Sacramento it is. I would say that it looks like USL is just up to its old tricks again--the expansion shell game--but NASL seem to be playing them as well of late. *Sigh*
Well, I guess hello to my future league compatriots. I look forward to developments. I hope the city and the ownership group do things right - this is a good thing for Sacramento. Outside of Detroit, Sacramento is the largest market in the U.S. without a "Top 3" tier soccer team. We are the 20th largest media market in the U.S. and the best representation of professional soccer is a NPSL team that plays on a horribly colored fake turf high school football field. I don't know how hard a time LA has being in this league but I imagine it is going to be incredibly difficult for a team in Sacramento given nearly the entire league is in the east. Thank goodness Phoenix is joining next year, that's at least one team we don't have to travel across the country to.
http://nasn.tv/2012/mls-working-with-usl-pro-on-reserve-league-integration/ MLS Working With USL-PRO On Reserve League Integration At the USL annual general meeting, the United Soccer Leagues informed its member clubs of a proposed agreement with Major League Soccer that would provide for an integrated third division/MLS reserve league. Some interplay is expected to begin in 2013, with full integration of the plan coming in 2014. The details as understood are: 1. If an MLS city has a USLPRO team nearby, MLS will provide 5 players and pay their salary. 2. If there’s no USLPRO team, the MLS reserve side will become a new, permanent team in USLPRO. 3. All USLPRO teams will have an MLS affiliate. It’s unclear at this point how far along the proposal is, though separate sources have confirmed that discussions are ongoing. -Jason Davis Jason Davis co-hosts The Best Soccer Show, an American soccer show on NASN and is a contributor to ESPNFC’s Soccer USA blog. He is on Twitter @davisjsn
Interesting. The only USL Pro teams that you could consider "nearby" to MLS teams would be: Dayton (Columbus) Harrisburg (Philadelphia) Los Angeles (Galaxy/Chivas) Richmond (DC in a stretch) Rochester (Toronto in a stretch) But if MLS reserve sides then entered USL Pro, USL Pro would add teams in Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Montreal, New England, New York, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Seattle, Kansas City and Vancouver. Added to Phoenix, Tampa and Sacramento (all announced) and you'd be looking at a league with....well, a bunch of teams.
you could MAYBE lump Phoenix and Sacramento with the LA teams and San Jose... but thats a stretch as well.... the points seem to contradict themselves on that standpoint.... would this leave some MLS teams with multiple USL affiliates while MLS teams near non-existent teams only have their own start up? The geography doesn't quite add up with the volume of South East USL teams, and the lack of South East MLS teams specifically. I'm sure there are plenty of details to be ironed out soon... but its an exciting proposition...
Well, the other thing is....only five of Philadelphia's players (in this scenario) would be getting games in USL Pro. Meanwhile, all of New England's reserves would be. And, again, you're creating a league where 2/3 of the teams are about development and the other 1/3 are (supposedly) about winning. It's going to create some issues.
I'll cross-post this from the MLS News and Analysis board but: I suspect we will see 5 players designated to freely move between the senior team and the USL-Pro team, while the rest of the USL-Pro team is tied to the third division for the entire season. Although this leaves MLS squads without teams nearby being forced to finance the rest of the USL-Pro rosters themselves knowing that the players can't be moved to the MLS squad... (although if a USL exclusive players rights are still retained by the MLS team perhaps they will see value in it?) So a team like Philly would retain all of the rights to Harrisburg's players in this scenario.
All of the rights to their five or to the whole Harrisburg roster? I don't know that I'm reading your second sentence correctly...being forced to finance the rest of the USL Pro rosters themselves? So Philadelphia - which wouldn't put its entire reserve team into USL Pro like, say, New England would - would have to finance everybody on Harrisburg? In addition to all their own reserves? Meanwhile, New England is just paying their reserves, who they're already paying?
pure speculation, I agree it doesn't make the most sense from a financial level for MLS to provide entire USL squads... but I'm just thinking from a basis of what little information we have.... Philadelphia Organization =Union= MLS (MLS team has full ownership of players) Player 1 ... Player 25 =Floaters= MLS/USL-Pro (MLS team has full ownership of players, can call them up from USL at any time) Player 26 ... Player 30 =Harrisburg= USL-Pro (MLS team only has rights to players, player must remain in USL Pro for duration of USL season) Player 31 ... Player 50 A team like New England on the other hand, wouldn't have necessarily have players 31-50 waiting around for them to simply claim.... thats the problem.
This could be a bridge year. The future could be either fully assimilate with an MLS team or join NASL. Some of the teams playing for development and others playing to win really bugs me.
Then you have the scenario where Philadelphia's coaching staff will basically be able to dictate what Bill Becher does with players 26-30. (We saw it with Warzycha's kid this year, where his NASL loan team had to play him out of position because of need and KC snatched him right back up rather than have that happen.) So Becher may have to play those five guys, whether they're the best five guys or not, and may have to play them in a way that Philadelphia wants them played. I think any time you create a division on a team - even a subtle one - where some players are "more equal" than others, you're asking for trouble in a soccer scenario. May not be a lot of trouble, but I can see some issues.
agreed, and although I know you hate what I suggested out a few pages back with all MLS teams simply fielding reserve squads of their own and leaving USL teams independent, it would certainly be a cleaner layout and avoid these potential issues. (not happening at this point anyway though, although now there seems to be a strange hybrid of that forming.)
Wow. Imagine how this would affect the Charlotte Eagles who are more of a Christian missionary organization with a soccer team than a soccer team with a missionary angle . Completely disrupts their entire reason for being.
Having MLS reserve teams just drop-shipped into a lower-division's competition solves that one particular problem, but not the one of a league where some teams' primary purposes are to compete, to win and to be profitable and meaningful in their communities and some teams' primary purpose is to develop players by having them parachute into a competition that they aren't really invested in.
It would be odd. Though I would imagine USL Pro teams could opt out. Unless they're going to tell some MLS team, "We'll take all your Christians, then?"
That's true. Though the Union and City Islanders already have an official established relationship that makes them feel closer.
Might be worth checking Twitter... Between this new item and the snubbing of the US Open Cup, Ted is about to have a stroke. Ted Westervelt @soccerreform OK @FIFAcom and @seppblatter: How about just sanctioning a new federation, and allowing MLS and US Soccer to break away?
No one, really. Ted is upset that the US Soccer has paid little or no attention to the 100th Anniversary of the Open Cup because they're in the pocket of "Big MLS." Apparently, MLS doesn't want to talk about the Open Cup because it reminds people of the beauty of pro/rel and will cause the proles to revolt and demand its institution in the USA.
USSF pays little or no attention to the Open Cup every year. I don't know why a Cup competition reminds anyone of the beauty of pro/rel.