Apples and Oranges when comparing to the Niners and the NFL in general. For soccer you're talking potentially 20 games not 8. You an A's or Giants fan? Do you really think if the Quakes start their own USL team there will ever be an MLS team in SF? See the territorial rights dispute between the A's and Giants if you need proof. As I said, if it was a Sacramento model maybe, but right now, that doesn't seem to be the case. so you're admitting the USL basically has no standards which is another reason we don't see a USL team being viable. See VSI, Phoenix and Antigua. We don't need another California Victory. The D2 standards are clear and force skin in the game by the owner including the establishment of an escrow with the league and federation. the league has to expand to 3 time zones by 2016 to ensure it keeps 2nd Division sanction. Someone always has to be the first mover to change the status quo, we're comfortable we can do that and help a club succeed. Frankly, the prospect of playing Harrisburg, Dayton and Wilmington just isn't appealing. Nor is the prospect of playing the LA Blues, Galaxy reserves or Timbers reserves. travel costs just aren't that high relatively. Yes it will cost the team $100-200K more a year at most at the start but in the grand scheme that isn't a lot of money if the right owner is found. Look San Antonio just made $650K, yes in SSS but nevertheless it proves money can be made in D2.
I also mentioned hockey, baseball and basketball... all of which have more than 20 home games a season. Long time A's fan. If the Quakes start their own USL team in SF it could definitely be a limitation on getting an MLS team in SF. But why not beat them to the punch since they seem to be so slow to act on USL? Put an independent or affiliated USL team in SF first and block that from happening... Because if they put a USL team in SF it's not going to help your chances at getting an NASL team either since there will already be existing direct competition. Competition with MLS backing either now or in the future in the form of a USL squad if the Quakes choose to go that route. Not admitting anything of the sort. D3 has standards and requirements just like D2 now. And they are standards that are much more realistic toward using any of the existing venues in SF rather than having to build from scratch. And we all know how hard building from scratch is in SF. It's nearly impossible even for FAR larger leagues nevermind either of the two bit minor league soccer leagues. NASL is already in 3 time zones. They have teams in the Mtn, Central and Eastern time zones. And you wouldn't want to play two LA derbies every year? Or a NorCal derby against the Republic? What is so appealing about playing Edmonton, Minnesota or San Antonio? True money can be made in D2, but it can also be made in D3 due to the lower outlay. And in D3, assuming you're able to beat the Quakes to putting a USL team in SF, you'd have a shot at MLS. So far every team that has "promoted" itself has been a USL squad (yes even the Impact were a USL squad since their agreement to move up was signed before the NASL even started play). So far the only thing NASL has managed is to watch the Cosmos get passed over in New York for a better group at Yankee Stadium.
The mistake that is also being made here is that NASL is, and is going to be in the near future, the "2nd division." I have absolutely no faith that will be the case in 10 years, once MLS and USL PRO really intertwine and act as "the" minor league. It's not as if the disparity between the two is trmendous at this point; after affiliations things are really going to change. Have at it if you think that's the best option outside of MLS, but in a few years tht might not be the case.
Also a good point. NASL could be poised to be the soccer equivalent of the Federal League or the PCL in the early 1950's. All it takes is MLS overriding a few of NASL's more lucrative markets like they did in NYC and you'll quickly find NASL marginalized since they'll have no MLS backing. Players will be far more interested in joining clubs that have a clear road to get them to the top rather than a second rate league that is essentially a dead end in and of itself. It does seem that some people are under the illusion that NASL is this super strong league that is poised to challenge MLS or something. Reality is they're not, particularly as MLS continues to grow closer to the theoretical limit on teams at 30/32 and they grow their own minor league out of what is today USL.
In the last 40 years of watching Bay Area soccer, there hasn't been one team that has lasted longer than 10 years. Forget about D2 or D3, we will be very privileged not to mention extremely fortunate to keep our D1 MLS Quakes around for that long. Having their own stadium may help a bit but again, I applaud SF's efforts but I'll be a Doubting Thomas until I see it.
Not really. Actually,I stand corrected about the first NASL installment which lasted from 74 -84 , exactly 11 seasons. The initial MLS franchise lasted a total of ten years from 96-05 and the current one is going strong at 6 or rather from 08-13. The last two SJ Quakes teams are or were two completely different teams and have no relationship whatsoever other than their name and logo.
Not consecutive seasons. Ten years, then two years without, now six years and counting. The new stadium should insure a steady future barring something catastrophic like the folding of MLS.
???? The team that moved to Houston won 4 MLS Cups and were runners-up twice and were completely different group of players than this bunch. Not sure how either franchise was similar in any way other than playing in the same uniform and logo.
And yet the team in Houston only has two stars above their crest while we have 2 ourselves... And other than the uniform, colors, logo, records, history, and fans... the pre and post hiatus Quakes don't share much right?
Maybe they are the same team for you but not for me. I still feel screwed out of two MLS Cup winning seasons, 06/07.
