Voting Information on NCAA Men's Soccer Two-Semester Model

On October 7, 2026, the NCAA Division I Cabinet affirmed Proposal 2026-27, the Men's Soccer Oversight Committee's plan for a year-round men's season, with competition in the fall and the spring and the championship in the spring. The Cabinet vote fell short of 75 percent, so the proposal entered a 30-day rescission period. It takes effect for the 2027-28 academic year unless at least 241 Division I schools vote to rescind it.

Below is the known information. Rescind votes are confirmed as of November 2, 2026. “Support" votes (opposing rescind) are estimates based on public information and cannot be officially confirmed. Ranks are pulled from Massey.com

For any incorrect information, please use the contact page and the information will be double checked ASAP.

NCAA Division I vote on Proposal 2026-27

Votes needed to rescind241

Current votes to rescind183

Given public support76

Unknown votes101

Votes remaining to the threshold58

Rescind and support

	Rescind	Support
Sponsor men's soccer	68.3%125 of 183	69.7%53 of 76
Rank in 2026	88.8	37.9
Rank in 2025	89.7	38.9
Rank in 2024	91.8	38.5
Rank in 2023	90.4	40.2
Rank in 2022	86.4	40.0

Rank 1 is best.

All Rescind Support TBD

All conferences ACC America East American ASUN Atlantic 10 Big 12 Big East Big Sky Big South Big Ten Big West CAA CAA Football Conference USA Horizon Ivy League MAC MEAC Metro Missouri Valley Missouri Valley Football Mountain West NEC Ohio Valley Pac-12 Patriot League Pioneer SEC Southern Conference Southland Summit League Sun Belt SWAC United Athletic West Coast Men's soccer: all Men's soccer: yes Men's soccer: no Hide comments

Showing 360 of 360 schools.

