The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee has proposed cutting the overtime period from 30 to 20 minutes and then, if the match is still drawn, determining a winner via penalty kicks.

I favor any shortening of the overtime session. In fact, I believe we should ban overtime in regular-season matches altogether, primarily because that is the way the game is played everywhere else the in world and it seems to be working just fine. Only we Yanks constantly float trial balloons that invariably compromise the integrity of the game. Other reasons to limit play to 90 minutes:

Extra time discriminates against the side with less depth and fewer players. As a result, you measure fitness and depth rather than skill and tactics. If the weaker side can hold for 90 minutes, it deserves a draw.

A draw is OK. It is face saving for everyone (to demand a winner is an American-only mentality.)

Thirty minutes of extra time is far too much -- 33 percent more play as opposed to basketball's five minutes of overtime, which is 12.5 percent more.

The quality of the game suffers the longer you play. American players generally lack the sophistication to pace themselves through a match. Play is often flat-out hustle and running, which leads to fatigue late in the match.

Studies show that the more tired the players are, the more likely injuries will occur.

To decide a regular-season match with penalty kicks is unnecessary. Penalties don't measure who is the better team; rather it measures who takes penalty kicks best. In addition, coaches would have to spend time in training practicing penalty kicks rather than working on skills and tactics.

We should not dance like a marionette at the end of America's impatient wires. So often we use trial and error and change the game until error prevails. Alas, again, we'll be the laughingstock of the soccer world.

Rick Burns
Soccer Coach
Gordon College

According to the article in the March 4 issue of The NCAA News regarding the proposed changes in soccer overtimes, the Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee based the need for the change on student-athletes' physical and mental well-being, a need to foster uniformity in collegiate soccer, and allowing television and other media to have a better sense of game time, which could lead to more media coverage.

While I have no doubts that the committee spent many hours debating this issue, it seems like committee members were not able to see the forest for the trees. If they had followed their own logic, they would have come up with the "right" decision according to soccer purists like myself --completely doing away with overtimes during the regular season.

Eliminating overtimes would prevent the majority of altercations and yellow and red cards (per the committee's own research), there would be no additional fatigue or risk of injury, and all regular-season games would be over in less than two hours, thus making it even more television friendly. An added bonus would be less missed class time.

The committee maintains that its proposal "fits with a culture that values determining a winner, and that fans will react more favorably when a clear winner emerges at the conclusion of each game." While I do not object to the first part of that claim, I wholeheartedly object to the notion that a penalty shootout after 110 minutes of tied soccer leads to a clear winner. I have never heard of a soccer player, coach or fan who believes a shootout win is a clear victory.

Rules committee Chair Phil Pincince was quoted as saying that the committee believes the change "is for the betterment of the game," and that the group "in the end thought that student-athlete welfare and the best interests of soccer were the two most important considerations."

What a great way to silence possible detractors, because who would ever argue against acting on behalf of student-athlete welfare and the best interests of soccer? The only problem is that the committee has accomplished neither.

If the committee was serious about student-athlete welfare, it would have eliminated overtimes during the regular season. Professing to be acting in the best interests of soccer by having even more games determined by the most hated and controversial part of soccer -- the penalty-kick shootout -- seems downright ridiculous.

Ties are an integral part of soccer. Soccer games are supposed to last 90 minutes, and only in cup tournaments when a winner needs to be determined do you play overtimes, and only if they result in a tie do you use the shootout.

I truly appreciate all the hard work and best intentions of the rules committee; however, I kindly suggest that they pull their proposal off the table for now and go back to the drawing board. We don't need rule changes for the sake of change.

Phil H. Nielsen
Soccer Coach
Smith College

Editor's note: Although neither of the preceding letters discusses the possibility of division-specific playing rules, erroneous information in that regard has been circulated in the soccer community. NCAA Bylaw 21.2.1.3 specifies that federated playing rules are not permitted. Thus, any change to playing rules must apply to all three divisions.