Speculation on the future of D2

Discussion in 'NASL' started by Sevin, Aug 9, 2010.

  1. AmeriSnob

    AmeriSnob Member+

    Jan 23, 2010
    Queens
    Club:
    New York Cosmos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You'd have to put it on a photo site somewhere like flickr or something and get it from there unless you could find it again and just copy and paste a link of it.

    http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2010/08/18/quelling-rumors-a-ussf-d2-update/

    This article says a lot. Once again great work from BQ.

    -After reading this, these teams pass the standards for certain:

    Austin
    Carolina
    Edmonton
    Miami
    Montreal
    FC New York
    Rochester
    Tampa Bay

    This league would be sanctioned for 2010 under these standards.

    -St. Louis could easily be in there with what looks like good news about their financial situation.
    -If a Hamilton team happens, it would pass easily.
    -Minnesota and Puerto Rico still have outside shots.
    -Orlando is still uncertain. Too confusing a situation but I wouldn't bet on it.
    -CP Baltimore is D3 or gone for good.

    I feel much better about this situation now that FCNY is in the mix. Peterson doesn't look like the joke he was made out to be last year right now (though the crest and website still are).
     
  2. drSoFlaFan

    drSoFlaFan DEFEND THE FORT!

    Feb 25, 2008
    Plantation, FL
    Club:
    Ft Lauderdale Strikers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Even after the standards came out I was never really worried. I think in the end what happens is NASL gets sanctioned, and PR and Minnesota get in and along with Austin agree to play under the NASL banner. USL simply won't have the teams to run a D2 league, and USSF says they don't want to run things, so NASL looks like the future for D2. Plus you have Traffic supposedly talking with MLS now about the relationship between NASL and MLS so that bodes well for the NASL cause as well. I do hope St. Louis pulls through and continues on.

    Pure speculation on my part here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some MLS "B" teams playing in NASL the next few years. They could play at their parent team's stadiums if need be to reduce costs(doubleheaders would be cool), and if enough join they could break the league into regional conferences to reduce some of the travel expenses. Established teams could form partnerships with MLS clubs too, or remain independent.

    If you could get enough of these "B" sides to be able to have, say, a 20 team NASL with two 10 team conferences, east and west, it could work very well IMO. Each conference plays 2 home and 2 away versus everyone else for 36 games. Then have the top 4 from each conference go into the playoffs. Since D2 only has the USOC, and in rare cases the CCL, in addition to league play I think they could squeeze in the extra games. My only hope would be that they get creative and come up with some nice identities for the reserve teams, with names that evoke the parent club but aren't total cop outs like "FC Barcelona B". For example maybe "Chester FC" for Philly's team, or maybe bringing back some old MLS names like "San Jose Clash" and "Dallas Burn" for those cities' B-sides.

    Sort of a tangent there but an interesting possibility.
     
  3. AmeriSnob

    AmeriSnob Member+

    Jan 23, 2010
    Queens
    Club:
    New York Cosmos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It looks like USL is giving up on D2. They're renaming USL-2 to something like USL-Pro Championship according to Dutch Lions FC website, so it's up to NASL to get the teams which I think they will. And if Traffic says it, it has some credibility since they're the big money behind NASL.

    It's been debated and people have held your beliefs. But reserve teams in D2 would defeat the purpose of the standards: to make it a serious stable league of clubs looking to survive long-term and maybe even make the move up to MLS. And if the MLS Reserve League comes back then it'd be pointless. Overall, it's highly unlikely and if anything there's a professional D3 league that they can enter.

    I like the idea, but I don't know how deep these teams are compared to MLS teams and whether they could handle the extra games from that perspective or from a financial one.
     
  4. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    okay pure speculation and just curious about what everyone thinks.

    Suppose that there isn't a D2 league next year for whatever reason. What teams do you think make the drop down and play D3 for a year and which teams do you think just take a year off?
     
  5. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I started to respond to this. Then started looking at the teams more closely. And my brain started hurting.

    I have no clue.

    ...other than Montreal taking a year off.
     
  6. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I started to give my wag as well but my head started to hurt as well.

    I started with montreal. I thought they might want to keep around so they dont loose any mommentum in there fan base going into MLS but honestly I dont think they will have that problem.

    I feel Carolina, FC Tamap and Rochester would consider drop mainly because of geographic reasons.