School	Comments	Vote	Conference	MSOC	2026	2025	2024	2023	2022
Arizona State University	N/A	Rescind	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Charleston Southern University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	No	---	---	---	---	---
Eastern Kentucky University	Eastern Kentucky does not sponsor Men's Soccer, but in support of our conference schools who do, and oppose this legislation, we vote to rescind.	Rescind	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
Eastern Washington University	1) It taxes support staff, 2) it is not in the best interest of soccer student-athletes, who, as I am told from commercials that "99% of them go pro in something other than sports." 3) other sports would want to follow.	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Grambling State University	N/A	Rescind	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Hampton University	Hampton University opposes this proposal Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Idaho State University	Idaho St is against this legislative change because of its precedential potential for other sports.	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Illinois State University	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Indiana State University	NA	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Jacksonville State University	N/A	Rescind	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Kansas State University	N/A	Rescind	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Long Beach State University	N/A	Rescind	Big West	No	---	---	---	---	---
McNeese State University	Cost prohibitive	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Montana State University-Bozeman	N/A	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Morehead State University	N/A	Rescind	Pioneer	No	---	---	---	---	---
Murray State University	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Nicholls State University	N/A	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
North Carolina A&T State University	We don't sponsor soccer, but for the good of our conference we would like to rescind. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
North Dakota State University	NDSU opposes the Men's Soccer playing season model.	Rescind	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
Northwestern State University	The institution feels a vote to rescind is necessary.	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Oklahoma State University	N/A	Rescind	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Pepperdine University	N/A	Rescind	West Coast	No	---	---	---	---	---
Samford University	Samford University opposes this proposal Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	No	---	---	---	---	---
South Carolina State University	At this time our university doesn't sponsor men's soccer.	Rescind	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
South Dakota State University	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Southeast Missouri State University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	No	---	---	---	---	---
Southeastern Louisiana University	N/A	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Southern University, Baton Rouge	N/A	Rescind	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Southern Utah University	SUU votes to rescind because of the future unintended consequences allowing this type of playing season	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Stephen F. Austin State University	N/A	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Tarleton State University	N/A	Rescind	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
Tennessee State University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	No	---	---	---	---	---
Tennessee Technological University	While our institution does not sponsor men's soccer, Tennessee Tech believes that the adoption of this legislation will lead to the extension of calendars in all sports, which we oppose. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi	N/A	Rescind	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
The Citadel	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	No	---	---	---	---	---
Towson University	Towson votes to rescind Proposal 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Troy University	Troy University votes to rescind 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Idaho	The University of Idaho strongly opposes a split schedule for Men's Soccer. We feel this would start a massive request for other sports to make similar requests, and support staffing would be spread very thin to cover another spring sport.	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Maine	N/A	Rescind	CAA Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Montana	N/A	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of North Alabama	N/A	Rescind	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of North Dakota	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Northern Colorado	N/A	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Northern Iowa	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Richmond	N/A	Rescind	Patriot League	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of South Dakota	We are against it because of the Title IX issues it will lead to in women's soccer and the extension of women's soccer is not desired. It will add costs and facility conflicts for USD and many others.	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Tennessee at Martin	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Texas at Arlington	Although The University of Texas at Arlington does not sponsor men's soccer, we support our fellow conference members who oppose Proposal No. 2026-27. We also share concerns about the precedent this legislation could establish for other sports. For these reasons, UTA votes to rescind the proposal.	Rescind	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Toledo	Expanding the men's soccer season will create increased costs, reduce experiential opportunities for student-athletes out of season, create facility conflicts with spring sports, heighten staffing demands, and affect competition schedules due to weather at northern institutions.	Rescind	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Wyoming	The University of Wyoming supports the recission request.	Rescind	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
Valparaiso University	N/A	Rescind	Pioneer	No	---	---	---	---	---
Wagner College	While we do not sponsor men's soccer, Wagner College votes to rescind proposal 2026-27 due to concerns regarding precedent for other sports.	Rescind	NEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Weber State University	N/A	Rescind	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Western Carolina University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	No	---	---	---	---	---
Western Kentucky University	Western Kentucky University votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27.	Rescind	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Youngstown State University	Youngstown State University Athletics requests to rescind "2026-27 PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- MEN'S SOCCER -- REDISTRIBUTION OF MEN'S SOCCER PLAYING SEASON MODEL"	Rescind	Missouri Valley Football	No	---	---	---	---	---
Bellarmine University	N/A	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	99	88	155	141	141
Belmont University	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley	Yes	111	84	136	111	124
Binghamton University	This Legislation has a total disregard for the other spring sports. And will greatly negatively effect their student-athlete experience. Men's Soccer doesn't generate any revenue like Basketball does. We will only lose more money and have our student-athletes in Men's and Women's Lacrosse and Women's Flag Football very unhappy. Feeling disrespected. What will this do for Women's Soccer? They will feel disrespected too. This needs to be rescinded. Thank you!	Rescind	America East	Yes	185	191	152	155	143
Boston College	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	ACC	Yes	79	83	77	122	104
Boston University	N/A	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	93	115	141	84	115
Bowling Green State University	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley	Yes	109	118	60	80	62
Brown University	votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	91	95	92	91	93
Bryant University	N/A	Rescind	America East	Yes	24	28	51	38	187
Bucknell University	We remain opposed to this legislation due to the stress upon resources, including but not limited to facility usage, staff, expenses, etc.	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	144	125	165	192	191
California Baptist University	N/A	Rescind	Pac-12	Yes	19	49	76	54	89
California State University, Fullerton	N/A	Rescind	Big West	Yes	124	73	52	55	120
California State University, Northridge	N/A	Rescind	Big West	Yes	112	120	105	92	96
Campbell University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	194	80	102	110	58
Canisius University	Canisius University, a member of the Metro Conference is voting against the redistribution playign season model for men's soccer.	Rescind	Metro	Yes	209	207	203	207	193
Central Connecticut State University	N/A	Rescind	NEC	Yes	199	212	209	201	194
Chicago State University	We do not support this change to the scheduling structure as an institution. It would be detrimental to us being able to fiscally manage the sport.	Rescind	NEC	Yes	213	213	207	200	205
Cleveland State University	N/A	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	142	111	135	159	67
Coastal Carolina University	Implementing the new model will create significant challenges related to staffing, financial resources, and overall operational capacity. The proposed changes would require additional institutional resources to support the expanded demands of the playing and training seasons, including increased staffing needs, travel and lodging expenses, meals, sports medicine and athletic training coverage, strength and conditioning support, and other associated operating costs. These additional responsibilities would place a substantial strain on existing personnel and departmental resources, many of which are already committed to supporting the institution's current athletics programs and student-athlete needs. As institutions, we must carefully consider the financial and operational implications of implementing a new playing season model and ensure that we can adequately support our student-athletes while maintaining the quality of their academic and athletic experience. This model would not support those goals creating additional challenges for the department. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Sun Belt	Yes	90	148	168	158	63
Colgate University	Colgate votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	173	161	159	148	92
College of Charleston (South Carolina)	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	75	110	95	126	155
College of the Holy Cross	Holy Cross does not support the redistribution of the men's soccer playing season.	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	186	175	172	186	181
Columbia University-Barnard College	Columbia University votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	134	130	189	162	176
Cornell University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	21	12	20	41	9
Creighton University	Creighton votes to rescind this legislation. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Big East	Yes	22	43	39	43	2
Davidson College	Davidson College does not support the redistribution of the men's soccer playing season model and votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27.	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	119	93	112	99	117
DePaul University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Big East	Yes	147	171	122	115	56
Drake University	Drake University opposes for a number of different reasons. Increased operational expenses, increased travel expenses, strain on staffing specifically trainers, facilities concerns including securing indoor facilities early in the Spring term and sharing with other Spring sports, strain on student-athletes etc.	Rescind	Missouri Valley	Yes	101	79	80	151	130
Drexel University	We do not support this proposal, as it presents significant operational challenges and could compromise our ability to provide student-athletes with the fullest possible experience across training, competition, and opportunities for growth beyond the athletic arena. Additionally, this proposal establishes a concerning precedent that could lead to similar season adjustments across other sports, creating broader and potentially compounding challenges for an industry already facing significant resource constraints and structural pressures. We are also concerned about the long-term sustainability of the sport if institutions are required to adopt a model that cannot be adequately supported with the resources and infrastructure available. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	103	106	66	42	69
Duquesne University	Duquesne University supports the rescission of Proposal No. 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that head coach Chase Brooks echoed support, criticizing the traditional fall sprint as prioritizing endurance over development.	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	60	138	121	100	51
Eastern Illinois University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	202	200	210	205	209
Elon University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	72	58	68	88	41
Fairfield University	Fairfield University does not support the proposed restructuring of the Men's Soccer playing season for the following reasons: This model will have detrimental effects on staffing and operations, specifically athletic trainers, communications staff, and operations personnel. The spring semester is one of the highest-volume periods for our school and the demand on personnel would significantly increase with our already limited staff. We have significant concerns with facilities, mainly maintenance on our grass field in the winter months in the Northeast, the use of shared locker facilities, and the inability to utilize our turf field as men's and women's lacrosse are also in season. Furthermore, our department has concerns about student-athlete experience as it pertains to non-starters, demanding academic schedules, and degree-required internships. Lastly, there may be many institutions who will not be able to meet the demands of this new model and will simply cut their programs, further decreasing the competition across mid-major Division I men's soccer. To conclude, we oppose this restructuring as it would have detrimental effects on our department and institution, and we worry about the broader implications this could have on other sports in Division I.	Rescind	Metro	Yes	48	133	193	173	142
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan Campus	Given the nature of field usage and stress on support services in athletic training, we're afraid men's soccer will be cut by many schools.	Rescind	NEC	Yes	82	112	154	137	88
Florida Gulf Coast University	N/A	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	132	96	164	147	90
Florida International University	Florida International University votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	American	Yes	78	59	45	30	17
Fordham University	N/A	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	117	81	62	62	86
Furman University	We do not believe the redistribution playing season model is in the best interest of the future of NCAA Men's Soccer. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	Yes	39	35	109	166	156
Gardner-Webb University	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	37	61	118	190	152
George Washington University	n/a	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	178	197	201	175	138
Harvard University	Harvard votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	102	82	126	76	40
High Point University	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	41	10	59	85	60
Hofstra University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	50	24	27	21	29
Houston Christian University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	137	136	157	178	168
Howard University	Howard University votes to rescind this proposal.	Rescind	NEC	Yes	210	209	208	211	210
Indiana University Indianapolis	N/A	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	187	176	183	185	165
Iona University	N/A	Rescind	Metro	Yes	169	98	107	103	113
Jacksonville University	Jacksonville University votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	106	102	153	170	173
La Salle University	La Salle votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	140	157	156	163	163
Lafayette College	Lafayette votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	203	135	144	114	101
Le Moyne College	Le Moyne College opposes Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	NEC	Yes	179	196	190	196	---
Lehigh University	Lehigh votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	167	146	181	182	164
