MLS-owned USL teams

Discussion in 'United Soccer Leagues' started by EPJr, Apr 30, 2014.

  1. xbhaskarx

    xbhaskarx Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    United States
    Feb 13, 2010
    NorCal
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #576 xbhaskarx, Apr 11, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
    Are you seriously disputing that?

    That's part of the point of USL as opposed to the old reserve team games. Plenty of soccer people both here and abroad have said that getting used to playing in front of large crowds matters. Since you want evidence of what should be blatantly obvious, here is some. A quote from Sigi Schmid. Regarding a player making the move up from Sounders 2 to the Sounders... so exactly what we are talking about. When is the article from? The very day you wrote your comment, April 10, 2016. Really had to search long and hard, scouring the darkest corners of the internet to find someone who believes this to be the case..... :rolleyes:

    Schmid's quote regarding Oalex Anderson:
    “But then, he’s also a young player and sometimes you’re not sure what’s going to go on. He’ll learn. It’s a big difference playing in front of 2,000 people, then all of the sudden you’re playing in front of 40,000. But he’ll learn, he’ll mature and he’ll make better decisions.”
     
  2. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #577 GalaxyKoa, Apr 11, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
    Replicating real games, on the field, absolutely matters. As in playing against teams for whom winning is the only goal, not just development, hence my desire to have as many independent teams in USL as possible to minimize the number of reserve v reserve games. Having B teams take up those independent markets makes that goal even tougher.

    I'm only disputing that crowd size has any measurable affect on development. My assertion is that whether you're playing in front of 500 or 5000 people in your developmental years matters very little. Oalex Anderson wouldn't be any different of a player now if Seattle 2 played to crowds of 5000. He wouldn't be a better decision maker on the field. He'd not be any more mature. He'd not be a better finisher. He won't be faster or stronger or smarter. It's about learning the game and getting reps. At best he'd be slightly less overawed by the occasion of playing in front of 40k in his first game or two but that's something that quickly fades after a few appearances and certainly isn't something that affects his career trajectory.

    Sigi's quote is a comment on the increasing pressure and talent level you get from playing for the first team. That pressure comes from moving from an environment of development and into an environment of getting results. Whether you're doing it in Tukwila, Tacoma or Boise, or whether the name is S2 or the Spokane Sounders that's still a development environment where the only reason for the club's existence is not to win games but to get you to the first team. The coaches that Seattle hires are going to be the same with the same goals. They're not going to give up on development just so that Boise has a team to cheer for. It's the same goal and attitude no matter where you play.
     
  3. xbhaskarx

    xbhaskarx Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    United States
    Feb 13, 2010
    NorCal
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #578 xbhaskarx, Apr 11, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
    - exactly
    - or instead of trying to interpret Sigi's comment to suit you, you could look at the actual words he uses.

     
  4. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Getting your debut for the first team and getting past the nerves and the occasion is something that really only lasts a few games at worst and has nothing to do with development of the player. That is to say if playing in front of 500 v 5000 makes much of a difference at all.
     
  5. 30King

    30King Member+

    Jul 22, 2013
    Rocklin, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    My opinion, there's way to much unnecessary emphasis on the "development vs competitiveness" aspect of "2" teams. The entire team is playing to develop obviously, but to say that they do that at the expense of competitiveness is bullshit, and is a dig at the players on the field. Once a G2, S2, T2, WC2, TFC2, etc. player steps on the field, they want to win, bottom line. That's what being a pro athlete is all about.

    I will grant you that "2" rosters fluctuate more to get certain players time, or to get a look, but some of those teams are doing pretty damn good. Galaxy 2 has been solid since they started (as much as I hate to admit). If you suddenly combined the top teams from NASL and USL, G2 would be right at the top. It is strictly a perception issue (and NASL fanboy rhetoric) about how bad the "2" teams are. Marketing, yes. On the field, shut up.

    Whether USL, NASL, or MLS, there's a development component of every roster move. MLS substitutions happen all the time that are to get a kid field time (development of a player), even though that player may not be the "best" available at the end of the bench.

    Independent USL and NASL (though they hate to admit it) are constantly developing the next wave of players. NASL and USL accept (and play) loans from MLS- Why do you think MLS is sending the player down? To get playing time and develop.

    Bottom line, if you play in NASL or USL, development is part of the process. They may sign and play their best eleven, but if any of those players get better, they move up to a higher league (foreign or MLS). Rinse, repeat.

