Join Now
Make Me a Supermodel and Other Stupid Stuff
Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 09:25 AM by Bill Archer
Hard to know what to make, exactly, of this somewhat disturbing picture of David Beckham hacking his way around the local links:
I'm no Tim Gunn but I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I comment that 34 year old international style icons out in public doing the skateboarder thing or whatever the hell this is supposed to be really ought to know better.
That leaves aside the fact that unless he was at some low-rent pitch-and-putt, which I seriously doubt, they wouldn't let you or me anywhere near that course dressed like that.
And even if they did, when you started throwing clubs the starter would be all over you like stink on a monkey:
This is the man who wants the "average American male" to follow his lead into the magical world of "UPDATED CLASSIC AMERICAN SPORTSWEAR with fashionable silhouettes and details".
No word on whether Victoria is going to punish him for this.
MIKE GRAY is blogging on the idea of Peter Wilt going to the RedBulls.
Frankly, it's such a terrific idea that I can't believe there's the remotest chance of it happening.
Up in Canada, having spent the last 3 years whining about how Mo Johnston needed to bring in a DP so that TFC can take it's rightful place amongst the world great football clubs, bloggers are now complaining that bringing in de Guzman is bad for the national team because playing at a level as low as MLS will likely bring down the quality of his play.
For a bunch of guys who spend so much time insisting on their right to be in MLS, they sure do hate MLS a lot.
Mostly though, they're the same bunch who spend most of their time complaining about how MLS needs to "throw off the shackles of single entity" although, as FAKE SIGI has taken the time to dissect that particular nonsense and DAN has taken a swing as well, it makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.
What the people on the "Let My People Go" side of the argument seem intellectually incapable of understanding is that those of us on the other side of the argument aren't nearly as dense as they like to believe.
We get it. Really we do. Higher salaries would equal better players would equal better play.
Nobody is arguing that point. We all agree. $20 million buys a better soccer team than $10 million and $10 million buys you a better team than $2.5 million does. Thanks for the insight, but you can really stop telling us this. In fact, it's getting a little insulting.
Yes, you can look at the huge crowds a Barcelona can draw in the US and say "See? It's not soccer people don't like, it's MLS"
To which I'd also like to say "Gloriosky, Sandy! Thanks for that!" but we already knew that too. We're really not the imbeciles you seem to think we are.
However, if I may be so bold, the thing that all the "Freedom Now!" crowd sidesteps, ignores and/or blissfully pretends doesn't matter is that it is much more likely that a plan like this would make the overall quality of play worse, not better.
Yes, a "soft cap" (which goes nicely with your "soft heads") would let you compete on the world market for a better caliber of players, and I wish you'd stop explaining this to everyone as if it was received wisdom.
My favorite absurdity in all of this is the meme that having a $10 million roster wouldn't give that team a competitive advantage. Excuse the hell out of me, but if it doesn't give you an advantage then why would you spend the money?
They blithely say that "some" teams with 1/3 the wage bill of other teams would of course make the playoffs anyway, at which point "anything can happen".
Yeah, and the Richmond Kickers could make a lucky run through the FA Cup too, but I'm thinking that's not the way to bet. The fact is that the whole POINT of spending $10 million to compete against teams spending $2.5 million is to be able to beat the crap out of them 9 times out of 10.
If you can't, if your GM spends $10 million on players and your team isn't one hell of a lot better than the teams who only spend $2.5 million, then the owner is most likely going to fire you for gross incompetence.
The fact that it's not a mathematical certainty that they'll win every MLS Cup year after year is beside the point. The problem is that on any given night of the season 20,000 people are NOT going to pack Rio Tinto to watch TFC take the Royals apart at the seams because they have a lineup three times as talented.
And here's the biggest issue, the one that the footballing geniuses north of the border never seem to stumble across:
(Please try and follow along; if you need to, you can use your finger on the screen to help you focus on the words. Sound out the big ones. You can do it.)
How does a far less talented soccer team try an beat an obviously superior one?
If you answered "bunker in and play for a 0-0 draw" put your test paper on the fridge. You done good.
Yes indeed, on the night that uber-talented $10 million TFC shows up to play any other team that's not on the Gold Card Plan, the home team has only one choice: play the kind of "negative" pack-the-box-and-hope-for-a-counter type of strategy that everyone says is ruining the game.
It's not just possible or even likely; it's absolutely rock-solid inevitable.
So this plan you have for making MLS more interesting, more exciting, more beautiful and more appealing to football aficionados can only have one net effect: making it ugly and boring. It's like one of those teen makeover movies, only instead of taking the plain Jane and turning her into a hottie you beat her face in with a shovel, pour sewage on her head and dress her up in a clown suit.
MLS would have the worst, crappiest, most unwatchable games in the history of soccer.
And in the end one of maybe three or four teams would win the Cup 9 years out of 10..