Liberty University	Liberty University formally dissents to the change in the Men's Soccer playing season model.	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	108	162	138	154	171
Lindenwood University	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	135	108	179	198	202
Lipscomb University	N/A	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	172	155	117	46	19
Long Island University	N/A	Rescind	NEC	Yes	174	158	145	108	107
Longwood University	Longwood University votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27.	Rescind	Big South	Yes	123	194	195	202	198
Loyola University Chicago	N/A	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	96	137	94	44	36
Loyola University Maryland	N/A	Rescind	Patriot League	Yes	176	177	161	87	116
Manhattan University	this legislation would have significant impact on institutions in areas that are already over-burdened.	Rescind	Metro	Yes	206	178	162	172	144
Marist University	NA	Rescind	Metro	Yes	104	149	170	153	131
Marquette University	Marquette supports rescinding the current proposal. Throughout this process, we have consistently opposed this model, and our position remains unchanged. Our concerns continue to center on the impact to institutions like Marquette. Key issues related to facility availability, additional staffing demands, and the increased costs associated with spring competition and travel remain unresolved. These challenges are particularly acute for institutions in northern climates, where weather conditions create meaningful scheduling, operational, and competitive concerns. More broadly, we do not believe this is the appropriate time to pursue a change of this magnitude. College athletics is already navigating unprecedented levels of change and uncertainty, and there has not been a compelling case made that justifies adding another significant structural shift to the landscape. Given the many pressing challenges facing our programs and student-athletes, maintaining the current model is the more prudent course at this time. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Big East	Yes	56	104	101	59	70
Mercer University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	Yes	204	134	96	118	138
Merrimack College	N/A	Rescind	Metro	Yes	191	187	191	149	137
Monmouth University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	153	114	74	73	105
Mount St. Mary's University	N/A	Rescind	Metro	Yes	189	201	198	206	180
New Jersey Institute of Technology	The weather in the north & northeast regions pose significant health & safety challenges to host matches in February & March.	Rescind	America East	Yes	85	167	131	95	151
Niagara University	N/A	Rescind	Metro	Yes	166	193	199	188	158
Northeastern University	Northeastern University votes to rescind Proposal 2026-27 (Redistribution of Men's Soccer Playing Season Mode). We maintain the opposition we expressed during the comment period. A fall/spring split creates facility conflicts for programs that share space, puts cold-weather programs at a competitive and logistical disadvantage in the spring, and risks unbalanced schedules across a conference. It also leaves a mismatch when the NCAA Championship is in the spring and conference play is in the fall. The Oversight Committee's response, which kept the proposal as drafted, did not resolve these concerns. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	136	131	87	86	108
Northern Illinois University	As an institution located in the Midwest, we would not be able to play outdoor soccer in the February and most of March due to weather. In addition, moving soccer year around will overextend facilities staffs and will cause facilities conflicts/issues.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	125	126	185	106	112
Northern Kentucky University	N/A	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	208	181	177	191	188
Oakland University	Having the men's soccer season span two semesters creates facility issues for schools in colder climates. Fortunately, we have the Grizz Dome at Oakland, but most Horizon League schools do not have an indoor facility for practices and games. Even if a school has an indoor facility for weather, there are other concerns. The proposal will increase operational costs for men's soccer and likely require schools hire additional athletic training staff to cover the winter/spring men's soccer season.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	162	153	130	142	162
Oral Roberts University	N/A	Rescind	Summit League	Yes	138	90	36	37	52
Presbyterian College	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	212	172	178	194	150
Princeton University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	43	17	56	90	61
Purdue University Fort Wayne	Purdue Fort Wayne votes to rescind this proposal due to the following significant concerns.. The assumption of cost savings is incorrect; operating in the spring would require additional staffing in event operations, media services, marketing, ticketing, and sports medicine-areas already stretched thin. Our geographic and facility limitations make hosting spring home contests nearly impossible. We would be forced to rent alternative venues and secure indoor practice space, substantially increasing expenses. Eliminating a true off season also raises student athlete welfare concerns. Without a dedicated strength and conditioning period, injury risk increases. Academically, student athletes would miss class time in both semesters and lose access to internships and other spring opportunities essential to their development. Finally, adopting this model for Men's Soccer would likely prompt Women's Soccer and other sports to follow, compounding these challenges across multiple programs.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	164	151	175	181	192
Queens University of Charlotte	N/A	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	177	163	187	195	177
Radford University	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	198	204	204	209	197
Rider University	N/A	Rescind	Metro	Yes	122	179	106	117	174
Robert Morris University	Robert Morris University supports the goal of improving the men's soccer student-athlete experience, but we vote to rescind this proposal. A spring segment beginning in mid-February is not realistic for programs in our region. Western Pennsylvania regularly sees snow, frozen fields, and freezing temperatures well into March, which puts student-athlete safety at risk and makes outdoor training and competition unreliable. Without our own indoor facility, we would be forced to rent off-campus indoor space for weeks of practice and potentially competition, adding a significant new expense on top of the increased travel, staffing, and operating costs of a second season. Northern and mid-major institutions would bear a disproportionate burden compared to warm-weather programs, creating a competitive imbalance. We encourage the Oversight Committee to complete a full cost and regional impact analysis before advancing a change of this scale.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	165	139	140	169	160
Sacred Heart University	Sacred Heart supports the rescission of proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Metro	Yes	121	119	176	183	170
Saint Joseph's University	SJU does not support 2026-27. The costs to have men's soccer span the fall and spring semesters would place a burden on the facilities/operations staff at a time when lacrosse, baseball, softball, men and woment's tennis, track and field and lacrosse are in their championship sport season. Additionally, working to staff and have the competitive playing field available is a challenge with the numerous competitions in the spring. Lastly, what stops women's soccer from wanting the same two semester schedule.	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	150	165	194	136	153
Saint Mary's College of California	This model places too high of a burden on mid-major schools. It will be almost impossible for our school to appropriately staff and host the required Spring games.	Rescind	West Coast	Yes	171	94	114	67	85
Saint Peter's University	Saint Peter's University does not support the redistribution of the men's soccer playing season model and votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27.	Rescind	Metro	Yes	160	203	206	199	190
Seton Hall University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Big East	Yes	68	33	82	56	43
Siena University	We support the rescission of proposal 2026-27	Rescind	Metro	Yes	175	113	124	152	126
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville	N/A	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	156	159	116	81	146
St. Bonaventure University	This initiative poses major facility and staffing issues for many athletic departments. If passed, this will result in less than desirable kickoff times for our soccer team in the spring, along with limited staffing coverage. Facilities staffs are already stretched thin. Staffing limitations would result in a step back in some of technological advances that have been made. We also have serious concerns of the health and safety of our SAs in this model.	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	151	189	180	171	189
Stetson University	This proposal will hurt student-athletes and staff.	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	131	128	150	129	140
Stonehill College	Stonehill opposes men's soccer season redistribution	Rescind	NEC	Yes	195	208	200	208	208
Stony Brook University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	67	109	173	121	149
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley	UTRGV does not support the redistribution of men's soccer playing season model.	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	183	166	129	130	134
U.S. Air Force Academy	ongoing facility constraints and staffing limitations during the spring semester.	Rescind	Mountain West	Yes	168	199	192	143	65
University at Albany	N/A	Rescind	America East	Yes	53	147	169	120	91
University of California, Davis	N/A	Rescind	Mountain West	Yes	163	89	46	70	136
University of California, Irvine	University of California, Irvine supports the rescission of Proposal No. 2026-27.	Rescind	Big West	Yes	49	64	58	72	119
University of California, Riverside	University of California, Riverside supports the rescission of Proposal No. 2026-27.	Rescind	Pac-12	Yes	145	127	84	94	97
University of Central Arkansas	Central Arkansas supports the rescission of this proposal.	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	87	145	104	138	79
University of Dayton	N/A	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	64	46	11	53	42
University of Delaware	N/A	Rescind	Summit League	Yes	116	37	139	124	169
University of Detroit Mercy	The University of Detroit Mercy requests rescission of the adoption of the men's soccer playing season redistribution model based on concerns about facilities, staffing, budget, academics, and student-athlete well-being. Spring competition would present weather and facility challenges, place additional demands on shared support staff, and increase operating costs. Competition across both semesters would also limit flexibility for coursework, internships, recovery, and other aspects of the student-athlete experience. For these reasons, Detroit Mercy does not support this measure.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	200	185	188	189	161
University of Evansville	N/A	Rescind	Missouri Valley	Yes	89	76	86	128	81
University of Maryland, Baltimore County	UMBC votes to rescind Proposal 2026-27. Dividing the men's soccer championship season into two segments places an insurmountable burden on facilities, staff, and most importantly, men's soccer student-athletes. Mid-major and even some autonomy institutions do not have the facility capacity to allow year-round competition in an additional sport, and do not have sufficient Athletic Trainers or game-day staff to provide a safe and healthy championship atmosphere for our men's soccer student-athletes. In addition, this proposal impacts student-athlete academic well-being, as playing championship games late into both semesters will make it difficult, if not impossible for students to sequence heavier course loads or restrictive classes during a non-championship segment, when there is less travel and no missed class for competition. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that head coach Anthony Adams, and Maryland DI coaches more broadly, have been quoted in favor. Coverage described them as embracing the proposal, with Adams calling it a long time coming and “fantastic.”	Rescind	America East	Yes	180	123	88	98	83
University of Massachusetts Lowell	N/A	Rescind	America East	Yes	157	170	160	177	182
University of Massachusetts, Amherst	N/A	Rescind	Summit League	Yes	94	65	40	74	73
University of Nebraska at Omaha	n/a	Rescind	Summit League	Yes	57	132	75	97	106
University of North Carolina Asheville	UNC Asheville opposes the redistribution of the men's soccer season playing model	Rescind	Big South	Yes	76	160	147	193	207
University of North Florida	N/A	Rescind	ASUN	Yes	54	72	146	174	132
University of Pennsylvania	We remain opposed to the NCAA proposal. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	52	36	43	39	14
University of Rhode Island	The Proposal Does Not Demonstrably Benefit Student-Athletes, Financial and Operational Costs Are Unquantified, Facilities and Staffing Constraints Are Underestimated	Rescind	Atlantic 10	Yes	120	124	133	113	75
University of South Carolina Upstate	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	159	180	205	187	157
University of Southern Indiana	Similar comments to others. Facility issues, staffing issues, support team issues, etc.	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	207	210	211	210	206
University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)	N/A	Rescind	Summit League	Yes	161	168	196	197	204
University of the Incarnate Word	UIW votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	158	186	174	176	199
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay	UW-Green Bay votes to rescind the adoption of Proposal 2026-27.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	190	154	163	144	172
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee	We have strong objections regarding this proposal for numerous reasons, including significant negative impacts in the areas of facilities, staffing, academics, and overall student-athlete well-being. From a facilities, perspective, the spring is does not provide consistent suitable weather for a northern Midwest team to play outside. Playing in the spring would require use of an indoor facility (which we do not have on-campus) for most practices and competitions due. The limited indoor practices spaces we have are also being used in the spring months by our winter and spring teams which would cause or exacerbate severe scheduling issues. The proposed model would also negatively impact competitive equity as the availability indoor facilities varies across the League. The model would also create a significant expense for not only rental but transportation to the facility for student-athletes. The model also negatively impacts staffing. We do not have an athletic trainer who is dedicated solely to men's soccer. Under this model, we would have to hire an additional trainer to support only men's soccer due to the overlapping seasons and existing staffing challenges. It would also cause similar issues with our sports information, facilities, ticketing, and other operational support staff because they are assigned multiple sports generally based around when the sports championship season occurs to minimize overlap. The model would also negatively impact student-athletes academically. Men's soccer student-athletes typically use the spring term for internships or courses that they are generally not able to take in the fall due to travel schedules (e.g., courses occurring on Fridays, night classes, etc.). Notably, the model does not change the amount of missed class time; it compounds the problem by affecting more days over both semesters. Given these reasons, and due to the additional costs that this proposal would require, we are also concerned about our and others in our League's ability to continue to sponsor men's soccer. And although this model is being proposed at this point for only men's soccer, we are concerned about the precedent it sets. If other sports move to a similar model, it will compound the issues listed above.	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	170	156	148	179	196
Utah Tech University	n/a	Rescind	Mountain West	Yes	184	143	149	160	178
Utah Valley University	Our comments are similar to others. Facility issues, very detrimental to cold weather schools (nobody wants to play or staff outdoor soccer in February), won't even be able to get ball kids in the winter, the grass is still dormant, potential Title IX issues, major staffing issues, support team issues, etc.	Rescind	Big West	Yes	32	67	78	101	87
Virginia Military Institute	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	Yes	211	211	212	212	211
Western Illinois University	Significant financial and logistical burdens, including concerns regarding weather conditions and access to suitable playing and practice facilities during the early spring season, particularly for northern institutions.	Rescind	Ohio Valley	Yes	196	202	202	203	200
