Fair point.. but not sure why it is not announced on twitter or social media. Its not like you can hide it. All of USL and MLS games you can watch anytime. I also think NASL on ESPN3 has the same.. but not 100% sure.. and with the new TV deals.. not sure I that changes it.
Previously, all attendances were readily available on USL's site. USL has usually done a good job over the years regarding making stats and the like readily accessible. However, the change over to the new site has been, well, disappointing. @kenntomasch (who live tabulates lower league attendance every year) has already contacted USL and apparently the lack of attendances on the site is purely an artifact of the switch to the new site. Basically, they bit off more than they could chew with the new site, couldn't get everything done in time and getting attendances displayed correctly wasn't a top priority but they'll get to it eventually.
This year it is, apparently. They have also, apparently, for the first time that I can remember, stopped putting an attendance chart in their annual media guide. I mean, that goes back to 1997, near as I can tell. Luckily, I chart stuff as we go along (and thanks to those of you doing yeoman's work here, it taking a village and all that). But it should not be this difficult.
That is a figure that, as recently as five years ago, only 25% of USL (Pro) games reached, and by only a handful (six) of teams.
I know it's not the right thread, but Swope Park Rangers playing in front of a near sellout in this stadium is a HUGE reason everyone saying "MLS will pull their "2" teams out as soon as they get enough to create their own league" are silly IMO. This is the atmosphere they want their reserves playing in.
I would hope though that the MLS2 teams get re branded though. I think MLS teams would get more interest in reserve team games if fans were going to something other then RB2, TFC2, SS2 and so forth.
No need for Swope Park Rangers ... it's perfect. It's a name the fans gave the Wizards reserves many years ago since they play/train in Swope Park!
Well I think SKC and Philly have done things the correct way by making the reserve team have a different identity then the main squad. I would hope more teams follow suit.
You could throw Houston into that mix ... done a bit differently with the USL teams ownership group being different. I think that could also be a decent way to do things if done properly. It could also help a different ownership group get started, focusing on the marketing/ticket sales/stadium environment while allowing an MLS team to handle the player side of things ... and then a few years in, go at it all alone and have the MLS team set up shop in a different location.
I'm curious as to how Houston's team is going to work but they're certainly going about it in the right way! I would hope that when NYCFC starts its own reserve team that they form it somewhere in the metro area but not in NYC. I'm thinking Hartford would be ideal for them but we'll have to just wait and see what their plans are.
First of all, NOBODY that I know of has ever said that MLS will pull their teams out. Why would they? USL is allowing them to create their own reserve league within the confines of USL's league. What, and others, HAVE said is that if every MLS team has a team in USL, they would effectively have an unassailable voting bloc, unless USL expands to 48 teams. Second, I know from your avatar that you are coming at this as a fan of an MLS team. I can also tell that from your premise that ; If I were a fan of an independent USL team I wouldn't give a crap what atmosphere the MLS2 team play in. I would care about the atmosphere MY team plays in. If MLS wants their "2" teams to play in better atmospheres then maybe they should take those team more seriously. Marketing, ticket sales, etc... If atmosphere was what they were going for they'd treat them like a real team, or at least like a Profit/Loss pole. When I looked last year I believe there was maybe only ONE MLS 2 team that even had their own website, Real Monarchs. The others were just a link on the MLS team's existing website.
I don't think every MLS team will have their own USL team, but if they did all of the sudden, that would put the number of teams at 42 (counting Reno in this, but not Austin) ... so the USL just needs to expand to 6 more "independent" markets to get to 48 ... doesn't seem that unrealistic, so I'm not sure that's really a concern. I think the USL will have 6 more independent expansion clubs prior to the 2019 season which would be the first I would see 24 MLS "2" teams exist (I don't think they'll get that many that fast, but it's possible). I don't think I ever stated that the USL independent team fans SHOULD care what MLS teams want their Reserves to play in. I agree with you in what they likely care about ... and it has nothing to do with the team on the visitors bench and their goals. Not sure they're mutually exclusive at all though. Every fan should want a good atmosphere. I agree, and I hope MLS teams do take their "2" teams serious. I can only speak to the Swope Park Rangers ... and I think SKC has gone about it in a very professional way. SPR had their own jersey launch, signed a proven winning coach, opened their season in the nicest stadium in the country, have brought in proven USL talent (not just Academy talent) and blended it with some MLS loans, college graduates and a few academy players. They've kept the team young, but not so young they can't be competitive. They want to win (and so far that's seen on the field). The fact that their webpage is a link off of SKC's means very little to me. Also, as a fan of SPR I could care less what other USL teams do on their website or what they do for their fans, that's their business and I'll keep from judging them on that. I don't care if some games a played in front of a few hundred people ... but I'm encouraged by my team playing in front of 8000+ and hope that continues. SAFC are close to selling out a game with a MLS"2" coming in ... but I don't think SAFC fans should care about what crest the visitors wear ... a good team is coming and they'll see a good game.
