Anonymous wrote:I like the proposed changes to the men’s side, but isn’t there also a suggestion of granting a “second chance” for American players who’ve been paid to play pro (MLS)? Instead, nix that, *and* tighten the international pipeline. It’s difficult to verify that an international player has yet to be paid (I talked to a guy who was paid to play 3rd division in Portugal, then got a spot on an American college team, and quickly deleted all his Social posts from his time in Portugal). So, in lieu of that, simply institute a reasonable cap on the number of roster spots for internationals.

I think this is correct the international spots need to be limited that will give more chances to US players to develop. Most rosters are filled with international players, nothing against them for looking for an opportunity but for US development this has to happen. That might be why there was an age gap referred to as being between 17-23.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These recommendations were made as a way to make the US more competitive in soccer? Ok, I get why US soccer and pro leagues would want that, but why is that of any concern or a goal for colleges? That’s not a goal for other college sports. This whole report seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see why colleges would do any of it. How does this help the colleges at all?

A lot of what would be helping college, in particular on the mens side, is the trying to regionalize the play more so than it is now - I quickly read through, but the creation of regional pods that would play and a tiered system is a goal to try to cut down on travel expenses for the schools. Then they would come together to play in a 64 team end of season tournament.

Also, spreading out the season to a Fall-Spring model can help schools again by spreading out the games over a longer period of time, thus lessening the impact.

It's interesting to see what they are thinking - I really like the longer season idea for sure. I like some of the thoughts on more regional play. While some things may be more pipe-dreamish, I don't think the season length is one of those.

Conference realignment and more regional play does have appeal but only if it occurs for all college sports and not just soccer. And it's hard to see that happening anytime soon since the conferences have only just started to nationalize (Stanford and Cal to the ACC, USC and UCLA to the Big Ten). Why would colleges want to have separate conferences for different sports? And why would colleges want to have a year round season just for soccer? No other college sport has a spread out season like this. This report is proposing that colleges have all these special rules and differences just for one sport. And it's a sport that colleges don't really care about because it doesn't bring in money. That's why it's a pipe dream.

College soccer is already fragmented since not all conferences are sponsoring men's programs - See Big12 and SEC.

Also, the whole nationalization of conferences like the ACC, Big10, etc is even more of a reason to fix things. It is a cost killer to have your low revenue sports flying out to CA to play league games. It really seems like the major sports like Football have incentive to break off and do their own thing - Funnel things down even more into large "super" conferences and leave the other sports to regionalize.

Regarding a longer season, it is happening elsewhere. Hoops starts in early November and runs into April if you make the far in the tournament. College Hockey is playing now and their Frozen 4 finals are in March. Soccer wouldn't be much different.

It all sounds good if your angle is to make things better for soccer, particularly professional leagues and national teams. But that is not how colleges look at it. What is the incentive to a college to make these changes for one sport? Do other college sports like baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, and field hockey also get to have their own structures and rules? It makes no sense from the college's standpoint. Unless maybe if there is significant revenue attached which is why football and basketball march madness can do these things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These recommendations were made as a way to make the US more competitive in soccer? Ok, I get why US soccer and pro leagues would want that, but why is that of any concern or a goal for colleges? That’s not a goal for other college sports. This whole report seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see why colleges would do any of it. How does this help the colleges at all?

A lot of what would be helping college, in particular on the mens side, is the trying to regionalize the play more so than it is now - I quickly read through, but the creation of regional pods that would play and a tiered system is a goal to try to cut down on travel expenses for the schools. Then they would come together to play in a 64 team end of season tournament.

Also, spreading out the season to a Fall-Spring model can help schools again by spreading out the games over a longer period of time, thus lessening the impact.

It's interesting to see what they are thinking - I really like the longer season idea for sure. I like some of the thoughts on more regional play. While some things may be more pipe-dreamish, I don't think the season length is one of those.

