Will Someone just think of the Players?!

     The NCAA made the sports headlines on Tuesday in the only manner that it knows how. Another scandal. To be fair and accurate, the NCAA is not the one being charged by Joon H. Kim, the U.S. Attorney for the southern District of New York. The federal corruption charges are against four assistant basketball coaches from Auburn, Oklahoma State, Arizona, and USC along with sponsor executive, agents, and  others. Ten personal at the moment are the ones facing the charges. There could be more given that the public conference that was held on Tuesday gave out a number for any one with additional information to call for this ongoing investigation. The NCAA may not be facing charges at the moment, but it doesn't exonerate the organization at all. It should not be a surprise to anyone that the NCAA is once again intertwined in a scandal. Most of the time the NCAA is the one that creates the scandals by coming out to state a punishment for a student or a school's athletic team for violating a NCAA rule. Which then causes a controversy in itself as no one seems to grasp whether the sports college governing body was punishing a school or student for actually breaking the rules or they were simply covering up for themselves. That isn't to say one doesn't have an accurate sense on what the NCAA does, but one should give credit to the NCAA for its ambiguity and complexity shields it from being struck down by anyone with authority. Yet, there is hope. This time the feds are involved and the NCAA may not be formally charged, but the organization is going to be forced into restructuring the college sports landscape if it wants to survive.

     Andy Staples who writes for Sports Illustrated composed a plan on rewriting the NCAA rulebook. Which I agree with so much that if he were campaigning to be the next NCAA president (no one can run, it's not a democracy) I would wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Staples. However, as brilliant as that new rulebook may be, I find it difficult for the NCAA to ever move into a direction where it legislates themselves be that honest and transparent. I am not going to mock or expose the NCAA on their silly, laughable and ridiculous comments like "student-athlete" or their take on "amateurism." I will save that for a more opportunistic time later. In fact, I want to help the NCAA today. My heart is very generous on this lovely Friday.

     My plan is simple. Extend athlete scholarships beyond their playing years. One of the many excuses the NCAA gives to the media is that these "student-athletes" don't get paid with money due to the fact that they are being paid in the best possible currency in America. The athlete will receive a quality college education. A college education is a valuable and instrumental tool to have in this country. Statistics show that those who have gone on to earn a college degree do a lot better than those who don't. A college education isn't cheap and extremely competitive to get in most schools. So being able to attend a prestigious college with an athletic scholarship seems upfront a great offer. However, college sports such as football and basketball have a very busy schedule that involves a lot of traveling across the nation to participate in their sport. This becomes a problem because football and basketball college teams tend to replicate professional sports teams when it comes to travel and game schedules. The NCAA brags about how most of their college athletes graduate at a high percentage rate, which is true. But, football and basketball players have very low graduation rates. One could argue that one of the factors for a low graduation rate in those two sports is effected by declaring for the draft. In football an athlete has to play a minimal of 3 years before declaring for the NFL draft in contrast to those in basketball, who only need to play in one year of college basketball to be eligible for the NBA draft. Yet, declaring for the draft shouldn't have an effect, if any at all, due to the very, very, very, low numbers on how many college athletes get drafted in their respected sport.

     The extension for athletic scholarships should apply to all college athletes. Based on NCAA statistics the only athletes that would benefit the most from this new rule would be basketball and football athletes. For example, lets take player A, who plays football in college D1 school program. Player A played 4 years for the school, he declared for the draft his third and fourth year, but was not selected in either year. Player A will have the option to activate a clause that will be on his fourth year scholarship contract -since scholarships are year to year not "full rides"- to extend his scholarship for an extra school year in which the player will no longer be eligible to play, but have an entire academic school year to earn their college degree. I understand that some of the backlash will be that why should a scholarship be given to an athlete who can't play and technically isn't that an academic scholarship? To answer the first part, the scholarship is from playing their fourth year that has a clause to extend it for academic purposes. That way it won't count against the amount of scholarships a school has to offer new recruits and the player has an advantageous opportunity to earn their degree. And no, technically it will not be an academic scholarship because the money to support the college athlete will come from the school's college athletic department. I would add that any person who still have an issue and state something along the lines of "Why would a school or an athletic department support an athlete for a whole academic year?" Well mister (most likely an older white male who enjoys the way things are and doesn't want them to change), college sports collects millions, if not billions, of dollars due to T.V. broadcasting contract with giant television networks. Schools and athletic departments have the money to offer to help out the "student-athletes" they publicizing enjoy announcing that they help them receive a college education. The NCAA can finally have some merit when they state "student-athlete" and offer a valuable college education if they implement this new rule.