I doubt very seriously that people are going or not going because of the 2s. Why muddy the waters of your brand? People here are just so gung-ho about having as many teams that don't exist come into existence and as many different names and colors and badges and scarves as they can get. Enough already.
Didn't hear any official figure for tonight 4/8 but less than the opener, I'd guess about 1,200. Average will be worse than last year at this rate. Also T2 seem weaker on the field than last year, kept very few players from last year and replaced with worse players in general. Could be a long season ahead but with Dylan back next week and Belmar getting back to full fitness our results should improve (wouldn't be hard right now)
Are you suggesting pro/rel system be implemented in the United States? I hear this argument (for and against) quite often and simply would like your thoughts. You seem like you've got a good grasp. I mean, I completely agree that at some point you need to cap the amount of "pro" clubs we see in the top 3 tiers. If that's the system we're going to stick with. And I think 3 levels is a good place to start. But, for instance, England has 9 levels on it's pyramid. We're a country that dwarfs England in land mass and population, almost or more than 6 times larger in population. Granted, soccer hasn't been a mainstay in this country. Most see it as a girls sport, a secondary sport, or simply act like it doesn't exist. We all know this is the largest hurdle to jump in the states, however let's say "if" that were to happen and soccer booms even more, how are we going to manage this situation? The MLS makes it clear they want clubs in the largest cities, with the largest soccer specific venues possible that can be filled, and they want them in downtown locations. Great, I like that as well. But then what's the cuttoff? When and how do we determine which cities are not large enough, despite the fact that many "smaller" cities have equal, or in many cases, more than equal support for this sport? If somehow we could manage to get 15,000 averages for all NASL clubs, what is the desired number for USL squads? 5000? 10,000? Most average well below 5000. I am open to the idea of reserve squads forming their own league. I think, in a way, that the only possibility of getting large amounts of fans to support a USL side is to make them their own brand. Make these smaller clubs in whatever city they reside that city's club. People aren't going to support a Timbers 2 (for instance) because they can go watch the Timbers starting 11 anytime, with more fans, more supporter atmosphere, etc. Now take Timbers 2 and turn them into the Eugene Mossy Oaks (or something) and what will happen? Idk, and maybe they fail, but I can't see USL gaining any momentum in adding even more teams, and by letting reserve squads exist at the same time. Sorry for the short novel.
How you got any of that from Kenn's post is beyond me, but I'll address some of the issues you bring up. England has 23 tiers, not 9. It has 4 pro tiers, and a few more semi-pro tiers down the way. They begin to regionalize at tier 6. The reason they can get away with a lack of regionalization down so far is purely a function of geography. It's irrelevant, though. The size of our country means we're not going to head down the English style route. At best, we're looking more toward a Germany style, where heavy regionzaliation starts quickly at the 4th tier (though for us it will start at the 3rd tier). Make soccer the most popular sport in the US and you still wouldn't have 4 tiers of single table pro leagues. Every single one of our sports leagues is even regionalized at the top tier, and even more as you move downward. We're forging out own path and that's fine. The "cutoff" is irrelevant as it's going to be an organic situation. USL is heading toward even more regionalization and there is no reason why it couldn't expand to four conferences of 16 teams or something along those lines. MLS will stop expanding when it wants. Could be at 28, 32, 40, who knows? We'll cross the bridge of "what do we do with the successful lower division clubs if MLS is done expanding?" if/when we get there. It's entirely possible the answer is "nothing, let them be successful lower division clubs". That's so far off it's not really worth discussing at the moment. Let's focus on filling out the 3 pro divisions we have and go from there. You're open to the idea of reserve clubs forming their own league, but MLS is not. Full stop. They don't want a reserve league. They had that and it sucked. They want reserve teams playing against independent teams. They're not heading toward the AAA baseball route but more toward a hybrid of a traditional American farm team and what the German/Spanish teams do with their reserve squads. If you want as many pro teams in the US as possible, you'd want MLS 2 teams to stay in the same area as their parent clubs. If Timbers 2 move to Eugene, that removes Eugene as a candidate for an independent pro team. That means Lane United, a club in Eugene who with aspirations of moving to a professional division, is going to stay in the PDL or perhaps not exist at all. If the Timbers stay in Portland, then Lane United moves up in a couple of years, establishes themselves as an independent team in Eugene and now you've got an extra pro club. What would have happened if San Jose put their reserve team in Sacramento? What if Columbus put one in Cincinnati (FC Cincinnati is debuting to 10k+ this weekend)? The more MLS-2 teams stay in market, the more independent teams can exist. Lehigh Valley and Rio Grande Valley aren't going to have independent teams now. That Timbers 2 or Galaxy II aren't ever going to have a big following isn't the point of the clubs. They're development clubs, pure and simple. They're not going to fold from lack of revenue. The only real reason an MLS team would move a club out of it's market is to try and lose less money. That's it. There are many benefits of keeping your reserve team in the market (getting to use the world class facilities your first team does, ease of movement/training between first, second and academy teams, allowing your HG signings to stay local, creating an ethos that starts in your academy, continues through the reserve team and to the first team, etc) and the only benefit of moving your reserve club to another market is to try and lose less money on your reserve team. You can talk about playing in an "atmosphere" but that's of dubious value in terms of development. As for USL gaining momentum on their current track, 22 of the 29 teams in USL joined after the MLS-USL partnership was announced, 10 independent and 12 reserve teams. Two more independent clubs are announced for next year already. It's not preventing teams from joining. The regionalization is a big draw for teams across the country. Plus, if you analyze attendances for 2015, attendances for independent USL sides are actually better when they host MLS-2 teams as opposed to when they host other independent USL teams. Not by much, but it's an indicator that having MLS-2 teams in the league doesn't affect the attendances of independent teams.