Hey totally respect that and realize this isn't going to be friendly territory with everyone. Appreciate any support we get, even if just from the sidelines. I think a very healthy debate can be had on the merits of NASL vs USL right now. Understand your perspective, from ours though, we have to work with the set of facts that are present. We had this debate internal too. For us it came down to this: The NASL is the 2nd Division of Soccer Today A USL franchise most certainly will be an affiliate of the Quakes. The Quakes want a team here anyway and most likely will manage it themselves and not outsource it to an affiliate relationship. Given that, us lobbying for a team isn't necessary. If someone else approaches the USL first, we're confident the Quakes will be picked instead, see OKC. The NASL is not on the West Coast yet but we are taking the risk that they will be soon and they know they need to be because Canadian franchises do not count toward the three time zone USSF rule. We strongly support a division that is national vs a regional model. We believe the NASL is more stable then the USL today. Facts may change in the future, but we aren't talking about obtaining a team by 2020 so we need to deal with the current set of facts We believe the NASL model can succeed without being connected to MLS / USL since it relies on clubs maintaining control like the rest of the world. This strongly encourages clubs to find and develop talent to ensure they can maximize profits through transfers. This won't happen over night but again if they follow their business plan it will develop over time just as home grown talent has been developed by MLS We do not believe the team that is clearly a minor league affiliate to an MLS squad can be as successful as an independent team. Given this is the difference going forward between USL and NASL, this is another reason we've selected the NASL. Again, a healthy debate but we've made our decision that we are going for the NASL. If you support us great, if you don't, we understand that too.
btw, if they wear 6 stars its bs, just like the Rowdies wearing 2 stars. You wear the number of stars that you won in that particular league, not have ever won as a franchise. Both team should only wear 1 star. I know the Cosmos advertised this as a 6th star but haven't seen if they wore 5 this year, know the Rowdies wore 2.
On http://www.nycosmos.com/ they show the historic 5 stars in black, and the current 1 star as gold. I think that's a plenty fair depiction. It acknowledges the history as well as the present.
yeah that's fine. My point is if they wore 5 or 6 stars on the uniform, doesn't seem they are which is pretty cool. Where as the Rowdies wore 2 this year: http://admiral.axissoccer.com/admiral_en/catalog/category/view/id/121?club=120
Why on earth would you think that? It's not the Quakes's style, and even as has been said, an affiliation can mean as little as an MLS club loaning 4 players to a USL Pro side - that's it. If you want control, you can keep control. You just have to set up your club that way. If we know anything about this Quakes organization, it's that they do things as cheaply and with as little effort as possible. They can barely run our MLS side, what makes you think they would invest a penny more than mandated by the league in order to prop up what is essentially another Bay Area club that simply siphons off their potential fans anyway? Key word: today. You don't think in a couple of years when USL Pro is a larger league, with all teams affiliated with MLS clubs or having basically reserve squads playing as part of the league, propped up by the stability and money of MLS, that won't be more stable or at least as stable as what NASL has going? I think too many people are focused on recent history and what things look like today. Things will be incredibly different in 5 years. This is going to leave NASL in a very awkward place - not a good one. If this was the stock market I wouldn't be betting on NASL. I'd be buying up as much USL Pro as I could. Again, I don't know where you're getting this idea that USL Pro clubs can't maintain control. So then why have the USL Pro at all? Shoot, none of those USL Pro teams can be successful! I guess all of the Pittsburgh fans and Rochester fans and Dayton and soon to be Sacramento and OKC fans can just stay home, since their teams are all destined to be perpetual failures with no identity and no control over their clubs... I get that you want your club to be "as good as possible." But I think your perspective on completely writing off USL Pro and your assumptions about affiliation are clouding your view.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that the NASL is gonna lose Atlanta and will likely lose Ft. Lauderdale once Miami joins MLS. And even if they give it a go for awhile, head-to-head down there, eventually Lockhart is going to be razed. Then there's Indianapolis, which hasn't even played its first NASL game and is already flirting with moving to MLS and San Antonio is looking to do the same thing. Ottawa, too. And if Carolina ever got a deep-pocketed owner, they'd be an MLS contender, too. The point is most of the NASL has eyes towards leaving. Doesn't mean they all will, but some will. Compare that to the USL. Yes, Sacramento is already doing what the Indy and Ottawa are doing but Charleston, Richmond, LA Blues, Dayton, Harrisburg, Rochester, Wilmington - teams in these markets aren't ever going to MLS. And there are plenty of similar-sized markets throughout the US that could make USL Pro a large, thriving lower division. Hell, in California alone you could put teams in the IE, Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Salinas and downtown San Francisco and combined it with the Blues (I'm assuming, in this scenario, that Sacramento already is in MLS) and MLS reserve teams and have a nice little division with reasonable travel costs and then you wouldn't have to have the expensive cross-country trips till the playoffs.