William & Mary	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	CAA	Yes	115	182	110	131	135
Winthrop University	N/A	Rescind	Big South	Yes	152	206	197	204	203
Wofford College	Wofford College opposes this proposal. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Southern Conference	Yes	80	164	142	156	179
Wright State University	N/A	Rescind	Horizon	Yes	181	192	167	167	167
Xavier University	Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Big East	Yes	42	85	89	50	38
Yale University	Yale votes to rescind Proposal - 2026-27. Footnote The school's vote is rescind. A contrasting public statement is that the Division I Men's Soccer Oversight Committee, which includes this conference, advanced and adopted the proposal.	Rescind	Ivy League	Yes	127	144	113	49	55
Appalachian State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
Arkansas State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
East Carolina University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
Florida State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Georgia Institute of Technology	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Louisiana Tech University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
Purdue University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
Rice University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
Tulane University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Iowa	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Louisiana at Lafayette	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Louisiana at Monroe	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Miami	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Minnesota	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Nebraska-Lincoln	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of North Texas	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Oregon	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of South Alabama	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Southern California	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Southern Mississippi	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Texas at San Antonio	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
Wichita State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	No	---	---	---	---	---
Butler University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big East	Yes	154	140	120	77	23
Clemson University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	3	8	1	1	20
Dartmouth College	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Ivy League	Yes	133	142	132	140	118
Duke University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	65	7	2	9	5
East Tennessee State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Southern Conference	Yes	92	169	134	109	109
Florida Atlantic University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	84	44	73	132	133
Georgetown University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big East	Yes	1	3	26	12	18
Georgia Southern University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	81	70	128	184	201
Georgia State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	110	129	115	78	50
Indiana University Bloomington	Head coach Todd Yeagley has publicly advocated for a full-year schedule for years.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	4	11	14	16	3
James Madison University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	71	91	38	29	64
Marshall University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	20	19	6	6	16
Michigan State University	Damon Rensing said the model is “really good for men’s college soccer in several ways,” specifically citing recovery from congestion (e.g., multiple games in a short window) and better alignment with professional calendars.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	9	74	63	51	68
Missouri State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	18	41	18	24	30
North Carolina State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	33	2	28	105	66
Northwestern University	Head coach Russell Payne sits on the Division I Men’s Soccer Oversight Committee (Big Ten representative) that adopted the proposal, linking the program to the formal support process.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	36	71	71	66	127
Ohio State University	Head coach Brian Maisonneuve supported the model, citing problems with the current compressed schedule, recovery, and player welfare.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	30	56	3	45	34
Old Dominion University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	51	87	93	102	102
Oregon State University	The program’s official account posted a video in late October of head coach Jarred Brookins explaining how the year-round calendar would benefit NCAA men’s soccer.	Support	Pac-12	Yes	16	9	9	3	47
Pennsylvania State University	Head coach Rob Dow and the program have stated they support the flex/year-round model, will not vote for rescission, and are aligned with the Big Ten.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	100	66	65	22	48
Providence College	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big East	Yes	70	57	53	40	74
Rutgers University-New Brunswick	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	27	55	81	83	45
Southern Methodist University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	2	15	22	27	25
St. John's University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big East	Yes	69	50	70	52	80
Stanford University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	26	5	5	2	10
Syracuse University	Head coach Ian McIntyre said a full-year season “makes a lot of sense” for growing the game.	Support	ACC	Yes	46	45	41	17	1
Temple University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	192	184	143	146	129
University of Akron	Coach Jared Embick has been described as a big fan of the two-semester approach.	Support	Big East	Yes	17	20	12	20	21
University of Alabama at Birmingham	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	130	103	137	180	145
University of California, Berkeley	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	28	40	33	19	78
University of Central Florida	Scott Calabrese has been a public proponent of the two-semester model for several years (including advocacy dating back to at least 2018 focused on player health and growing the sport).	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	35	27	42	33	49
University of Connecticut	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big East	Yes	83	48	79	93	71
University of Kentucky	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	146	39	35	28	8
University of Louisville	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	14	54	37	32	37
University of Maryland, College Park	Head coach Sasho Cirovski has championed a split/year-round model for over a decade as a spearhead of the idea.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	6	4	48	57	27
University of Memphis	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	55	105	85	58	54
University of Michigan	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	73	31	49	65	111
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	Head coach Carlos Somoano (Oversight Committee member) has called it a long-term passion project and supported the shift for over a decade.	Support	ACC	Yes	11	21	13	14	44
University of North Carolina at Charlotte	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	44	23	34	26	33
University of North Carolina at Greensboro	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Southern Conference	Yes	58	29	64	125	32
University of North Carolina Wilmington	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	CAA	Yes	23	116	108	82	110
University of Notre Dame	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	40	42	10	5	39
University of Pittsburgh	Head coach Jay Vidovich, a longtime vocal proponent, called the change one of the most transformational things in college athletics for player welfare, development, and scheduling.	Support	ACC	Yes	10	34	7	18	6
University of South Carolina	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	29	99	57	123	125
University of South Florida	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	193	60	97	75	35
University of Tulsa	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	American	Yes	63	107	100	61	13
University of Virginia	Head coach George Gelnovatch has strongly backed it for more than a decade, describing the current compressed fall calendar as “antiquated.”	Support	ACC	Yes	47	16	25	23	28
University of Washington	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	5	1	15	7	4
University of Wisconsin-Madison	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	Big Ten	Yes	13	62	44	79	76
Villanova University	Head coach Mark Fetrow has been public about the proposal. In a July interview he said his program has been “big supporters” of the legislation and argued it would improve player development, recovery, and training periodization.	Support	Big East	Yes	143	121	151	107	57
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	34	51	47	116	121
Wake Forest University	The Oversight Committee as a whole (coaches and administrators from conferences including the ACC, Big Ten, Sun Belt, Big East, American, and others) advanced and adopted it.	Support	ACC	Yes	8	26	17	15	24
West Virginia University	Head coach Dan Stratford (Oversight Committee, representing the Sun Belt) has voiced support, stated that WVU is in favor, and noted athletic department backing.	Support	Sun Belt	Yes	31	25	29	13	46
Abilene Christian University	N/A	TBD	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
Alabama A&M University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Alabama State University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Alcorn State University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Auburn University	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Austin Peay State University	N/A	TBD	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
Ball State University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Baylor University	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Bethune-Cookman University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Boise State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Brigham Young University	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
California State University, Fresno	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Central Michigan University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Colorado State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Coppin State University	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Delaware State University	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
East Texas A&M University	N/A	TBD	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Eastern Michigan University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Florida A&M University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Iowa State University	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Jackson State University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Kennesaw State University	N/A	TBD	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Kent State University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Lamar University	N/A	TBD	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Louisiana State University	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
LSU New Orleans	N/A	TBD	Southland	No	---	---	---	---	---
Miami University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Middle Tennessee State University	N/A	TBD	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Mississippi State University	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Mississippi Valley State University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Morgan State University	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
New Mexico State University	N/A	TBD	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Norfolk State University	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
North Carolina Central University	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Northern Arizona University	N/A	TBD	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Ohio University	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Portland State University	N/A	TBD	Big Sky	No	---	---	---	---	---
Prairie View A&M University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Sam Houston State University	N/A	TBD	Conference USA	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas A&M University	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas Christian University	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas Southern University	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Texas Tech University	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University at Buffalo	N/A	TBD	MAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Alabama	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Arizona	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Arkansas	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Arkansas at Little Rock	N/A	TBD	United Athletic	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff	N/A	TBD	SWAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Cincinnati	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Colorado Boulder	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Florida	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Georgia	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Hawaii at Manoa	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Houston	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Kansas	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Maryland Eastern Shore	N/A	TBD	MEAC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Mississippi	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Missouri	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Nevada, Reno	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of New Mexico	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Oklahoma	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Tennessee	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Texas at Austin	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Texas at El Paso	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	No	---	---	---	---	---
University of Utah	N/A	TBD	Big 12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Utah State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
Vanderbilt University	N/A	TBD	SEC	No	---	---	---	---	---
Washington State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	No	---	---	---	---	---
American University	N/A	TBD	Patriot League	Yes	114	100	123	96	99
Bradley University	N/A	TBD	Missouri Valley	Yes	188	183	158	157	183
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	Yes	98	63	61	112	184
California State University, Bakersfield	N/A	TBD	Big West	Yes	86	150	69	104	186
California State University, Sacramento	N/A	TBD	Big West	Yes	149	174	111	139	100
George Mason University	N/A	TBD	Atlantic 10	Yes	97	97	83	145	185
Gonzaga University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	Yes	118	122	127	135	159
Grand Canyon University	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	Yes	62	38	99	63	95
Loyola Marymount University	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	107	68	72	35	59
Quinnipiac University	N/A	TBD	Metro	Yes	113	188	171	165	72
Saint Louis University	N/A	TBD	Atlantic 10	Yes	66	32	55	48	31
San Diego State University	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	Yes	141	101	54	36	84
San Jose State University	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	Yes	126	52	103	89	77
Santa Clara University	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	105	78	91	71	147
Seattle University	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	95	53	19	25	98
U.S. Military Academy	N/A	TBD	Patriot League	Yes	205	141	184	168	94
U.S. Naval Academy	N/A	TBD	Patriot League	Yes	201	195	186	161	122
University of California, San Diego	N/A	TBD	Pac-12	Yes	88	152	125	133	114
University of California, Santa Barbara	N/A	TBD	Big West	Yes	45	75	32	64	53
University of Denver	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	59	18	4	34	26
University of Illinois Chicago	N/A	TBD	Missouri Valley	Yes	148	92	119	68	148
University of Missouri-Kansas City	N/A	TBD	Summit League	Yes	12	30	30	134	128
University of Nevada, Las Vegas	N/A	TBD	Mountain West	Yes	61	117	98	119	195
University of New Hampshire	N/A	TBD	America East	Yes	74	86	31	11	15
University of Portland	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	7	6	21	4	11
University of San Diego	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	15	14	16	47	82
University of San Francisco	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	77	47	50	69	103
University of the Pacific	N/A	TBD	West Coast	Yes	155	173	90	127	175
University of Vermont	N/A	TBD	America East	Yes	38	13	8	31	12
Virginia Commonwealth University	N/A	TBD	Atlantic 10	Yes	139	77	67	60	123
Western Michigan University	N/A	TBD	Missouri Valley	Yes	128	69	24	10	7

