[ColoradoTree]

since the modified schedule is being sold to the NCAA on the basis of benefitting student-athletes physical and mental well, aren’t the arguments also applicable to WSoc?

They are, for the most part*. From what I understand, this will be something of a trial run for the men, and if it goes well, the women are expected to follow suit sooner rather than later. It all depends on whether the results show what the proponents expect them to show. 

* The benefits to student-athletes would be the same, but the animating purpose of the rule change--raising the profile of men's college soccer and making it a more viable pathway to professional soccer--isn't applicable to the women for a few reasons. First, college soccer is already the primary (and darn near the sole) pathway to professional soccer in this country for women. Second, while the NWSL has a similar schedule to the MLS, and foreign women's clubs generally have a similar schedule to foreign men's clubs, the balance of power is different--i.e., hundreds of men's European clubs would destroy MLS clubs, but only a handful of women's European clubs are on par with NWSL clubs. So, the impetus to align your schedule to a European calendar isn't as strong. And finally, you don't have the same Development Academy system in the NWSL as you do in MLS (and around the world). You do have developmental teams and some youth programs, to be sure, but it's nowhere near on the same level. 

Fundamentally, I think the student-athlete benefits are real but modest. Do you completely upend a system that's working OK for modest benefits? I get why you'd want to do it for the men, as you'd be raising the profile of the men's college game and potentially getting professional clubs more interested in men's college players. There, you get the modest student-athlete benefits plus potential systemic benefit to men's college soccer in general. But are the student-athlete benefits worth it without the systemic benefit? I think the men going first here makes a lot of sense, and then if the student-athlete benefits look like they're worth it, then the women make the same change.

[ColoradoTree]

since the modified schedule is being sold to the NCAA on the basis of benefitting student-athletes physical and mental well, aren’t the arguments also applicable to WSoc?

They are, for the most part*. From what I understand, this will be something of a trial run for the men, and if it goes well, the women are expected to follow suit sooner rather than later. It all depends on whether the results show what the proponents expect them to show. 

* The benefits to student-athletes would be the same, but the animating purpose of the rule change--raising the profile of men's college soccer and making it a more viable pathway to professional soccer--isn't applicable to the women for a few reasons. First, college soccer is already the primary (and darn near the sole) pathway to professional soccer in this country for women. Second, while the NWSL has a similar schedule to the MLS, and foreign women's clubs generally have a similar schedule to foreign men's clubs, the balance of power is different--i.e., hundreds of men's European clubs would destroy MLS clubs, but only a handful of women's European clubs are on par with NWSL clubs. So, the impetus to align your schedule to a European calendar isn't as strong. And finally, you don't have the same Development Academy system in the NWSL as you do in MLS (and around the world). You do have developmental teams and some youth programs, to be sure, but it's nowhere near on the same level. 

Fundamentally, I think the student-athlete benefits are real but modest. Do you completely upend a system that's working OK for modest benefits? I get why you'd want to do it for the men, as you'd be raising the profile of the men's college game and potentially getting professional clubs more interested in men's college players. There, you get the modest student-athlete benefits plus potential systemic benefit to men's college soccer in general. But are the student-athlete benefits worth it without the systemic benefit? I think the men going first here makes a lot of sense, and then if the student-athlete benefits look like they're worth it, then the women make the same change.