Will the NASL Ever Compete head to head with MLS?

That the owner was not rich enough?

Or that no person in St Louis is willing to lose money investing in soccer.

Attendance wise they were not bad if I remember correctly, the owner just ran out of money (or the will to lose money) that can happen to all D2 teams, they are all at the mercy of the owner willing to lose money.

I guess the same could be said about Chelsea/Man City being a top EPL team

 

and the owner owned 2 franchises: Athletica and AC St. Louis.

 

Drogba.

 

To answer the original question. No. There's been too much competition between leagues in US soccer as it is. We don't need yet more infighting. MLS has a good thing growing, no reason to foul it up by introducing a wild card like NASL which has already nuked D2 and 3 soccer to no appreciable benefit.

 

I dunno.. It did get USSF involved in maintaining at least the semblance of stability in D2.

 

lol what?

 

D2 and D3 soccer are a mess right now. Shadows of their previous selves. And the majority of the damage was done during the "birth" of the NASL a few years ago.

 

What is your definition of "shadow of itself"? Unless I'm missing something, in 2009 there were 11 USL-1 teams and 9 USL-2 teams, now there are 8 NASL teams and 11 USL-Pro teams. Factor in the fact that three of the USL-1 teams are now in MLS, and that 3 of the USL-Pro teams are, arguably, D2 quality and is the one team difference really that great?

 

There is actually almost nothing in any of those sentences that is true.

If D2 is a "shadow of its previous self," do you mean there are eight teams now when there used to be 30 and most of them were crap?

D3 actually has more teams (and more longstanding teams) than its had most years since 2004 (but, again, way fewer than in the late 1990s, when it had 39 largely crap franchises).

Both levels have undergone an evolution. They haven't been nuked. The war was stupid and costly, but we move on.

 

Guess it all depends on what you view as "crap" teams.

 

Crap teams are ones who you're afraid will fold tomorrow, every single day. The teams that exist now in D2 (and a majority in D3) have been around long enough that you don't have to legitimately fear that, only recognize the possibility.

 

MLSsnob!

 

How so? I actually don't view many of the D2 and 3 teams that others would view as "crap" as crap. If anything I'm the opposite of an MLSsnob.

 

I am very curious to what exactly will be MLS's solution to the current problem of finding young players a place to play. Players good enough to be signed and developed, but not good enough to earn regular minutes in MLS. The gap between the academies and MLS is huge. They are stuck getting the odd reserve game or loan to D2 or D3.

Does MLS simply expand on the reserve league and double or triple the amount of games? Or do they seek a working relationship with the NASL and USL to develop players? Even putting whole reserve teams in the NASL. Sounds like David Downs has been pushing for this for a while. This could be the next major move for D2 and D3.

 

Hopefully they'll start working things out with lower division teams. Seattle recently sent Andrew Duran to the Silverbacks and have sent players they've cut to the Battery previously, but it does need to be more. Perhaps something as far as you see in Europe where teams are fielding entire second teams in lower divisions, but until then, it would be nice to see a significant number of the guys in the #20-#30 roster spots banging the ball around in the lower divisions.

 

I think they'll simply expand the reserve league and continue to grow their own academies with the occasional D4 level team thrown in as many teams are doing now. You're not going to see MLS get involved with either of the existing D2/3 leagues beyond an occasional loan. When the time comes they'll probably create their own minor league out of the reserve league if they bother at all.

 

Well, I was speaking in past tense.

Of the 30 A-League teams in 1999, I would view "crap" teams as...the ones that couldn't get out of their own ways, that couldn't draw flies, that played in substandard facilities, that had fly-by-night owners and organizations. I was working in the league at that time and saw many of those teams first-hand.

Rochester, Vancouver, Pittsburgh (which was just starting out but did very well at startup), Hershey, Charleston, Milwaukee, San Diego, El Paso, Seattle and Minnesota were the top echelon franchises in terms of how they did things. Crap teams included the Sacramento Geckos, Maryland Mania (an all-timer, oy), Boston Bulldogs, Jacksonville Cyclones, Cincinnati Riverhawks (oh.my.god), Lehigh Valley Steam, Tennessee Rhythm (though they did have some people who actually cared), Staten Island Vipers, New Orleans Storm and Hampton Roads Mariners. Most just couldn't draw, couldn't do a press release, couldn't pull off game operations, couldn't do promotions, couldn't communicate, couldn't do much of anything, really.

