schools, so whether you have an FBS football program can have a large impact on Title IX compliance flexibility.

(10-30-2018 12:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 07:32 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  College Basketball gets significantly more of the top athletes than college baseball/hockey/soccer. 31 is actually quite high when accounting for only 60 getting drafted and the NBA having roughly half the spots available as MLB and 60-65% of NHL.

College baseball/hockey/soccer are competing with international or professional competition that swallows much of the talent pool. College basketball still remains the go-to hub for capable players - by a good margin.

Watch an NHL game and see how many players come from the OHL, WHL, QMJHL, European leagues, etc. Then watch an NBA and see how many come from college. It’s night and day.

OK, so 99.5% of the college basketball players you see will never play in the NBA, while for college hockey it's 99.9% who will never be in the NHL. That's not a significant difference in quality of play. Extremely few college basketball players are potential NBA players, and it's apparent to anyone who watches that the gap in quality between college hoops and the NBA is gigantic -- which is also true of the gap between college baseball and MLB, or college hockey and the NHL. The soccer comparison is somewhat different because MLS isn't the top league in its sport, it's more like the equivalent of AA pro baseball.

College hockey products going to the NHL is on the climb. It's been over 30% of active NHL players came from college for 4-5 years now, and the past two seasons had 41% and 37% of players who made their debuts having played in the NCAA prior to that.

Still lower than basketball for sure, but nowhere near negligible.

(10-30-2018 12:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 10:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  That’s why neither NCAA Hockey nor NCAA Soccer is viewed favorably. Neither is getting more than 30% of the top college-aged athletes in their sport. Thus, a non-big time product.

I don't think you want to rely on that analogy. Your "non big time" adjective applies to every college sport other than football; if that's the only criteria for college sports being entertaining, then you have eliminated every college sport other than some of college football. ...

Though the point is rather big time FOR that sport. Track and field below the Olympics is no longer "big time" in the US (as it was in the 20's and 30's) ... but NCAA track and field is the next thing to pro track. NCAA Lacrosse is the next thing to pro lacrosse ... if not better.

NCAA Soccer is not a step up from minor league professional soccer in the US ... it is not necessarily a step up from the second tier of minor league professional soccer ... and then Major League soccer is a step up from the minore leagues, and then the second tier European leagues are another step up, and then the big European soccer leagues are a step up again. NCAA soccer is roughly the baseball equivalent to "A" minor league ball, and then only if we are generous and count Major League Soccer as a AAA minor league rather than a AA minor league.

There are some regions where more soccer players are produced and where giving a half ride to a portion of the team plus walk ons can make for a team that is competitive in the conference ... and with facilities shared with the Women's team often needed for Title IX, it may make sense. But if you are looking for Football, Basketball and one more men's team sport, often baseball makes more sense in the south, sometimes Lacrosse makes more sense in parts of the Northeast, hockey can make be a break even sport in many parts of the north if the funds for the capital cost of the facilities can be raised.

If you are just looking to satisfy the minimum FBS requirements, you use the individual sports to round out and have the minimum number of team sports. But some Athletic Departments are more ambitious than that, or have a legacy of soccer, or soccer is a good fit for their area (including not all of their D1 rivals having soccer which makes the ability to offer soccer walk-on positions a bigger competitive advantage) or else there would be even fewer men's soccer teams than there are.

Schools playing or scheduled to play NCAA Division I men's soccer.

There are 206 schools but 205 since New Mexico is dropping their program.

Of those 205:

Non-football - 87 of 94

Only non-football schools without soccer:
Arkansas - Little Rock
Chicago St (long rumored to add soccer)
Long Beach St (this surprises me)
Maryland - Eastern Shore
Pepperdine (this surprises me)
Texas - Arlington
Texas A&M - Corpus Christi
Wichita St

FCS - 59 of 125

FBS - 59 (60 with New Mexico) of 130

Power schools: 29
ACC: 12 (includes Notre Dame; only without: Miami, Florida St, and Georgia Tech)
B1G: 9 (without: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Purdue)
PAC: 5 (only: Washington, Oregon St, California, Stanford, and UCLA)
SEC: 2 (only: Kentucky and South Carolina - both play in CUSA)
XII: 1 (only: West Virginia - plays in MAC)

Non-power schools: 31 (30 without New Mexico)
AAC: 8 (without: Wichita St, Houston, Tulane, and East Carolina)
CUSA: 6 (only: UAB, Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, and Florida International)
MWC: 5 (only: San Diego St - plays in PAC; San Jose St, UNLV, and Air Force - all play in WAC; New Mexico - plays in CUSA but folding program)
SBC: 4 (only: Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, and Appalachian St)
MAC: 4 (only: Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, Bowling Green St, and Akron)
Non-FBS conference: Army and Navy play in Patriot; Massachusetts plays in A10; Liberty plays in ASUN

Watching men’s soccer at the college level is watching a much slower game than even USL soccer. Passes aren’t completed as well; the shots aren’t as accurate.

