Blog
D1 College Soccer Doesn’t Need One Calendar, It Needs Two Paths
By Ron Stitt, Co-Founder, U.S. Soccer ParentNovember 9, 20265 min read
The NCAA’s rejection of a two-semester men’s soccer season looks like another setback for a sport that has spent years trying to modernize its college development model. But perhaps the vote points toward a different solution: stop asking every Division I program to want the same thing.
Let programs with the resources and desire play a meaningful fall/spring season. Let the others retain their fall championship season. Build a pathway between the two.
Over time, the fall/spring group would likely attract a greater concentration of ambitious players, investment and coaching talent. It could become an upper tier within Division I—and a more important part of the American player-development system.
That should be an objective, not an outcome to fear.
A reasonable proposal met reasonable resistance
The case for spreading college soccer across two semesters is compelling. The compressed fall schedule leaves limited time between matches for recovery, training and individual development. And it leaves players at loose ends for half the year. Advocates of the rejected proposal wanted a calendar that better balances those demands.
But schools that opposed it were not necessarily rejecting player development. Athletic departments must coordinate facilities, staffing, travel and budgets across multiple sports. Northern weather presents additional complications. A calendar that works for one institution may create significant problems for another.
Even the financial picture is not uniform. The NCAA committee anticipated that some savings could offset additional expenses, while opponents questioned how the changes would work within their departments.
On November 6, Division I schools rescinded the proposal. That ended this attempt at universal change. It need not end efforts to create a better model for programs ready to adopt one.
Start with willingness and capability
Here is an alternative: create two tracks within Division I men’s soccer.
An initial group of perhaps 25–30 willing, qualified programs would play a fall/spring competitive season. Other programs would retain their fall season and championship, with a pathway for schools to move between the two.
Membership in the fall/spring group would not go automatically to the highest-ranked teams or biggest athletic brands. The criteria would be readiness: appropriate staffing, facilities, travel funding and institutional commitment, combined with a genuine desire to pursue this development model.
The precise number should follow the practical requirements, particularly geography. Regional scheduling would be essential. Creating a development-focused competition only to consume its benefits through excessive travel would defeat the purpose.
Schools remaining on the fall calendar would not have to restructure their operations to accommodate programs pursuing different ambitions.
Join U.S. Soccer Parent
Free for every soccer parent.
Save articles, get the free newsletter, and find guidance tuned to your state, your kids' ages, and the pathway your family is on.
Others are thinking along similar lines
The idea of letting willing programs move forward separately is not entirely new. Maryland coach Sasho Cirovski, a longtime advocate for the two-semester season, has floated a separate division involving roughly 80 schools that supported the change.
That suggestion points toward the same principle: a lack of consensus across Division I does not have to prevent interested programs from pursuing a different calendar.
My preference would be to start smaller, with membership based on demonstrated capability and commitment—not simply support for the rejected proposal. Establish a manageable competition, evaluate its benefits and provide a transparent route for others to join.
This also connects with the broader reform conversation around U.S. Soccer, including proposals for regional competition, tiers and movement between them.
Yes, it would probably become an upper tier
A well-designed fall/spring competition would likely attract a disproportionate share of bigger universities and players seeking a professional future.
That is a prediction, not a guarantee. Coaching, scholarships, academics and playing opportunities would still matter. A different calendar does not automatically produce better soccer.
But if the new track delivers more productive training between meaningful matches, appropriate recovery and consistently strong competition, it would offer something distinctive.
Its identity would emerge from what participating programs provide, rather than from a committee declaring which schools deserve elite status.
We should be comfortable with that distinction. Division I membership need not require every institution to pursue identical sporting ambitions. Preserving opportunity does not mean preventing willing programs from building a more demanding development environment.
The important safeguard is keeping access open.
Build a pathway, not a closed club
Promotion and relegation offer an appealing principle: programs should be able to earn their way upward rather than remain outside an exclusive membership group.
But movement between these tracks would involve more than changing opponents. It would mean changing calendars, budgets and facility commitments. An excellent fall season cannot suddenly produce a suitable spring field or additional staffing.
The practical answer is performance-based access combined with advance institutional qualification. Interested schools would establish that they could support the calendar. Competitive results could then determine access to available places, with changes taking effect the following academic year.
An initial multiyear pilot would provide stability before introducing regular promotion and relegation.
Separate championships would probably be necessary, too. Trying to preserve one postseason while one group finishes in fall and another in spring would undermine the distinction the system is designed to accommodate.
This is more than a scheduling adjustment. It is a different competitive structure.
The bigger opportunity is American soccer
I think this approach has the potential to make college soccer a more effective part of the wider U.S. development system. It’s not just about improving college soccer’s internal organization.
The role it would play should be complementary: provide a strong environment for players who are not ready—or do not want—to turn professional as teenagers, while preserving the opportunity to pursue a degree.
A player who needs additional time should not have to choose between serious development and college because the college calendar is poorly suited to development.
Nor should the objective be to displace professional academies or persuade every outstanding teenager to attend a university. Different players need different routes.
The ambition should be a college pathway strong enough that choosing it does not mean stepping away from a serious professional trajectory. A concentrated, well-supported fall/spring competition could make that proposition more credible.
Could it become the world’s best under-23 league?
During the run-up to the decision to forego the fall/spring season, one advocate for the change posited that if it were to have been adopted, U.S. D1 college soccer might have emerged as the top U-23 league. I hadn’t considered that and am not sure it is realistic, but it is an exciting ambition—and a much higher bar than changing the calendar.
“Best” would need a definition: strongest competition, best development, most professional graduates, or the most complete combination of soccer and education? A two-semester season alone would establish none of those things.
But the aspiration is useful if it changes the question from “How do we preserve the existing season?” to “What could this competition become?” Can we create a structure in which committed programs can pursue that standard—and be judged on results.
There are risks. An upper tier could concentrate resources and prestige. Schools outside it could reduce investment. Those possibilities argue for transparent entry standards and continued respect for the fall competition, not for requiring every program to remain structurally identical.
Let willing programs build a stronger development competition. Let others preserve a model that fits their institutions. Keep a credible route between them.
College soccer does not need universal agreement on one destination before allowing some programs to move forward.
Written by Ron Stitt, Co-Founder, U.S. Soccer Parent