I think the quicker and only viable (at present time anyways) option for this is to be a part of USL and eventually push for USL1/USL2 split with the top teams going to USL1. NASL just isn't happening. I understand that they may have expansion opportunities ... but how realistic are you to get the right kind of owners to a league who just lost half of their team due to economic issues (Cosmos, OKC, Strikers, Armada) and others to a rival league (Tampa, Ottawa). It's just hard for me to imagine the strong desire to join what's left of the NASL at this point in time.
Yeah it's all perception to me. It just looks really lazy to have all these II/2 teams playing in the same MLS stadiums, only far emptier. Really diminishes the appeal of some away games for a supporter of an independent team like me. I'm not too hung up on the whole "farm team" aspect of it. I understand it's going to take some work to brand/relocate these affiliate clubs though so I'm patient.
Exactly. If the MLS 2 teams were of inferior quality by being direct minor league teams of their MLS counterparts those complaining about them might have an argument. But seeing as the MLS 2 teams are of late kicking the rest of the league's butt it hardly seems a valid argument.
The complaints that actually have a modicum of merit: The teams' top priority is player development, not winning. Looking at the USL standings and playoff results shows that they are certainly competitive, though. The teams' top priority is player development, not fan experience. Top attendance for B teams is average at best, and the worst attended are almost all B sides. Does this make the experience worse at other games? Maybe, maybe not. But recent B sides are being placed in other cities, where they can build a stronger separate brand.
Bethlehem had ok attendance and was at the top of the MLS 2 teams. So it does appear giving them their own identity goes a long way.
I'd be shocked if RGV Toros are not further up the attendance charts once their stadium is finished. That will be the "model" that a lot of people want from an aesthetic reason ... but I question if the development part of the equation is hurt by being that far away from Houston.
Sadly not the case with Orlando City B....they are moving from Melbourne FL to Orlando to play in the new stadium. Too bad they couldn't brand them different and keep them elsewhere in FL.
This is a key point I think. It's not the idea of MLS sides themselves that is problematic off field (on field it's not seeming to be problematic at all). But off field the teams should be placed in locations where they can develop their own complimentary or even separate fan bases to the parent club. I'll use an example from a competing sport that has a similar set up to MLS/USL, the NHL and AHL. The AHL is a mix of independent teams and parent NHL club owned teams like USL is today. And like USL the parent club owned teams in AHL have of late taken two different routes. Teams like San Jose Barracuda (SJ Sharks) and Manitoba Moose (Winnipeg Jets), have been placed in their parent club arenas. Others like the Ontario Reign (LA Kings) and San Diego Gulls (Anaheim Ducks) have been placed in the same or neighboring markets where they still enjoy to some extent the benefits of proximity to their parent clubs but also located in places where they've been able to cultivate their own independent fan base. As a result, Ontario and San Diego are two of the highest attended clubs in the 30 team AHL (fifth and second respectively), the Moose and Barracuda are by comparison middle of the pack and near the bottom respectively (and that's with Manitoba playing in the recently NHL revitalized and hockey mad Winnipeg market). MLS owned USL teams would do well to follow the example of San Diego and Ontario in the AHL. Find locations that are complimentary to the MLS team without stepping on the parent club's proverbial toes. For example LA Galaxy II shouldn't be playing at Stub Hub Center. They should follow the Kings example and put the USL team in the Inland Empire. It may cost more than putting them next door in the track stadium, but it could ultimately grow their brand and the USL team's own following (as much as the Galaxy brand growing would personally sicken me). And while they're at it the USL sides, even those owned by the parent, should adopt a unique but complimentary moniker. S2, LA Galaxy II, names like that highlight their minor status rather than allow the team to have its own identity. Again look at the Reign and Gulls in AHL. Reign is clearly an allusion to the Kings brand, and they share color schemes (and the Reign mascot is actually the Kings old retired mascot), but at the same time it's a unique brand all their own. Gulls is a little different being a long time San Diego hockey team name predating the Ducks involvement (this is the 4th team to utilize the name), but at the same time the Gulls color scheme, uniforms and the waterfowl theme are all good ties into the parent Ducks name while clearly being their own.