Nope. I'm suggesting that Instagram should go back to its former policy of showing you posts in reverse chronological order. Both of those things have just as much to do with what I actually wrote about people being obsessed with teams that don't yet exist and with badges, scarves and colors.
It doesn't affect crowds of independent teams in large part because (with very few exceptions) the identity of the opponent has a very small impact compared to date and weather and the ability of the front office to sell tickets (especially groups). But since you brought it up.... Seven independent USL clubs had what you would call fairly substantial to very substantial attendance gains when hosting MLS O&Os last season. Three had what you'd call fairly substantial to substantial drops and six showed a negligible to small effect. Overall, the impact was about 12 percent. (Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story, because not all games are equivalent (and because a club like Sacramento is going to sell a lot of tickets regardless of opponent. If everybody always played on Saturday nights at 7 in great weather, it would control for that.) While there were some Portland Timbers fans at Arizona United's home opener (just for one example), the vast majority of the people there weren't coming to see Timbers 2 (nor were they turned off by the opponent...the opponent really doesn't matter in most cases). The eight largest crowds in games involving an MLS O&O as the road team in an independent* team's home game last year were all in Sacramento (six tallies of 11,442 and two of 10,096). I do not believe those people were turning out (or staying away) because the opponents were Real Monarchs SLC (twice), LA Galaxy II (twice), Seattle Sounders FC 2 (twice), Portland Timbers 2 and Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2 (once each). Of the 10 highest-attended non-Sacramento games in this group, seven were played on Saturdays and another on Sunday, and three were home openers: Sat...6/20/2015..NYRB at Louisville .......7,454 Wed...8/05/2015..Montreal at Louisville ...6,836 Sat...4/18/2015..Seattle at OKC ...........6,797 (Home Opener) Sun...4/26/2015..NYRB at Rochester.........6,184 (Home Opener) Sat...4/25/2015..Portland at Arizona.......6,108 (Home Opener) Sat...5/16/2015..Toronto at Louisville ....6,090 Sat...5/30/2015..Portland at Tulsa ........5,755 Sat...8/01/2015..Montreal at Charleston....5,638 Thu...9/24/2015..Toronto II at Rochester...5,612 (Home Finale) Sat...8/08/2015..Montreal at Saint Louis...5,321 But, yeah, there's no evidence to support the notion that the presence of MLS developmental teams in USL has a big negative impact, on the whole, on the potential of non-MLS developmental teams to sell tickets. *Even independent teams had or have MLS affiliations, but the term as used here is to distinguish those clubs from those completely owned and controlled by an MLS team as their developmental arm.
Absolutely. Clubs will live and die on their own accords, not based on who shows up in the away locker room. As a side note, my numbers for Pittsburgh differ from yours. Our independent vs indepdent numbers agree but I've got 2,602 as an average for their three game versus MLS O&O teams and you've got 2,731. For those days, I've got: 4/25 vs TFC II - 2,241 7/4 vs NYRB II - 3,122 6/20 vs FC Montreal - 2,151 By the way 14,658 in Cincinnati as per their stream. Very impressive. Also G2 drew 719 on Friday night.
Last year's USL numbers changed over time. By that I mean, some game numbers would start out as one figure and eventually be replaced by another number. I have 2,241 for 4/25 and 3,801 for the 7/4 game. I have 2,151 for the 6/20 match. I'll gladly change my 7/4 number if you can show me a source.