Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer in the USA' started by AguiluchoMerengue, Nov 14, 2012.
the term is only used in U.S. so it's irrelevant according to global soccer world.
Well, okay, except we're talking about an American soccer league. So, the American term is appropriate.
except thatit's no way like any american league set-up: no playoffs, split season, no salary cap.
That's great, I guess. It's still a minor league in the context of American soccer.
That's not true. Take a look at MLS reserve lineups. They have trialists in all the time, many of whom are out-of-contract American players. It's also not true that the draft is the only way in for rookies. Rookies have gotten into the league without being drafted every single year, and some of them even become very successful. Consider, for example, Bobby Boswell: well over 200 games played, 2006 Defender of the Year, about to start in his second consecutive MLS Cup final. He entered the league by trialing with DC United in preseason, after not being drafted.
Yes it is ... MLS teams regularly send players to NASL teams on loan for further playing time and developmental minutes. I mean, we had this Soto kid here in SA that Houston loaned to us.
Arguez was loaned to Edmonton ...
How are you not editing the definition by making the word "especially" to mean "only" ?
What does that have to do with anything ? That has no bearing on this discussion. Unless of course you're saying that the EPL, LA Liga, etc would be minor league.
... aaaaaaaannnndddddd for the 10000000000th time, this is the MLS. The U.S. soccer league. You and you're Euro tinted viewpoints are irrelevant in this regard.
Wait, what isn't ? The NASL ?
There's play offs.
Forget definitions. MLS is the top league in the United States. That's enough. I don't see anyone objecting to the two dozen or so leagues calling themselves "Super League." There's nothing "super" about any of those leagues. If there's nothing wrong with having a Swiss Super League, for example, then there's nothing wrong with having an American Major League.
I don't understood why these four sentences, or some variation of them, aren't the last word on every pro/rel in the USA discussion on BigSoccer.
I would object to that if they had no basis in fact to be called super. In NY city and the tri state s area we had number of pretty good leagues in the 1970s. Them some one thought of starting a super league made up of all the best teams like the champions league. We called that league the North East super division league that was the best league in the US in the 1980's. Now that I did not mind them using the word super.
You're not alone.
You have to also consider than an open system more or less rules out making profits, which makes the odds of people setting up clubs as a business venture rather slim.
Why would investors rush to invest in something that would probably lose money?
Without tight financial regulation or a support/income advantage over competitors, how will a club underspending on the playing budget to make a profit compete (typically) against clubs spending every penny they can?
you already have groups investing in NASL clubs where their is no chance of promotion. How many more investors in lower division clubs would you have if their was a chance for promotion? Answer: more than currently invest now.
Most sports owners don't get into the business for short term profit. They get into the business for a) they are sports fans and b) their investment is tied to the long term growth of their club and brand.
There's already a very good business model for MLS which is you can receive revenue from the sale of players to better leagues.
How would a club playing out of an 8000 seat stadium survive or make a profit in MLS?
How many owners in US sports are in it for the love of the game rather than to make a profit?
That's not a good business model. It's a short term one that relies on you having players to sell. It's hardly something you can budget for.
Under single entity, do the clubs even receive the transfer fee?
A club playing in a 8k seat stadium wouldn't qualify to be promoted to MLS because they wouldn't meet the stadium size standard.
no idea. But for people with a lot of money there are many more lucrative ways to increase their wealth than owning a sports club. I would think most owners of sports clubs have a love for the game first.
actually it is something clubs budget for. The business model for every soccer league on the planet involves selling players. MLS is no different.
Yes as high as 3/4 of it.
Ways to play for MLS for American soccer players.
1. Pay for an extremely unaffordable club with British coaches.
2. Play for an MLS Academy, because there are too many around the country.
3. Be the best in college soccer in which they play 3 month in the year.
Result: getting embarrassed every 4 years in a global stage for playing a mediocre English style. Wondering if LeBron was a soccer player, Tiger Woods is a better athlete than Pele, I don't watch MLS only EPL because mls suck, we suck at soccer, is not even a real sport anyway, soccer will never make it because is too much diving, use your hands, we are great at football so who cares what the worlds think...
