[Eggy]

Is anyone else thinking this is just bad for the league and completely diluting the talent? I'm hoping there is some secret long term plan that I don't know about but I am hoping there is some pointy where quality takes precedence over quantity.

I'm not going to bash the league and say MLS sucks, but there are vasts gulfs in class. We have some talented players who could possible play in the EPL and players who would sit the bench in the Kyrgyzstan B league.

I'm just a little concerned.

[cleazer]

Originally Posted by Eggy

Is anyone else thinking this is just bad for the league and completely diluting the talent? I'm hoping there is some secret long term plan that I don't know about

$$$ comes with expansion.
Where there's $$$, the talent will follow.

[zman31]

BA has covered this in his blog quite a bit over the last year or so. It is concerning that the commissioner has constantly said that the league is looking in to slow steady growth but then is adding 5 teams in 6 years. There is nothing slow nor steady about that. The talent pool is being spread awfully thin. Our team being one of the deeper rosters in the league has not been as impacted. Just look at how some teams have struggled to put 2 competent center back on the field.

It is a concern, especially with the axing of the reserve league as there is no way to get some games in for the guys you want to try to hang on to. Having guys on developmental contracts and then not having any ability aside from practices to develope them further dilutes the talent pool.

Losing the "journeyman" pros like our own Brian West is almost worse than losing the stars like McBride and John. The league can lose a few stars and replace them with younger cheaper guys or foreign acquisitions but losing a guy making 50K with 3 or 4 years experience and 100+ games because he can make 100K overseas hurts a lot over time.

[Minnman]

I don't really buy the "dilutes talent" argument. It implies you have X amount of talent in the league, and that, through expansion, you spread it around, thereby diluting it, falling below some critical mass that's necessary to field a good professional soccer team.

Fine, if true. But, to me, MLS has never really had the X amount of the kind of top shelf talent necessary to create that kind of product at all (diluted or otherwise). It just doesn't have (or is unwilling to spend) the kind of cash it takes to attract that kind of player. Sure, every now and then it signed a Schelotto or an Angel, it retains a Donovan, or a Djorkaeff comes here and plays for peanuts. Swell. But those examples exists in the margins; MLS admits it can't "really" afford that kind of talent, so it creates special rules (Marquee Player, DP, Beckham) that allow clubs to sign a very, very small number of them, while limiting other player salaries to much lower levels.

Expansion doesn't do a thing to limit the Designated Players in the league; the guys who might, single-handedly, be worth the price of admission. Each team gets 1-2 of them (if they're willing to spend the money), regardless. All it does is spread out the already mediocre talent that fleshes out most every MLS roster. Spread out or concentrated, that "talent" is pretty "mediocre." Paying an average MLS midfielder $500,000/year won't make him a better player. But allowing MLS clubs to sign more players to salaries somewhere in that range would allow the league to bring in more quality than currently resides on the league's roster. Until that happens, I really don't see the quality of play getting all that much better than it is today.

Or look at flip side: what if you took the current players in MLS and squeezed them into 12 teams. Would it matter all that much? I don't think it would.

The league's finances are what they are. Hopefully, the new CBA process goes smoothly and we have as new contract signed before the old one expires. Hopefully, TV ratings will continue to tick up, the Red Bull's new arena will revamp that team's (and, hence, the league's) bottom line, and DC and the few other stragglers will get their own homes, too. Hopefully, Philly and the Pacific Northwest teams will sell a ton of tickets. Personally, I'd rather watch a mid-tier league with 18 teams than a mid-tier league with 12 teams. Hopefully, eventually, the gradual improvements we've seen in revenues will lead to MLS owners to open their coffers and allowing teams to spend a bit more on players. Until that happens, expansion or no, there won't be much improvement in quality of play in MLS.

[Pauncho]

As long as MLS survives to have a long term, I'm more concerned about the long term. MLS needs a national footprint to be taken more seriously by the sports news media, which in turn will get it taken more seriously by casual/entry-level soccer fans, some of whom will turn into TV-watching or even ticket-buying fans. In the long run, more $$$$ is the only thing that stands between MLS and being a top level league, and this is step 3 of 20 to get more $$$. Expanding - to places like Seattle, Toronto and Philadelphia, is a good thing.

[9 Rush]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - the most important thing for this league is the amount of real estate it owns.

Philly's coming in with a cool new stadium. That's key.

[Kryptonite]

Originally Posted by 9 Rush

Philly's coming in with a cool new stadium. That's key.

Try telling that to Seattle.

I agree that something isn't quite right with the league office. First, they really emphasize the "slow expansion of the league" mindset. It takes YEARS for expansion rumors to happen and even longer for teams to be formally announced. Now, all of a sudden, the league is announcing teams like the Duggar family announces births.

[Eggy]

I'm not against expanding the league to markets that can handle it but my main worries around

1. Does that take away from funding other projects such as youth development?

2. If there can only be one league champion do other markets lose interest? Unfortunately America likes winners.

I'm just not seeing any positive effects on the National Team thus far.

[HardHatMike]

Originally Posted by Pauncho

In the long run, more $$$$ is the only thing that stands between MLS and being a top level league, and this is step 3 of 20 to get more $$$.

Phase 1 - Steal Underpants

Phase 2 - ??????

Phase 3 - Profit!!!!

[Dave Brull]

Originally Posted by Eggy

I'm not against expanding the league to markets that can handle it but my main worries around

1. Does that take away from funding other projects such as youth development?

2. If there can only be one league champion do other markets lose interest? Unfortunately America likes winners.

I'm just not seeing any positive effects on the National Team thus far.

1. What does MLS have to do with Youth development. Do you mean Reserves?

2. Fortunately Canada doesn't.

3. You're saying that expansion hasn't had a positive effect on the USMNT? Here's a hint. Expansion isn't supposed to have an effect on the USMNT. That's not why leagues expand. The players that play on the USMNT are going to be on teams whether there are 3 or 18. They're (presumably) the best. So expansion won't have an effect.