No schools match.

MLS Academy Success Rate

The current top youth league in the country is called MLS NEXT and features many of our top prospects competing in MLS academies across multiple age groups. But this league didn’t come together overnight. We have to wind back to 2007 to understand how MLS NEXT came to be.

In 1996, Major League Soccer became the home for American soccer players to continue to develop as top professionals in our country. In 2007, the US Soccer Federation wanted to expand its commitment to the American player by creating a top youth league for all American players. With MLS still struggling to make ends meet, the federation launched the Development Academy (DA), a non-profit premier league to help bridge aspiring young soccer players into a pre-professional route. The following year, MLS introduced the Homegrown Player rule, which allowed MLS teams to sign players from their own academies, rewarding MLS teams for their efforts in player development in the DA. Both the federation and MLS were creating avenues to help streamline our country’s best players’ pathway to the top.

How We Got Here

The DA was originally reluctant to expand much past its original 64 teams for the first decade, but the league eventually ballooned to hundreds of teams in hopes of bringing more players under the federation’s scouting structures. But costs started mounting as the league expanded. By the time COVID cut off the cash flow that helped run the DA, the league had swelled to about $12 million in annual operating costs. And with no national team games bringing in ticket sales and sponsorship income, the federation had other bills to worry about. For about a year, the federation had been in court with the USWNT, arguing that the men’s national team had "a higher level of skill based on speed and strength" and carried "more responsibility” than the women’s national team, an argument that cost it its president, several corporate sponsors, and eventually a $24 million backpay settlement, on the way to a roughly $50 million financial hit across the board. (The Federation’s law firm was immediately fired after making this argument in court.)

The financial strain wasn’t the only concern surrounding the league. A once-buzzing league, the DA had fallen to the point where clubs were opting for a rival league, the ECNL, citing more flexibility, no restriction on playing high school soccer, and lower operating costs. The federation, frustrated at the league’s situation and needing to find ways to cut costs internally, turned to MLS to offload the country’s premier youth league.

As the federation closed the DA’s doors, so went the federation’s responsibility to foot the bill. Although parents and clubs were paying the bulk up front, that still left a lot of expenses on the federation to run the league. But with MLS taking the reins, the federation could now cut expenses like scouting hundreds of non-MLS clubs, running intensive nationwide events, training DA coaches to get the appropriate badge to coach in the DA at a discount, as well as letting go of 40-50 staff centered around the DA. The restructuring helped the federation reclaim its financial footing, amassing to $250 million in annual revenue with $80 million in reserves.

Rising From the Ashes

In creating a setup to get the best bang for their buck, US Soccer’s lack of international training compensation standards was a thorn in MLS’s side. Once originally viewed as a positive to allow MLS teams to cherry-pick the best players in the country, now MLS’ highly rated prospects were walking to Europe for free. In 2019, the highly publicized DeAndre Yedlin lawsuit resulted in FIFA formally declaring that American youth clubs are fully entitled to solidarity payments and training compensation, which was a double-edged sword for MLS. Either MLS could have US Soccer co-sign on MLS reaping all the solidarity payments from other countries or US Soccer could protect MLS teams to ensure their academy products don’t walk away for free. But they couldn’t do both. It was solidarity payments for all parties with international movement or none at all.

