D1 Substitution rule

With the season grinding on and injuries and cards mounting I'm just curious to what the forum experts think about the D1 substitution rule. My opinion is if the older age groups are supposed to be preparing for the game at the next level then why not follow the NCAA rule 3. allowing for 11 subs a half no re-entry first half and one re-entry in the second half. Seems to me the level of play is getting pretty sloppy towards the end of games leading to some heated confrontations between players.

What about only allowing 3 subs a game, FIFA rules?

Maybe it has to do with the conditioning of the players?

caatffm wrote:What about only allowing 3 subs a game, FIFA rules?

This would cost each team approx $10K in dues as 22 man rosters would necessarily drop, with players 17 - 22 on the roster having absolutely no chance of playing. Different when team is paying player to play vs player paying the team. Players 17 - 22 are very much already glued to the bench, but at least they are not eliminated by rule.

Oh, I forgot about the money, the income of the coach and the club. How could I.

Yes, roster cuts would be necessary. But then also playing time would be more depending on what the player brings into the team and development is not priority anyway (since this is a 98B Thread).

And have you seen how some teams sub? 5 players or more at a time. Saw a game recently where all field players where substituted at once, 3-4 minutes before half time.

If you sub 1 or 2 players, you adjust to the game play or what your team needs. If you sub more than 3, you are destroying the game flow and chemistry (if is exists anyway) of your own team. If you sub 10, that is tactics, confusing the opponent and trying to play a certain style for the time being - or you want to make sure that all paying players, even the ones who do not really contribute to the team, have some playing time.

How about no rules regarding substitutions and actually letting 14 year old boys play the game. It is asinine that we have a sub rule that keeps kids on the bench because the coach wants to play his top 11 the entire game. We all know that this is a rule to benefit the big clubs that can move players between teams and keep them stronger. Keep the smaller clubs from competing. What really kills me, is that the rule is only for D1, and is supposed to get them ready for the next level. Are we saying that D2 and D3 kids don't have a shot at going to the next level???? Why is the rule not consistent for all levels if that is the reason. But nearpost95 said it best. "This would cost each team approx $10K in dues as 22 man rosters would drop. This is what kids soccer has become in the US. It is a business, all about making money, not developing soccer players. And we wonder why, we are behind the rest of the world.

I think that as younger they are, the less restricting the sub rule should be. And if it applies to D1 it should apply to D2/D3 as well (within the same age group).

Once the play is 11 vs 11, that is when the coaches start to make real money as the roster size grows up to 22. But is the real development (and importance of coaching) not in the younger ages (8-12 vs. 16-18)?

Sorry, missed that this was a '98 thread. True to a point. I think that soccer is still in the infant stages in the US(compared to the rest of the world). There are kids that are great athletes that pick the game up beyond those 8-12 years, or maybe they pick up the game at 11-12 and need the game time. There is only so much you can learn in 2 practice sessions a week. I am coming more from a '00 perspective. I just think the rule should start at a later age. 16 years, when they are starting to really think about college would be better. I think that 14 & 15 year old's still need a lot of playing time. We know that they are not getting quality soccer play in High School compared to club. Also, with soccer still being a 2nd tier sport in most colleges the amount of kids that will get a scholarship for soccer is small to non-existent. Oops! Guess I should not have let that cat out of the bag.

First, "player development" never really ends.

Second, with limited substitution rules, it forces teams to get away from the kickball/track meet style of play.

One of the few pluses of DA is that they go by FIFA rules.

Players need to learn how to 'manage' the game. Rather than coaches joysticking and otherwise manipulating the flow of the game via platooning in 'fresh legs'.

And soccer is not a 'second tier' sport at collegiate level either. Unless you consider baseball, hockey, track, etc 'second tier'.

Because all the above mentioned are considered 'equivalency' (meaning nonrevenue) sports.

Granted soccer 'could' be a revenue sport if it were properly funded and supported.

Agreed, just think that the rule should be at all divisions, if that is the way players will get better on the field. I was really talking about scholarships at the collegiate level. The money is going to Football and Basketball first. Baseball is probably 3rd and then the rest of the sports get the leftovers. Soccer is better regarded on the East and West Coast. Division I schools in this area don't even have the sport at all. Not many full rides for soccer.

nearpost95 wrote:

caatffm wrote:What about only allowing 3 subs a game, FIFA rules?

This would cost each team approx $10K in dues as 22 man rosters would necessarily drop, with players 17 - 22 on the roster having absolutely no chance of playing.  Different when team is paying player to play vs player paying the team.    Players 17 - 22 are very much already glued to the bench, but at least they are not eliminated by rule.

I would expect player fees to go up, rather than clubs losing money. Also, there was a comment about the coaches making "big money". Has anybody seen an actual study on waht coaches (not coaching directors) make? I do nto think it is as much as you might imagine, even with 4 or 5 teams.
Rm
P.S my kids are out of soccer for quite a while now, so none of my money is involved.

Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level? Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

Enjoy life now! wrote:Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level?  Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

starting percentage is only thing tracked at DA level. boys must start at least 25% of games. coach can use his limited substitutions at any moment after opening whistle to take someone out. Dual roster is available for the "tweeners". these are the boys/parents not good enough to get the playing time they want/deserve. so they may choose to be "developmental players" which can still play high school soccer and/or classic while training with DA coaches and team. they can only be called up to play in 6 games before having to commit to full-time DA roster. others will ride the pine with little complaining. understanding they can always choose to play more by leaving DA or becoming developmental players. boys/parents ultimately control their destiny.

Enjoy life now! wrote:Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level?  Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

It's tracked because of this rule.

◦25% Minimum Start Requirement

Not to get off topic on subs in classic league but my thought on DA tracking is that eventually recruiter will use this as a filter mechanism. Maybe we should move this to the DA forum...

earbucket wrote:

Enjoy life now! wrote:Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level?  Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

It's tracked because of this rule.

◦25% Minimum Start Requirement

starting is tracked. PLAYTIME IS NOT

Yeah I understand!

soccerdadrandy wrote:

earbucket wrote:

Enjoy life now! wrote:Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level?  Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

It's tracked because of this rule.

◦25% Minimum Start Requirement

starting is tracked. PLAYTIME IS NOT

The capability is there to track playtime. Click on the score and there is an official match report showing minutes in/out for players.

earbucket wrote:

soccerdadrandy wrote:

earbucket wrote:

Enjoy life now! wrote:Parents say they are more concerned with development than playtime, but when their BB is promoted to the top team can they accept less playtime? Amongst the best of the best their are players on the bench. Saw a U14 (00's) DA game recently, one team subbed midway through the 2nd half due to a yellow card and then again with 2 players 3 minutes til the whistle. Their were 6 players on the bench 3 of which saw no time.

The coaches pitch is that the training is most important over time and having seen the training it is superior. But if playtime and starting isn't important then why is it tracked at the DA level?  Clubs have to develop but they also have to win. If you're not winning, players are moving. If you are winning, it's the player on the bench that's looking at leaving and the team will just replace that player in time.

It's tracked because of this rule.

◦25% Minimum Start Requirement

starting is tracked. PLAYTIME IS NOT

The capability is there to track playtime.  Click on the score and there is an official match report showing minutes in/out for players.  

thanks ear bucket! i stand corrected