College soccer, MLS playoffs ... and where they meet
by Steve Davis on Nov 8, 2010 9:52 AM EST
Email
PrintI’ll have lots of juicy stuff on the three thrilling conclusions to Major League Soccer’s first playoff round later today when my piece is posted at SI.com. (Update ... now posted here.)
Three thrillers, that is, plus the Galaxy’s convincing win over the meek Seattle Sounders, who practically forfeited. Meanwhile, here’s a little something to chew on that might surprise you. It’s not necessarily about the playoffs, but it uses a couple of the playoff survivors as to prove the point. It's about the college game and how it still contributes to the pro player pool.
Yes, I’ve seen the helter-skelter college game. Yes, I know it looks like 22 guys playing with their shorts on fire. And, yes, I see the importance of the development “academies” that now support the MLS clubs’ youth initiative, and I know the direct route to the pros will subtract some juice from the college game going forward.
But don’t tell me that there’s no place in it all for colleges. Not when the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary.
Just take a gander at some of the current roster constructs.
Take FC Dallas. Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising given Schellas Hyndman’s extensive college background. Eight of the 14 players used Saturday to help overcome the champs were college products. That includes rookies Zach Loyd (UNC) and Eric Alexander (Indiana University), who have made substantial contributions during a season that has seen Dallas win its first playoff series since 1999. Heck, MLS still had teams in Florida back then – and would for another two years.
San Jose had even more, although not as many who did their collegiate trapping and passing as recently. Eight Earthquakes who got on the field in Thursday’s second-leg victory went through the college system, including Golden Boot winner Chris Wondolowski, the pride of Chico State soccer.
All four men along L.A.’s back line are college products, including that fine pair of sophomore center backs now patrolling at the Home Depot Center, A.J. DeLaGarza and Omar Gonzalez. And on it goes …
The college game is what it is. But reports of its demise as a producer of professional talent have been exaggerated. At least for now.
6 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Eric Alexander
I was really impressed with what I saw of him this season.
San Jose would have had 9 college players on the field if Ike Opara wasn’t injured.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Nov 8, 2010 12:44 PM EST reply actions
And college soccer is likely to get better
First because of the NCAA rule change on professionalization (before, if you played games with pros, you were a pro. Now, you’re not a pro unless you yourself collect payment. This means guys from foreign academies can bolster the college game, and that youth academy players stateside can more freely mix with pros). Second, because the USSF Development Academy contains ~80 programs these days, which is about ~1,000 starters a year, most of whom (95%) will go to college.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
I'm sorry but looking at the rosters...
to determine whether or not they matter for MLS is circular reasoning. The question isn’t whether MLS has to draw from NCAA rosters. I don’t even see how this is a new issue.
The question is whether NCAA soccer even prepares players for the reality of the professional game. I don’t see, given the mass-substitution rules and minimal practice time of the college game (to name the most egregious issues) one can honestly say it does. It overemphasizes physicality and minimizes skill, speed of thought, and vision.
The bottom line is the NCAA game leaves our players 4 years behind in their development. Time that no professional league can seriously be expected to recover in the life of a player.
Eh, not so fast.
American player restrictions have the habit of forcing NCAA kids onto rosters. Since you’re allowed to sign 8 foreigners, plus formerly foreign players who have green cards, plus generation adidas players who might have skipped college, they force considerably fewer of them into actual starting lineups. And for the few who would be numerically shoved on the field, the rules certainly don’t force them to make a positive contribution.
If college were as bad for development as you’re arguing, players from the NCAA would consistently stand out in a negative way vs their counterparts. It would be a night-and-day difference, but it isn’t. You “4 years behind” statement is silly in a number of other ways (like that it presumes 18-22 are really prime development years to begin with, which in all probability they aren’t; and, 4 years behind who, exactly? what’s your comparison point?) but this one actually plays out on the field. The mere fact we can even come up with observations to debate it should have cast considerable skepticism onto your beliefs.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Nov 9, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Why should it cast 'skepticism'?
Because some players succeed despite that? No. You’re trying to say they aren’t 4 years behind in real development compared to an International who plays club football in Europe or South America? Are you really going to suggest that the NCAA is a better incubator for talent than Academies like Ajax, ManU, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barca, or clubs in South American have? And 18-22 is when most of these players break into the 1st team of those clubs at a regular basis. Many of the players cited as ‘succeeding’ had playing time outside the college framework as well that balances that somewhat. But the 4yr Collegian doesn’t gain demonstrably compared to their overseas counterpart, no.
There’s nothing new about NCAA players playing on MLS rosters. That doesn’t prove NCAA doesn’t perpetuate a gap in talent between the USMNT and foreign players that then becomes unrealistic for MLS to close. There needs to be real change in NCAA soccer rules for it to be considered seriously useful as a means to develop talent.
Frankly, I don’t see it happening, and the best thing the Federation can do is to encourage a system closer to the rest of the world, including legitimate reserve teams across the league (preferably playing in a lower-flight for real competition). But that involves money being spent MLS probably does not currently have.
by Shawn Gillogly on Nov 9, 2010 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
You're not thinking about these issues very carefully
US players are bad.
US players went to college.
Therefore college caused US players to be bad.
That’s about the summary of this popular line of thought, and it’s a simple post hoc fallacy.
“You’re trying to say they aren’t 4 years behind in real development compared to an International who plays club football in Europe or South America? "
This is why I asked you what the point of comparison was. I could tell, even though you didn’t say it, that your comparison point was some European star vs some average American. But that’s apples-to-oranges. The European star was in a development system for six, eight, often ten years before he would ever hit college age. If we had the same development system as Span from 8-17, an American Messi wouldn’t be going to college because his skills would be worth millions before the subject even came up. The short of it is, guys go to college because they aren’t international stars, not that they fail to be international stars because they went to college.
The actual apples-to-apples comparison is the same 18 year old with vs without college. And on the rare occasions when guys’ talent has been missed, like a Clint Dempsey, college hasn’t stopped him from being relatively successful. You have to compare what came out of college to what came into college. Not to what Real Madrid is putting out.
“And 18-22 is when most of these players break into the 1st team of those clubs at a regular basis.”
And if you were thinking carefully, this would be evidence against your claim that these are the prime development years. The first team is a business, and guys on the first team have to be >90% finished products.
“There’s nothing new about NCAA players playing on MLS rosters. That doesn’t prove NCAA doesn’t perpetuate a gap in talent between the USMNT and foreign players that then becomes unrealistic for MLS to close.”
Again, that wasn’t the claim that was being made. The rules force college players onto rosters, but they don’t force college players to acquit themselves well once they get there.
We actually have an example of when they didn’t, the NASL. Back then, the rules not only had to force US players onto rosters, but onto the field. And teams back then tended to play somewhere close to the minimum US players, and tended to have to ‘hide’ the ones they had.
You can see the difference between then and now. US players (often but not always ones that went to college) don’t just make rosters. They don’t just play, either. They often shine in the league.
And that’s not because college is great. It’s just not as terrible as it’s made out to be. The key point is that college. . . well. . . isn’t the key point. What’s key to development happened at a much younger age than college.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
