Charlotte was eligible this year. Technically RGFC was eligible but they asked to be excluded. We don't know what Reno will do. By the rule, which applies only to MLS-owned teams at this point, there are 19 teams eligible.
OK, thanks. I was confused about the previously listed "independently-owned, MLS-run (s0ccer ops)" teams (which somehow had a zero instead of an oh in "s0ccer")
Don't Minnesota begin in 2017? They currently have their own Reserve Team (http://www.mnunitedfc.com/united-reserves)
Minnesota has not been confirmed for 2017. Their official move into MLS won't happen until their future stadium is approved. That is very close but is held up by a problem with unrelated language in a bill that gives them tax breaks. The Minnesota United Reserves currently play in the Premier League of America which is an amateur league. Will Minnesota United start a USL team or just affiliate with an existing team when they official start playing in MLS? They have not said yet.
I am hoping that they go the affiliate route with the Des Moines Menace. The Wild choosing DM for their AHL affiliate has been a win all around and this move would finally help move us into the professional ranks. I doubt it happens though. Putting a USL squad elsewhere in the Cities or even somewhere like Rochester makes more financial sense.
We have hit the 3/4 mark of the regular season. Here are the standings by PPG. This is supposed to be a comparison of the different types of teams, not current league standings which is why I'm using PPG. The standings: New Teams MLS2 Teams ( I counted RGVFC but not Charlotte) *Unaffiliated I split the colors on the new MLS2 teams. STANDINGS EAST 1. NY RB II 2.13 2. Louisville* 1.96 3. Cincinnati* 1.91 4. Richmond 1.70 5. Charleston 1.68 6. Charlotte 1.63 7. Rochester 1.56 8. Orlando City B 1.41 -------------------------- 9. Bethlehem 1.13 10. Wilmington 1.09 11. Harrisburg* 1.00 12. Toronto II 0.92 13. Pittsburgh 0.73 14. Montreal II 0.56 WEST 1. LA Galaxy II 1.64 2. OKC Energy 1.62 3. Co. Springs* 1.61 4. Sacramento 1.61 5. Vancouver2 1.61 6. RGV FC 1.50 7. Arizona Utd* 1.36 8. Swope Park 1.32 ---------------------------------- 9. Orange Cty* 1.29 10. Saint Louis 1.22 11. San Antonio* 1.19 12. Seattle2 1.17 13. Portland2 1.14 14. R. Monarchs 1.13 15. Tulsa* 0.82 The new teams are still mostly in the middle of the standings with Cincinnati doing the best. MLS2 would have about half the playoff teams but several are down at the bottom of each table. As in the other updates, unaffiliated teams are all over the place but about half of them would make the playoffs. The overall table: 1. NY RB II 2.13 2. Louisville* 1.96 3. Cincinnati* 1.91 4. Richmond 1.70 5. Charleston 1.68 6. LA Galaxy II 1.64 7. Charlotte 1.63 8. OKC Energy 1.62 9. Co. Springs* 1.61 10. Sacramento 1.61 11. Vancouver2 1.61 12. Rochester 1.56 13. RGV FC 1.50 14. Orlando City B 1.41 15. Arizona Utd* 1.36 16. Swope Park 1.32 ---------------------------------- 17. Orange Cty* 1.29 18. Saint Louis 1.22 19. San Antonio* 1.19 20. Seattle2 1.17 21. Portland2 1.14 22. Bethlehem 1.13 23. R. Monarchs 1.13 24. Wilmington 1.09 25. Harrisburg* 1.00 26. Toronto II 0.92 27. Tulsa* 0.82 28. Pittsburgh 0.73 29. Montreal II 0.56 MLS2 teams are doing a bit better than the last update overall but there are still only 3 in the top 11. It is hard to see any other pattern.
I wonder what the average age and pro experience is for each team in the league and if there is a correlation. In a related story, it was not long ago some bright boy suggested these teams would have to drop out of the league because they were not competitive enough after like two months or something.
It wasn't long ago you were convinced the MLS/USL model wouldn't work: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/mls-to-affiliate-with-usl-pro-clubs.1947984/page-2#post-26544841
I said it's "not good for a league." I still am not convinced it's good for a league to have half its teams with one objective and half with a different one. Regardless of whether those teams are more competitive than some thought, I am still not convinced it's good for the league. I am not convinced it is good for the league to have games attended by 78 people. I am not convinced that if USL gets second division status, that they will take all those MLS O&Os with them. (I am not convinced they will take all the independents, either.) So I stand by that. I think the hybrid approach makes USL disjointed and less than it could be. It's not "a developmental league," per se, as Peterson is fond of calling it, as a pejorative. But it's not a full-fledged legitimate competition, either. So whistle on that.
