Battle of Tulsa

You're absolutely correct. MLS teams WANT to have all of the say, and if they want it bad enough they'll spend the money to have a MLS2 team (Like LA). But they don't have all of the say under the current agreement.

The benefit for the USL clubs is cheap talent ... which means more to some than others obviously. Orlando City made it work last year ... without SKC telling them how much to play those players. If some MLS teams are dictating those terms, it may not work as smoothly. It's very hard to know how it will play out after such a small sample size. I believe the USL Playoffs last year did show that the talent influx does help the USL clubs (3 of the 4 semifinalists were MLS affiliates, right?) LA will be a good test study this year as well ... but it will also be a very small sample size. Either way, it's good for development that some of these highly talented young MLS players are getting minutes (in whatever league they get loaned in) at a higher rate than they were getting minutes in MLS.

 

Again you're failing to register the key points. I'll try one last time since I'm a nice guy. This whole thing is still in the feeling out process. MLS is testing the waters, and each case will be different. Perhaps SKC tech staff is familiar enough and trusts Heath at OCSC enough to let him be more autonomous with their players. If you read carefully you would see I said eventually, if MLS sees value in this set up, they WILL take more control over it. Or they will eschew affiliations to jut put reserve teams in like the Galaxy. But that creates another issue in itself, one of money. Right now some teams might feel they have no choice but to just send a few guys and hope for the best because that is the least expensive current option of the agreement. If/when MLS teams decide this is worthy of further investment, they will want control. They'll create their own team with their own coaches, or yes, much to your chagrin, they will exercise some level of control over their players playing with an affiliate.

 

And my question has always been when/if MLS "takes more control" as you say, when will that control be at more off a league level, especially when/if there are as many or more MLS II teams in the league as there are individually owned teams? And what could that control look like?

 

If that happens, it will be very similar to what the MLS Reserve League looked like ... hopefully with a bigger schedule, more regional play, and provide more opportunities for players to develop and show their skill. Hard to argue that an MLS funded team can not attract more/better talent than a stand alone D2 or D3 team at this point in time if given the opportunity. Eventually, some of that TV money that the NASL and USL doesn't see will trickle down to their "B" squads and they'll be able to put a good product on the field. I hope it doesn't turn into an MLS takeover. At some point in time if every MLS team has an MLS2 team I think they may break away from that instead of simply taking over the USL League entirely and go back to the Reserve League. They'll be doing it for development and can simply line up double headers and not worry about attendance (which I doubt they'll worry about in the USL too).

They needed the MLS reserve players to get more games ... the USL is a mechanism to allow that. If every team eventually has an MLS2 squad (basically expands their 30 man roster to a 40+ man roster) then they can give those players games and have them on the same training/playing schedule by simply doing double headers. They'll be set up for that at that point in time (unlike 2 years ago when they simply weren't set up for that). I think the USL would still be relevant and have teams in stand alone markets and the MLS2 teams would likely be mainly in their parent clubs markets.

Who knows ... there are many ways for this to go, but right now it's good for both MLS and USL (at least on the surface). Hard to predict the future or worry that the sky will fall!

 

I'm sorry, I dont' think I was missing your point, I get it and fully understand and appreciate it. I read you to believe that MLS already controls how often their players play for the USL clubs and that they currently dictate how their affiliates use them. Now I read your words in this comment to believe that they will EVENTUALLY have that control. They may, but right now I don't believe they do. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your comments before to say that MLS already has and uses that control. I agree, eventually they may want that control, and I think if they do, they will field a MLS2 team to get that control.

I also am one that thinks that it won't be the end of the world if the USL is populated with 48 or so teams with half of them being MLS2 teams that the sky would fall and it wouldn't be a league that would draw a crowd and interest ... it would look like a lot of other lower division leagues across the world.

 

Except for being twice as big as any other lower division league in the world, you mean?

I have long said that having two differing agendas in the same league is probably not completely healthy, but I don't know that the people footing the bill really care all that much about that.

In the scenario you describe above, the Charlestons and other clubs who are established and understand how to run their businesses would still be drawing crowds, certainly. And even if OKC has several MLS loanees, there's no more reason to believe the fine folks there would be any more turned off by that than most cities are by their AAA or AA baseball teams, which are populated by transients.

But an LAGII scenario (which NYRB seems set to replicate), where it's basically the "other" team playing just off to the side, whose sole purpose is player development and not to be an actual club, well, I'm not sure how great that is or how big a crowd they're going to draw. Small sample size, but at the moment, very few people really give a rat's ass about LAGII. Even fans of LAGI.

 

Actually Kenn, take a look at Segunda Division B (the 3rd tier of the Spanish Pyramid). It is divided up into 4 groups of 20 teams (80 teams). Each group is in a different region of the country. The top 4 teams in each group qualify for a 16 team playoff (sounds very American, I know!). I don't disagree with the differing agendas though.

