Unless I'm mistaken, I have 5 (Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Hamilton). Even counting Puerto Rico as not US-based, I still have 18 of 24 teams in the US, or 75%. I can see SF in Div. II within the next 10 years. SF has some decent soccer history with the All Blacks/Seals in the 90s. I think once the Earthquakes get their stadium built and get settled in, adding another pro soccer team elsewhere in the Bay Area becomes much more palpable. Eugene and Boise are kind of small markets. I'd think they'd be better suited for Div. II, given their size. That being said, I'm all for the growth of soccer in the Pacific Northwest. Well, remember, this is what the league could look like 10 years out...plenty of time for a stadium to be built.
I would love 2 conferences that only play each other in the playoffs, Open Cup East Puerto Rico Islanders Tampa Bay Rowdies Ft. Lauderdale Strikers Carolina Railhawks Ottawa Buffalo Cleveland Milwaukee Charleston FC New York (with 2 in MLS?) Rochester Orlando Indianapolis Other Eastern city West San Antonio Austin Tulsa FC Edmonton Pheonix Sacramento San Diego Calgary Las Vegas St. Louis NSC Minnesota Stars Iowa Menace Omaha Other western team That is 26 regular season games (home-away) Then playoffs. I have only 4 non-USA teams, with 26 total teams we would only need 20 USA teams.
I really like that format; it would greatly limit travel expenses as compared to now. Another Eastern city could be Pittsburgh, but it doesn't seem like the Riverhounds will be moving up soon.
I'm modifying my eventual NASL idea from yesterday on the MLS SuperThread. This list assumes MLS stays at 20 teams for the time being. EASTERN CONFERENCE FC Tampa Bay Fort Lauderdale Strikers Atlanta Silverbacks Carolina RailHawks Puerto Rico Islanders Orlando City (move) Rochester Rhinos (move) Wilmington Hammerheads (move) either Crystal Palace Baltimore (expand) or Chattanooga FC (move) Cleveland City Stars (expand) Detroit (expand) Quebec City (expand) WESTERN CONFERENCE FC Edmonton Minnesota NSC Stars Fresno (move) San Antonio Scorpions (expand) Austin Aztex (expand) AC St. Louis (expand) Phoenix (expand) San Diego (expand) San Francisco (expand) Las Vegas (expand) Oklahoma (expand) Omaha (expand) The only difference between then and now is that I swapped out Charleston in favor of Detroit. Charleston, despite its worthy fan support, would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into D-II. If MLS expands to 24, you can kiss four of these teams goodbye, and add these four: Charleston Battery (move) FC Jax Destroyers (move) Ottawa (expand) Albuquerque (expand)
I'm thinking a good setup would be 16 teams, 2 conferences. 2 Home matches 2 Away matches in conference(28 games, like this year), plus one game vs. each team in the other conference, alternating each year which team is home or away(an additional 8 games). That's a total of 36 matches, but all but 4 would be in conference or at home out of conference. So only 4 road games to the other conference. So 18 road games, 14 in conference. EAST: FC Tampa Bay Fort Lauderdale Strikers Carolina Railhawks Puerto Rico Islanders Atlanta Silverbacks Orlando City Rochester Rhinos Baltimore WEST: FC Edmonton NSC Minnesota Stars San Antonio Scorpions St. Louis Las Vegas San Deigo Phoenix Omaha Bold teams would be expansion/USL conversions.
Thanks. I think the idea of regional conferences is a must for lower levels to save on travel costs(if you actually have REGIONAL divisions, I'm looking at you USL International Division), but I also like to see my team play every other team in the league at least once. One year you play 4 of the other conference teams away, the next year switch. They'd play a few more games, but it would not be that much more of a financial burden.
I really like the schedule, but I'll disagree on a couple of teams. Not that I don't think you have good candidates in your expansion choices, I just feel like you left out a couple of real strong possibilities in Ottawa and Hamilton. The only non-US teams you have up there are Puerto Rico and Edmonton. So out of 16, you could have up to four be non-US. Of course that would unbalance things a bit as Omaha and Vegas are the ones I would reomve from your list if I absolutely had to choose. Maybe better would be to add those two cities in the east and then a pair in the west as well. Austin just has to get another chance, don't you think? And then maybe another Midwest city like Milwaukee or Detroit. More games could be a financial burden, but I'd like to think that if we're talking about an NASL 10 years down the road, the existing teams would have stabilized to the point that more games would actually become a better chance at profitability, especially in a league with a national footprint, but a quasi-regional spin based on the conferences and the scheduling model you're slotting in. 20 teams means probably having to change the schedule though. But if these teams were all still around and playing in D2 10 years from now, I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation at all to say they should be averaging 5,000+ in attendance. Seems they'd have to to survive that long. Now could all these markets do that? That's the 6 million dollar question!
Home games don't mean greater revenue if you're not breaking even. Home games can just mean losing more money.