Stronger and longer second and third division may be the real answer, those excuses are getting old.
I just don't see how MLS is going to be a descent league in the future if our "feeding" leagues suck worse than the Auburn College Football team this year
growing the lower divisions is the most important next step in my opinion. Our national team will never be in the top echelon with the system we have now. We need more clubs and clubs that can tap into their community for talent and support.
I think the NASL gets this. This from the new NASL club to be in Northern Virginia:
Central to the team’s goals will be creating an Academy system with established local youth soccer clubs to develop our own players and create deep roots in a soccer-rich community.
This is what we need across the country. We should be measuring progress by how many clubs like this are born and able to get support. Not by how many 35 year old ex-euro stars MLS is able to sign.
We need to build from the ground up. If you are a soccer fan support your local club. I don't care if its a USL club. The more support our lower division clubs get the faster the sport will grow in this country.
strong lower divisions = success of American soccer.
weak lower divisions = LeBron James is not a soccer player, America simply suck at soccer.
Here's the reason why the USA is behind: The system.
From day one we pay to play at an elite level, ruling out a large number of our population. Lets say academy X creates 4 D1 college prospect a year, with each student paying the average season cost. Now say these D1 prospects, instead of playing college, were groomed by high profile coaches from the ages of 18-21 to turn into professionals. These full time soccer players then sign contracts and are "under the control" of the club. Now where Pro/Rel comes into play is if that youth academy decides to build a stadium and apply for the bottom division, they can. They produce their own players, cut costs and field a competitive team. This is the "soccer dream" that has made Europe as successful as it is. Having MLS be a "members only" league only limits the development of our youth.
Now lets say that academy X does strike gold and develops 2 USMNT prospects. In the transfer market, they could deal this player out for a good amount of cash, millions in fact, a return on their investment. All the sudden, we have enough money coming into the club to cover the costs of the academy (making it free for everyone, increasing the player pool). From there more players are developed and so on. You get the point.
Obviously this is a perfect situation where everything goes according to plan, but how do you think Ajax, Barca, and other top clubs became so successful. All starts with youth development.
So getting back to the Pro/Rel argument.
Creating the possibility that East-Bum-FC could develop and field a team of quality players is what should be the focus of US Soccer. On every level were suffocating development, rather then encouraging growth.
I agree. here is today's article talking about this issue:
"We are very focused on doing everything we can to build a pyramid and take responsibility for building the game in this country," Garber said
Garber said that plans to improve the conditions for younger players include tinkering with the reserve league, building a closer relationship with NASL and to potentially incentivize teams for playing its younger players on the first team.
We're seeing it more and more in the MLS at least. Living in Mass and seeing Fagundez be called up to the Revs first team after I played him in high school is certainly encouraging, but how many players have slipped through the cracks rather then given a real look at.
Also I think the draft hinders our development of players. Why would the league bottom feeders invest in development if the NCAA can give them all the mediocre players needed to fill a roster?
While I don't disagree with any of that, the real reason we are behind is quite simple: We started later than just about everyone. Things are nowhere near where they need to be, but they ARE getting better and we are on the right path.
I have to wonder how old some of you are if you think things are THAT bad regarding US soccer. I'm 25 and trust me, I've seen BAD. Younger kids these days have no idea. One kid I know who is a senior in high school actually said, "I don't know why the USMNT can't find any good players. We just don't have good scouts. There are plenty of great players in my high school league". The USMNT has guys playing in nearly every top flight league in the world, but you're right, we need the guys from your HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE! Why has no one thought of that?!
Interesting concept. Do you see them doing this outside of the NCAA/NAIA/NJCAA, etc? It might have some interesting ramifications as that would eliminate scholarship limits and the schools could do whatever they like -- assuming it's within the rules of the league they are participating in. 7th year senior? No problem. Don't like going to classes? No problem. Pay your players? No problem.
I'm not sure colleges would go for that as there's already an existing structure for their leagues and an opportunity to compete for a national championship ... but you never know. If the NCAA allowed it, I would like to see them play in a lower division in the college "off season".
I do: because proles ignore reality.