D3 Division Super Thread

Discussion in 'United Soccer Leagues' started by thomas19064, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ==============
    Could the "new" Fresno team be the USL (D2) team and the Fuego become their PDL D4 (U23) team ?
     
  2. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    -----------
    Which is where a little bit of USSF changes would be much welcomed.
    Between PDL and NPSL, i think there are about 168 teams.
    Sanction PDL and NPSL as D4 & D5, especially assuming the new USL D3 is sanctioned.
    -
    The between MLS2 teams, existing PDL & NPSL teams, plus all the expansion cities being talked about in any of these leagues and even maybe some existing USL teams that need to drop a level ,you fill these 3 leagues levels with appropriate standards for each level (budgets, stadium sizes, rooster sizes etc.) If we seem to now have it for the existing USL (d2) and apparently will for the upcoming USL3 (d3), i think you can create a set of standards all the way down to the potential D4 & D5 levels as well.
    -
    Ideally all 3 of these leagues need to have divisions that are regional in nature for travel savings and building rivals.
    So if all 3 leagues each had about 60 teams each, you could break that down into 4 15 team geographical divisions
    ----
    You put 3 solid D3-4-5 leagues underneath the 2 professional divisions =a 22-26 team MLS (D1) and a 26-30 team USL (D2), i think our pyramid would have an very large supporting base.
    -
    And you could argue that under the D3-4-5 teams, you have the academies and even NCAA teams supplying players.
    Another idea is at least in the D4 -5 levels, the roosters should be "open", all comers. NCAA kids can play and not loose eligibility, walk on's, injured players trying to make a comeback, players with Visa issues, kids that graduated, whatever.
    The rooster should allow that if league is a 4-5 month schedule, space on the rooster should be allowed for the NCAA kids who can only play 2-3 months. I realize that may cause headaches for the coaches, but that is why the rest of the roster should have flexibility.
     
  3. aetraxx7

    aetraxx7 Member+

    Jun 25, 2005
    Des Moines, IA
    Club:
    Des Moines Menace
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    PDL & NPSL currently pull their players from NCAA programs. That is literally how they operate. Essentially, there is no difference in the level of play as they draw from the same pool. Both leagues are technically amateur, which is why they are not designated as D4/D5.
    Sanctioning one above the other creates a world of headaches in the same way that sanctioning the different AAU operations into different tiers would.
     
    TheJoeGreene and kenntomasch repped this.
  4. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While the PDL and NPSL should draw from the same pool, it SEEMS (though I have not gone through the rosters) that the PDL has more Division I kids and the NPSL a combination of more smaller college and NAIA kids PLUS more "overage" (post-college) players than I thought.

    Last year I looked at the all-NPSL teams and was struck by how many of them were out of college.

    As for level of play, let me check, but I think the PDL gets the best of the NPSL in head-to-head Open Cup competition.

    And they may very well punt the MLS2 teams back to D3 in the name of protecting USL's D2 application, but the MLS teams are not very likely to think that mixing them in with the collection of college kids and never-was guys that populate the NPSL and PDL is a very robust development environment.

    (You also have the issue of college kids not being able to participate prior to May 1 on an outside team, and the fact they have to be back on campus in mid-August, which compresses a theoretical timeline in this "everybody into the pool for the sake of geography" setup.)
     
    Sandon Mibut repped this.
  5. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Then if NPSL has more kids out of college and never was type players, then maybe you put them as D4 and leave PDL as D5 as that shorter season needs to fit with the current NCAA set up. And I guess, if its a learning environment, I would be ok with that.
    -
    Now, of course, this is all based on the current NCAA college season set up.
    Wasn't there some discussion about the NCAA going to a split season?
    While as first glance, sounds good, but could cause a shift in leagues, unless you leave PDL where it is - starts after the end of the NCAA spring session and ends before the beginning of the fall session.
     
  6. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #81 thomas19064, Oct 28, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    We may be getting In the weeds discussing NCAA and college soccer fitting in the landscape, but any chance more teams can take or be encouraged to take the BYU route and field a club team in PDL? Pros/Cons? Has that been a success for BYU?
     
  7. VBCity72

    VBCity72 Member+

    Aug 17, 2014
    Sunny San Diego
    Club:
    Plymouth Argyle FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No it hasn't, BYU is leaving the PDL.
     
    TheJoeGreene and kenntomasch repped this.
  8. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That was a 14-year experiment that saw exactly zero other schools go that route. And, as referenced above, BYU (which I did not realize was not a varsity team to begin with) left the PDL to create more of a traditional college soccer experience.

    Also, there is no D4. USSF would have to create a D4 with standards, and most NPSL teams would not be able to meet them.
     
    aetraxx7 repped this.
  9. Paulo_PT

    Paulo_PT Member

    SL Benfica
    Portugal
    Sep 17, 2017
    In my opinion D4 should be owned and operated by D1 and D2 clubs.

    D2 should have only clubs that could play in MLS, like Las Vegas, San Diego, Sacramento, Phoenix, San Antonio, Tampa Bay, Chalotte, Raleigh, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.

