I'm sorry -- weren't you the guy who pretty much guaranteed a non-MLS side would win the USOC last year? I'm surprised your posting privileges haven't been yanked yet.
Yes, I am sure the only reason we didn't see a NASL club vs. NASL club USOC final as you predicted last year was because the NASL wasn't sanctioned in enough time.
Yet, in your very next post, directly below this comment: I can't decide them, yet you're using that exact thing to talk about how it could work ? That doesn't compute. None of that is different because the teams are in a higher division than any other team. It's that way because of market strength and local support. Those things are always variables but they have nothing to do with being a "D1" team or a "D2" team. It would be one thing if you wanted to accuse me of being too literal in my application of single entity as it is defined in the structure of a sports league (which I've given you more than one source for, and the definition does include "equal stake") ... but simply saying over and over that you think I'm posting crap just because I don't want to admit that you're opinion is right .... well that's DCU1996 and WhiteStar territory. You said you were interested in intelligent discussion. Acting like them isn't the way to do it. You said there'd be a D2 winner last year. There wasn't.
You're speaking in absolutes. That something's impossible. In order to prove you wrong all I have to do is show something's possible, even if unlikely. Sorry, it's the absolute statements that undermine a lot of arguments around here. It's inflexible and generally incorrect.
At least Toronto fans are willing to talk about it: http://www.torontofc.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=7509017 http://www.totalfootballmag.com/fea...argument-for-relegation/#.T6KMhDo9Vqg.twitter
You could have easily said "MLS-4 would force teams into cities that are not able to support a team" Like taking on undue risk for the benefit of other owners? That's all because of the salary cap, and you know it You are aware that an MLS team has won every Cup since they've been allowed to play and only 2 of the 32 finalists in that time have been non-MLS sides, losing finals a combined 4-1, right?
Whoa, how on Earth did I miss that? I sincerely apologize to all supporters of the 1999 United States Open Cup Champion Rochester Rhinos. Safari, Stampede, Oak Street Brigade...all of you are owed a beer by me.
I chuckled at this bit in the first article. With their team off to a 0-8 start, TFC fans are already starting to stay home in droves (unless the new fan trend is dressing up to look like an empty red seat). Imagine what BMO field would be like if the team ended up being relegated next year. I doubt Seattle and Vancouver fans would be any different if the same fate befell their team. What writers like this miss is that US and Canadian sports fans typically have a number of other top-tier sports options, other than soccer. The idea that a relegated team in Toronto would continue to draw large numbers of sports fans when there is first-tier competition from MLB, NBA and NHL teams shows a shocking lack of understanding of the sports culture in those countries. Maybe in podunk towns like Portland or SLC, where there is only one other major league team as compeition, fans would continue to come out to support a minor league team.
Of course they are, don't be silly. All unions nominally exist only to collectively bargain, but in the real world, they all care quite a bit about how much dues they are collecting. That absolutely includes the MLSPU. It is amazing to me that, again and again, we start with an argument that pro/rel is 'economically unsound' and devolve to the point where it's the anti-pro/rel faction that is saying 'OK, ignore economic incentives for a second.' If you're not going to eat this cake, give it back. There's a shit ton of grey area in that can/can not dichotomy, though in fairness a 4-tier league seems like more than a little overkill to cover it. The problem with most of the pro/rel critiques out there is narrowing the definitions of terms to something that makes your argument stronger than it really should be. You use the word 'work' but you mean merely 'did not die.' You use the word 'problem', but what you mean is 'existential threat.' 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' sounds great, but it's a terrible maxim to live by (in addition to being a false dichotomy logically), since it precludes the opportunity to make things work better. I don't know where the world economy would be today if people didn't improve things that already 'worked.'
Couldn't the same be said about MLS when it first started? Don't think that it would be an overnight thing, but if MLS were to continue with the slow and measured expansion it is currently under, it isn't inconceivable that a number of decades from now it could expand to a D4. However, part of that expansion would need to be that the other divisions are financially stable.
If that were true, wouldn't the Union already be called the Professional American Soccer Players Association by now and include D2-3? There must be some reason that the Union has cut itself off all the other professional players. If there really was this financial incentive to increase membership, why hasn't it happened yet? The 80th market in the US has no business having a major sports franchise. It is folly to suggest 4 tiers, agreed. Can MLS-Premier/MLS-First Division be successful? Yeah, probably. But I don't see why two 20-team leagues with pro/rel is inherently "better" than one 40-team unbalanced league If you think that the success of MLS should be defined as "not dying" then I'm afraid you're severly mis-categorizing the successes of MLS. It has made more money, grown more stable teams, and increased exposure for a sport more than any league in the history of the world (barring one glaring Indian exception). And yes, that includes dozens of sports Leagues that have tried, and failed to do what MLS has done in the same general time frame in the same markets. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' sounds great, but it's a terrible maxim to live by (in addition to being a false dichotomy logically), since it precludes the opportunity to make things work better. I don't know where the world economy would be today if people didn't improve things that already 'worked.'[/quote] I'm not saying "no pro/rel ever". What I'm saying is that the Single-Entity, closed-expansion, chose-the-best market, salary-capped, college-draft League that The Don currently presides over may be the most successful experiment in the history of sports and I, personally, need to see a lot more certain benefits than "It will make more soccer fans in Cleveland" before I'm ready to throw such a successful system away...yes, even just one part of it
Of the Original X markets chosen, (Columbus, DC, Boston, NY, Tampa Bay, Denver, Dallas, Kansas City, LA, and San Jose), you can only make the argument for maybe one, maybe 2 of those locales not "deserving" a major league franchise. Now, if you can find me 80 viable markets, we'll talk, but the idea of having an MLS-4 (which will be called, probably, MLS-3 because soccer sucks at naming things) just so Akron can have a team is a poor reason to take such a big risk
Maybe MLS-4 (MLS-3?) would mostly be made up of reserve teams and academies, who knows. The point wasn't that we need 80 teams. The point really is you and I don't know the risk you say is big.
You = You did not say that the cities did not deserve teams, but that they could not support the teams. In 1996, only NY, LA, and Boston could support a MLS team and even that was questionable. Hell, most of the original cities still can not support professional soccer and the only reason they have a professional soccer team is because their owners are willing to absorb the losses.
To be fair, the list of who could actually "support" a pro sports team would be greatly shortened for all sports if this was the measure being used. http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ys-247wallst_teams_on_verge_of_collapse_111011
Try again. To quote myself: "You could have easily said "MLS-4 would force teams into cities that are not able to support a team". The issue is can, not did. Can a market support a team? In talking of the Original X, the answer is an unabashed "Yes, they can".
The tens of millions that MLS lost in the initial years and millions that the original teams continue to lose would seem to point the other direction, unfortunately. Even if you look at the current indicators, at best most of the original teams have been stagnant since 1996 with a number actually declining. Almost all of the growth in MLS right now is the result of the post-contraction expansion. At this point in time, any claims that the original cities can support professional soccer is still very much in question. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future they will not be able to support it, but that is also true of a lot of markets in the US. A D4 expansion for MLS is not a near term goal, it's a generational goal and any attempt to get to that level in the near term is destined to fail because it would involve expanding into markets that are not ready to support soccer. But in a decades time frame, who knows what the popularity of soccer will be. There also seems to be the assumption that just because MLS expands into a market that it has to be able to support a D1 team. That just isn't true. Even in Europe there teams that will never progress past the division that they are currently in and requiring that a US market be able to support a D1 team before they can get a lower division team just isn't appropriate.