However, in 2024, MLS established the MLS NEXT Development Grant program to help maximize resources pointing back to MLS. Under the grant program, if an MLS team signs an independent MLS NEXT club’s player to a first team contract, the MLS team pays that independent club an upfront development grant of up to $30,000, while also guaranteeing any future sell-on percentages. Although this wouldn’t apply for academy-to-academy movement (without a first team contract), MLS offset any future expenses with a $5,000 annual fee for each team in MLS NEXT. For the 120 independent clubs with multiple age groups paying around a total of $25,000 a year, MLS NEXT quickly offset any administrative overhead as no MLS academy has to pay these fees. These efforts helped protect and bolster MLS’s resources and - combined with U.S. Soccer's reluctance to scout outside the league - forced many independent clubs to join MLS NEXT so they could potentially stop the bleeding of their top talents walking into an MLS academy without gaining anything in return.

Lastly, the DA-to-MLS NEXT transition was also focused on moving away from a widespread attempt to scout the entire country’s best players and, instead, maximizing MLS’s resources and investments. Although there was good competition in the DA's final years - Strikers FC and Sockers FC had reached the U18/U19 semifinals, and Texans SC had won the 2017 U17/18 national title - MLS NEXT placed MLS academies into their own conferences so they could focus on developing professional players without interference from independent clubs. With the structure and protection for MLS teams pulling the independent clubs’ best players, the cream would rise to the top one way and be left to MLS to finish the development process.

Tracking MLS NEXT’s Successes

For this project, every MLS team (and selected non-MLS teams) had their U16 and older goalkeepers tracked to see how they developed after leaving the academy. The chart below lists every keeper who came through an MLS NEXT academy, starting at U16, and objectively rates how their careers turned out. With MLS NEXT giving MLS academies the top conferences, first claim on players, and control of the money, we’re left with the question, “How successful are MLS academies at producing more players who go on to play at the next level?"

Since no single place had all this information, AI was used to scrape together what was available across the internet. Of course, if any information is wrong or incomplete, please use the contact page, and an update will be made ASAP.

Top 100 American Goalkeepers (USMNT Depth Chart)

After more than a decade of updates, the top 100 returns once again with this spring’s lineup. Each goalkeeper is ranked by a number of factors: historical individual results, current individual level of play, and projected on-field performance. The Everybody Soccer top 100 removes exterior noise from various media outlets, past accolades, and team statistics to isolate the goalkeeper’s current level of play in ranking the goalkeepers in order of who would give the US the best chance to win a hypothetical knockout game tomorrow. To see how the top 100 rankings have evolved since July 2013, click here.

1. Diego Kochen

Although the Fall 2026 international window featured four goalkeepers, the past decade had conditioned fans to expect the bulk of the minutes to go to one or two goalkeepers while others would return to their club scene without minutes to their name. However, the four game series not only broke that mold, but it marked the arrival of the heralded Barca product, Diego Kochen. Kochen earned his first caps with the senior team during this window and was even rewarded with a full 90 minutes against Mexico, easily the most important match in the four game stretch. The positive play has positioned the Florida native as the starting goalkeeper going forward, despite being only 20 years old.

Kochen’s developmental track raises the question about the US’s goalkeeper development. On one hand, the platform the US provided was good enough to have a kid go to Barca at 12. On the other hand, most of his development happened in Spain, not the US. The end product? A game manager who’s fantastic in complex situations, especially 1v1s. Kochen wants to be involved in the play, whether in starting the attack or stopping one. And despite the average athleticism, he’s smart enough to know how to cover the goalmouth and final third to deny chances on goal.

Not every young Florida goalkeeper can end up at Barcelona, but American fans are glad they got at least one. Kochen brings an air of confidence and excitement to the position that we haven’t seen in some time. And Pochettino naming him the starter against Mexico in a friendly at just 20 years old is a sign of more to come.

2. Ethan Horvath

Prior to joining the Red Bulls, minutes have been hard to come by for Horvath, as English clubs’ hyper-competitive environment makes every goalkeeper earn their spot week in, week out. However, Horvath has proven himself to be a fair replica of 90s goaltenders: good shot stoppers who can control the 18. Although he isn’t the goalkeeper to ping around 40 passes on a dime, his ability to cover the box and goal frame is hard to come by, especially in the USMNT goalkeeping pool.

After ten caps already under his belt, it’s not unheard of to see Horvath back in net for the USMNT, and his strong start to the MLS season gives weight to his name. However, Horvath isn’t known for flawless play himself, as the inconsistent minutes led to inconsistent play overseas over the past couple of years. As of Mid-October, the Red Bulls sit almost dead last in goals scored yet are still in playoff contention for having a (relatively) low goals against record. If Horvath can shoulder some responsibility and help the Red Bulls in a playoff run through strong performances, look to see Horvath re-enter the national team picture. Otherwise, RBNY may end up being a disappointing landing spot for the former USMNT goalkeeper.

3. Matt Turner

Advanced stat darling Matt Turner bounced out of MLS in 2022 to the English Premier League after the once-undrafted goalkeeper produced a +.38 prevented goals per 96 minutes from 2019-2021, a stat that was twice that of second place Steve Clark and essentially lapped every other starter in the league. Unfortunately, Turner finding the cheat code that an ultimate line sitter in MLS can do well in the xG column didn’t translate overseas, and the tumultuous time bouncing around Europe - including a situation that saw Nottingham Forrest and Lyon fight to not have him on their roster - seems to have taken a hit to Turner’s confidence and run of form.

Towards the back part of the season, Turner had once again jumped to the top of the xG standings for goalkeepers, yet his standing in the national team is a bit of a question mark going forward. Turner isn’t terribly off the mark but still not looking like the goalkeeper with 50+ caps to his name. At 31, it’d be a shame to see Turner start declining so early but Turner’s supporters don’t have many successes to point to in warrant a return to the USMNT starting spot. If Turner can turn around the Revs winless season, he might be able to make a case for a spot on the 2026 roster.

4. Brian Schwake

Similar to Kochen, Schwake entered the Fall international window without much expectation, yet he was rewarded with two caps to his name. The 2026 season had already given the youngster some positive buzz, positioning him in the conversation for MLS Goalkeeper of the Year with his no-nonsense goalkeeping, yet his ceiling felt a little too close, and his future progression was hard to envision. However, Schwake took advantage of every opportunity, just like the DePaul alum had done prior to this moment.

Growing up in the Chicago suburbs, Schwake spent his high school years with Sockers FC before committing to DePaul as a two-star recruit. DePaul saw the young goalkeeper as a backup for their starter and an untimely broken wrist left Schwake with zero minutes after his freshman year. But Schwake wasn’t deterred and signed with a second divsion Scottish side at the start of 2020. Over the next six years, Schwake climbed steadily year-by-year, until he circled back to Nashville and became their starter in 2026.

Schwake is a good example of a non-MLS academy product who was counted out but kept moving through open doors and, when given the chance to showcase his abilities, exceeded everyone’s expectations.

5. Roman Celentano

With Marcinkowski’s free-flowing approach to goalkeeping, Celentano’s meticulous approach is the complete opposite side of the coin. The Midwesterner approaches goalkeeping with a clear black-and-white, right-and-wrong mindset for what works inside his game. There are very few moments we see Celentano look out of sorts, although his ultra-passive mindset helps sort out most of his decision-making.

Despite an impressive career 1.82 PPG in MLS league play, Celentano and Cincinnati have struggled to connect the pieces in the playoffs, compiling a meager 7-6 record in postseason play, and 2026 has seemingly been a bit of a backwards step, with just a 57% save percentage through mid-October. Admittedly, it’s tough to be critical of a goalkeeper who plays for a team that’s near the top of the charts in shots conceded, but fans are still waiting for Celentano to break the ceiling he’s been sitting at since 2022. He’s a steady MLS shot-stopper, but when is his big breakout year coming?

Although it’d be nice to see Celentano stick around until Cincinnati can finally lift the Cup, there are several cases of young goalkeepers who stayed in MLS too long and the efforts to push the boulder up the hill only amounted to it rolling down the same side. If Celentano wants to continue his upward trajectory, leaving MLS needs to happen sooner rather than later to challenge himself in a league where he must take more responsibility on the field, lest he become one of the many goalkeepers who stayed comfortable in MLS as a 10 year starter and plateaued in their mid-20s.

