USL???? at it again

I would love to see the Scorpions Thump Orlando really badly. Rawlins just doesn't like Competition.

Amen to that!

I thought fans were over the whole NASL vs. USL stuff? There is really no point to it. The last thing lower division soccer needs is more fighting.

But they started it!!!

I think for the most part, the fans are over it. I'd say generally fans aren't that interested in league rivalries, and are more concerned with what's going on on field.

Ok now I'm really confused:




I was looking at the article, I am not exactly sure what you are referring to but I can answer the question. Although the league is referred to USL First Division, they are considered Second Division in terms of American soccer. The reason the USL is referred to as First Division is because they operate the Player Development League (PDL) along with MILS Indoor League. But First Division only refers to their organization. Granted, it certainly is not as clear cut as English Football. But the football pyramid of the United States football is recognized as

MLS
USL - NASL
USL PDL - Various Club - MISL, - PASL etc.

The USL does not consider itself Top Tier with the MLS - the relationship has become Tier One - Tier Two in their working relationship. As for the NASL, that is different. They do not have an active working relationship with MLS and as such view themselves equally with MLS. In reality, both the USL and NASL are Tier 1.5 but the USL is "intentionally" creating a Tier Two relationship in order to benefit from player movement and possible financial partnership. The NASL, those teams are carving out an existence in order they can one day join the MLS (the New York Cosmos may already have the agreement in place to move after one year in the NASL, the hold up is the Red Bulls).

I use to write for the Sounders in the early 90s when they were in the USL. I understand what you are saying. It is misleading because the entire US football landscape is seemingly constantly in flux and confusing. But things cannot be referred to as Tier 1.5.

I thank you for your feedback, I appreciate the readership to Boxscore.

Sincerely,
Darril Fosty
Editor, Boxscore World Sportswire.

looks like Rawlins isn't done bein' a punk just yet lolz...

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.u...ream-Orlando/story-16619115-detail/story.html

"We play directly below the MLS, but promotion and relegation isn't quite like in England."

Phil Rawlins is either an idiot or liar. I'll go with Delusional Liar.

Sums it up, sounds like.

San Antonio Scorpions > Orlando City.....in every which way. If there's a club that should go up to MLS it's S.A.

I think SA might have a few better arguments than Orlando, but Orlando does have some things working in its favor... It's been around a couple years longer, it's in a state currently lacking an MLS team, they've got an U23 squad in the PDL, and they've got Phil Rawlins who (I believe, but could be wrong) is a little more connected than Scorpions' ownership.

I don't mean to be contrarian, but there are reasons to think Orlando may get the nod over San Antonio.

I like the comment to this article.

I think it's great that fans are finally seeing what's going on because USL's president's endgame is to have all his clubs affiliated with MLS just like TripleA baseball is. Therefore messing up the work NASL has done so far in being a true D2 league with USSF standards. That's why they want ORL in MLS to do that. The only problem is ORL is not vetted like Montreal was. Montreal played in USLPro moved to NASL were at the "bottom" and they still got around 10k fans. Rawlins knows this that's why he is willing to let the smokescreen linger and they will never be in NASL.

As long as Orlando keeps drawing big crowds, there is no need to move up to Div2

And your proof for this is...? You are the Ted Westervelt of minor league soccer.

And Montreal never played in USL-Pro. In 2010, they played in the USSF D-2 league(along with the Austin Aztex and future Orlando City) and then one season in the NASL in 2011. Before that they played in USL-1, A-League, and APSL.

If Garber wanted a third team in Texas, Phil would've never left Austin. San Antonio is also half the size of Orlando by DMA, smaller than any other MLS market.

In other words, forget it and let it go.

SA will have a stadium, but will they have the check?

SA could be a Texas RSL in terms of local fan support.

By MSA San Antonio is bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Bigger than Salt Lake, Columbus and Kansas City.

Attendance wise San Antonio looks a lot better the Orlando.
20 San Antonio NASL 8 77,784 9,723 9,326 13,151 7,007
21 Orlando USL 8 52,350 6,544 6,772 8,421 3,506

pretty strange that 2 NKOTB like San Antonio (1st season) and Orlando (2nd season) have the best average attendances in D2 and D3 soccer

Raw attendance is not the whole story. Just ask Rochester.

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public factsheets/tv/nielsen-2012-local-DMA-TV-penetration.pdf

DMA rankings (number of TV households):

19. Orlando (1.46m)

31. Kansas City (940k)
32. Columbus
33. Salt Lake City (927k)

36. San Antonio (880k)

I think both San Antonio and Orlando will get MLS team. A real darkhorse in the race for a team is Austin. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. The only cities that seems to be growing faster is Dallas and Charlotte.

Okay. I would just like to say that if USL Pro was the 2nd Tier, right below MLS than I would literally jump of the Empire State Building. That is how bad that statement is!

Face it, while I still hope USL Pro does well it still fails D2 criteria and probably always will.

I believe technically NASL still fails some of the D2 Criteria, and unless Traffic can sell off some of the teams (their % of the teams) NASL always will.

What criteria are they failing? Again, I don't mean to be contrarian, just asking.