College of Charleston is a pretty storied program at our level, having made multiple NCAA tournaments, including a Final Four, and have a legendary coach, Ralph Lundy, but the only people who go to the games are the parents of the players, a few die-hard alums, and they try to get a big student turnout for one home game a year (usually the first Friday after school starts).

A few years back when they were in the SoCon they’d bring in more big name teams because the league was weaker then. We had Maryland when they were #1 in the nation, and beat Stanford as well.

The CAA though is a meat grinder with the travel and better college soccer talent in the Northeast, and they haven’t had as much success since.

For most college games you get maybe 200 folks in the stands. Few follow the games on social either. Usually it’s just the parents of the players. Women’s soccer is better because you get a higher level of player.

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Though the point is rather big time FOR that sport. Track and field below the Olympics is no longer "big time" in the US (as it was in the 20's and 30's) ... but NCAA track and field is the next thing to pro track. NCAA Lacrosse is the next thing to pro lacrosse ... if not better.

Being the next best thing to pro lacrosse is like being the second largest ball of twine on the face of the earth. In other words, not exactly a major attraction.

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  NCAA Soccer is not a step up from minor league professional soccer in the US ... it is not necessarily a step up from the second tier of minor league professional soccer ... and then Major League soccer is a step up from the minore leagues, and then the second tier European leagues are another step up, and then the big European soccer leagues are a step up again. NCAA soccer is roughly the baseball equivalent to "A" minor league ball, and then only if we are generous and count Major League Soccer as a AAA minor league rather than a AA minor league.

IMO it's generous to call MLS a AA league. But, MLS is a AA league that has higher average attendance than the NHL.

And college baseball is definitely single-A baseball at best. The reason it has somewhat more spectators than other non-revenue sports is that it still "looks" more like the top level of the sport to the casual viewer, even more so than college basketball. That's more due to the nature of the sport than anything else.

(10-31-2018 01:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Though the point is rather big time FOR that sport. Track and field below the Olympics is no longer "big time" in the US (as it was in the 20's and 30's) ... but NCAA track and field is the next thing to pro track. NCAA Lacrosse is the next thing to pro lacrosse ... if not better.

Being the next best thing to pro lacrosse is like being the second largest ball of twine on the face of the earth. In other words, not exactly a major attraction.

But the big fish in small pond phenomenon still applies ... colleges attract a much bigger share of the interest there is in the sport ... and Lacrosse has a big of the Golf effect as well, in that the average supporter has higher than average income. In the right area, the tuition payments of walk on players offset some of the scholarship cost of quarter ride and half ride scholarship players.

Quote:

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  NCAA Soccer is not a step up from minor league professional soccer in the US ... it is not necessarily a step up from the second tier of minor league professional soccer ... and then Major League soccer is a step up from the minore leagues, and then the second tier European leagues are another step up, and then the big European soccer leagues are a step up again. NCAA soccer is roughly the baseball equivalent to "A" minor league ball, and then only if we are generous and count Major League Soccer as a AAA minor league rather than a AA minor league.

IMO it's generous to call MLS a AA league. But, MLS is a AA league that has higher average attendance than the NHL.

All I said was that setting it at the AAA level was generous, I didn't speculate where it ought to fit. It's a step down from France Ligue or Portugal Primera Liga, but I'm not sure whether it's a stop down from Norway's Eliteserian, since I haven't seen enough of either to judge.

Quote: And college baseball is definitely single-A baseball at best. The reason it has somewhat more spectators than other non-revenue sports is that it still "looks" more like the top level of the sport to the casual viewer, even more so than college basketball. That's more due to the nature of the sport than anything else.

Yeah, college bats getting to go up against college arms can cover for more than a few holes in swings that just aren't going to make it in the pros unless the swing fixed. But if they can make B's and raise the GPA average of scholarship BBall and FB players, it's a way to get a degree without going so deep into debt.

And, a la Bull Durham, it's a LOT better than working at Sears, which doesn't pay very well nowaways.

Some American Football coaches don't want another fall male sport such as soccer competing for resources or attention. And the 85 football scholarships are always a barrier when trying to add more men's sports, due to Title IX and gender proportionality.

That said, there are 206 D-I men's soccer schools, which is more schools than D-I lacrosse (70) and hockey (60) combined. It has a 48-team NCAA tournament that is national in scope rather than regional. The game itself is entertaining and only takes a 2 or 2.5 hours to play.

