The T-Shirt
1st String
Posts: 2,012
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 106
I Root For: The Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: UC Soccer Thread: Men's Team has a week...beats #13 Kentucky and #19 BGSU
(09-18-2017 11:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (09-18-2017 11:39 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote: (09-18-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (09-18-2017 11:00 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote: I'm going to be in the minority on this, but I'm just going to think out loud here.
What is the long term viability of collegiate soccer? At least on the men's side. As soccer continues to grow in the US (30,000 fans at FCC this past weekend, 70,000 in Atlanta), the more the emphasis on Academies will rise. People comment now how behind American players get when they attend college, so as more pro teams establish academies and provide lower level pro opportunities the smaller and lesser the talent pool gets for the college ranks. As college soccer gets worse and worse, the interest level drops further. Again, I'm speaking long term.
Would it not be more beneficial long term for UC to maybe invest men's soccer resources into let's say baseball? The added resources may help push baseball over the top. Or maybe startup a lacrosse team as college lax is still growing (I'm aware lacrosse would also be a bit more expensive) and may have more appeal at the college ranks than collegiate soccer down the road.
I want to reiterate I'm just speaking hypothetically, I'm not calling for the immediate dropping of men's soccer, or looking to stir the pot. Just something I've thought about.
No, I completely agree. I think the competition level of collegiate soccer is dropping more and more each year, and that is due to the push for more academy/professional training on the sport side (which is a good thing for our international competitiveness). I have said to numerous people, including teammates at UC, that the long-term prospects for Men's soccer is probably as a club-level sport as soon as USSF/MLS get their **** together when it comes to youth training and support. That's the same model that most universities in other countries see, but then again, we are pretty much the only country on the globe that monetizes collegiate athletics to begin with, so I don't think that's an apt comparison.
However, until that point I think the funding should still be allocated towards soccer...and I don't think Baseball, given that they're the only sport with heavy competition over all of their incoming athletes with professional ranks, would be where that money should go. Personally, I think they'd be better suited moving money off of baseball to sports with growing national popularity (lacrosse, volleyball, etc), because I think that sport is about to have the bottom drop out in the upcoming generation.
That last bit I can agree with. I think if UC were to jump in on the D1 lacrosse game they'd be setting themselves up nicely for the future. Also agree with your thoughts on baseball, I used baseball though because it is, for the moment, still viable for TV content (CWS). But even still, it's mostly just popular in the south, and like you said is far from interesting to the next few generations.
Maybe drop soccer AND baseball and double down on the Makers Game, this continents truest past time, the fastest sport on two feet: Lacrosse?!?! I kid, I kid not really, would totally love this to happen, but know it's unrealistic
In all seriousness, I don't think it would be terrible if UC was a bit proactive on this. Why hold out on a "dying" product? I struggled with how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to troll, but this is as best I could do.
I don't think that college soccer (and the USSF) in its current form is dying...that's the one issue with the logic. It would take a complete paradigm shift away from college/college athletics into professional development and eschewing the amateurism in sport mentality, something that is completely against the current sporting culture in America....and something I don't see happening any time soon. The sheer lack of opportunities (I stated this in the soccer thread on the main conference board, but most countries have roughly 7 times the amount of professional team per soccer player ratio that we do) and the precedent set by the other leagues to not enact policies that will negative affect college athletics would make it damn near impossible, even if it is the best course of action for the sport's competitiveness on an international stage.
On a different note, if not for the dated balancing requirements in Title IX, I would be all for UC having a lacrosse team simply because the amount of high quality recruits that come from Ohio (10-20 nation-level players per year) would make us immediately have the potential to be relevant...plus I love UA's lacrosse uniforms.
I appreciate your insights, and I do think "dying" was too harsh a word. Regardless of what could, may, or should happen, as long as UC has a team, I'm gonna enjoy watching them succeed and beat ranked teams.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. The growth of men's lacrosse has been slowed by those requirements and they should be reevaluated. However, I'm not gonna let myself go down that road and turn this thread into what I would assume would be a very colorful set of posts on Title IX. The longer it takes for us to tap our local D1 lacrosse talent, the harder it'll be to catch up.
|
|