Yes, that's what I'm saying. But let's be clear what the criteria are: (1) Well - capitalized owner (2) Big (but not Huge) Market (3) Stadium Solution (4) Payment of the expansion fee Put it this way, the only candidate that arguably met the criteria and didn't get in was Ottawa, and I think there are market issues there. Geez, even Montreal, with an owner who had complained about MLS for years, got in when he stopped screwing around and agreed to the terms.
The most important way college athletics have overthrown the anachronistic pro/rel system is by severing the link between a geographical area and a team. Penn State does not recruit all (or any) of its (American) football players from State College, PA. A kid from Newark DE gets signed by Stanford and no one thinks twice about it. This is the way it is in the USA. So getting my local team promoted is not as important as getting the talented kids from my area into the top league. Once one has removed this notion that a sports team has to contain most or all of its players from its local area, then to a large extent who cares which team is in the first Division. If there are 20 teams in the top league in any sport, who cares where they are. Except that league stability is important since it allows team to plan for expenditures and also make better long-term investments such as in youth training programs.
The answer to his question is "no." The second sentence changes the question to something easier to give the yes answer you want. The crux of it, and why the answer to his question is "no," is that these criteria that look static when you generalize about them, actually change based on how many people meet them. They all fall under the same very general description you've laid out here, but the reality is the more owners there are who can meet the specific standards, the more they will get tougher, precisely so that some bids will not meet them. The expansion fee is the most obvious one, but all four of those are subject to change in degree. It's like saying "Anyone who can long jump X feet can win the Olympic medal." Until four guys actually do, and then only one of them can.
It's not USSF 'think so'. what's even there to argue?? It's the way it is, and they even set the actual environment. Best youth players go to academies and have nothing to do with HS. Best players of those youth in academies(either domestic or foreign) don't want to have anything to do with colleges. Welcome to the global competition.
What this has to do with pro/rel, I have no idea. Again, pro/rel has nothing to do with player development.
But let's look at cases post contraction -- who has made a real bid and hasn't gotten in? St. Louis and Cooper. Anyone want to make a case that wasn't the right decision? Ottawa and Eugene Melnyk. I'll grant he appears to have met the financial and stadium criteria and was willing to pay the fee, but it's a relatively small market in Canada and the border causes MLS problems with TV and sponsorship deals. Still, being very generous I'll grant that one may have been harsh. Remember though, it is another country and another confederation, and that matters to this analysis. It isn't MLS' obligation or fault if the rules for awarding a team may pinch more for Canadian teams or retard development of division one soccer in Canada -- if the CSA and the potential Canadian owners don't like, by all means they can form a Canadian league. Who else?
"It's the way it is" is not an argument, and it never will be. "It's not USSF 'think so' " is not a sentence, and never will be. Academies are good, yes; but suggesting that the objetively best model ever designed anywhere to train athletes couldn't be adapted to serve soccer is folly. What, and please be specific, do Academies do that high school athletics can't?
Furthermore, there is no real ceiling for the number of potential MLS teams, at least not for the foreseeable future. If by some magical happenstance 10 owner groups showed up in the commisioner's office tomorrow with fat expansion checks and a viable business plan for success, MLS would have 10 new teams in the next few years. On the other hand, league sizes in most countries are artificially capped and pro/rel is limited to 1-2 teams a year.
In American-football, college football is like 2nd 3rd division. Players are developed there. Not like that at all in soccer. Now we all agree that college will be 'almost' out of the picture sooner or later. I think we need healthy strong 2nd 3rd divisions strongly preferably with well structured pro/rel system.
Sorry, but you must have added this point and I missed it in my reply. I think your making a false analogy. The fact is, much as FIFA and fans may wish otherwise, the size of the league isn't capped and spots MLS offers aren't limited. It's a test -- a threshold -- not a race or competition. In fact, if all four guys jump X, all four are getting gold medals.
The development system for football is proof that pro/rel has nothing to do with player development. The NFL has no problem finding enough players, even with its completely closed system. Similarly, though healthy and strong 2nd and 3rd divisions would help the development of soccer players in the US, this has nothing to do with pro/rel. Pro/rel makes no difference to player development.
Again, Welcome to the GLOBAL COMPETITION as opposed to your nice little monopolistic local and closed system you established.
Don't the owners have to vote to let someone in? I mean other leagues have minimum requirements but if you meet those requirements you are in (as long as you win promotion) For example say Bill gates dies and leaves all his money to me. I can move to Matamoros Mexico, start a soccer team in D5 build a nice 25K stadium, hire decent players and win a place in Primera de Ascenso (they have stadium, investment and other requirements for D2 Mexico) I am automatically in as long as my team performs. Now lets say I try to do the same in Brownsville, TX, build the stadium, etc. I am willing to pay the 50-75 million fee for MLS so I can skip the whole having to perform on the field to earn promotion (good because it saves years). Could the MLS owners meet and say, well 75 million is nice, but the Brownsville market is too small for TV revenue, sorry but you are not allowed in MLS. How about if my team is in Juno, Alaska, or Springfield, Illinois? well pro/rel is for the pyramid so teams 1-3 teams change leagues at all levels every year (usually the same teams going up and down). Remember pro/rel "benefits" teams in lower leagues, not so much the teams already on top. That is why if I were an owner of a MLS team I would vote against it.