    I am aware that this one new rule may not be enough to change the scandalous atmosphere that surrounds the NCAA and I agree. I really prefer Staple's idea. However, this is a rule that could be implemented ,with a few regulation changes, by the NCAA and Universities in the following year. This rule is for the benefit of the college athlete. The intended target of this new rule is to eliminate those "paper-weight" courses and allow for the college athlete to experience the student aspect of there "student-athlete" life.       

The State of U.S. Soccer- What's wrong ? "Everything"

     The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) will be holding an election next year. Sunil Gulati, the current president of USSF, will face for certain one challenger in Boston attorney Steve Gans. To clarify, Sunil Gulati has not yet stated whether he will run for reelection, but I don't see why he wouldn't. Gulati can ride on the 2026 joint bid to host the world cup along with Mexico and Canada. If the bid is successful-at the moment it looks like the only serious and favorite contender- Gulati could solely run on that platform for reelection. It may not be the best scenario for the state of soccer in the US if Gulati runs on that platform only, due to the multiple problems the organization needs to address, but it would be a difficult task for an opponent to run a successful campaign against a person who brought the world cup to America.
   
     Reading articles on the upcoming election and the rumors of potential candidates to challenge the current sitting president ignited my thoughts on what are the issues that the US soccer governing body is currently facing. In the past elections Sunil Gulati has run unopposed, but with a certain challenger forces any candidate that runs to lead US soccer to have a plan. Whether that plan is a broad message or a detailed agenda, the candidates will have to lay out a plan, any plan, in order to be competitive in this race. Full disclosure, it is still a bit early and candidates can join and drop out before the election any time and Gulati could potentially run unopposed again, but I am basing this "insightful knowledge" on today's current situation.

     I have a list of issues I hope will addressed either because it needs improvement and/or there isn't a clear direction on a particular issue.

1.  Coaching 
2. Rid of Turf fields 
3. Youth development
4. equal pay transparency

I am well aware that coaching is a general topic, but bare with me here. The issues I see with coaching in the US is that coaches that are considered good and at times great seem lost to me. To be more specific, coaches don't tend to have teams demonstrate their intended styles. That's assuming a coach has a particular example. When I think of coaches who have managed the U.S. teams in the past such as Bob Bradley, Jurgen Klinsmann, and Bruce Arena I don't really know what they are doing. Not to say they don't manage games well or lack of knowledge and experience of the game. My Point is when those 3 coaches come to mind and are compared to other coaches their influence over a team tends to be head scratchers.  (i.g. Jose Mourinho's defensive approach, Arsene Wenger's fluid ball movement, Pep Guardiola's Tiki-Taka, and Conte's and Diego Simeone's extreme tactical approach). I am aware that the former and current US coaches are being compared to club coaches who have a lot more time with their respective teams to mold them into their preferred styles. However, one can look at past international teams such as Spain, Holland, Brazil, and Germany teams that influenced an era based on their style of play. The US international team could have that influence, perhaps not immediately at the international stage, but certainly domestically. MLS coaches tend to not have any style. Caleb Porter Portland Timber's head coach, is the only coach who comes close to having a style influence over his team. He has stated that he wants his teams to have an attacking style and score plenty of goals. Porter's first two seasons his team finished 3rd on goals forced and 16th and 11th the following years. The overall point I am making is that coaching in the US is ambiguous and needs to be addressed. Whether it's on coaching development and education or hiring a national team coach that knows what he or she is doing.

Second, a candidate could get a lot of support if they address this topic. The women's national team SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PLAY ON TURF FIELDS. Plenty of players on the women's team have vented that they do not enjoy playing on turf. They have expressed their feelings on social media and multiple interviews. I personally loathe playing on turf. It sucks. This one is simple. Who ever is the next president, fix it.

Youth development has similar issues as the coaching. For both boy's and girl's academy there should be a style implemented on how to approach the game. What ever style that may be it should be up to those in charge, but clarity is needed.

My last point is simple. Address the pay difference between the men's and women's national teams. Be transparent about it. Why do the men get paid a certain amount and women another. Whether the president has to explain each individual contract or sponsorship agreement so be it. It is a PR disaster that should be avoided. A bold candidate could come out and suggest equal pay or something "crazy" like that to solve this issue.