    NASL and USL is composed of three types of players:
    • has-beens (played in the big leagues, but cant cut it anymore)
    • never could (never made to the bigs, probably never will)
    • wannabes (still hoping to break in to the bigs)
    Any of those players will move to the next level in a heartbeat if given the chance. You can say that NASL and indie USL aren't developing, just making the team better, but it semantics when the player can leave to a higher level if he improves.
     
    aetraxx7 and Blando13 repped this.
  6. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I certainly don't mean to posit that 2 teams (or players on those teams) don't play to win or aren't good teams and I never said that independent teams don't develop players in their own right. I realize you're making a statement in general but you quoted me so I figure that I should make myself clear.

    What I meant by what you quoted is that I believe that having those independent clubs is beneficial for developing players on MLS-2 teams because raises the importance of the games (compared to a league where the entirety is MLS-2 teams). An MLS-2 could be at the foot of the table year after year but if it continues to produce quality players for the first team, then the club is a success. For an independent club, if they never produce a player that makes it to MLS but consistently win championships (and ideally make enough money to stay in business), then the club is a success. It's two fundamentally differing approaches to clubs. That doesn't mean MLS-2 clubs can't be fantastic on the field or independent clubs can't develop players (and often the two overlap; they're not opposites), just that it's not their primary concern.

    Though I think you touched on some stuff regarding "cant the two coexist in the league when their goals are so different?", which I agree is something some have made too much of.
     
    SoccerPrime, ManuSooner and 30King repped this.
  7. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the reason everyone makes too much of it is because that's the "macro" view ... the "micro" view of the situation is that the goals are similar ... win the game in front of you with the players you have available to you. As long as the "micro" goal remains the same, I don't see a big issue. For the both end goals ... the "micro" view needs to be to win games. A player won't develop as fast if he's on a team that can't compete on the field, that likely would mean less time on the ball and always chasing games, etc.

    Just my 2 cents.
     
    aetraxx7 repped this.
  8. 30King

    30King Member+

    Jul 22, 2013
    Rocklin, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    I was going to touch on this, but post was getting too long :)

    Different approaches, but similar outcomes.
     
  9. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Something along those lines. I do know that Curt Onalfo once said that ideally Los Dos would end .500 to maximize development. He's also said they're out there to win every game they play. Those two ideals can co-exist, though.

    Actually, this is all off topic for this thread. It's a good discussion but more appropriate for the MLS-Owned USL Teams thread. Maybe the mods could do some clean up and move the posts there.

    I know nothing about long posts. :p
     
  10. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think he just misworded his point.

    The goal is to go out and win every game they play. The realistic outcome is somewhere close to .500 due to maximizing development for players that the Galaxy are challenging by playing them in a league of more experienced talent to help development.

    That's likely what he meant ... even if some have blasted that quote to show MLS2 teams aren't out there to win.
     
  11. GalaxyKoa

    GalaxyKoa Member+

    Jul 18, 2007
    North County
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's exactly what he meant, yes. I didn't think there was any other way to interpret it.
     
  12. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry, thought you said those two ideas CAN'T co-exist ... my bad ... some don't think they can!!!
     
  13. FootySkeptic

    FootySkeptic Member

    Sep 24, 2015
    Club:
    Cardiff City FC
    Got this from another thread:

    I wanted to discuss the last half of this quote. It seems to ignore that, even though players on any team play to win and compete, developmental teams will not do that always.
    The coaching staff of 2 teams may be obligated to play x number of minutes for a player to get him back up to speed for the first team at the expense of winning the current match.
    The players on loan, from MLS to NASL or independent USL teams, are not the played the same as first team loans down to 2 teams.
    A 2 team will not waste a roster spot on "has-beens" for a competitive edge in today's game nor tomorrows: independent teams will do so always in lieu of development.
    The notion of 'on the field play' between 2 teams vs independents ignores these differences and the vast gap between the budgets of a 2 team vs an independent team. The reason G2 would be competitive with a D2 team has nothing to do with anything except budget and the gap between the MLS and the lower divisions.

    Really, what I want to get at is that the defence of development team's should never compare those teams to independent teams in either the USL or NASL. I am not opposed to the existence of these teams by any means. However, attempting to put them on equal grounds with independent teams is preposterous. This is why these teams were taken out of the USOC and why they are development teams: to develop players first and foremost.
     