6. JT Marcinkowski

A good way to sum up Marcinowski’s current situation entering 2026 is the fact that his Wikipedia page hadn’t been updated since May of 2023. (It still could use a bit of a refresher, to be honest.) However, Marcinkowski is a modern day Rocky Balboa: knocked down but always coming back swinging. In the middle of the Earthquakes’ decade-long game of musical chairs, Marcinkowski went from a competing MLS starter to missing almost all of 2023 and 2024 due to an ACL repair. But Marcinkowski quickly took the number one spot this year, despite being slotted as a backup, and isn’t looking to give it up any time soon.

Perhaps the best news for Marcinkowski comes with Schwake’s inclusion with the USMNT. Even assuming Marcinkowski got back to good form, not many would have ever expected him to make a run at the national team. But with the lack of consistency for the top three spots going into 2030, it’s not hard to see Marcinkowski, who is playing the best he’s ever played, enter the picture. The complex, front-footed style paired with a decent ball out of the back isn’t too different from Kochen’s approach, although it can get a little chaotic at times. When Marcinkowski is on, it’s a lot of fun, but when things go against him, the unique playstyle can put a bit of a target on his back.

All that said, the Galaxy signed the Georgetown alum through 2029 for a reason, locking him down with the team until he’s 32. If Marcinkowski can stay healthy and continue his positive momentum, don’t be surprised if the former USYNT returns to the national team fold.

7. Chris Brady

Considering that the US will be the underdog to any top soccer nation for the foreseeable future, the US needs a reliable goalkeeper to limit mistakes while making the big-time save in the knockout rounds that past American goalkeepers are known for. Simply having a goalkeeper that’s good in possession won’t be enough to beat the Belgiums of the world (see 2014, 2026). Brady theoretically fits the bill as he originally raised eyebrows with big-time save ability.

Brady spent most of his career sitting in Slonina’s shadow but he eventually stepped out, surpassing Slonina in career shutouts and games played. Chicago Fire’s goalkeeper coach, Zach Thornton, seemingly has given Brady a massive green light to play how he wants, not instilling rigid guidelines on how he has to play every situation. The upside allows Brady to lean on his intuition and showcase his ability to make saves that few Americans can pull off. The downside is that some odd approaches can arise in Brady’s game, as shown in both of Brady’s first two caps.

When a goalkeeper gets so much attention early on, it can end up feeling like forever until they finally “arrive” and Brady is no exception. If Brady can clean up the awkward moments that end up stitching his momentum up the depth chart, he should be a significant challenge for the number one spot. However, if Brady’s skillset is going to be limited to shot-stopping, expect a handful of caps but nothing more, as USMNT goalkeepers need to be dimensional in the modern era.

8. Matt Freese

After turning down Manchester United to start his degree at Harvard University, Freese eventually made a name for himself as a “steady Eddy” type of goalkeeper. Freese would rarely concede poor goals in MLS play and always gave his team, New York City, a chance to stay in the match. Freese did this so well that when Matt Turner’s form plummeted while navigating England’s lower divisions, Freese was given a chance last summer as the number one for the US. Since June of 2025, Freese amassed 20 caps, but it’s a different beast at the international level. The USMNT’s exit in the 2026 World Cup was highlighted by Freese’s error after struggling to find correct positioning on the first two goals, ultimately resetting the depth chart for the goalkeeping position completely.

Although there have been positives in Freese’s past twelve months, including his performance against his former MLS team, USMNT fans have an expectation for the next generation of goalkeepers. At just 28 years old, it’s odd to think of a goalkeeper who started in a World Cup having his time wind down with the national team, but with so many youngsters knocking on the door, Freese has his work cut out for him.

9. Drake Callender

It’s never a good look to bounce from team to team so quickly but greener and snowier pastures seem to be working out for the former Inter Miami starter. With Messi’s arrival in Miami, American starters quickly became a thing of the past and it didn’t take long for Callender to be relocated out of Miami completely. Callender thrives on being allowed to play with his gut and embrace chaos. Harnessing his inner Steve Clark, Callender doesn’t shy away from the gritty plays, but his success in those moments can waver severely. In 2023, Callender was rewarded with a national team call-up, while in the following seasons he looked like someone who might put his gloves on the wrong hands, playing beyond poorly and not shocking fans when he finally was told to pack his things. It’s a high ceiling, low floor situation with Callender but so far 2026 has gotten off to a good start for the California native. Here’s hoping Callender can continue to advocate for himself with strong “do whatever it takes to keep the ball out of the net” play for the rest of the season.

10. Andrew Thomas

The Great American Goalkeeping Logjam is the real deal as Thomas, a once-heralded top recruit coming out of the college ranks, still has yet to reach 50 MLS starts by the time he turned 28. Of course, Thomas’ career isn’t over by any stretch as the Stanford alum has notched down the starting spot for the (seemingly) playoff-bound Seattle Sounders.

Thomas’ 2026 has been difficult to gauge as he’s basically had three very distinct parts of the season. From February to March, he only lost once in eleven matches, then followed that with an eight-game losing streak, and then returned to a twelve-game stretch with only one loss. He’s not the league’s top shot-stopper or best distributor, but he does seem to do a lot of the little things right, in essentially his rookie year. The jury’s out on his top-end potential, as he shows flashes of being able to play beyond MLS, but not at a consistent level (yet?). Keep an eye on Thomas for how he handles the playoff pressure, but also in year two. Most signs are pointing to him being a respectable MLS veteran, but with the triple citizenship, don’t be surprised if he ends up in Europe in 2027 or 2028.

Outside Looking In

11. Patrick Schulte, 25 - Columbus Crew
12. Brad Stuver, 35 - Austin FC
13. John Pulskamp, 25 - Sporting Kansas City
14. Josh Cohen, 34 - Chicago Fire
15. John McCarthy, 34 - New York Red Bulls
16. Pablo Sisniega, 31 - San Diego FC
17. Evan Louro, 30 - FC Cincinnati
18. Joe Willis, 38 - Nashville SC
19. Gabriel Slonina, 22 - Chelsea FC (England.1)
20. Tyler Miller, 33 - Charlotte FC

Bill says: Old guard, new guard. As the veterans start fading off into the sunset, there are a number of young bucks still largely unproven. Julian Eyestone joins Slonina in England and although Eyestone is cutting his teeth in England’s fourth division, at least he’s playing. Slonina continues the waiting game with Chelsea, not unlike MLS goalkeepers trying to prolong their careers. Cohen, McCarthy, Louro and Sisniega all seem like they have gas left but their chances to showcase their abilities have been limited. Lastly, question marks hang over Schulte's and Pulskamp’s future. Will they be good or great goalkeepers? At 25, there’s still plenty of time ahead of them but their peers seem to be breaking away from the pack. Can they keep pace, or have they reached their level and don’t have anything left to climb?