Conference realignment and more regional play does have appeal but only if it occurs for all college sports and not just soccer. And it's hard to see that happening anytime soon since the conferences have only just started to nationalize (Stanford and Cal to the ACC, USC and UCLA to the Big Ten). Why would colleges want to have separate conferences for different sports? And why would colleges want to have a year round season just for soccer? No other college sport has a spread out season like this. This report is proposing that colleges have all these special rules and differences just for one sport. And it's a sport that colleges don't really care about because it doesn't bring in money. That's why it's a pipe dream.

College soccer is already fragmented since not all conferences are sponsoring men's programs - See Big12 and SEC.

Also, the whole nationalization of conferences like the ACC, Big10, etc is even more of a reason to fix things. It is a cost killer to have your low revenue sports flying out to CA to play league games. It really seems like the major sports like Football have incentive to break off and do their own thing - Funnel things down even more into large "super" conferences and leave the other sports to regionalize.

Regarding a longer season, it is happening elsewhere. Hoops starts in early November and runs into April if you make the far in the tournament. College Hockey is playing now and their Frozen 4 finals are in March. Soccer wouldn't be much different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These recommendations were made as a way to make the US more competitive in soccer? Ok, I get why US soccer and pro leagues would want that, but why is that of any concern or a goal for colleges? That’s not a goal for other college sports. This whole report seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see why colleges would do any of it. How does this help the colleges at all?

A lot of what would be helping college, in particular on the mens side, is the trying to regionalize the play more so than it is now - I quickly read through, but the creation of regional pods that would play and a tiered system is a goal to try to cut down on travel expenses for the schools. Then they would come together to play in a 64 team end of season tournament.

Also, spreading out the season to a Fall-Spring model can help schools again by spreading out the games over a longer period of time, thus lessening the impact.

It's interesting to see what they are thinking - I really like the longer season idea for sure. I like some of the thoughts on more regional play. While some things may be more pipe-dreamish, I don't think the season length is one of those.

Conference realignment and more regional play does have appeal but only if it occurs for all college sports and not just soccer. And it's hard to see that happening anytime soon since the conferences have only just started to nationalize (Stanford and Cal to the ACC, USC and UCLA to the Big Ten). Why would colleges want to have separate conferences for different sports? And why would colleges want to have a year round season just for soccer? No other college sport has a spread out season like this. This report is proposing that colleges have all these special rules and differences just for one sport. And it's a sport that colleges don't really care about because it doesn't bring in money. That's why it's a pipe dream.

Anonymous wrote:The women have the advantage on the rest of the world due to Title 9. Most people just think of results but do not understand that we advance our women more than most countries in the world. As leaders, if you don’t adjust, people will catch you so I hope the women are proactive and don’t just think are system is better.

On the men’s side, I agree with many of the recommendations. The season should be a full year. I would like to see the P4 section off as semi-pro. Locally, I would financially support Georgetown as a DC resident. We support colleges like Europeans support clubs. If we embraced that reality, we could have a true semi-pro league and development that would benefit our game long-term. No need for Deloitte to tell us that.

To address your bolded comment. Title 9 played a huge role in getting the US Women jump started when it comes to soccer. There just weren't the oppurtunites to play outside of US colleges for women. That model served the US well for many years, but as you said, you need to adjust. In Europe in particular, there is an investment by the large clubs that have had great success on the men's side and they are working hard to replicate that on the women's side. I think you see it is Spain in particular - it hasn't been without issue though from a financial standpoint, but if they can continue supporting, it will pay dividends.

Where the US is lacking is what to do with women's players that want to continue to play and develop - there aren't nearly enough NWSL teams, there are a handful of USL Super League teams and beyond that, no 2nd teams or feeder teams, outside of college, into these higher level teams. I think that's why there was emphasis in the report to try to develop some additional avenues for top players to continue in that U23 age group. That being said, I think college will continue to be an important pathway for many women - I don't see a ton of women's players going pro at U17 - that will continue as the exception rather than the norm.