    Other than that there are a lot of varibles
     
  7. guitarob

    guitarob Member

    Jun 14, 2010
    Valencia, VE
    Club:
    Montreal Impact
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    I think that Montreal would join MLS early instead(or at least they should try). They already have a stadium bigger than san jose and kc and if they sell out every game, which shouldn't be a problem, they will have better attendance than Dallas, NE, Colorado and they would be really close to Columbus. The problem i would see would be the expansion draft and those things.
     
  8. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    I go with you, even for the 2009 season Montreal was already ready for MLS
     
  9. Maza1987

    Maza1987 Member

    Mar 6, 2009
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Already two teams joining next year, and lots have been drawn for who picks first in expansion/superdraft et cetera.
    They won't be coming any sooner than 2011:)
     
  10. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FYP. Being as, next year IS 2011!:D
     
  11. Sevin

    Sevin Member

    May 24, 2001
    U.S.
    This is one of the things I was thinking about when I started this post. After watching and hearing about the financial difference for Charleston this year, I still wonder why we need D2 & D3 (right now anyway). Is there really that big of a difference between the two? How would the top 3 D3 teams far against the D2 teams? I just don't think there's enough of a difference to justify all the expense and chaos.
     
  12. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The biggest difference, I think, is the number of games (30 for D2, 20 for D3). Which, of course, is a big difference to the players. It's an extra month or two of pay.

    When you say 'Top 3 D3 teams', with the league we had this season, that's half the league. Richmond, Charleston and Pittsburgh.

    But you're probably right. At this point, I think I'll probably be fine with whatever happens, even if there's no D2 next season. As long as the Aztex are playing.
     
  13. Sevin

    Sevin Member

    May 24, 2001
    U.S.
    It's taken years for me to get to this point. Since I started following my local franchise, we went through 3 or 4 owners and now don't have a team. I'm sure that most of the problem had to do with fairly sensible business people being clueless about how to run a sports franchise. I think that's what the USSF is trying to do, they know that not many teams will be able to meet the standards and if we don't have a "D2" then maybe that's best. It'll force owners to grow a bit slower and expand rather than starting too high, losing too much money and pulling out.
     
  14. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think alot of it has to do with the owner's egos.

    Luckly the Battery has a smart owner that saw the writing on the wall last season and made the move down.

    This year has to be considered a success. Average season attendence of about 3700. The Carolina Challenge matches attracted more than 12,000 fans over three games in seven days, the Bolton match had more than 5200 and the final coming up this weekend with another sell-out expected. the fans are still coming. We retained several players, picked up a few that had offers with D2 clubs but choose the Battery instead.

    I feel that the Battery would do okay playing in D2 with the roster they have. They might have to add one or two players for depth due to length of the season.
     
  15. Sevin

    Sevin Member

    May 24, 2001
    U.S.
    This is why I wonder if we need both now right now.
     
  16. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    maybe I should change my question to which teams would be hurt or helped by a move down, specifically in attendence and sponsorship areas.

    Also, do you think the drop in a league would effect any efforts to secure public funding for a stadium?
     
  17. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here in Austin? Honestly, no. It's going to be insanely difficult no matter what level the Aztex are playing.

    As to the front-office/books stuff, I really don't know if it would matter. I think attendance wouldn't be effected. If anything, I think we're likely to see things continue to improve, with a strong team and a good location that will likely remain the same for another three years. Consistency helps. As to the sponsorship side of things, Austin's fortunate to have weathered the economic mess much better than nearly every other city in the US. So, in theory, sponsorships won't care one way or the other.

    I'm not even going to try to hazard an opinion for any of the other teams.
     
  18. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cant speak with much more than speculation for most teams but Carolina is the one that I have been to the most and think they would be better off stepping down. Their stadium is in place so there are no issues with that.

    Not sure of the sponsorship in that area but should be an issue either.

    Looking for investors isnt a good signal and there attendence has fallen steadily over the last couple season. I know there were reports that they are giveing out less free tickets and have more tickets purchased but still a trend that should be addressed by the club.

    a Drop would allow them to continue to look for investors, reconnect with the fans that havent come back and save money by reducing travel cost as well as benifit from old rivalries with Charleston and new regional ones with Richmond and Charlotte

    Minnesota is another team I feel would be solidly in that area

    I would imagine at most clubs, 90% (or more) of the fans in attendence probably couldnt name all the teams in the league or even the overall structure of the league.

    Montreal and Rochester might be the exceptions. Rochester fans were excited by a move to MLS years ago, probably feel there were some false promises and missed opportunites. I think they would still have a good attendence but it would probalby drop more than it has over the years.
     
  19. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Minnesota would probably be OK as far as sponsorships and perception. They're pretty much ignored by the media as it is, so it can't get any worse. Their big problem is the same one as Austin. Too far away from the other D3 teams, so travel isn't really helped that much. If at all.