In what ways do LAG2 having low attendance HURT the USL itself? Can Charleston not sell as many tickets to their home match's with LAG2 in the league than they could without? I get that the attendance of MLS2 teams may bring down the "average" attenance of the USL ... but really, is there a trophy or a prize for the best attendance averge in a lower division in the US? maybe all 3rd division teams in the world are competing for this title? I am not discounting that there is a fundamental flaw in operating a lower division team at a complete loss (what would happen if no one was there to pay to watch) but a league can prosper and have ownership groups with different goals for their teams, right? I don't think MLS loaned players help or hurt stand alone USL clubs at the moment ... in the stands or in the standings. Too small of a sample size. I don't think it's hurt them but I don't think it's bumped them up to a level unattainable without the affiliation either. But I don't think LAG2 or a group of MLS2 teams will drag down the league due to poor attendance in home venues that are using the team for development as opposed to entertaining a crowd they hope to pay to watch. That's not part of their business model.

I guess, the one way it could hurt the USL clubs is if every MLS2 club is created and they dominate in the standings. If there is a competitive balance shift and USL clubs don't draw fans becuase they aren't competitive. That is a ways off, and we don't know that it would continue if that ended up being the case. At that point in time it actually hurts the development of the MLS2 squads by playing against teams that can't compete and they may break away at that point and have an MLS2 league that has a full schedule instead of the 8 game MLSReserve schedule that they had before. They'd still get development and a full schedule which is all they're after right now anyways (not $$ from selling tickets to MLS2 games).

 

It's not the numbers.

It's the attitude.

A "league" should be a collection of clubs with common interests and goals.

It has ********-all to do with the actual attendance numbers.

It has to do with there being teams basically guest-starring in a league rather than being actually invested in the overall success of said league.

To quote a very old analogy, it's like the pig and the chicken's differing contributions to the ham and egg breakfast: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

 

I can understand that. Do you think the difference in "interests" means it can't work? Do you think it doesn't work in other countries that have the same set up? If it does work there why can it not here?

I'm asking because I would love to hear your opinion, not because I think you're wrong, I'm genuinely curious.

Right now it would be hard to argue that LA2 is hurting the competition on the field by "developing" over the cost of winning (just based on their place in the standings). Not all MLS2 teams would be able to do that, but that's why they don't all have teams this year. I completely agree that if there were a bunch of MLS2 teams out there just running out a team to get minutes instead of trying to compete for wins then there would be a BIG issue. Until I see that I won't worry about it ... I have no problem understanding that players playing for Barca B are out there trying to win games, because doing well means getting noticed, and it's hard for a collection of players to perform well and not be competitive ... if they're not competitive, it's hard to say they're performing well.

I don't know what the *******'s mean, I'm guessing a word that you shouldn't type, just not sure what word is put in front of "-all".

I do agree that the guest starring players would need to be limited (but they can adapt if there are issues) ... but I think MLS2 teams have an invested in their own teams and are wanting the USL to be successful to be able to keep the 3rd tier regional and competitive for their MLS2 teams. MLS wants the USL to succeed so it can continue to USE it as a developmental tool. The MLS needs better NASL and USL development so it can get cheap talent ... that's enough to want the league to succeed. They can have the desire for league success and not need to put butts in the seats for the league to actually succeed.

 

Also ... I do love the chicken/pig comment ... very good analagy there and I do appreciate that thought. Maybe it won't work, but hopefully before the MLS/USL get to a point where the different "committments" in the 3rd division gets too far apart, the USL has built up a strong group of non MLS2 members to keep it successful after any split.

 

You know that Spain is a country where soccer is on par with NFL/NCAA/HSFootball levels of interest, right?

 

Yes all knowing Mr. Warmth ... I do know that. But I'm not sure that "popularity" is necessary for what we're talking about. Kenn said it would be large than any other lower division league in the world ... I pointed out a pyramid that had a larger 3rd (full professional ... I didn't use Germany's 4th division that isn't fully professional).

Please explain your point sir. Does Soccer need to be the #1 popular sport in this country for what I was suggesting? Hardly, 48 USL clubs (half MLS2, half USL) doesn't need 25 new markets (the MLS2 clubs can be in existing MLS markets), doesn't need 25 new ownership groups (MLS2 expansions wouldn't need that), they wouldn't need 25 new fan bases (I don't believe they need to create a new fan base for their MLS2 side for it to be successful and be integrated into the league). So help me out with your point. I'm failing to understand why soccer needs to be as popular in the US as it is in Spain for there to be 48 teams in the 3rd tier? Players? How many players has the Galaxy 2 squad needed to bring in that werne't already accounted for in their acadamy or their MLS roster? 10? If that's your issue then you think there is enough professional roster spots in the US right now to give to US players ... or that we shouldn't bring in younger foreign players to possibly fill up roster spots.

Trust me, I appreciate the skeptics view, I just like to understand their point if possible, thanks for helping me get there.

 

Forgive me for not being as up on the Spanish third division as I might be.

 

The answer to most of the "If it works there, why can't it work here" questions is, "BECAUSE THIS IS ********ING AMERICA."

