USL's MISL aims to affiliate pro indoor and outdoor soccer teams Interview with MISL Senior Director Chris Economides
Very Interesting stuff. I think the slow and steady approach makes a lot of sense when it comes to expansion. I think 8 teams for next year, Only possible scenario I see changing is unless the Bolts ownership group does indeed fold & they get absorbed by the LA Blues ownership group. Then the league could grow to 9 with two additonal northwest teams. There is an interested prospective buyer of the Bolts, but he would only play in the MISL and he along with the LA Blues ownership group are evaluating the Bolts.
Good preview of the playoffs. I can't wait to see Baltimore's Edilson Xavier in goal against Rochester.
Indoor+outdoor teams would be a great idea. The Wave tried this a few years ago with Milwaukee Wave United. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Wave_United The problem then was that by the time the indoor season ended, the outdoor season was already underway. I'm pretty sure the rest of the league would be off and running with a couple games games before Wave United's opener. Then they would have to jam in games. However, the current timing of the MISL and USL schedules seem to be more conducive to this idea.
Hasn't this playing soccer year round been tried before (the NASL 79-83, Milwaukke Wave 90s, Montreal Impact in the 90s) without much success?
Affiliation doesn't mean all the same players. They could have a outdoor and indoor team sharing only a few players. I think its more about ownership and money than player crossover
At any rate I'm sure they pitched it to their 150 pro and amateur men's, women's, and youth teams and no one wanted to do indoor except Norfolk, which is why they needed to buy the MISL in the first place.
I'd be more then happy to see the Blast playing outdoors. Maybe at the lovely Loyola facility on the hill. Other than the limited parking its a great venue. I'd also be fine with a facility over in the Canton area. Hale always use to muse about an Exxon/Mobil site for an arena, just switch that dream to a 6-8k stadium.
To clarify (as I am sure everyone is waiting in breathless anticipation of this...) The Wave United played in 2003 and 2004 seasons, and played a non-league schedule in 2005. From 1994-2002, the independent (and two-time A-League Champion) Milwaukee Rampage played outdoors. Sigh... my Rampage. After a couple early years of acrimony, the Wave and Rampage did call a truce in the late-90s, and players like Steve Morris, Pat White and Nick Igel were on the 1997 Championship team, and later Rampage players like Tony Sanneh, Jason Willin and Lovelace Ackah played for the Wave. Overlapping seasons, however, kind of killed the Wave United. In 2004, they had about a quarter of the outdoor schedule complete and stared 1-7-1 before indoor guys like Todd and Troy Dusosky, Chris Morman, etc., joined the team. A late run to a .500 record wasn't enough to make the playoffs. Now, could it work since the USL is running the show and the seasons are now designed to not overlap? Quite possibly, but I think one or two guinea pigs need to dip their toes in the water before you see a full 8-team MISL crossover.
The major problem with a year round soccer team playing both indoors and outdoors is the lack of an offseason. During the offseason, teams line up corporate sponsors, sell individual and season tickets, and generally get things really for the regular season. Without an offseason, none of that gets done (or done very well). If the USL is going to try something like this, I think the situation in Rochester would be the best example to follow. There are two separate ownership groups from the Rhinos and the Lancers. This way, you can still have your year round soccer, but each team gets an offseason to prepare for their regular season.
I think Kit is right on top of this. Different teams, but a similar goal. Let’s face it, it is not about the soccer to start, and is about the teams being financially able to do it. Lancers and the Rhinos can share, sure. But the need to sell independently to make sure each team is there for the long term.
You'd be surprised who wants to buy the Bolts. Well, maybe you would. It should actually be less about combined ownership and more about just players, though there needn't be a huge number of players on both rosters. The problem - as others have found - is what Kit mentioned, the inability to have a true "selling" season and, as a corollary, staff burnout. Lower-level outdoor teams and indoor teams aren't usually blessed with an abundance of staff (both in numbers and their abilities to turn and burn endlessly). Way back in the day, some NASL teams played indoors during their "off-season," but the NASL off-season was much longer than the outdoor off-season is today (Soccer Bowl was usually in mid-to-late August/September, gradually creeping later) and the indoor season wasn't always that long. Eventually the NASL said "18 indoor games? Hell, let's play 32!" And the MISL eventually played 52 which was far too many, but that's a digression. It's hard to do both. It's terrific if you're a fan fortunate enough to live in a market that has both and if there's some continuity, all the better. But it's hard to do.
None of the above. You'd recognize the name, as this person was connected to at least one of those in your list in the past.
I think Kit and Kenn pretty much covered why it's pretty hard for one org to run both a indoor and outdoor team. Ideally I think you can make it work in one market with two seperate orgs and two seperate staff. And then you have some crossover with players and the ability to do cross over promotion and marketing. It could also help with sales if the teams share ticket lists. I think Rochester may end up being a good example of how it could work. But you still have to go out there and still sell and promote your team. I thnk some potential markets that this might work in (again dependent on getting good ownership). Harrisburg Baltimore Richmond Charlotte Millwaukee