           

Drama at the Lowest Quality

  The United States men's national team had two poor results these past two qualifiers. The US soccer team lost to Costa Rica (3-0) at home and drew (1-1) away to Honduras. One point out of the possible six is utterly pathetic if one wants to be consistent on the standard that the usmnt should be held accountable to. There are a few who feel that Bobby Wood's late equalizer is one of the most important goals in US soccer history for what it means. It means that the usmnt has their fate in their own hands. If the team wins their last two qualifiers against Panama and Trinidad and Tobago in October they will have earned an automatic birth to the 2018 World Cup in Russia. The team played poorly in both games and were fortunate to have even leave Honduras with a point. Which is one of the reasons that many feel that Wood's goal is a historic one. To me, it just demonstrates how much the US soccer program still has to go before it can consider itself an actual contender on the international stage. At this point, they need to demonstrate that they are contenders in their own region. The United States currently sit in 4th place which give the team a chance to qualify via a intercontinental playoff against a team from the Asian Football Confederation. The usmnt plays the team that sits right above them, Panama, and the last placed team, Trinidad and Tobago, for their last two games. Honduras, who is tied with the US on points, sits right behind the US, but will face Mexico and Costa Rica for their last two qualifying matches. The odds are in favor for the US to qualify to Russia. However, it will be done in a dramatic fashion and at the very last minute.
   The US team has plenty to work on. They have issues from the back line all the way up to the forwards. They don't have quality fullbacks to play four in the back, which means if they want to be competitive at the world cup (if they qualify) Arena needs to experiment and tinker with a system and formation that amplifies the squad's strength. On that note, Arena was awful in his decision making against both Costa Rica and Honduras. I am purposely not saying tactical, because to this day I have no idea what Arena soccer style consists of other than survive and get by. The midfield can't purposely posses the ball to control a match. It could be that Arena hasn't found the right midfield combination, but to be quite frank the US doesn't currently posses any player that can pass above the 85% completion stat. There is hope. Pulisic, Bradley, Nagbe, Acosta and Zusi (if Arena use a 3-5-2 formation and plays him on the right) are good players that can win games. The forwards are great individual players, however, under Arena, there hasn't been a pairing that has worked well together. Woods, Dempsey, Altidore and Morris can all score goals, but just not at a consistent enough rate with one another on the pitch. A lot of this comes down to coaching and Bruce Arena is going to have to figure it out if he wants to have a positive impact at the world cup. These last two games will certainly be a benchmark on where the state of US soccer is at. Under pressure till the end, the usmnt might provide a very dramatic finish in the qualifiers that it will diminish Wood's "historic" goal as a casual last minute goal the US got in Honduras.  

USMNT, JK-"Lol"

   The United States men's national team hosted and lost to Costa Rica Friday night at the Red bulls arena. The usmnt team currently sits 3rd in the CONCACAF hexagonal table and the last automatic spot for the 2018 world cup in Russia. I still see the US qualifying for Russia by finishing third. If the US finishes fourth, their path to Russia becomes a bit more exciting. The US will be forced to play a nation from the AFC (Asian Football Confederation) in two games-home and away- in  order to qualify for the world cup. If finishing forth isn't exciting enough no need to worry, a possible opponent for the US could be Syria! But, that's living in the "what if" realm. What should be discussed is what happened in the 2-0 defeat to Costa Rica.

  The US team wasn't as disappointing as the 2-0 result suggests to those who go simply by the score. The US created chances early on and pressured Los Ticos on their final third, but that allowed for the US to be exposed on the counter-which the Los Ticos did-and fell behind 1-0. The US had no other option but to attack which created the same scenario for the second goal to occur, which it did, in the later minutes of the match. The US team still can't manage to control a match with possession of the ball. They lose it too often which disrupts any real momentum. I would describe the US style of play as counter attacking, but with possession. Which sounds silly, I know, but it describes the current style the US has. The two weakest links for the US were at left back and one of the centerbacks. The US has a history of somehow never finding a player that could play that position well and constantly. Jorge Villafana is the current player tasked for the job and is being overwhelmed by the burden. Decision making is off or too slow, as well as his runs, even with advantage position and possession, when he goes on a run he constantly loses it by being too slow and putting the ball too far ahead or just simply losing the ball to his opponent. On the defensive end Villafana is average at best. Fabian Johnson was quiet as well at the left midfield position. But, based on the players past performances one could judge that the left back hindered any positive play for the player ahead of him. Tim Ream looked awful at centerback. His play looked too casual without any real grit or intensity paired with a few poor decisions that could have added to the deficit. Bruce Arena should see that Ream is a national level player, let alone a starter. Arena would be wise if he were to call up Matt Miazga and give the 22 year old defender a chance to prove himself instead of waiting for him to turn 29 and have him realize he is a Tim Ream. The US will qualify for the world cup, but that doesn't mean there isn't much to improve upon-there is plenty, especially if the US wants to be competitive among the world's best.