As the sport grows in America (and MLS now outdraws the NHL and will soon pass the NBA in average game attendance) colleges may find soccer to have revenue potential. It's cheap to run, there are plenty of players in the world and it helps add diversity to enrollment.

(10-31-2018 01:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Though the point is rather big time FOR that sport. Track and field below the Olympics is no longer "big time" in the US (as it was in the 20's and 30's) ... but NCAA track and field is the next thing to pro track. NCAA Lacrosse is the next thing to pro lacrosse ... if not better.

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  NCAA Soccer is not a step up from minor league professional soccer in the US ... it is not necessarily a step up from the second tier of minor league professional soccer ... and then Major League soccer is a step up from the minore leagues, and then the second tier European leagues are another step up, and then the big European soccer leagues are a step up again. NCAA soccer is roughly the baseball equivalent to "A" minor league ball, and then only if we are generous and count Major League Soccer as a AAA minor league rather than a AA minor league.

IMO it's generous to call MLS a AA league. But, MLS is a AA league that has higher average attendance than the NHL.

It has higher attendance than the NBA too (NHL/NBA virtually the same). This means little because it’s solely due to higher stadium capacities and lower prices. Still well behind in revenue.

(10-31-2018 05:19 AM)puck swami Wrote:  Some American Football coaches don't want another fall male sport such as soccer competing for resources or attention. And the 85 football scholarships are always a barrier when trying to add more men's sports, due to Title IX and gender proportionality.

That said, there are 206 D-I men's soccer schools, which is more schools than D-I lacrosse (70) and hockey (60) combined. It has a 48-team NCAA tournament that is national in scope rather than regional. The game itself is entertaining and only takes a 2 or 2.5 hours to play.

As the sport grows in America (and MLS now outdraws the NHL and will soon pass the NBA in average game attendance) colleges may find soccer to have revenue potential. It's cheap to run, there are plenty of players in the world and it helps add diversity to enrollment.

MLS was outdrawing NBA as early as 2011
https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-ml...ce-2011-11

Or 2012 (NBA was 5th)
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1290...in-america

You are an AD. You have extra dollars to spend which is rare. Do you put it in a men's sport that has to be balanced with a women's sport?

You are going to play men's basketball. At most places you are going to have track and field and cross country because they are low cost and can meet three sports for sports sponsorship (more than 1/5th the way to meeting Division I criteria). In most places you are going to have baseball. You will have golf because its cheap and golf alums tend to graduate and give money.

Now if you believe you can add soccer and the revenue will cover the expenses and have a bit to pour over into other sports, you are clamoring to add men's soccer. Right now no one is clamoring to add men's soccer.

(10-30-2018 09:46 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Schools playing or scheduled to play NCAA Division I men's soccer.

There are 206 schools but 205 since New Mexico is dropping their program.

Of those 205:

Non-football - 87 of 94

Only non-football schools without soccer:
Arkansas - Little Rock
Chicago St (long rumored to add soccer)
Long Beach St (this surprises me)
Maryland - Eastern Shore
Pepperdine (this surprises me)
Texas - Arlington
Texas A&M - Corpus Christi
Wichita St

FCS - 59 of 125

FBS - 59 (60 with New Mexico) of 130

Power schools: 29
ACC: 12 (includes Notre Dame; only without: Miami, Florida St, and Georgia Tech)
B1G: 9 (without: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Purdue)
PAC: 5 (only: Washington, Oregon St, California, Stanford, and UCLA)
SEC: 2 (only: Kentucky and South Carolina - both play in CUSA)
XII: 1 (only: West Virginia - plays in MAC)

Non-power schools: 31 (30 without New Mexico)
AAC: 8 (without: Wichita St, Houston, Tulane, and East Carolina)
CUSA: 6 (only: UAB, Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, and Florida International)
MWC: 5 (only: San Diego St - plays in PAC; San Jose St, UNLV, and Air Force - all play in WAC; New Mexico - plays in CUSA but folding program)
SBC: 4 (only: Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, and Appalachian St)
MAC: 4 (only: Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, Bowling Green St, and Akron)
Non-FBS conference: Army and Navy play in Patriot; Massachusetts plays in A10; Liberty plays in ASUN

(10-31-2018 01:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Though the point is rather big time FOR that sport. Track and field below the Olympics is no longer "big time" in the US (as it was in the 20's and 30's) ... but NCAA track and field is the next thing to pro track. NCAA Lacrosse is the next thing to pro lacrosse ... if not better.

Being the next best thing to pro lacrosse is like being the second largest ball of twine on the face of the earth. In other words, not exactly a major attraction.