So why have 3 of the top 4 kids in the Rapids Academy system decided to go to college (James Rogers, Shane O'Neil, Dillon Serna)? Only Davy Armstrong took the pro contract over the full scholarship (alas to my alma mater).
What were offers they got from pro clubs worldwide. Players not worth much? yea those go to colleges.
Yeah, you know, like Clint Dempsey, Brad Friedel, Maurice Edu, etc. I'd go one but I've told you it multiple times before and you refuse to see the facts. Out of curiosity, how many players in MLS Academies have gotten offers from pro clubs worldwide?
I disagree. Pro/rel is detrimental to player development. Granted, teams that have been around for 100 years generally have more complete player development programs than MLS teams, but that is only historical accident. A minor league system like MLB can easily meet player development needs, but the stability of the teams on top is critical for its success. Who has the best youth development program today? Barcelona. Have they had to deal with the consequences of relegation? No. Could they sustain an extensive training program and worldwide scouting if they were forced to suffer the financial blow from relegation? Probably not. And then there is West Ham United, with a celebrated youth program. Only to de-emphasize it to reach the highest levels of the game. Again, a system like MLS is far more conducive to long term investment than any pro/rel league.
Doesn't the example assume you don't meet the criteria? Would you be well-capitalized with Gates' money? Check. Would you have a suitable stadium if you built a new 25,000 SSS? Check. Would you pay the expansion fee? Check. A big (but not huge) market? Well . . . Would MLS be concerned if you wanted your team in the 124th biggest MSA in the U.S. (Brownsville) or the 204th (Springfield, IL)? I would hope so. For good reasons you already know, I'd venture. Once your patronage was withdrawn, MLS would have -- should have -- genuine concern about the viability of an MLS team in Springfield. So, if MLS said "love to have you" but they pointed you to St. Louis or San Antonio instead, they've done their job, and substantially increased the likelihood that the team you found would be sustainable long after you are gone. Where's the problem here? Really, is this a huge problem for the development of soccer in the United States today? Did I miss a protest by a bunch of outraged billionaires who are bitter because they want to invest in MLS teams in the 100 - 225th largest markets in the U.S. but are are being turned aside? In the real world, MLS has gone to Columbus, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Portland, Vancouver -- none of these exactly enormous cities or must have TV markets. The bar ain't that high. Take your same hypothetical and swap one of the 50 largest MSA's for Brownsville or Springfield, and you'll have Don Garber shaking your hand within a year.
Exactly. Case in point, the team of my grandfather, Aston Villa, that is staring oblivion in the face. What Villa should be doing this year is playing many of their young kids under the watchful eye of a promising young manager and let them all grow up together. What they are now doing is panicked, negative football because they've lost a small fortune over-spending to reach the Champions League, sold their best players and have a cretin who is so desperate not to lose that they are dismal to watch. Villa has some good young players, but they can't afford to risk playing them unless injuries mandate it. Not now. And if they drop, this relegation will be devastating for them.
Exactly, the criterion is that current owners can pick and chose who they allow or not allow in the club. like you said in a closed the owners allowing me in is part of the criteria in an open system unless I am a criminal using drug money for my team the current owners must welcome me in (foreign restrictions or % of ownership in Germany etc). And like you said, if they do allow me in for Brownsville FC and I get bored and want out, then the league would be stuck with a shitty club in a MSA they do not want, so they would have to carry the team until they find a new owner and relocate the team to a better MSA. In pro/rel Brownsville FC gets relegated back to the USL (or out of existence). Different ways to do the samething. Now all this is hypothetical, I agree that pro/rel is a solution for a problem the USSF does not currently have. (and perhaps never will).
The other thing about ceezmad's example is that if he had earned that money like Bill Gates did (instead of just being given it), he would be thinking very carefully about investing a huge sum in Brownsville TX with little chance of return on his investment. Because the folks who don't consider those things don't end up with a Gatesian fortune in the first place.
Agreed, like the oil guys buying up the teams in Spain and England. Maybe I should have said if Paris Hilton wanted a soccer team in Brownsville Texas.
So, you can't even come up with one way Academies are different? Good to know. That's why you were Matthew Broderick, for the record. Consistent, I like that. Unwavering, unflinching. You never let facts get in the way of you saying the same 8 things over and over. That's comforting.