This is the brilliant idea which Ben and Duane and the rest of the geniuses up there think will get the average American to flock to the stadiums in droves?
Thanks a lot for the input, but I think we'll pass.
I'm no Tim Gunn but I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I comment that 34 year old international style icons out in public doing the skateboarder thing or whatever the hell this is supposed to be really ought to know better.
That leaves aside the fact that unless he was at some low-rent pitch-and-putt, which I seriously doubt, they wouldn't let you or me anywhere near that course dressed like that.
And even if they did, when you started throwing clubs the starter would be all over you like stink on a monkey:
This is the man who wants the "average American male" to follow his lead into the magical world of "UPDATED CLASSIC AMERICAN SPORTSWEAR with fashionable silhouettes and details".
No word on whether Victoria is going to punish him for this.
MIKE GRAY is blogging on the idea of Peter Wilt going to the RedBulls.
Frankly, it's such a terrific idea that I can't believe there's the remotest chance of it happening.
Up in Canada, having spent the last 3 years whining about how Mo Johnston needed to bring in a DP so that TFC can take it's rightful place amongst the world great football clubs, bloggers are now complaining that bringing in de Guzman is bad for the national team because playing at a level as low as MLS will likely bring down the quality of his play.
For a bunch of guys who spend so much time insisting on their right to be in MLS, they sure do hate MLS a lot.
Mostly though, they're the same bunch who spend most of their time complaining about how MLS needs to "throw off the shackles of single entity" although, as FAKE SIGI has taken the time to dissect that particular nonsense and DAN has taken a swing as well, it makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.
What the people on the "Let My People Go" side of the argument seem intellectually incapable of understanding is that those of us on the other side of the argument aren't nearly as dense as they like to believe.
We get it. Really we do. Higher salaries would equal better players would equal better play.
Nobody is arguing that point. We all agree. $20 million buys a better soccer team than $10 million and $10 million buys you a better team than $2.5 million does. Thanks for the insight, but you can really stop telling us this. In fact, it's getting a little insulting.
Yes, you can look at the huge crowds a Barcelona can draw in the US and say "See? It's not soccer people don't like, it's MLS"
To which I'd also like to say "Gloriosky, Sandy! Thanks for that!" but we already knew that too. We're really not the imbeciles you seem to think we are.
However, if I may be so bold, the thing that all the "Freedom Now!" crowd sidesteps, ignores and/or blissfully pretends doesn't matter is that it is much more likely that a plan like this would make the overall quality of play worse, not better.
Yes, a "soft cap" (which goes nicely with your "soft heads") would let you compete on the world market for a better caliber of players, and I wish you'd stop explaining this to everyone as if it was received wisdom.
My favorite absurdity in all of this is the meme that having a $10 million roster wouldn't give that team a competitive advantage. Excuse the hell out of me, but if it doesn't give you an advantage then why would you spend the money?
They blithely say that "some" teams with 1/3 the wage bill of other teams would of course make the playoffs anyway, at which point "anything can happen".
Yeah, and the Richmond Kickers could make a lucky run through the FA Cup too, but I'm thinking that's not the way to bet. The fact is that the whole POINT of spending $10 million to compete against teams spending $2.5 million is to be able to beat the crap out of them 9 times out of 10.
If you can't, if your GM spends $10 million on players and your team isn't one hell of a lot better than the teams who only spend $2.5 million, then the owner is most likely going to fire you for gross incompetence.
The fact that it's not a mathematical certainty that they'll win every MLS Cup year after year is beside the point. The problem is that on any given night of the season 20,000 people are NOT going to pack Rio Tinto to watch TFC take the Royals apart at the seams because they have a lineup three times as talented.
And here's the biggest issue, the one that the footballing geniuses north of the border never seem to stumble across:
(Please try and follow along; if you need to, you can use your finger on the screen to help you focus on the words. Sound out the big ones. You can do it.)
How does a far less talented soccer team try an beat an obviously superior one?
If you answered "bunker in and play for a 0-0 draw" put your test paper on the fridge. You done good.
Yes indeed, on the night that uber-talented $10 million TFC shows up to play any other team that's not on the Gold Card Plan, the home team has only one choice: play the kind of "negative" pack-the-box-and-hope-for-a-counter type of strategy that everyone says is ruining the game.
It's not just possible or even likely; it's absolutely rock-solid inevitable.
So this plan you have for making MLS more interesting, more exciting, more beautiful and more appealing to football aficionados can only have one net effect: making it ugly and boring. It's like one of those teen makeover movies, only instead of taking the plain Jane and turning her into a hottie you beat her face in with a shovel, pour sewage on her head and dress her up in a clown suit.
MLS would have the worst, crappiest, most unwatchable games in the history of soccer.
And in the end one of maybe three or four teams would win the Cup 9 years out of 10..