What we need is an affiliated minor league for the reserve and affiliated teams (the latter should, IMO, be like minor league baseball teams with all players under contract, either MLS or minor league, to the MLS club*) and an independent minor league. *Assuming this is legal. Baseball is the only sport where minor league contracts are officially owned by the parent club (AHL minor league deals are technically owned by the AHL club, but the AHL team usually decides who to sign in those cases as well), and they have an antitrust exemption.
While I agree with your point, keep in mind that the idea of pure developmental leagues is only about a quarter-century old (when the National Association - governing body of affiliated minor league baseball - purged the last of the co-ops and independents).
I like the reserve teams playing non reserve teams. But I also like the bigger/better/more financed teams wanting something "more". That something more doesn't have to be NASL (although it could) and it also may end up being below MLS. Ideally, USL doesn't get D2 (now) and after more expansion and more teams wanting "more" than a mix of reserve and big games, they can potentially form a USL1 and USL2 with one being D2 and one being D3 with Reserve teams limited to D3. That's a few years away, but I like how Swope Park Rangers don't "just" play against other reserve (young) teams. I think there are enough smaller budget teams that want regional play enough to not mind playing in a "reserve" league to limit their operating budget and keep them from dropping to a shorter PDL type schedule. And I think there is a trend (or at least a bunch of interest) in keeping a regional professional option open with a smaller franchise fee than the current USL has for teams in the PDL that want to expand their schedule and move up a level. Just my 2cents.
Swope Park Rangers - 21.87 (average age), 26 (high), 16 (low) ... I too would like to see how this compares. Obviously loans from SKC could change that a bit (although I don't think it would change the current high/low with the loans to date). It would also be interesting to see how that is weighted by playing time (far bigger effort there). I do think that Swope Park will get "younger" as they move away from "year 1" though as they graduate more Academy players into the team. Or at least that would be my "hope". An average age under 23 is necessary IMO and closer to 20 would be ideal!
Timbers 2 - 21.83 (average age). 28 (high), 17 (low). The 28 year old, Irving Garcia, hasn't played at all this season. Several loanees (e.g., Nico Brett, Ben Polk, Nick Besler, etc.) from the Timbers have gotten a lot of playing time, but aren't listed as the 18 on the T2 roster, so I didn't include them in the calculations.
The competition/objective argument I suppose is valid, but I don't think you could argue the quality of play has dropped much... I still think the expansion of the footprint and stability of the MLS teams has helped the league immensely and has ended up being for "the good of the league" If it hadn't happened I think USL is in a much more compromised state. 2012 USL (when we had that conversation and the year before LAII came into the league) -- the league looked like this: Antigua Charleston Charlotte Eagles Dayton Dutch Lions Harrisburg LA Blues Orlando Pittsburgh Phoenix FC Richmond Rochester VSI Tampa Bay Wilmington 13 teams, a vast majority in the East, and some of the teams were incredibly unstable... a few years later after the addition of MLS teams we've seen rapid expansion and ownership groups that appear to be MUCH more stable... 12 new teams are owned or operated by MLS teams, yes, but I'm convinced those MLS teams made the league more viable for the new non-MLS teams to join the league... (8 new non-MLS teams, 10 if you include the new Charlotte and Arizona ownership - and more on the way) So is the partnership making USL less than it could be? maybe that is true from a pure competition standpoint - but from the standpoint of growing the league and the amount of stable teams in this country, I would argue USL would be "less" than what it is now without the infusion of MLS teams. Those teams are what propelled the league to have this growth spurt.
Swope Park just added a few academy kids to the roster (as well as a GK having a birthday to become the lone 27 y/o on the roster). All of that moves the average age down to 21.38. Anyone else looked at any of their rosters?
RGVFC's average age is 21.5 according to the roster on the team website. The oldest is 25, the youngest 18. That list doesn't count the guys on loan. The guys who actually started and subbed into the most recent game averaged 22.6 years old.
They could have a PDL team in 2017 (higher standard) and have a USL affiliate when they enter MLS 2018 or 2019.
Minnesota United will, in fact, enter MLS in 2017. I don't know how strict MLS will be but the rules say that they have to at least have an affiliation with a USL team.
I believe they have a 2 year period to comply with this (and Academy system in USSDA). But I'm sure they encourage it to be earlier.
I can't seem to find it. I actually thought I read that recently regarding Minnesota stuff, but couldn't find it again when digging through. May be crazy talk ... disregard.