And of the 39 teams in the third division in 1998, Wilmington, Charlotte and Western Mass are among the handful that survive to this day. Mostly because they (stop me if you've heard this one before) were fly-by-night outfits with no money, no staff, no vision, no ideas, no ability to do anything. They couldn't draw, couldn't win, couldn't get anything remotely approaching professionalism within three freeway exits of themselves.

That's what I view as a "crap team." Because I had to deal with that b.s. The crap teams were numerous. There are far, far fewer crap organizations today, even as a percentage.

 

I'd still like to know what you meant by "shadow of previous itself" as well. Particularly when compared to where USL-1 and USL-2 were prior to NASL splitting off. Most of the teams Kenn mentioned were long gone by the time NASL split off, so I find it hard to blame them for the drop from 60ish teams to 20ish teams. If anything, it could be argued that the precipitous drop is one of the reasons why NASL broke off.

 

D2's heyday was probably from about 2004-2008, even though there were only 16, then 12, then 11 teams. The chaff had been separated from the wheat and the MLS exodus hadn't begun yet. There was some churn and some mistakes (Cleveland, for one), but things were more solid than in the 1997-2003 period and the Minnesota Thunder is the only one of the 11 2008 clubs that isn't still around somewhere.

But D2 has been starting over, for better or worse.

And for all of its warts, USL Pro is a better, stronger league than the Variously Named D3 Leagues were from about 2005-2010 (and certainly in the late 1990s, when it was a total mismash).

 

You don't understand the purpose of the reserve league.

The reserve league is a way to get games for first team players who rarely feature in the first team, but are there in case they're needed.

As MLS teams acquire more and more playing assets, they'll need a place for more of them to play real games regularly than the odd reserve game. And, frankly, most of those assets would be developmental or longshots any way. Right now Academy teams fill some of that equation, but those players aren't 1) under contract and 2) are quite young. As the academy systems start pumping out players, I think MLS teams will find it in their long term interest to retain the rights to more and more of them. Signing them and loaning them to D2/D3 teams is the short term solution. If the number of players reaches a certain point, I think you'll see more of a farm system and co-op model involve where MLS team or teams suppy the talent and even the coaches, taking a huge line item out of the D2/D3 team owner's expense line.

 

Man, you don't usually see a guy just get almost everything he says taken down.

 

I just wonder how long it takes MLS to reach the point where they can supply all the players like MILB does. I think an affiliation that provides 2-3 players per MLS team to a designated (and willing) D2 or D3 team would be optimal as a fan right now. If MLS keeps providing players, the allure of lower salary budgets may increase stability in lower divisions, which wouldn't hurt at all. It may also help create some loyalty to an MLS team in lower division markets

 

Not if you're a fan of that D2 or D3 team and the MLS club decides it needs your best player right now. And if you're a fan of the MLS team, what's optimal about having players of yours play in D2 or D3? If they're not good enough for your MLS team right now, why do you care about them until they get to MLS?

 

Oh I understand the purpose of the Reserve League as it stands today. That's why I said expand it. The RL as it stands is as you say a place for not often used 1st teamers to get extra playing time, and in many cases it's where bench warmers get their ONLY playing time outside what are currently seen as all but meaningless games like USOC. However that role can be further expanded as a near minor league team as well long term where kids coming up from academies that are under contract can get playing time as well (not unlike the role loaning to D2 and D3 exists today) with the added benefit of playing along side rehabbing and lower level first teamers. I just don't see MLS long term outsourcing their "minor league" operations to NASL and or USL once players get beyond the D4 levels. Short term sure, NASL and USL will continue to play a role.

 

Isn't that what ended the old MLS-USL working agreement? Also, I remember that teams like Rochester could opt out of the agreement. So players like Doug Miller weren't available.