After years of planning and advocacy, NCAA Division I men’s soccer coaches thought they’d achieved an important goal: splitting their compressed fall season into two. The championship tournament would move to the spring.
The number of matches would remain the same. Schools and conferences could adapt the schedule to their own needs. The August preseason would begin later. It was, many believed, a practical solution benefiting student-athletes, coaches, and the sport in general.
The plan was approved by the NCAA Cabinet earlier this year. But then – like an unexpected counterattack in the waning moments of a seemingly secure contest – victory now seems less assured.
With just a few days left before a crucial vote on rescission of the measure, University of North Carolina head coach Carlos Somoano spoke with Soccer America about the process, the ramifications, and the frustrations he says are shared by many fellow D-I men’s coaches.
“Soccer has been criticized for years because the fall schedule was so tight,” the 16th-year Tar Heel coach said. “With our student-athletes, we pushed for a more relevant plan.”
The most recent version – championed for a decade by University of Maryland head coach Sasho Cirovski, and many others — was passed by the NCAA’s Soccer Oversight Committee. Made up of key stakeholders like administrators, coaches and student-athletes who advocate for the best interests of their sport. Oversight Committees replaced the previous governance structure, in which decisions were made by people with little or no experience in a particular sport.
After lengthy study and revisions, the Cabinet gave its OK. But NCAA rules allow for “rescission,” within 30 days. If up to 75 percent of D-I schools vote against it, the plan is dead.
With Friday’s deadline near, proponents are concerned.
Institutions that do not sponsor men’s soccer are allowed to vote. But that is not Somoano’s main worry.
“It’s like we’ve gone back 10 years to the previous governance structure,” he said. “There has been a lot of mischaracterization of the proposal. People are voting who may misunderstand it.”
University presidents cast votes. Many rely on input from athletic directors and other administrators.
“It’s like no good deed goes unpunished,” Somoano said. “We think we’ve followed the process to a T. We’ve tried to educate everyone why a change is needed. There’s no other way to say it: Sometimes there is irrational opposition to changing anything.”
The UNC coach believes the proposal should be looked at as a “transformational idea. It’s not a ‘year-round model.’ It’s a flexible redistribution of our playing and training model.”
The number of matches – 25 (20 regular season, five exhibitions) – would remain the same. So would the number of training and game days: 132. The “flexible redistribution” would offer more rest in the fall, through the option to play more matches that count in the spring.
Or not. Though 48 schools would participate in the May tournament, schools and conferences could keep the current fall-heavy schedule if that works best for them.
A school would have to play only a minimum of three spring contests to be eligible for the postseason tourney. Right now, they are allowed five exhibition games each spring.
“There is literally no difference in the number of games or days,” Somoano noted. “The only change is that the window now includes the spring, so it’s bigger.”
The current model – cramming 20 matches into 10 or 12 autumn weeks, with five exhibitions several months later – was “never a relevant model,” said Samoano.
“We just want a relevant season, like other sports have. This is not a novel request. Sports like tennis, swimming and track and field currently have split seasons.”
As start dates for preseason creep ever earlier (women’s soccer now begins in July), Somoano said that the split season proposal would actually “give more of summer back” to male student-athletes. Arriving later than they do now would ease financial and housing burdens.
The proposal was created “to provide flexibility, and be solution-oriented and inclusive.” However, Somoano said, “the pushback is the opposite. People are not reading the plan. They just hear ‘year-round model,’ and that’s it.”
As college presidents may vote to rescind, he stressed the importance of student-athlete input. “They’ve been engaged all along, through campus and leadership programs designed for their voices to be heard, in the best interest of the game.”
Yet Somoano has “heard no mention of student-athletes at all. It’s just ‘we don’t know how we can move games to the spring.’”
An issue that has been raised is how a multi-use facility – one where lacrosse is played in the spring, say – can accommodate spring soccer.
“Look at the math,” Somoano said. “They already play five exhibition matches there then.”
He paused. “This knee-jerk reaction to what we’re doing seems illogical. This should be framed as modern, practical problem-solving. Instead, it’s the opposite. I said it before: Do the math.”