Best of the Rest

21. Vicente Reyes, 22 - Norwich (England.2)
22. Luis Barraza, 29 - Inter Miami
23. George Marks, 26 - Philadelphia Union
24. Paul Walters, 22 - FC Cincinnati
25. Kendall McIntosh, 32 - Oakland Roots
26. Mike Lansing, 32 - Kristiansund (Norway.1)
27. Mason Stajduhar, 28 - Real Salt Lake
28. Earl Edwards, 34 - San Jose Earthquakes
29. Sean Johnson, 37 - DC United
30. Julian Eyestone 20 - Brentford (England.1)

31. Stefan Frei, 40 - Seattle Sounders
32. Alex Bono, 32 - DC United
33. Jacob Jackson, 26 - San Diego FC
34. Eric Dick, 32 - Indy Eleven
35. Gavin Beavers, 21 - Brondby (Denmark.1)
36. Sean Lewis, 34 - Spokane Velocity
37. Stefan Cleveland, 32 - Sporting Kansas City
38. Danny Vitiello, 30 - Sacramento Republic
39. Edward Delgado, 28 - FC Naples
40. Kayne Rizvanovich, 19 - Minnesota

41. Hunter Sulte, 24 - Portland Timbers
42. Nicolas Hansen, 25 - Colorado Rapids
43. Michael Collodi, 25 - FC Dallas
44. William Yarbrough, 37 - Toronto FC
45. Rashid Nuhu, 30 - Union Omaha
46. Luke Dennison, 30 - Drogheda United (Ireland.1)
47. Danny Rogers, 32 - St. Patrick's Athletic (Ireland.1)
48. Jeff Gal, 33 - Chicago Fire
49. Logan Ketterer, 32 - Lexington SC
50. Jordan Farr, 32 - DC United

51. Colin Shutler, 28 - Colorado Springs Switchbacks
52. Ethan Bandré, 28 - Loudon United
53. Antonio Carrera, 22 - Tigres UANL (Mexico.1)
54. Antony Siaha, 28 - Hartford Athletic
55. Luis Zamudio, 28 - Charleston Battery
56. Hunter Morse, 28 - Hearts of Pine
57. Adrian Hrvojevic, 19 - Hajduk Split (Croatia.1)
58. Carlos Herrera, 29 - Detroit City
59. Carlos Merancio, 28 - Spokane Velocity
60. Jake McGuire, 32 - Sporting JAX

61. Alec Smir, 27 - Minnesota United FC
62. Christian Olivares, 24 - St. Louis City SC
63. Jonathan Kliewer, 25 - AC Boise
64. Adrian Zendejas, 31 - Vancouver Whitecaps
65. John Berner, 35 - Charleston Battery
66. Seth Torman, 27 - Greenville Triumph
67. Carlos Saldaña, 30 - Detroit City
68. Johan Penaranda, 26 - Lexington SC
69. Brady Scott, 27 - Los Angeles Galaxy
70. Rocco Rios Novo, 24 - Inter Miami

71. Artemio Olvera, 19 - Atlético de San Luis U21 (Mexico.1)
72. Andrew Pannenberg, 28 - New Mexico United
73. Andrew Rick, 20 - Philadelphia Union
74. Trey Muse, 27 - Portland Timbers
75. Duran Ferree, 20 - San Diego FC
76. Jared Mazzola, 27 - Las Vegas Lights FC
77. Ryan Troutman, 26 - Louisville City FC
78. Abraham Romero, 28 - El Paso Locomotive
79. Jacob Castro, 26 - Rhode Island FC
80. Richard Sanchez, 32 - San Antonio FC

81. George Tasouris, 30 - Charlotte Independence
82. Jonathan Burke, 28 - Knoxville
83. Benny Diaz, 27 - FC Juarez (Mexico.1)
84. Adam Beaudry, 20 - Colorado Rapids
85. Emmanuel Ochoa, 21 - CD Cruz Azul (Mexico.1)
86. JD Gunn, 26 - New England Revolution
87. Dane Jacomen, 25 - FC Tulsa
88. William Popp, 32 - Shonan Bellmare (Belgium.2)
89. Benjamin Machini, 30 - Hapoel Kfar Saba (Israel.2)
90. Daniel Kuzemka, 28 - Charleston Battery

91. Nicholas Holliday, 20 - Charlotte FC
92. Max Weinstein, 22 - New England Revolution II
93. Michael Stone, 27 - Akademisk BK (Denmark.2)
94. Francesco Montali, 26 - San Jose Earthquakes
95. Kris Shakes, 25 - New Mexico United
96. Zackory Campagnolo, 19 - Colorado Rapids
97. Mike Sheridan, 25 - Pittsburgh Riverhounds
98. Cabral Carter, 22 - LAFC
99. Nicolas Montoya, 19 - North Texas SC
100. Bryan Dowd, 24 - Colorado Rapids

How Expected Goals Improves Football Betting Decisions

Expected goals, usually called xG, gives each shot a value based on its chance of becoming a goal. A tap-in from two meters might rate 0.75. A weak shot from 25 meters might rate 0.03. Simple idea. For bettors, it adds a sharper view than the final score, because football scores lie all the time. A team wins 2-0 after taking two shots, while the loser creates six clear chances. The table says one thing; the shot map says another. A bettor comparing the best Iceland betting sites on Monday can read https://ultimasnoticias.com.ve/apuestas/en-is/betting-sites-iceland/ notes on sportsbook licensing before checking how those books price xG-heavy teams. Prices matter. One sentence later, a side note from the casino market still helps: the critically acclaimed brand Golisimo operates as an online casino, which shows how review labels differ across betting and gaming products. xG keeps the football part grounded in shots, locations, and pressure.

Reading the score behind the score

The most common mistake is treating a result as proof. It is not. A 1-0 win built on 0.4 xG tells a different story from a 1-0 win built on 2.6 xG and twelve shots inside the box. Tiny sample, big signal.

xG helps bettors separate finishing luck from repeatable attacking work. If Brighton creates 1.9 xG for four straight matches but scores twice in total, the market might still cool on them. That creates interest if the next opponent allows high-quality chances through central areas. The bettor is not chasing a hunch. He is pricing process.

Defensive xG matters just as much. A side conceding few shots but giving up penalties, cutbacks, and free headers is not safe. The danger is hidden until goals arrive.

Turning xG into market edges

Markets react fast to goals, red cards, and league position. They react slower to shot quality when the final score looks normal. That gap is where xG earns its place.

Take a mid-table home side priced at 2.40 after losing two matches. The losses look ugly. Under the hood, they created 3.8 xG across those games and conceded 1.1, with one missed penalty and a keeper error. A model does not need to call them unlucky forever. It needs to ask whether the next price reflects those chances.

The cleanest use is comparison. Bettors can line up team xG, xG against, home splits, rest days, and injuries, then compare the result with odds. If the true price looks nearer 2.10 than 2.40, the bet has room.

Spotting traps in small samples

Three matches can fool anyone. So can one huge chance.

A striker missing two open goals can swing a team's xG profile for a week. A promoted club facing Manchester City and Liverpool will look awful before meeting a weaker defence. Context keeps the number honest. xG is a starting point, not a verdict.

Good bettors split the data. Open-play xG says more about attack structure than penalty xG. Set-piece xG matters for teams with strong delivery, such as Arsenal under Mikel Arteta. Game state matters too. A team leading after ten minutes sits deeper, gives up harmless shots, and posts a strange xG line.

Venue matters. Weather matters in Icelandic spring fixtures, where wind turns crosses into coin flips. A raw season average ignores that. A sharper read checks the match notes before touching the price.

Pairing numbers with team news

xG without lineups is half a picture. Bad idea.

A team that creates 1.7 xG per match with its first-choice wingers might drop to blunt crossing if both are injured. The model still shows a strong attack unless the bettor adjusts it. Names change numbers. A suspended full-back, a backup keeper, or a tired midfield after Thursday travel can move the bet more than the last result.

Pressing style also shifts xG. Tottenham under Ange Postecoglou leaves space behind the line, so opponents get clearer chances when the press breaks. That does not make every over bet smart. It means the bettor checks which opponent has the speed to use that space.

Team news should be logged before prices move. Early reports at 10 a.m., confirmed squads one hour before kick-off, and manager quotes after training all belong in the same notebook.

Bankroll rules for xG bets

Strong data still loses. A keeper has the night of his life. A red card wrecks the plan. The post saves a favourite twice. Because of that, xG belongs inside a staking plan, not above it.

Flat staking works for most bettors. One unit per bet, maybe half a unit on thinner edges, keeps variance from turning one bad Saturday into a damaged account. Bigger stakes need a clear price gap, a stable sample, and no late team-news shock. Chasing is poison.

Record keeping makes the method real. The log should include closing odds, projected xG edge, actual xG, score, stake, and a short note such as “lost, two big chances missed” or “won, poor process.” After 100 bets, patterns appear. Some leagues will fit the model. Some will punish it.

Expected goals improves football betting decisions because it asks a better question: did the team create chances that repeat? The next step is simple. Pick one league, track ten matches, and compare the odds with the shot quality before placing a bet. No rush. The market will still be there tomorrow anyway.