I'm not yelling at you when I say that, I'm just so ********ing tired of hearing that "Europe! Why not here?" bullshit for all these years.

I'm not even talking about the whys and wherefores of another country's setup or anything.

I'm telling you that IN MY MIND (and in the minds of most successful league people in various sports over time), a "league" is a collection of clubs with similar goals and interests.

A league where half the teams want to win and want to be relevant in their communities and want to be successful businesses and the other half just want to develop players and aren't interested in much else isn't really a league to me.

Will the whole thing implode? No. Did I say that it would? No. I said that's not a ********ing league. That's a collection of teams with widely disparate interests.

LAGII is one ********ing team in a group of 14 that has played exactly nine ********ing games in its life. So, yeah, it's a little ********ing early to say one way or the other.

But I'm not talking about where we ********ing sit on May ********ing 14th. I'm talking about YOUR scenario of a 48 Goddamn Team League with half MLS Circle Jerk teams and half Actual Teams.

You can have a desire for league success, but if you're not lifting a ********ing finger to help make it happen, you're the chicken, not the pig.

 

Don't misunderstand pragmatism for skepticism

 

This. And what about image?

 

Here's the trouble with the full development league model though. If you have 24 MLS reserve teams, and say, 16 non-affiliated clubs (assuming team like Charleston would just operate autonomously like pre-affiliation) it becomes tricky. More than half your league will care little about attendance and winning games. It forces you to break up into divisions or conferences so as not to have a brutal regular season slate of games, although you can make a case for that as a positive. If an MLS reserve side somes to Richmond, and treats it for the most part like a scrimmage game, working on certain things, and seeing players in specific positions and situations, how does that affect the crowd's interest and enthusiasm? The first few times an MLS prospect gets injured by a tackle or play by a lower level veteran player on a non-affiliate team, will there be backlash? Will people say, our MLS prospects are getting hacked by intense players of lesser ability on a D3 team that actually does care about winning the game so is going all out? And then what about the current USL expansion franchise sales pitch of, hey look at Orlando, join USL and you could be next to jump to MLS! But then you're playing practice games against a lot of teams who don't even care if they win or lose.

Hard to say what the future will hold on this. Could go a lot of different ways.

 

No worries, when you said ...

"Except for being twice as big as any other lower division league in the world, you mean? "
I made and assumption that you knew what you were talking about ... won't make that assumption again.

 

Oh, I'm very much the chicken, because I don't have the $$ or connections or anything, I'm just a fan ... evidently making crazy comments that lead to ********'s being thrown around when all I asked for was an opinion. Outside of the ********'s, I get what you're saying and I tend to agree. It's not ideal, and I didn't say anything like "since it works in Spain it should work here". I am just asking the question because I've never seen it fail here (a developmental league mixed with a group of minor league teams). It probably hasn't failed because it hasn't had a chance to ... but it looks like we may get a chance to find out. I'll try to slow down asking your opinion on things as evidently that's not what you want to provide without ********ing all over the screen.

 

Completely agree, there is a lot of "unknowns". It really matters if people in places like Charleston care enough about them playing against a team full of prospects as opposed to guys washed out of the league above. I don't know if it does because I'm not there. I don't know if attendance in one location (an MLS2 location) effects attendance in a place like Richmond or Charleston ... or how it negatively effects the League they both play in. Financially I don't know that it hurts (or does the USL share revenues from the "gate")?

Either way, lot of things to watch for.

 

I need to take a picture of this, someone corrected Kenn on something, shit like that does not happen often, no wonder it is snowing in Chicago right now.

Now if Kenn admits his error, wow, I may need to run to the baseman we may have a sharknado up in here.

 

Been jumping though the pages here, lots of valid points. NASL soccer will work in Tulsa if the politics can all get worked out. While my home is now in Joplin, my hometown is Tulsa and I grew up on the Tulsa Roughnecks. It is a shame that the name will live on as a "D3 Coverband". I attended lots of sold out Tulsa Roughnecks games that were sold out and made my television debut on the 10 o'clock news getting creamed as a ball boy for not paying attention to the game. I believe capacity was somewhere around 25,000 to 30,000 in the late 70's and early 80's. While American Football is king in Oklahoma, soccer is close behind in a state where you will never ever get an NFL team. Will Tulsa ever get a MLS team? I just don't know if the market is big enough but I could be wrong. Kansas City, MO and Kansas City, KS combined population base is roughly 611,578. Tulsa's is 393,987.

The amount of money involved in an NASL franchise alone is staggering. If the Roughnecks live on as a D3 Coverband, maybe it is the Athletics name that catapults up to the NASL level. There is a lot of potential at the current Athletics game site to upgrade. Tulsa County lost the Drillers because they wouldn't upgrade the stadium. If the cards are played right Tulsa County would be foolish not to look at this as an opportunity to help bring back a solid tenant to the stadium. Sonny is on the right track with his dream to bring a higher level of soccer back to Tulsa if he can just find some support.