The official announcement is sometime later today, but the league wide schedule is already up on their webiste. http://www.uslsoccer.com/schedules/2014/65672455.20143.html It's an unbalanced schedule running from March 22nd to September 7th. Kind of wish the unbalanced part was stretched out a little more. For instance Pittsburgh is playing Harrisburg 3 times in a month. But hey at least we finally have a schedule.
I stumbled upon this earlier. It's active but does not appear to be "live". Right now I can only access the May schedule (earlier it was March). Maybe they're working on the site, actively, right now.
Now it's official! http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/home/784052.html http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/schedules/index_E.html
RIP, VSI. We hardly knew ye. As mentioned earlier, 28 games is the most ever scheduled for a D3 league. And 14 teams is the most in D3 since 2002. (15 started the 2011 season, but three didn't last long.)
Kenn, 14 teams start ... everyone who wants to talk down about the USL speaks about the fact that they'll let anyone in and the ownership groups are less committed. They may be less financed, but I think the percentage of ownership groups that are being "successful" is on the rise. Is that just wishful thinking? Getting rid of 2 groups that were near the bottom of "committment/good at running a D3 team" and bringing in the Galaxy, a group like Sac that seem to at least "get it", an Oklahoma City group that will have competition but are at least active in selling tix/marketing/etc ... it would seem that it's improving. There are still 2 ownership groups out there that people can really make fun of (Orange Co. Blues, Phoenix FC). We don't know what will happen in Tulsa or Colorado, but early indications are Charlotte may improve in 2015 as far as "marketing/ticket sales/etc". Just wondering what your (and anyone else) thoughts are on this and the direction USL is going. They're still a few teams away from really becoming "regional" but I see an unalanced schedule as a step in that direction with 2015 being even more "regional". thx!
The failure rate does appear to be dropping, FWIW. I would have to run the numbers. Ownership vetting has been an issue since the 1990s. USSF's pro standards - which include minimum ownership capitalization - seem to have helped at the D2 level. But if the guy who owns the St. Louis Ambush and Pennsylvania Roar is really in the ownership group of the rumored new St. Louis USL Pro team, I'd be concerned about that. The new Charlotte guys, I don't have a sense of, other than they have at least run a niche sports franchise for more than a week.
It would look like the Colorado Rapids are not that impressed with the Colorado Springs start-up team. The Rapids pres has already said they won't affiliate with CS. The Rapids may be planning to go-it alone (ala Galaxy), but obviously too early to tell. Kind of telling, IMO, for a MLS pres to straight up say "no" before the USL team has even started building. The only thing the Rapids know about the CS team is the ownership. Via @FlipsLikeAPancake post: From a reddit AMA with Rapids President Tim Hinchey: Question: What can you say about the USL-Pro team in CO Springs? Can we expect an announcement regarding teaming up with them in the near future? Answer: We will not be partnering that USL team.
While I haven't heard great things about the CS Switchback guys ... I won't take the Colorado Rapids remarks to be anything more than what they are. It's possible the Rapids already have a plan in place with an exisiting club, or want to do their own thing, who knows at this point. What if Kroenke has told his team he'll spend money to affiliate and assist a St. Louis USL team since he has a few things in that city he owns (St. Louis Rams). I wouldn't read too much into it.
And Colorado Springs' guys don't exactly inspire confidence, either. But, HEY, Phoenix isn't affiliated and they're doing just.....
To be fair, the lower levels have always been - and likely will always be - a mixed bag. You have clubs like Charleston and Richmond who are well-run and aren't going anywhere and up-and-comers like Pittsburgh and it's inevitable you'll have some that don't go as well. In both leagues.
You really need to wait until they actually are working to see how they're doing. OKC Energy look a lot better now than they did at first, but they could still go splat. Hell, as good as they look, Sacramento could still go splat. And for all we know, Phoenix 2.0 could be the best thing since sliced bread. You simply don't know until the gates open. And St. Louis is still a rumor as far as I'm aware. Colorado Springs is still over a year out, and look a lot better now than VSI looked going into the start of last season. That doesn't mean anything until next year, but it is what it is.
Yes ... what I want to know is why do people feel like teams failing is a detriment to USL? They seem to keep pushing on and gaining quality teams at a higher rate than the failing ones. What is the harm? Did it destroy the soccer market in Tampa that VSI failed? FCNY kill the soccer landscape in NY? Antigua? Who cares? Will soccer never be the same in Pheonix if they fail? I understand that those who don't get paid by these people would be angered, but fans? Come on ... you should know as a fan that this ownership group is operating in a league with a high turn over rate and if you don't have a great ownership group you may be in search of a new team in a year or so ... and hopefully a better one in your market comes along if that happens ... but are you not going to be a fan if a 2nd ownership group tries in that market just because you felt burned before by the last group? Not if you enjoy soccer. If you're a bitter 3 year old then I guess it's possible.
The object is not to have teams fail. Not all of them scorch the earth when they leave. But "who cares?" is a slightly ridiculous question. As soccer fans, we should hope for things that are positive for the game, whether they directly impact us or not. And we should all feel it when something happens that is bad for the game. Because, though we have come a long way and we are no longer fragile, we can be stronger. And a stronger soccer landscape - one that has thriving clubs, not fold-and-replace-them-with-other-clubs - is a positive for all of us. It would be natural for someone to be skeptical of Phoenix the second time around, just like it would be natural of someone to be gun shy in some other place where a team failed. Not that they can't be convinced to get over it, but it's a harder sell the second time around, even with a new ownership. Bottom line: what's good for soccer is good for us all. What's bad for soccer is bad for us all.
I agree with you ... I was just wanting to play devil's advocate with those that look down on USL due to past ownership failures. I agree ... no one failing going foward is much better than 50/50 ... which is much better than 80/20 ... so I'm in complete agreement with this.
Well, to be fair, the buck stops there. When teams have failed, traditionally, it has been because their ownership group has not been adequately vetted or was unprepared for the level of investment and loss. Whether it's AC St. Louis or VSI Tampa Bay, it is on the league.
I think these failed franchises DO hurt the markets. If an unvetted/ unprepared ownership group comes in and screws up royally (ala Phoenix), it makes it that much harder for the next group coming in. They have do undo the damage and change public perception, in addition to "just doing it right". Your "bitter 3 yr old" comment and you view of "the fans" really isn't fair, or a proper reflection of the casual fan base. Even here on BS, hardcore soccer supporters are skeptical of the new Phoenix ownership. Other markets are not dissimilar. Soccer franchises don't live and die only by the diehard soccer enthusiasts who will support any tom, Dick or Jane soccer club that takes the field this week. Marketing and success is a very fickle animal, and the bulk of needed support can easily turned off the product. A burned market may require a few years without a team to let the bad memories fade. IMO, this gives a new ownership a fresh start and a better chance at success. For example, even in LA, moving Chivas out may be the best solution. A rebrand/ new ownership may not work. The Goats have scorched the fan base, who may identify any changes as "still the Chivas". It may be better to leave the market to the Galaxy for a few years, let them keep building the MLS brand, and introduce a new team (NYCFC style) down the road. I guess my point is that if you throw enough of a bad product out there, the "good" product could be handing out buckets of gold, and still be tuned out.
Understand ... but I don't really think it's that bad after all failed teams. Casual fans typically don't know all of the reasons teams fail and frankly don't care ... if they enjoy soccer and there's an option to go watch it, they'll go ... that simple. I think it burns hardcore fans more than casual fans because they want it done right so bad. I'm not sure the Orange Co. Blues have burned too many fans (not enough showed up to really see a big population that is bitter about it). Either way, I hope they don't fail and figure it out.