This is the brilliant idea which Ben and Duane and the rest of the geniuses up there think will get the average American to flock to the stadiums in droves?
Thanks a lot for the input, but I think we'll pass.
Post a Comment
Total Comments 43
Comments
-
If you let a couple of teams spend 4x what everyone else spends, you'd end up with the Scottish League.
Or Major League Baseball.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 09:36 AM by Footer Phooter 
-
I could do without another useless dig at David Beckham, i just don't get the hatred, having said that this is probably the best overall blog i've ever read on BigSoccer, great stuff.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 09:55 AM by CLEATS
-
I agree with the major point -- that SUM/Cap is good for MLS and US soccer in general.
I disagree somewhat with the minor point -- that one behemoth team would not benefit the league at all.
I think if somehow Man United or Real Madrid were exiled and forced to play in MLS with their current squad, they would draw very well, thank you, at "home" and on the road.
Yes, it'd be ugly soccer to watch the Wizards play Alamo and hold out for a dreary point, but people would still come out in droves. 1. They'd come because there'd be some soccer hype and promotion, and sports are about hype and promotion. 2. They'd come because they've been told that MU or RM are the gold standard, and they'd want to see it (and having 75% of the possession would merely support this bias). 3. They'd come because it's fun to watch the local boys try to beat the big team. After all, there's more excitement in the NCAA when Michigan or USC visits State U., even if it's likely to end in an ugly beatdown.
Whether that would pay for the salary of MU or RM, I cannot say. But having the Yankees road show does increase attendance and excitement elsewhere, and not just for ex-pat NYY fans.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 09:56 AM by SCBozeman
-
You don't get the hatred, yet you thought the blog was great? Hmm....that's a head scratcher. I guess it's OK to hate on anybody but becks, eh?Quote:Originally Posted by CLEATS
I could do without another useless dig at David Beckham, i just don't get the hatred, having said that this is probably the best overall blog i've ever read on BigSoccer, great stuff.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 10:07 AM by Oldsmobile
-
Cue the Moronto fans in 3....2.....1...........Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 10:09 AM by HardHatMike
-
I was gonna say what HHM said, but the bastard beat me to it.
Prepare for a Northern avalanche of missing the point and a pummeling of the word "hate" into submission.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 10:32 AM by Timon19
-
The Solution
I would do two things to improve the MLS quality of roster:
1. Increase both salary cap and roster size. Even $3M and 28 players would allow for better overall quality, perhaps bringing back some of the players in Scandinavia.
2. Reward teams for winning. What I mean by this is that currently, a team's "reward" for winning the MLS Cup is to get more fixture, with the same roster and salary cap as teams without the extra fixtures.
- reward teams with a one-year increase in salary cap and an extra roster spot for winning things like the Supporters Shield, US Open Cup, and MLS Cup. Also reward them for winning the CONCACAF Champions League and Superliga; heck even reward them a bit for qualifying for those competitions (even an an extra $25k and 1 roster spot, if well spent within the overall budget could mean one additional journeyman).
We're not ready for a true soft cap, but if you reward teams with a bit of extra cap room for having more fixtures and doing well in them, then teams will be incented to give it there all.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if you tell MLS teams that they'll get an extra $500k to their cap and 2 extra roster spots for the following year if they win the CONCACAF Champions League that that whole "MLS teams can't win in Mexico" thing will go the way of 5.25" floppy disks.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 11:50 AM by andypalmer
-
Pffft. Socialist.
Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 11:50 AM by Calexico77
-
Sure, I want the salary cap raised. I'd like to see teams have enough money to keep the likes of Danny Califf and Pat Noonan Mach 1 around when they're playing well and not asking for the moon.
But I think one of the most clever aspects of the MLS premise is that American players are undervalued... and that there's a gigantic amount of slack in the correlation between quality and price tag. I can't imagine a sustainable SooooperClub based in the US anytime in the next decade -- and that's all most of these disco-shirted poseurs are into anyway... Barca or Madrid or Man U etc.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 11:56 AM by Honore de Ballsac
-
You are once again misrepresenting our words (shocking!)
No one has ever called for the soft cap to be 5X higher than the actual cap (the $10 million figure you just pulled out of your ass). We're well aware of why it's important to keep all 16 teams competitive (so why don't you back off the condescension a little bit). The number I put out was $2.5 hard and $2.5 soft (but those are just suggestions). So it would be double. The DP rule already allows teams with more money to have a slight advantage. All this would do is give teams more flexibility in how they spent their extra money. It also makes things a little more open; as we kind of already have a soft cap...you just call it “allocation.”
Thing is, Bill, even at $5 million it's not like we're bringing Kaka in. You are hardly going to see the bunker-up scenario you are suggesting.
It's baffling how resistant you are to progressive change of any kind. Or maybe you just like attacking the strawman that is the big, bad Canadian bloggers/podcasters.Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 11:58 AM by Duane Rollins
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