    Rochester's attendance has stabilized in the 'new' stadium, with the new owner. While it's likely they'll finish below last year, the majority of that can be attributed to that one game in a near-freezing monsoon that drew 1447. If they had reported it as 'tickets distributed', the more typical approach, it would've been at least 3k more, and this year would look virtually the same as last year.

    How would the fans and sponsorships respond to a shorter season, and a lower league? I can't speak to that. But if FCNY makes it in, and you have regular games against Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, etc., the 'more nearer rivals' might compensate.

    All that aside, with Rochester, it will very likely entirely come down to the owner. But if there isn't a D2 league to play in, there's no way he'll fold shop. He'll have to figure out how to make it work at D3. Unlike Montreal, they couldn't just wait it out a year and go MLS. Waiting it out a year for a D2 to materialize in '12 would be a big gamble if it doesn't make in '11.
     
  20. wellington

    wellington Member

    Jun 4, 1999
    Charlotte, NC
    Club:
    Charlotte
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    The main problem though with Minnesota and Austin is the impact they have on the other markets -- this could be the sticky wicket. If they happen to drop down to D3 level, I cannot imagine teams like Charlotte, Harrisburg, and Richmond being happy about flying to Texas or Minnesota. Austin could be the odd man out...

    If I was the Rochester owner I would really consider what you are saying. Is the cost of playing in the NASL really worth it? Playing in D3 may not be as glamorous, but like you said would the fans care? Probably not. One trip to Edmonton could likely cover a big chunk of the team's travel expense at the D3 level.

    I also agree with Mikey, Carolina would be much better off dropping down as well. It sure did not hurt the Battery.
     
  21. brentgoulet

    brentgoulet Member+

    Oct 12, 2005
    PuertoPlata, DomRep
    According to the Charleston Battery travel expenses for USSF div 2 must be like 200 K US per year and for USL div 3 only like 40 K US. That is a HUGE gap if you ask me
     
  22. Mikey mouse

    Mikey mouse Member

    Jul 27, 1999
    Charleston, SC
    Club:
    Charleston
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know the Battery paid nearly $25,000 for travel for a post season match last year, Iimagine most trips are a bit cheaper say closer to $15,000. Mulitply that by 15 is $225,000 a season.

    the Battery bussed to ever match this season so I figure it is about $5000 per match multipled by 10 is $50000.

    It is a huge difference and $150000 can go along way
     
  23. AmeriSnob

    AmeriSnob Member+

    Jan 23, 2010
    Queens
    Club:
    New York Cosmos
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Big news in St. Louis. A new owner has come in so the Cooper relationship stuff and financial doubts aren't a factor anymore (the owner "has deep pockets...MLS ambitions")

    http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2010/09/04/ac-st-louis-back-in-the-game-cooper-secures-new-owner/

    So updating my list, these teams pass the standards (whether they are deciding between D2 or D3 isn't taken into account here). Pick any 8 and you have a league.

    Austin
    Carolina
    Edmonton
    Miami
    Montreal
    FC New York
    Rochester
    St. Louis
    Tampa Bay

    -If a Hamilton team happens, it would pass easily. This would probably explain why Carolina are looking for investors. They show no signs of financial trouble.
    -Minnesota and Puerto Rico still have outside shots, and both are included in the NASL bid according to this article.
    -Orlando is still uncertain. Too confusing a situation but I wouldn't bet on it.
    -CP Baltimore is gone for good without a new owner.
     
  24. aetraxx7

    aetraxx7 Member+

    Jun 25, 2005
    Des Moines, IA
    Club:
    Des Moines Menace
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd say Orlando is out unless there is a completely different group coming in. I read something at work the other day about the problems the ownership group was having with the Titans and the massive debt they have. People put down $1000 deposits on season tickets and then the team folded. They have been told refunds cannot be given until the team is sold. Real bad deal all around...

    Considering this group was the cornerstone of the USL bid, I'd say no soccer team in the near future.
     
  25. SoccerPrime

    SoccerPrime Moderator
    Staff Member

    All of them
    Apr 14, 2003
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Current rumors are that some of the soccer guys for the Titans are still trying to get a pro soccer club together and that they have Euro-money guys behind their bid. However they have also said that they aren't sure there is going to be a league to play in come 2011 so they aren't sure when they are going forward (IMHO, they are full of it; using the D2 uncertainty to play the blame game).

    I would also scratch Orlando from the D2 list for 2011.
     

Share This Page