Marshall U wins NCAA men’s soccer with 25 foreign athletes

Tall Tree wrote:

Yes, the number of players on Marshall’s roster is astounding. Can’t imagine how it is possible to train a group that size. To logistically manage it all - I tip my hat to the coaching staff.

Nevertheless, my previous points of contention come from my being a foreign athlete having benefited from the US system humbled and grateful for my experience and opportunity gained yet perplexed and frustrated to learn about the huge numbers of foreign athletes and resulting impact on US athletes not getting a shot.

People can agree or disagree.

Why do you think it matters that you were once one of these athletes? It makes you sound more delusional than credible.

John Macardle wrote:

Tribe wrote:

I definitely think we’re limiting American athlete opportunities. As someone said, this is most prominent in tennis. This week is the NCAA tennis champs and 68/114 of the players on the 16 qualifying teams are foreign. There are entire teams qualifying for NCAAs with no Americans (

https://www.tennisrecruiting.net/article.asp?id=358330749

). Two years ago Wake Forest won NCAAs and i believe they had a roster of all foreigners. There’s no doubt this limits opportunities for Americans. Tennis is the worst but this is true on a smaller scale for all sports. I like the 25% cap rule that was proposed.

I actually thought tennis was worse. The 47th best American tennis player in the NCAA not making it to nationals doesn't really strike me as curbing our development of our top players. To each their own I guess.

Top tennis prospects go straight to the tennis academies, not college teams. Hence, the low rank of Americans in the NCAA tournament. As previously mentioned, our best soccer prospects also go to their sport's academy to develop.

I would say 95% of T&F athletes will do at least a year (or more) of NCAA running before going pro.

LIRunerrr wrote:

Top tennis prospects go straight to the tennis academies, not college teams. Hence, the low rank of Americans in the NCAA tournament. As previously mentioned, our best soccer prospects also go to their sport's academy to develop.

I would say 95% of T&F athletes will do at least a year (or more) of NCAA running before going pro.

And college soccer is a much different sport than college track/XC.

The NCAA places limits on how much soccer a college player can practice and play. They'll get 6-7 days a week, with about 20 games, from mid-August to early November. But very little practice or game action in the winter or spring. And nothing with the college over the summer, although players can play in a summer league.

This has for a long time been the main criticism of college soccer as a means of developing talent; the players just don't get enough soccer. If you turn pro at 18, you'll be playing year round with professional coaches. That's why kids with the ambition to go pro someday are skipping college.

Track/XC in college is a 3 season sport, so you get much more training and competition. So maybe the difference in development between going pro at 18 and running in college is not as great as it is in soccer.

LIRunerrr wrote:

John Macardle wrote:

I actually thought tennis was worse. The 47th best American tennis player in the NCAA not making it to nationals doesn't really strike me as curbing our development of our top players. To each their own I guess.

Top tennis prospects go straight to the tennis academies, not college teams. Hence, the low rank of Americans in the NCAA tournament. As previously mentioned, our best soccer prospects also go to their sport's academy to develop.

I would say 95% of T&F athletes will do at least a year (or more) of NCAA running before going pro.

Thanks. That doesn't really surprise me, and makes me even less concerned about foreign NCAA tennis players.

eraseboards wrote:

Tall Tree wrote:

Yes, the number of players on Marshall’s roster is astounding. Can’t imagine how it is possible to train a group that size. To logistically manage it all - I tip my hat to the coaching staff.

Nevertheless, my previous points of contention come from my being a foreign athlete having benefited from the US system humbled and grateful for my experience and opportunity gained yet perplexed and frustrated to learn about the huge numbers of foreign athletes and resulting impact on US athletes not getting a shot.

People can agree or disagree.

Why do you think it matters that you were once one of these athletes? It makes you sound more delusional than credible.

Not at all.

It matters that I bring added credibility to the discussion because I was a foreign athlete and I am speaking against the NUMBER of foreign athletes on rosters, how that has gotten out of hand and to the point of counter productivity for American athletes.

In West Virginia "foreign" means "outside the immediate family." Foreign means 2nd an 3rd cousins. All good.

Don't worry, Marshall soccer players are still allowed to marry brother/sister. I hope this helps you out.

I will make the point that NCAA soccer (or any other sport) does not exist to develop prospects for the national team or even pro soccer. It may be a consequence/outcome but it shouldn't be the intent by which we measure "success." So the fact that anyone good enough to be pro still has a spot/opportunity isn't really a valid argument in my opinion.

The awarding of scholarships to foreign students is a complicated issue in my opinion. If someone intends to come here and use it as their opportunity to become a productive member of our society then I'm all for it. I've had a lot of great experiences with people who went that route. If someone is just coming here for the degree and then taking what they gained back home then I think we as a society aren't getting back as much as we might expect for offering the scholarship.

The US soccer Development Academy was ended a couple years ago, I think.

My kids play club soccer but they are very young. I've often wondered if the top players at their age will always be the top players. That's certainly not how my experience was in running. I feel like pre-puberty it's more of an age/maturity size than anything. Size/speed/aggressiveness trumps soccer skill at the younger ages. So how can you really pick out the top players at young ages and get them into the system?

truth here wrote:

This is DISGUSTING.

Our NCAA system is solely developing international athletes. That's why USA men's soccer can't qualify for the Olympics or the World Cup. Young American soccer players never get a chance to play in their own country, they are pushed out by foreigners who had a soccer ball by their feet by the time they could walk.

