You need to listen to his interview last year that I think was on PitchInvasion podcast. He get's paid by Fox to say things that attract attention. But if he was in a coaching role, he would not say the same things. I don't think he really said anything conterversial either with Cal FC or with the Atlanta Silverbacks. I think it's unfair to judge Wynalda the coach by Wynalda the analyst. I'll see if I can find the podcast and post the link. I think he could be a good coach at this level and also provide a boost to their profile. Not only for attracting fans and sponsors, but also for attracting players. He did a great job with a bunch of MLS cast offs and over looked players in the Open Cup last year. It would be fun to see how he would do in a league setting.
I really like what Sacramento Gold FC has going for shield and colors.. too bad we can't just "upgrade" them to the USL Pro level!
I assume USLPro has no draft and just scouts and signs players. Is that correct? Do a lot of players come up via PDL?
There's no college draft like MLS.. in fact, many of the guys who play in USL Pro actually are college players who then get drafted to MLS teams!
I like a lot what I'm reading here, specially this part: The fact that the man has a plan of growing up not only in organization but also in playing league, that show me that Sacramento team it could be in the next few years in the NASL. But for now baby steps I guess...
I wouldn't call it "good." An article about the expansion team and the stadium, yes. Excuse me while I respond/rip apart this guy's gripes in my next post.
Sacramento & USL Pro: Great Idea, Awful Stadium This guy is excited about Sacramento's USL Pro team, but baffled/offended by their venue choice. Sure, I have my concerns and gripes about the stadium (namely the fact that they just replaced the grass with turf, and the fact that it's surrounded by a track, pushing spectators farther away from the action), but let me respond to some of his points since he doesn't seem to realize why this venue was chosen... I'm leaving a comment on that article with a link to this post so hopefully he reads this. (and please excuse my obsessive compulsiveness.. this will be long...) "MLS learned very quickly that games need to be played in soccer specific stadiums and pushed their teams to build them." Well, yeah... if Sacramento had a SSS, I'm sure that's the first place they would be playing, but we don't. There are MLS teams who don't even have SSSs yet. You really can't complain that a D3 soccer team is playing at a college's multi-use stadium. "...with its athletic track between the playing surface and the stands – plus there is no viewing area behind the south goal and behind the north goal the seats are 100′ away!" Yeah, the track sucks - but I doubt anyone will choose to sit at on the north end when the 20,000-seat stadium will have more than enough room on the sidelines. (If we manage to sell out the stadium that will not be a bad problem to have). And who's to say the club won't allow people to make the areas behind goals general admission where people can bring blankets or lawn chairs? Would be a good use of space, if they're smart. "With the highest average 2012 attendance in the USL Pro league was at Orlando City with around 6,600 fans but the Los Angeles Blues could only manage crowds of around 600. Why would Smith choose to play home games in a cavernous stadium that will at best be only 1/3 full – and at worst practically empty?" You're assuming. You're also forgetting what you wrote earlier in the article: "The Sacramento Knights indoor team drew good crowds to Arco Arena from 1993-2001, averaging over 6,000 per game..." An indoor soccer team averaged 6,000+ fans a game, yet you are worried that the attendance for a traditional soccer team, over a decade later, with Sacramento's even larger population, and the sport of soccer more popular/visible now than ever, will somehow be tiny? I think 6,000+ is a good benchmark - we'll see what happens. "Sure, the first few exhibition games will be packed – maybe even sell-outs – but for the long haul it seems to be a very strange choice." It's not meant for the long haul. I highly doubt they'll sell the stadium out, but if they do that would be incredible and speak to Sacramento being a legit contender for an MLS expansion. But I highly doubt that. "Hopefully it is just a temporary solution while the team raises funds for a permanent home elsewhere in Sacramento." Ding ding! We have a winner! Let me explain why Hughes Stadium was chosen: They obviously do not have a SSS to play in. They aren't going to build one any time soon, and certainly not before the 2014 season. Hence, what this ownership group had to do was: 1. Identify various venues around the city/region 2. Weigh the various costs/benefits and constraints 3. Go with the best option. It's that simple. Just look at what else was available: Hornet Stadium at Sac State? Central location, large capacity, but also has turf and a track around the field. Used for a variety of collegiate events, and the USL season overlaps with Sac State Football season, which may have been enough conflict to eliminate it all together. Raley Field? Baseball stadium which has hosted soccer in the past, same ownership, but baseball season covers the same time as USL Pro season - would make scheduling difficult and the demands on the field going from baseball/soccer would be too much. No connection to mass transit. Also, not ideal layout/facilities for soccer. Aggie Stadium (UC Davis)? Same story as with Hornet Stadium, but with half the capacity. No track, but has wide sidelines typical of modern football stadiums which push the seating farther away. Oh, and it's in Davis. Then what's left? You're going to a high school or community college stadium, you're going out to the suburbs.. and you would be severely lowering your expectations: American River College - 4,500 capacity, field surrounded by a track, located out in North Highlands, hard to get to depending where in the region you live. Cosumnes River College - tiny (<3,000 capacity), artificial turf, close to freeway and future light rail line, but located down in Elk Grove Prairie City Stadium (Folsom High School) - 4,800 capacity, artificial turf, close to freeway, but up in Folsom, on the outskirts of the suburbs, hard to get to for many people, and (guess what?) surrounded by a track! Grant, Granite Bay, etc... It only gets worse. Tracks around fields, tiny capacity, location buried in surface streets and/or located in some periphery suburb. It's really a stretch, and you'd be dooming the success of your team by doing so. So, you get the drift with the options. You're limited right off the bat - then the trouble with using someone else's venue - you're left having to work around their existing schedule for the various things they already use that venue for. Now, obviously, with Hughes Stadium they will be able to play their games around the existing events held there by Sac City College. But in the end, the club came to the decision based on the variety of factors that Hughes was the best option. Why? - Central location. The closer you are to the core of the metro region, the easier it is for more people to get to games, the bigger the crowds you can get. (i.e., it's better to have a spot in central Sacramento than up in Folsom or in Davis) - Large capacity. - Availability. Lack of schedule/use conflicts. - Access to mass transit. There is a light rail stop literally at the doorstep of the stadium! Not to mention multiple bus routes. - Ample parking. - Proximity to established attractions. Aside from the thousands of people who attend Sac City College and frequent the location, the Land Park neighborhood is already a recreation destination, home to Land Park, Land Park Golf Course, the Sacramento Zoo, Fairytale Town, to name a few amenities. Freeport Blvd and Sutterville Rd are important arterials, with lots of businesses along them. - Purchasing Power. Land Park/Curtis Park, for what it's worth, are some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Sacramento ( = disposable income for people who traditionally like spending money in their community) Hughes was simply the best location available after weighing all of these factors. So, was that a good explanation or what? We have to get over the non-ideal situation of this venue and hope for the success of this club if we want a future SSS down the road! See you at Hughes Stadium. EDIT: I'm unable to leave a comment on that blog, but it occurs to me Emceezee, you may be the same person as the author (MCZ) of that blog - if so, I hope you find some use from my long-winded response/rantings.