    Clubs like Reno, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, Charleston, etc should play in D3.

    D3 should have the MAIN D1 and D2 affilliated clubs.
    Reno could be affilliated with Las Vegas, Colorado Springs with Colorado Rapids, Tulsa with OKC and Charleston with Charlotte for exemple.

    D4 (pro and semi-pro) should be a group of leagues made up with clubs in the Metro Areas of D1 and D2 clubs. With regional and national playoffs at the end of each season.

    Colorado Rapids D4 League
    - Fort Collins, Boulder, Aurora, Arvada, Longmont, Lakewood, Greeley, etc. (Between 8 and 16 clubs)

    When some Metro Areas couldn't support a D4 they could be United to another close metro área in the same situation:
    Example: Sporting Kansas City (D1) and St. Louis F.C. (D2) D4 League
    - Wichita, Topeka, Independence, St. Charles, Columbia, Springfield, etc.
     
  10. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    There is no D4 so it is not an issue.
     
    TheJoeGreene and kenntomasch repped this.
  11. Paulo_PT

    Paulo_PT Member

    SL Benfica
    Portugal
    Sep 17, 2017
    I'm talking about how american soccer should be organized in the next decade, not right now.

    Right now and before the end of this decade NASL should be shut down and D2 and D3 should be a reality.

    In the next decade:
    - D2 and D3 should be defined like I suggest, no MLS B or affiliated clubs in D2. D3 should serve this purpose for D1 and D2.
    - a D4 made up of between 16-32 Metro/Regional Leagues with semi-pro/pro D1 and D2 Sattellite clubs is the next step.
     
  12. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, good luck with that.
     
  13. Jonesta

    Jonesta Member

    Dec 3, 2008
    Auburn, Alabama
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think D3 in the next decade will be strong enough for MLS reserve teams to occupy. Eventually I agree with your premise that we would want a healthy D2 without MLS reserves, but the pyramid has to get stronger before that can heppen otherwise we sacrifice development of young players.
     
    Owen Thornhill repped this.
  14. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MLS reserve teams occupied Division III from 2014-2016.
     
    Todorojo repped this.
  15. Jonesta

    Jonesta Member

    Dec 3, 2008
    Auburn, Alabama
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A little disingenuous there. MLS reserves occupied USL instead of NASL which was the D2, but they wanted to be with NASL at D2 who turned them down. MLS reserves were always aimed toward D2, they just had to build USL up (and basically destroy NASL) to get the reserves to the level they wanted. Not to mention USL level of play was not substantially lower than NASL at that time. I would imagine that will not be the case between USL D2 and USL D3.
     
  16. C-Rob

    C-Rob Member

    May 31, 2000
    It depends on how a club wants to use each division. LAG and Portland have chosen to field USL teams that are young and inexperienced, and have been completely overwhelmed at D2. They would fare a lot better at D3 and most likely develop better. Conversely, teams like RBNY and SKC field more experienced teams, with young players sprinkled in. D2 is an ideal spot for such a team.
     
  17. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Might want to re-evaluate the "have been completely overwhelmed " for LA Galaxy II. The LA Galaxy II have made the playoffs in 2014, 15, and 16. 3rd overall in 2014, losing to Sacramento in the SF on some very questionable calls. 8th out of 24 in 2015, falling to Rochester in the Final after our first choice keeper got injured near the end of the game and his replacement gave up at near last gasp corner goal (I believe Rochester's first real attempt) and tired the game which we then lost in overtime (again on a corner that the keeper should have had). In 2016, LA Galaxy II again finished 5th in the West, unfortunately losing to Swope Park in the first round of the playoffs. 2017 was a bad season, for sure, but with extenuating circumstances.

    The point is, LA Galaxy II has not just held it's own in USL, but threatened to win titles. Of course, one might point to 2017, a rather dismal year for LA Galaxy II, but further inspection provides the view that many of the experienced LA Galaxy II homegrowns and otherwise were moved up to the full team, many of whom didn't earn many first team minutes but were still unable to play significant minutes with LA Galaxy II due to commitments to the first team. Basically the worst of both worlds. I have no doubt that if a competent manager/GM combo had overseen the 2017 season, both LA Galaxy and LA Galaxy II would have made the playoffs in their respective leagues.

    Of course, you're probably reading this and saying "but I said 'overwhelmed at D2 which USL was in 2017 but not prior'. While true, 2016 USL vs 2017 USL is marginal at best in terms overall quality change. Moving from D3 to D2 didn't appreciable change the quality of the league.

    Point being, LA Galaxy II has, and will continue to be, a competitive force in the USL, D2 or D3.
     
    TheJoeGreene, kenntomasch and Jonesta repped this.
  18. C-Rob

    C-Rob Member

    May 31, 2000
    I was referring to how both Portland and LAG approached their USL teams during 2017, which I admittedly did not mention. Both teams made a decision to populate their USL teams with young players, and this decision was made prior to the season. Each could have signed more experienced players to fill the void of those who moved on (mostly waived or not resigned in Portland's case, and you mentioned LAG's case). They could have even done so during the season if they chose to. Timbers2 made this choice despite missing the 2016 playoffs by a tiebreaker.