This person obviously doesn't know anything about the U.S. Soccer system. The oldest player on the U.S. men's soccer team is 24. Most international players are identified by high school at the latest through the Olympic Development Program. The best players receive international experience playing as early as 15. As someone already said, most of the best players choose not to go through the NCAA system.

Europe has a completely different structure for player development, where qualified athletes can play in an almost semi-professional environment on teams affiliated with professional teams. They then have more access to resources to develop their skills that is not dependent upon family wealth.

Additionally, if you take a look at public spaces in the U.S., they are filled with basketball courts and sometimes tennis courts. So yes, the original poster was right that overseas players maybe had a soccer ball at their feet when they started walking. They also had spaces to play with other passionate kids. This just doesn't exist in the U.S. like it does elsewhere. How often have you seen a pick-up game of soccer at a park? Not nearly as often as basketball.

Overall, I have a hard time with the original argument that the NCAA should prioritize American athletes. The United States is a capitalist society; the best are rewarded for their skills, knowledge, etc. and companies and organizations always want the most while using the least. Could Marshall University recruit domestically? Yeah. But with what they have to offer, they get better quality athletes from elsewhere.

The US Soccer Developmental Academy was folded by US Soccer last year, and has basically been replaced by a national developmental league driven the 30 or so MLS Academies along with another 64 of the top boys clubs in the country. I think we've reached the point where player development will be more efficient and effective if left to the clubs, who have a significant interest in developing professional level players.

My experience has been that the top players at young ages are not always the top players when the kids hit 17 or 18. A lot of really good players quit at some point, and some may continue to play but just don't improve as much as other kids.

Academies in this country generally don't start until 12 or 13 years old. But there are plenty of kids who may bloom a little later; if they're good enough, they might join an academy at an older age. An even in the academy world itself, there's a bit of a hierarchy where kids may move from lower level academy program to a stronger academy program. The rosters are not etched in stone and from year to year there will be players leaving and new players joining.

actual truth here wrote:

The oldest player on the U.S. men's soccer team is 24.

Well that's just not true.

And I should add that I agree with you about the NCAA. It should not be primarily in the business of developing pro players. However, it has served this function, at least in football and basketball, and this is why the NCAA is going to have to start paying students. And that sort of leads to the question of what is the mission of colleges and universities in this country. But that's a complicated discussion perhaps best left to another day or another thread.

LIRunerrr wrote:

John Macardle wrote:

I actually thought tennis was worse. The 47th best American tennis player in the NCAA not making it to nationals doesn't really strike me as curbing our development of our top players. To each their own I guess.

Top tennis prospects go straight to the tennis academies, not college teams. Hence, the low rank of Americans in the NCAA tournament. As previously mentioned, our best soccer prospects also go to their sport's academy to develop.

I would say 95% of T&F athletes will do at least a year (or more) of NCAA running before going pro.

That’s completely false. John Isner, Steve Johnson and Tennys Sandgren all went to US colleges. They’re all in the top 100 in the world (and there are only 6 Americans in the top 100). On the women’s side Jen Brady (Aus Open finalist) and Danielle Collins are two of the best American women on tour and they both played in college.

the beagle wrote:

actual truth here wrote:

The oldest player on the U.S. men's soccer team is 24.

Well that's just not true.

You're right, sorry. I was looking at the U-23 roster by mistake.

truth here wrote:

This is DISGUSTING.

Our NCAA system is solely developing international athletes. That's why USA men's soccer can't qualify for the Olympics or the World Cup. Young American soccer players never get a chance to play in their own country, they are pushed out by foreigners who had a soccer ball by their feet by the time they could walk.

So wrong. Top soccer players don’t go to American colleges. And college soccer does not “develop” future pros. And that’s not why the US isn’t a top soccer nation.

Watching Marshall was fun- the coach obviously is great at teaching the team to play a possession style- they don’t win because of athleticism, they won because of their tactics and technique. Very entertaining to watch. IU could barely get the ball and make a few passes.

What incentive do academies have to develop players? The US system does not allow the clubs to be paid. And very few of these guys get significant minutes on MLS teams.

If a kid doesn’t have a really high technical level by age 12, it’s not going to happen. The skills need to be learned young. Great book on this topic, “Soccer starts at home” by Tom Byer.

Tribe wrote:

John Isner, Steve Johnson and Tennys Sandgren all went to US colleges. They’re all in the top 100 in the world (and there are only 6 Americans in the top 100).

They were not as good as Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang were at age 18 (and thereafter). That's why they had to play college tennis.

" How often have you seen a pick-up game of soccer at a park?"

I see it almost every evening at my local public park, but the players are all young men from East Africa (large immigrant community in the area). So far, their children have not had an effect on the local youth soccer scene. I expect that to change. I had a yard sale and put out all of my kids' old soccer balls. An East African family came by and scooped them all up for a buck or so.

Agree, here as a father of three former DA now ECNL girls part of ODP for fun, American Women's soccer is the best in the world. Why? My girls have all run sub-5:00/mile but choose to play soccer. Actually two became XC state champs before heading to college for soccer. It's quite common. So much talent. I don't have a boy but I have found they are not limited, mentally, like the boys. All my girl were super creative. They could not run sub-56 for 400m, but they never tired, had phenomenal fundamentals, but it is like they grew up in Mexico (mother is from there) in how they think and play the game. Hard to explain to those who do not understand the sport.