I assume that most teams make money in home games; they just usually lose more when they travel away, so sure more games = more home games, but it also means more away games. 16 teams full round robin is 30 games, plus playoffs I think is about right for NASL. If they want to keep the split season with 1 championship game then maybe they can go up to 18. 18 = 34 games + Soccerbowls.
Updating your list Definitely need some western teams. Assuming the Islanders and Cosmos do stick around, that will be 12 teams; 9 American and 3 non-American.
Hamilton seems likely if a non-US spot opens up? If the islanders don't return they would most likely take that slot? If not they have to wait for 3 more US teams. Right now there's no hint of any expansion teams, only a few cities Downs mentioned such as LA, Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Sacremento, Las Vegas and 3 of those are already USL Pro markets.
Well, first, lets look at where the NASL will hopefully be come 2014 when expansion kicks in. 1.Tampa Bay 2.Fort Lauderdale 3.Atlanta 4.Carolina 5.Edmonton 6.Minnesota 7. San Antonio 8. New York 9.Puerto Rico 10.Ottawa 11.Virginia 12.Indianapolis Now, with 12 teams in play, we're now looking 9 years down the road to 2023. The big questions here are: Does the NASL want to be a EPL style league with only 20 teams, or like a Championship League, with 24? Which, if any, USLPro franchises won't want to remain a D3 team? What cities have the right demographics to support a team fan wise? Which level of cities do you want your teams in? (When it comes to levels, I'm thinking NASL and MLS want top 50 markets, and USLPRo should be going for everything else) Currently there is one top 10 city untapped by the MLS: San Diego. San Diego has already said they're looking at NASL, but are holding off for now. Two years from now, though, they might be a possibility 13. San Diego If Orlando City doesn't get into MLS, I do not see them staying in USLPro. Sacramento and Phoenix, I could see them moving up if they really start doing well. Speculation, but it seems reasonable. Lets say its now 2016... 14.Orlando City 15.Sacramento 16.Phoenix Now we have 7 years to go. Break for 2, and its 2018. Top 25 cities without a soccer team in either division now, biggest to smallest, are: Austin, San Fransisco, Detroit, and El Paso. Currently each city has a team playing at some level except for San Fran, and they all draw pretty well. So lets say two of them go up. 17. Austin 18.Detroit NASL wants to add two more in 2020. '20 in 2020' is catchy, no? El Paso is already an affiliate of Chivas, so they're out. Memphis, Baltimore, Nashville and Louisville are top 30 cities, and all but Memphis, I believe, have a PDL or lower franchise. Baltimore has the desire, and Louisville is rapidly becoming a 'cosmopolitan' city, so lets say 19.Baltimore 20.Louisville Next up in 2021, after really getting all their ducks in a row, we add 21.Memphis 22.Nashville The last two spots turn into a heated battle, as Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Tuscon duke it out. The NASL, wanting a better western footprint and some more glitz and glamour to go along with an already supported team take 23.Las Vegas 24.Tuscon That's how I could see it going. And that is a very legit D2 in 10 years time
I'll throw my idea out there: East: Puerto Rico Islanders Fort Lauderdale Strikers Tampa Bay Rowdies Atlanta Silverbacks Carolina RailHawks Virginia Cavalry Ottawa NY Cosmos Orlando City (up from USL) (or Nashville if Orlando goes MLS) (I'd like to see Charleston, but they seem fixated on USL) Richmond Kickers (up from USL) Pittsburgh Riverhounds (up from USL) Charlotte (expansion) West: San Antonio Scorpions Minnesota Stars FC Edmonton Indianapolis St Louis (expansion) Detroit (expansion) Sacramento (up from USL) San Diego (expansion) Las Vegas (expansion) Calgary (expansion) Austin (expansion) Phoenix (up from USL)
Massive flaw in this. The Division II standards, as all good standards of measurement for placing sports teams, are based on METROPOLITAN AREA, not city size. Completely toss out lists of cities as they're irrelevant. Here's the current list of metropolitan statistical areas, the actual measurement used by USSF, of which the league is required to place 75% of their teams in markets of 750,000 people or more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_statistical_areas You'll notice that San Diego is NOT a top 10 market, but is actually 17th. The 4 "next largest cities" when adjusted for markets are SF (11th), Detroit (13th), Austin (34th) and El Paso (65th). If you're going to do these things, at least know something as basic as what the standards of measurement for the markets to potentially have teams in is.
This is such a great fantasy thread! My big hope for NASL in ten years is: still in business. My expectation: NASL hovering around 14 teams, several will have folded in the interim. By the way, SF sucks as a soccer market. Their attendance was poor. Also, it's a cold nasty city for soccer, and many of the soccer fans in SF are hard core SJ Earthquakes supporters. I'm not sure it would work. Where would they play? Kezar is a terrible stadium and the neighbors would scream if attendance ever reached anything like 6K. There's no place to build a stadium in SF either, unless they could build a completely new stadium at Candlestick, but that's a reach. Sorry. I very much want NASL to be successful, but you ideas of 20 teams across the country . . . wow. Not happening. But I'll buy you beer if you turn out to be right! - Mark