Yup, you pretty much nailed it. The only alternative you left off is maybe constructing a stadium in a shopping mall parking lot like they do for the Sacramento Capitals of WTT. Maybe the author would prefer that. OTH, glad he supports the concept of pro soccer in Sacramento. It seems as though, at some point, given the quality of youth competitive soccer in the region and Sacramento's (relatively) welcoming climate, there might be room for a regional or even national soccer training/tournament complex that would support both national youth soccer events as well as a third division soccer team.
About Hughes Stadium: As this is a new team, they need to control the costs and minimize scheduling issues. Hughes is a large stadium that was likely quite cost effective and unless I am mistaken, nearly conflict free. It has parking right there and public transit is an easy choice for many. It was recently renovated and the turf is new and not the chewed up natural grass that it was. Would SSS be better, YES. But, it doesn't exist and who is going to put up several million dollars to develop one... in the time frame required. If Elk Grove has success in the getting MLS, a SSS stadium would be built..in EG. That is not happening in a time frame that allows a USL team to use it. We have an USL team coming and and existing agreement with MLS players as part of team. We should simply be happy we are getting this. When we prove that we are a good soccer market, we will get a SSS and them maybe an MLS side. Late Edit: the MCZ piece was pretty positive. I had not read it until after my comments above.
The MLS and USL PRO have announced a groundbreaking partnership http://www.sjearthquakes.com/news/2013/01/mls-and-usl-pro-announce-partnership So... basically, Sacramento should be the Quakes partner in the USL pro...right ?
Would be the obvious, smart choice. But the fact that neither the Quakes nor Sac Pro soccer have mentioned it has me worried.
Why would they? Sac won't start (maybe) until 2014. So this time next year MAYBE they announce something.
Yes, obviously the Sacramento team will be in its infancy and only playing exhibition/test run games this year. But there's no reason they can't come out and announce affiliation. In other words, calling "dibs" on each other, and having that affiliation something they can prepare for and work towards once Sacramento starts playing league games in 2014.
RSL tweet (about Phoenix FC): "not geographically or economically feasible at this time to have a deeper relationship with 1st-yr side" Geographically SJ-Sac makes all the sense in the world. But any time you get into a partnership, you want to make sure the other party has their stuff together. There's a reason why LA Blues likely won't have an MLS partner even with 2 MLS teams in LA.
Under the current deal, an MLS team will either: 1. Be affiliated with an USLPro team, with the MLS team loaning at least 4 players to the USL team.. OR 2. Continue fielding a team in the MLS reserve league, playing a home-and-away series with a USL Pro team. If the deal remains the same next year, I would prefer the Quakes forgo the USLPro affiliation partnership and continue playing in the reserve league. Option 2 seems to be the better one for getting more playing time for more Quake reserve players.
I find this an interesting either/or proposition. I wonder if club economics has been driving this issue, indicating that some clubs find spending money fielding a competitive reserve league team to be too costly given their budgets. Interesting schools-of-thought. Maintain your own reserve side, playing only ten games a season (for now) and keeping closer tabs on your players while having them available for weekly workouts with the first-teamers; or send four or more players you think will benefit from consistent, competitive live soccer to play in a lower level league playing 20+ games. The players on unavailable unless you end the loan (I think). And, can a USL side afford to pay even low end MLS salaries (assuming the USL side picks up that cost)?
Hey, look at that. USL has its own combine... http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/home/689961.html I really wish we were sending someone to participate, not that there is any good reason to this year, I just want some action.
Really board today this is by no means supposed to be a finished product just an idea, feel free to tell me how much you hate this, even just the idea of it, just wanted to get some discussion going. I'd just like you guys to know what you want so you have something to fight for and don't get something just thrown at you.
Kansas City is "partner" with Orlando City...so, "geographically" it looks like it won't matter here the MLS or the USL team is from in order to establish a partnership.
I like it a lot. Symbolizes grit, determination, working hard toward a big payoff. I could easily see this as part of a crest.