NCAA Division I schools overturn two-semester men’s soccer season

Two-thirds of member schools rescind a rule change that would have moved the sport to a fall-and-spring calendar, with the championship in the spring.

NCAA Division I men’s soccer will stay a fall sport after two-thirds of Division I member schools voted to rescind a rule change that would have moved it to a two-semester season with the championship in the spring. The rescission became official Friday, at the end of a 30-day procedural period.

The final tally was 247 votes to rescind, narrowly above the 241 required. The vote was open to every Division I institution, whether or not it sponsors men’s soccer. One hundred and six of the rescind votes came from schools that do not sponsor the sport.

The result reverses a plan that had appeared headed for adoption. On Oct. 7, the Division I Cabinet affirmed a proposal from the Men’s Soccer Oversight Committee for a year-round model, with fall and spring segments and the championship in the spring. Had it survived, the change would have taken effect with the 2027-28 academic year.

The Cabinet’s approval was narrower than supporters expected. Proposals adopted with less than a 75 percent majority are subject to the 30-day rescission process, which left the door open for opponents.

What the plan would have changed

The season would have been split across two semesters, with total games capped at 25 per year: up to 18 in a fall segment starting in late August, and up to 10 in a spring segment beginning in mid-February. The transfer window would have opened after the spring championship.

Backers, including student-athlete representatives on the Cabinet, argued the model would develop talent better and allow more rest and recovery, with less weekday travel. Some version of a two-semester plan has been discussed for nearly 30 years.

Opposition built in the final weeks

The proposal had already hit resistance. In June, the Cabinet sent it back to the oversight committee, noting opposition from 20 Division I conferences over season length, unclear related rules and the effect on the student-athlete academic experience.

Opponents also cited a lack of funding, strain on communications staff and difficulty scheduling spring matches because of shared facilities, and the facilities argument ultimately proved decisive. Florida Gulf Coast athletic director Brian Barrio, whose school sponsors men’s soccer, criticized the plan publicly as developed without regard for other athletes who share facilities and support staff with the team.

Supporters, led by Maryland’s Sasho Cirovski and North Carolina’s Carlos Somoano, mounted a push to persuade schools to withdraw their rescind votes, but it fell short. The opposition was lopsided among non-sponsoring schools. Cirovski noted Thursday that 41 of the 50 most recent votes against the plan came from schools without a varsity men’s soccer program.