When the identity is good, and the market is good. I think people need to be careful about drawing one-size-fits-all conclusions about the best way to operate the second teams. In places where there is a different local market that could embrace their own local team, the Bethlehem/RGV model is appropriate. I'm not convinced it works everywhere, and always serves the objectives of the parent team in terms of player and brand development. Maybe it makes sense in Seattle and Portland to move the second teams outside the city, but maybe not in LA and Toronto. My perception is that Los Dos, the original MLS second team, are already developing their own identity. I can imagine the same thing happening with TFCII over time: a cheap local alternative once tickets to the "big club" become too expensive for the youth team and "enjoy a day out watching soccer" crowd. If there's a mistake with the marketing of the "2"-branded teams so far it's probably aiming to sell tickets, to the extent they try to sell tickets, to the same fans who are already season ticket holders. People only have so much time to watch so much soccer.
Don't disagree with any of this ... but these "reserve" clubs are relatively new and MLS teams are tying to figure out what works for them and what doesn't. Many changes will happen (local 2 teams will move to more remote locations, some remote teams will move closer to their MLS squads). There isn't a one size fits all and it certainly doesn't hurt the other clubs in the league (attendance for independents isn't greatly effected by the visitors jersey/name/home location, etc. Is it better for Tampa to play Orlando B in Orlando, RGV Toros or FC Edmonton ... all are different and have plus's and negatives to them ... I guess throw in Richmond as the "affiliate" and you essentially have 4 different types of teams (independent, affiliate, MLS2 in satellite market, MLS2 in MLS market). I doubt Tampa's ticket sales, fan experience, revenue, ability/desire to win is changed by any of the 4 options. The only thing that changes is some blog chatter. That's it. So why the pushback?
But you have to understand that the owner of RGVFC also owns the Houston D league (Basketball) team. Driving is about 5-6 hour drive, but only 1 hour flight to Houston. And yes they are building a stadium that will seat 9600. So I do expect the attendance to really jump as where they played last year at the college and at HEB park, but practice field were not really set up for big numbers. In looking at the basketball they draw about 4-5k.
Actually, Tampa Bay's ticket sales have been hurt by the switch, with some negative pushback by season ticket holders. The Rowdies Facebook page can provide you with examples. But part of that has to do with the prices for 2017 (which are up) and some negative perception about the USL in general.
Good to know. Crazy to think it would have anything to do with perception IMO ... and the ticket pricing thing clouds that issue. Thanks for the info!
I think the vast majority is the prices, they're up by a good amount. If I had to put a number on it, that's probably 80-90% of it...there's a lot of "I won't pay those prices to see third division soccer". Casual fans aren't paying attention to what's happening with the two leagues. A much smaller part of it is the VSI Tampa Bay debacle. Some hardcores have sour memories - it was only a few years ago that USL partnered with VSI to put a team in Tampa Bay to compete with the Rowdies.
The Rowdies Facebook page can provide you with anecdotes. Season ticket holders are, by their very nature and definition, more hardcore than those who merely follow the team or go to a handful of games. They're more likely to kvetch about things. Given it's been six weeks since the move to USL and they're months away from kicking a ball (and have the whole #MLS2STPETE thing going on now), it's not only too early to tell if the switch has had an overall negative effect on ticket sales (especially based on people spouting off on Facebook), it would be counterproductive for people now that their club is one of 10 finalists for what appear to be the last four slots in MLS. The NASL does not appear to be an option any longer. People can bitch and moan about "having" to watch their team play RBNYII (oh, the horror, a good team comes to town) or they can look more long-term.
Maybe if you're a Tampa transplant in Edmonton, you're going to miss out on your team coming to town 4 times in 2017 because they moved to USL. In all seriousness ... how many 2017 NASL road match's are reasonable to get to from any other NASL location? I guess you can't tell until you know the teams that survive financial troubles ... but damn it doesn't look good.
Fair point. I'm not a Ralph's Mob guy so probably only would go to Orlando once just to check out their new digs, but it'll be kinda lame if only a couple hundred people are there total. Ditto for watching the games on TV/stream. Something about watching sports in a visibly empty stadium that sucks the life out of it. That applies to stadium bans abroad as well, BTW. Like I admitted though, it's just a silly subjective perception thing. I don't think it's a very tangible indictment of USL and I have no problem watching the II teams play us here. There's a lot of low information whiners (and Orlando trolls) on Rowdies Facebook, so I don't take it too seriously. I know Ralph's Mob was a little upset at the price hike but managed to come to a deal with the team.
Say people who, as recently as 2009, had 0 Division soccer to watch. On the bright side, maybe they could actually make the playoffs in the third division. And talk about little-known and hardly remembered.
Also, doesn't the "I won't pay these prices to watch third-division soccer" kind of put paid to the following often-offered concepts? 1 - Support your local club, regardless 2 - Relegation won't hurt your fan base 3 - Without pro/rel, Division II and Division III are meaningless distinctions ???