Anonymous wrote:These recommendations were made as a way to make the US more competitive in soccer? Ok, I get why US soccer and pro leagues would want that, but why is that of any concern or a goal for colleges? That’s not a goal for other college sports. This whole report seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see why colleges would do any of it. How does this help the colleges at all?

A lot of what would be helping college, in particular on the mens side, is the trying to regionalize the play more so than it is now - I quickly read through, but the creation of regional pods that would play and a tiered system is a goal to try to cut down on travel expenses for the schools. Then they would come together to play in a 64 team end of season tournament.

Also, spreading out the season to a Fall-Spring model can help schools again by spreading out the games over a longer period of time, thus lessening the impact.

It's interesting to see what they are thinking - I really like the longer season idea for sure. I like some of the thoughts on more regional play. While some things may be more pipe-dreamish, I don't think the season length is one of those.

These recommendations were made as a way to make the US more competitive in soccer? Ok, I get why US soccer and pro leagues would want that, but why is that of any concern or a goal for colleges? That’s not a goal for other college sports. This whole report seems like a pipe dream and I don’t see why colleges would do any of it. How does this help the colleges at all?

I like the proposed changes to the men’s side, but isn’t there also a suggestion of granting a “second chance” for American players who’ve been paid to play pro (MLS)? Instead, nix that, *and* tighten the international pipeline. It’s difficult to verify that an international player has yet to be paid (I talked to a guy who was paid to play 3rd division in Portugal, then got a spot on an American college team, and quickly deleted all his Social posts from his time in Portugal). So, in lieu of that, simply institute a reasonable cap on the number of roster spots for internationals.

Another interesting part is to allow young pro players to play college soccer.

College soccer eligibility rules should be modernized to reflect today’s environment and build more
integrated pathways with domestic professional leagues. The Committee recommends exploring
mechanisms that strengthen college soccer as a key development pathway for players with professional
potential while maintaining academic integrity. As professional opportunities for young players expand,
rules should evolve to better align the college and professional environments. Areas for exploration
include: 1) allowing players who have signed or are under rights agreements with professional teams to
pursue college competition, drawing from models used in other U.S. sports such as hockey. This
framework should allow players to pursue a degree while also exploring ways for professional teams to
fund some or all of their scholarships, 2) supporting a “second chance” pathway for players to enroll and
compete in college after previously starting a professional career that has stalled, and 3) broadening
opportunities for players to train with professional teams outside the academic calendar (e.g., summer
training) without compromising eligibility. These rules would need to accommodate the differences
between various leagues in player entry mechanisms (e.g., those with a college draft or not) and each
league’s players’ union will be an important stakeholder in advancing this recommendation.

The women have the advantage on the rest of the world due to Title 9. Most people just think of results but do not understand that we advance our women more than most countries in the world. As leaders, if you don’t adjust, people will catch you so I hope the women are proactive and don’t just think are system is better.

On the men’s side, I agree with many of the recommendations. The season should be a full year. I would like to see the P4 section off as semi-pro. Locally, I would financially support Georgetown as a DC resident. We support colleges like Europeans support clubs. If we embraced that reality, we could have a true semi-pro league and development that would benefit our game long-term. No need for Deloitte to tell us that.

https://www.ussoccer.com/collegesoccer

So, the report finally was released that was developed with US Soccer and their selected committee. It's an interesting read and I'm in favor of many of the recommendations.

They do recommend some different things on the men's and women's sides, which makes sense. Biggest thing for me is the need to lengthen the season, which I think is good and on the men's side really trying to regionalize where programs play.

Some good info, which was pretty well known, that women's soccer is still driving more players into US Based pro leagues and to the USNT. Men's college not nearly as much, but still recognized it's value in the the US soccer pathway.

IDK - it will be interesting to see if every can get on the same page and move in the same direction.

The landing page for the release is below - first link is directly to the report.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2025/10/us-soccer-nextgen-college-soccer-committee-release-white-paper-strengthen-college-game