(10-30-2018 09:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  NCAA Soccer is not a step up from minor league professional soccer in the US ... it is not necessarily a step up from the second tier of minor league professional soccer ... and then Major League soccer is a step up from the minore leagues, and then the second tier European leagues are another step up, and then the big European soccer leagues are a step up again. NCAA soccer is roughly the baseball equivalent to "A" minor league ball, and then only if we are generous and count Major League Soccer as a AAA minor league rather than a AA minor league.

IMO it's generous to call MLS a AA league. But, MLS is a AA league that has higher average attendance than the NHL.

And college baseball is definitely single-A baseball at best. The reason it has somewhat more spectators than other non-revenue sports is that it still "looks" more like the top level of the sport to the casual viewer, even more so than college basketball. That's more due to the nature of the sport than anything else.

Yep. It also depends on the league. The SEC could be AA baseball, but that is probably the highest. In a couple of states (MS, LA, SC), college baseball is bigger than college basketball and is only behind college football in popularity. But nationally, nobody follows the sport.

Regional games in June when ESPN has nothing else to show peak at a couple hundred thousand viewers. The Super Regionals had their highest average ever in 2018, 449,000 viewers. The college hockey Frozen Four finals only did 653,000 this year, while the CWS finals at their peak (game 2 this year) drew over 2 million viewers.

(10-29-2018 07:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  All of the schools in the ACC with the exception of Georgia Tech and Miami play men's soccer.

I did not know this, given their Local Demographic!

(10-29-2018 07:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Soccer does not draw a crowd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tell that to UC Santa Barbara and Akron throughout the years

(10-31-2018 07:17 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 07:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  All of the schools in the ACC with the exception of Georgia Tech and Miami play men's soccer.

I did not know this, given their Local Demographic!

(10-29-2018 07:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Soccer does not draw a crowd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tell that to UC Santa Barbara and Akron throughout the years

You might think UTEP, of all schools would have baseball and men’s soccer given the demographics of El Paso. Those are the two sports El Paso high schools produce tons of recruits but they have to go out of town if they want to play at the college level.

I’m surprised Texas, Florida and Arizona State don’t sponsor men’s soccer either.

(10-31-2018 10:54 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:17 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 07:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  All of the schools in the ACC with the exception of Georgia Tech and Miami play men's soccer.

I did not know this, given their Local Demographic!

(10-29-2018 07:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Soccer does not draw a crowd.

Tell that to UC Santa Barbara and Akron throughout the years

You might think UTEP, of all schools would have baseball and men’s soccer given the demographics of El Paso. Those are the two sports El Paso high schools produce tons of recruits but they have to go out of town if they want to play at the college level.

I’m surprised Texas, Florida and Arizona State don’t sponsor men’s soccer either.

Yes, the fact that no other NCAA Div1 schools in Arizona sponsor soccer may be why Grand Canyon does. A number of Div1 Florida schools do soccer, but none of the A5 schools ... UCF, USF, the F_U's,, Gulf Coast, Stetson. And a soccer schools in Houston, in Dallas, in San Antonio, but that's Houston Baptist, SMU, and Incarnate Word.

(10-31-2018 10:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You are an AD. You have extra dollars to spend which is rare. Do you put it in a men's sport that has to be balanced with a women's sport?

You are going to play men's basketball. At most places you are going to have track and field and cross country because they are low cost and can meet three sports for sports sponsorship (more than 1/5th the way to meeting Division I criteria). In most places you are going to have baseball.

In a lot of places in the North you might wish you didn't have baseball, given the headache of a month of playing on the road. The MAC used to make baseball mandatory, but they've dropped it, and Akron and Buffalo don't play.

In response to community efforts to restore baseball, Akron is looking to bring back Baseball and add Women's Lacrosse ... but AFAIU, all scholarships would be community funded rather than coming from the University budget.

*poof...gone*

"In response to community efforts to restore baseball, Akron is looking to bring back Baseball ... but AFAIU, all scholarships would be community funded rather than coming from the University budget."

In other words, non-scholarship, losing, baseball.

(11-01-2018 07:34 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  "In response to community efforts to restore baseball, Akron is looking to bring back Baseball ... but AFAIU, all scholarships would be community funded rather than coming from the University budget."

In other words, non-scholarship, losing, baseball.

In else it means, "put up or shut up". Scholarships being community funded can easily mean, "if you raise $X for Y endowed scholarships, we'll sponsor baseball".

I haven't followed what the Zips are doing as far as getting baseball back and running ... most of the time I spent in Akron proper last summer was working out how to get around the Interstate road work and escape being in Akron ... but I actually think it's more likely to have meant "put up or shut up" than "we'll put together a non-scholarship team for you".

That would explain, after all, part of why it'd be a package deal with Women's Lacrosse. The "put up" would included endowed scholarships for the Title IX offsets as well.