    The point is that how those teams approached during 2017 did not work out great for them. The results in the scoreboard don't matter, as this is primarily about development, but neither team, especially Portland, was able to develop their players as well as they hoped because of how overwhelmed they were most games.

    As for the D2/D3 distinction, it is true that the quality of play didn't change when USL changed divisions, but it was mostly the same group of players. When USL3 starts, it will be a different group of players, by and large populated by those who are not good enough for USL2. The quality of opponent would therefore be lower, and should LAG and Portland again feature very young and inexperienced teams, they would fare better and learn better.

    Of course, they could also learn from this past season and have a mix of experience and inexperience for 2018, rendering a move to USL3 uneccesary. We'll see.
     
  19. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    LA Galaxy II has always populated it's team with young and HG players; the formula from 2016 to 2017 absolutely did not change. The model has been successful in the past and will continue to be successful in the USL. A single year of bad play due to front office mismanagement of HG players (as well as bringing in a coach who had only coached youth teams in the past) isn't the same as what you're painting it to be.
     
    TheJoeGreene repped this.
  20. C-Rob

    C-Rob Member

    May 31, 2000
    Although everything you say may be true, what I'm saying is also true.

    During 2016, Galaxy II had 11 players on their roster (not counting Galaxy players playing down) over the age of 20. During 2017, that number was 8 .

    During 2016, the average age of the Galaxy II roster was 21.9 (not counting Galaxy loanees and academy players) was. During 2017, that average was 20.7.

    During 2016, they had just one academy player (Vergara) play with Galaxy II, and that was for just a handful of minutes. During 2017, they had 10 academy players (Juarez, Hernandez, Arteaga, Lonergan, Payeres, Estrada, Bailey, Mendez, Sepulveda, and Llanez) play with Galaxy II, totalling 3462 minutes. This is despite USL moving from 5 allowed subs to 3.

    Galaxy II clearly changed their formula from 2016 to 2017, going from young to really young. Instead of focusing on players who might be able to plug into first team (e.g., Diop, Boateng, Diallo, and Steres) with a sprinkling of long-term prospects (e.g., Lopez, Sneddon, and Vera), they moved toward using the team to train younger kids for the future. The play on the field suffered because of it. Whether the Galaxy staff felt that going this route served all these players with their development will dictate what they do for 2018 and beyond.
     
  21. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    List of cities visited:

    Lexington
    Knoxville
    Asheville
    Greenville
    Columbia
    Dayton
    Fort Wayne
    Toledo
    Lansing
    Grand Rapids
    Des Moines
    Greenville
    High Point
    Fayetteville
    Statesboro
    Macon
    Huntsville
    Montgomery
    Mobile
    Providence
    Worcester
    Manchester
    Portland
     
  22. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you drew a line from Toledo, OH to Mobile, AL, I believe all these teams would be east of that line, so sounds like a regional league in the making. NASL had problems getting teams in all time zones, USL2 does not have that problem, but will USSF have that requirement for D3 to be in all zones? Even PDL & NPSL I believe are in all time zones. And for that matter, IF NISA gets sanctioned (I hope not), will USSF requirement them to be in all time zones. Or I am simply misunderstanding that issue?
     
  23. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #98 canammj, Nov 19, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
    As I look at USL 3 coming and PDL and NPSL below and knowing that pro/rel is not coming any time soon unless there is a giant change in direction on how teams enter our leagues, why do I find myself keep thinking we should be following the professional baseball leagues set up? Everything below MLS are your affiliates, you could spread your affiliations around the country for scouting purposes. Of course USL2 is your AAA, USL3 could be your AA and frankly NPSL and PDL should merge and be your A level. If that won't work, I would have NPSL as your A since their rosters seem to have a lot lessNCAA type kids and make PDL your "rookie league" and having those players retain eligibility.
    NPSL could run spring-fall like MLS and USL and PDL could stay as the match with the existing NCAA season. Now if NCAA goes an does a fall-spring split season, maybe PDL may have to modify. Having local ownership groups help the financial burden from an MLS team having to fund all these levels , but I think we would need to revisit the player movement/placements between levels. I see posts every so often about MLS players on USL2 teams not getting a lot of playing time.
     
    Sactown Soccer repped this.
  24. Owen Thornhill

    Dec 22, 2012
    Club:
    Cork City
    Allow Pro/rel in D2/D3 and the best MLS reserves will be in D2 developing as players and the worst MLS reserves will be in D3 costing less for MLS ownership's but not developing players.
     
  25. aetraxx7

    aetraxx7 Member+

    Jun 25, 2005
    Des Moines, IA
    Club:
    Des Moines Menace
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Perhaps I am confused, but are you referencing this list?
    That would be a diagonal that leaves out Grand Rapids, at the very least.
    Des Moines is definitely west of that line. Aren't there also talks with Wichita and/or Topeka? Omaha is probably in the conversation somewhere, right?
     

Share This Page