    USFootiefan1980 repped this.
  14. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    The MLS2 teams were taken out of the USOC because of a conflict of interest with their parent teams, it has nothing to do with the team's objectives or goals. The problem was the MLS2 teams rely on players that are directly linked or could be directly linked if needed to the parent club and the parent club wouldn't want to have them cup-tied due to their own USOC aspirations. The player pool for the MLS2 teams would be very thin for Open Cup play if they were allowed to participate.

    As far as having room for "has beens" - Bethlehem has Fred signed to their roster and he functions as a player-coach, veteran players like that certainly serve a purpose when it comes to mentoring the "developmental" players.

    Generally speaking I agree the MLS2 teams don't prioritize winning, it's definitely the secondary objective so the staff won't always put out the 11 that give them their best chance to win and will opt for more experimental rosters and giving young guys minutes. That being said, the 11 players that ARE put out on the field are 100% playing to win and playing hard to get a spot on the first team - because of this I don't take any issue with MLS2 teams having development as their primary objective. It's not as if their players are treating these games as a drill, they are still playing to win and the game's integrity is intact. The only difference is the coaching decisions in terms of how the team will play and which players get minutes.
     
    Blando13 and aetraxx7 repped this.
  15. FootySkeptic

    FootySkeptic Member

    Sep 24, 2015
    Club:
    Cardiff City FC
    This seems to be the only place where we disagree. I think the conflict of interest arises from the 2nd teams objectives and goals.
    As far as comparing the 2 teams to other independent teams, any comparison should taken into account the vast gap in budgets these different groups of organizations have as well. Maintaining the integrity of the USOC has to do with more than just cup-tie's the conflict of interest could have potentially unfolded in many other ways.
     
  16. thomas19064

    thomas19064 Member+

    Apr 29, 2008
    Delco
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    PDL and NASL NPSL teams say hi.
     
  17. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The problem with your theory is the reality that MLS teams regularly use their developmental players in the early rounds of USOC. So players that the MLS team have loaned to the MLS2 will miss out on the 2nd and 3rd round games because the MLS team will want to save them for the MLS's game in the 4th round. For MLS2 teams, this can be their better players that are suddenly not available to them.
     
  18. FootySkeptic

    FootySkeptic Member

    Sep 24, 2015
    Club:
    Cardiff City FC
    If it was just about cup-tie's then why would the no permit the teams outright? A simpler solution would have been to only allow players contracted to the team play for that team in the respective competition: MLS contracted players on loan to USL only eligible to compete with first team in cup games, vice versa, and etc.
     
  19. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Those teams have not been banned from the Open Cup presumably because none of their players are under contract with the professional teams that control them.

    BTW, how exactly does that work with the NASL NPSL teams? Are those teams all professional? Otherwise, they would not be able to have players under NASL contracts on the team with college players. Or are those NPSL teams primarily branding exercises and future development vehicles for the NASL teams?

    It looks like that is the situation with Indy Eleven NPSL team. The Indy Eleven would not be able to send players up and down with their NPSL team as the MLS teams do with the MLS2 teams.

    http://www.indyeleven.com/indyelevennpsl

     
  20. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #595 Yoshou, Apr 12, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2016
    Because MLS2 teams are wafer thin when you get rid of the MLS players. As an example, S2 currently has TEN players on the USL roster. The rest of the game day rosters are Sounders Academy players and loans from the MLS team.
     
  21. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    I guess the Cosmos B team is a professional NPSL team as they have loaned players from the first team down.

    It sure seems like that is the same conflict as the MLS2 ban. I guess the USSF hasn't seen the same roster manipulation that went on last year with at least some of the MLS teams in the Open Cup.
     
  22. Sporting Real

    Sporting Real Member+

    Jun 29, 2011
    Kansas City
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Didn't the Cosmos withdraw their B Team out of the Cup after all the USL-MLS2 teams got the boot?
     
  23. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Yep, they did. Forgot about that.

    And it looks like the Indy Eleven NPSL is the only one that qualified for the Open Cup this year. Other than the Atlanta Silverbacks who are no longer a reserve team.
     
  24. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I thought some of the Cosmos B players were under contract with the Cosmos ... didn't Wright play a few games for the "B's"?
     
  25. Blando13

    Blando13 Member+

    Dec 4, 2013
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hardly ... since those USL players could just play for the MLS team ... how does that keep the integrity of the USOC?
     

Share This Page