After reading Rick Burns' letter in the March 31 issue of The NCAA News concerning the soccer substitution rule and listening to the discussion by other coaches, I was surprised, not with the merits or logic of the debate, but by what key ingredient was missing.

Much of the support for the rule change that disallows re-entry in any period appears to be centered on a concern for the quality of the play in college soccer matches. Burns comments that "constant subbing takes its toll on creativity, and massive substitution ruins the flow of the match." Similarly, the NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee concluded that by limiting substitution, the flow of the game will be improved, game times will be lessened, and college soccer will become more aligned with the world game (The NCAA News, March 3, 2003).

I don't necessarily disagree with these arguments, although I have not witnessed these "massive" substitutions or marathon soccer matches to which the new rule defenders are alluding. However, I believe what's missing from the debate is how the rule change will affect the most important component of NCAA soccer -- the players. The question that should garner more attention is, "How will the rule change affect the participation rates of the players?" In its philosophy statements, the NCAA expresses a belief in the value of participation of its athletes in athletics endeavors.

In fact, a quick examination of the NCAA core values listed on its Web page reveals the following statements concerning the participating athletes: "The NCAA is committed to protecting the best interests of student-athletes and supporting participation opportunities for student-athletes." Under the section entitled "NCAA purposes," the initial statement reads: "To initiate, stimulate and improve intercollegiate athletics programs for student-athletes and to promote and develop educational leadership, physical fitness, athletics excellence and athletics participation as a recreational pursuit."

What I couldn't find in either section were statements regarding game quality, match length, creativity, flow of play or preparation for a future professional career. In other words, the NCAA is concerned with creating and developing athletics opportunities that enhance participation. How can a rule change that, undoubtedly, will lead to a fewer number of student-athletes playing in a soccer match be congruent with the purpose, goals and values of the NCAA?

Division III soccer programs are allowed 16 practice opportunities (about a week and a half) to evaluate and prepare players for 90 minutes of soccer. So on the one hand, the NCAA already limits the ability of our programs to prepare players properly for early season soccer matches that quite often take place in hot, humid conditions. Now, without a re-entry opportunity, if a player turns an ankle, takes a blow to the head or feels a bit stressed by the heat early in a soccer match, coaches will be saying (and players will be thinking), "Just play through the pain or dizziness -- make it to halftime and you will get a break." How can this "promote safety," as the rules committee concluded, or be in the best interests of the participants?

Instead of being able to provide a quality experience that necessitates meaningful, substantial playing time for 15 to 18 players, this rule change will create a positive playing environment for 13 to 14 players. Coaches will not substitute for their best players until the game is well in hand, which inevitably will lead to more lopsided contests.

Even in college, soccer should be fun for as many participants as possible. Playing in the match makes the season enjoyable. No matter what a coach says to his or her players about "earning your playing spot in practice," if the players believe they do not have a reasonable chance to earn quality playing time, they will not enjoy the experience.

For my team, only the players who have earned the right to play are allowed into any soccer match. The players who are skilled and fit, who demonstrate commitment and responsibility, who have a positive attitude, who condition until they are ready to drop, who fight for every loose ball, and who support their teammates are the ones who earn the right to participate. Why would we want to change a rule that limits the ability of a coach to get quality soccer players into a soccer match?

NCAA soccer is a unique entity with its own set of goals and values. We already limit substitution with one re-entry each half, which makes us different from club or high-school soccer and different from professional soccer, which prohibits any re-entry.

I believe that instead of trying to align ourselves with the world game, we should strive to remain unique and take pride in developing ways that make college athletics an exciting and meaningful experience for as many young men and women as possible.