I'm not sure many can determine that ... we dont' know net worths and such, we could probably figure out who can't easier based on stadium sizes, but, like a commenter above said, USSF gets exeptions (for NASL and their number of teams/time zones) so I'm sure some of those exemptions could be made for USL too. That's why it's really silly to speculate ... and in the end, it doesn't really matter what "division" you're in under the USSF ... it won't automatically sell more tickets or give players higher salaries, or any of those things ... it's just a label (one that USSF can give or take at will without really any consequenses).
I honestly don't know and noted that. I'd suspect that less than half do and think the idea that USL would apply for a D2 license was meant more to poke a stick in an NASL eye than anything.
That is also a possility, if not USL could go for a USL1 (meeting Div 2 standards) and a USL2 (meeting Div 2 standards).
I think if they go the Div. 2 route that's most likely whats going to happen. Not all teams will meet Div. 2 standards but I think enough of them do, enough to create a separate Div. 2.
We could be having MLS USL1 (meeting all Div 2 standards) NASL and USL2 (not meeting all D2 standards) PDL and NPSL
The number of teams and their geographical distribution. There are also requirements about the percentage of teams in metro areas over 750k, though that doesn't seem to be an issue, and the net worth of ownership.
The only one the NASL stumbles on is not having franchises in the pacific time zone. But I just can't see them losing D2 over it. More likely, we get two D2 leagues rather than anyone losing their status. Unless the NASL and Peterson just ticks off the USSF to the point where they don't feel so generous.
They need 12 teams from next season out too. That may be tough given Atlanta will be in MLS, an MLS team pending in Miami, and Minnesota looking to move. There's also a thought that Ottawa and/or Edmonton could move to a pending Canadian league.
I also wonder how the USSF looks at teams like Carolina and Atlanta. What "ownership" groups are they basing their financial viability on? Does that effect if they're able to be counted on as part of the league's total number of teams (without ownership groups you can make the case that they shouldn't count) and are they counted as part of the 75% US based total (If not, then the 75% US based is questionable too looking at the fall of 2016 when Puerto Rico is added ... assuming they're not considered US based ... I don't know if they are or not). NASL just appears to be very close to a lot of limits. Any setbacks could be pretty fatal (losing Canadian teams as well as Minnesota by 2017 or so would not help the cause).
My anecdotal sense is that it's higher than that. Some time ago I poked around for publicly available information on independent USL team owners. A lot of them, including plenty of guys that people were swearing didn't have the net worth to back a D-II team, most definitely or very like do have the financial muscle to do it. There are, however, some teams with other issues -- like stadium problems. I'd also remind everyone that when the USL assembled their ownership and voted on whether to pursue D-II, 100% of them voted to pursue D-II. And it's not a stunt. They're serious. They believe D-II would give the league better financial footing with sponsors.
Edmonton seems pretty solid in the NASL corner. The Fath brothers are tied into the league. Ottawa? Not as much and would probably jump. If this C-League is actually real and legit, they might have to put a team in Edmonton, and have the Eskimos run it. Edmonton #Soccerwarz The NASL was given numerous waivers when Traffic was basically propping up the entire league. I don't see the USSF playing hardball now over team ownership.
They don't already meet D2 standards that's the joke... NASL shouldn't be D2 currently by the letter of the rules.
Actually there is a timeline in which they have to meet the standards. All of the standards they don't meet they don't have to meet until year 6. We are currently in year 5.
Got some insider information you are holding back on us with? Or just another troll on the internet who thinks they are smarter than everyone else?
Owner's net worth is one of the last things I would be concerned with. In order to finance these teams for an extended period of time you are going to need more than just a $20 million net worth.
Well they have to be in the Pacific time zone and have 12 teams next season, and I haven't seen anything indicating they will have a team out west. They should have 12 assuming PR and Miami start play. You have to wonder if Atlanta will keep going too.