Is it not the case that in D1 college football each game has become an occasion rather than just a means to an end. Also the big colleges make from philanthropy, and donors aren't going to be too happy of a college loses its status. For instance, in 1981 T. Bone Pickens made a very generous $1 million donation to the geology school at his alma mater. 20 years later funded a $125 million sports stadium. There's just a lot of tradition to mess with. As far as USL and MLS is concerned, I think USL can become a prestigious competition in itself and ultimately come to rival MLS at least in Open Cup play. But not until the threat of MLS expansion gobbling up USL cities is mitigated.
Likely because PRO/REL has absolutely ZERO to do with fans. Just like the ridiculous way that US College Sports are setup, PRO/REL has EVERYTHING to do with the almighty $$$$. PRO/REL doesn't strengthen the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, the Russian Premiere League, The Austrian Bundesliga, the Portuguese Liga, etc. In fact the gap between the top and bottom is wider than it has ever been in England and Italy. Sure Pro/Rel is romantic, and gives the pundits a reason to give a few 30 second sound bites on the WORST teams in the league each week. At the end of the day the sponsors (the big money ones) and broadcasters only really care about the 3-6 teams at the top. In most cases PRO/REL replaces 3 sacrificial lambs with 3 more sacrificial lambs. And before anyone goes all "But Leicester City!" on me, let's all get one thing straight here, Leicester's owners are one of the richest families in the WORLD, let alone the EPL. Sure, in some ways as a fan of the game Pro/Rel is cool. It's cool because it doesn't involve any of my teams. As a fan of some of the worst teams in American Sports, I'm glad there's no Pro/Rel in America. Here's a question for everyone: You're the head of a major professional sports league (whatever your flavor is). You have a choice between having a league that: has 20 teams guaranteed to be located in the biggest and best markets; or a league that is part of a Pro/Rel league system and your teams fluctuate every year. Which do you choose? An example: Would the EPL, if given the chance, stay the course as is or close their shop at 20 teams and bring in Leeds United, one of Aston Villa/Birmingham City, Celtic and Rangers, while booting the smaller town teams currently in the league? I don't know, that second choice from a business stand point.............would bring in a helluva lot more money.
Yor question has the same faulty premise of crazy joe, the premise of making money as a league and not as a facilitator of clubs playing soccer. When the Dutch Eredivisie was a league set up like the mls, the focus wouldnot be on sport, but on where to get the most money. As a result tiny Excelsior Rotterdam wouldnot play in the Eredivisie, while their muxh richer and better supported fellow city club Sparta Rotterdam that now is trying to get back in the Eredivisie, probably would be in their place. Thank god we're not mls. That's what separates Eredivisie from mls. It's about sport and not about fixing a league to get only the clubs that generate the most money. In our system every club has the right to rise to the top league, no matter what the market is. Only the performane on the pitch decides which club plays in the top flight. So tiny clubs like Excelsior have a shot at it too and for seasons now outrank better attended and richer clubs. You guys start talking about money first, second and third and far away in the tail of the queu you talk about how balanced the league is and everybody gets a shot at the title. Balanced in mediocraty. Nice if you're the only country that plays soccer, but not so when you're in a global market. Nice to have a shot at the title in a flat league, but in extremis it means a club gets a title in about every twenty years. No fan of Excelsior cares about a title. They first and foremost love soccer and love to see their club play against the giants, and shit...beat them unexpectedly too. Feyenoord fans payed in excess of 8000€€ for a ticket for the last but one match because they expected Feyenoord to secure the title at the tiny Excelsior stadium. We were beaten 3-0 and as a result had a last match that had to be won. But this all is irrelevant to you guys like Crazy J. All you can talk about is money, not about clubs that rises to the occasion and give their fans a treat of at least one season against the biggies. Nononono, ...momey money money money.
First. It's not Joe. Second, I didn't realize that MLS wasn't facilitating teams playing soccer! Thanks for letting me know that I spent $400 bucks last year watching men play some other sport. Man, I could've used that information before I made my season ticket deposit! The way big Euro leagues are set up, the team with the most money wins. That's how it works. Deny it all you want. Claim that it's because of sporting merit or other some such fantasy. The fact is that the rich clubs rule and the bottom dwellers are perpetually bouncing around the different levels of the pyramid with no hope of being in the upper echelon of their respective leagues. *Checks name of forum* Yep, we're still talking about Soccer in the USA here. Don't worry though, if Rotterdam can convince some Russian oligarch or Arab prince to give them a huge injection of "sporting merit" they'll never have to worry about being relegated again. Pro/rel, as it's set up in Europe, allows teams to simply buy their way out of the relegation zone. Part of the reason FIFA and any FA puts up a fight when the SuperLeague is talked about or any other new league is because they want a cut of that money. Pro teams aren't charities, they're businesses in every country. Performance based on which team can buy the best players. Yep. The NBA is balanced mediocrity. So is the NFL. Jesus. This has been explained to you numerous times. Yes, we have parity measures. It doesn't hurt the quality of the league as is evidenced by how much MLS has improved over the years and how much more young top level talent they can attract. But it's not Europe and that top level talent is typically coming from South America or Central America so I guess we'll go on ignoring that. Bottom level of the EPL is shit. Anyone who could have watched that Huddersfield vs Brighton game a couple weeks ago and then complains about MLS's quality needs to have their head examined. But they were playing in jolly old England so it has to be better, right? Check your math. Other than NYRB's utter incompetence, MLS teams are getting title shots at a pretty regular clip. Either way, it still beats having to worry about your major league team being kicked down to the minors and possibly going bankrupt because of a poor year. We could open it up like Europe so our only hope would be for an oil tycoon owner to take a shine to our team and make us an ego project. I'll stick with the far superior American way of organizing sports leagues, thanks. Ah so they only hope to maybe earn an upset win but be stuck in mediocrity in all other aspects since they can't afford to compete for titles. Got it. Sounds like a shitty existence. I know you're from a country where soccer is super popular here. I also know that this has been explained to you over and over but I'll give it another shot. You're not a total lost cause, I hope. Money drive sports. It's not a charity, it's a business. You pay $800 to go see a game, you're participating in the business. Now, and I can't stress this enough, soccer is only now starting to become a viable sports business in this country. A country that also has four other popular major sports leagues as well as popular college sports. A country that is very unique in terms of population centers, media structure, and all the other things that have to be taken into account when a sports team tries to set up shop. It would be nice if we lived in a utopian world where money wasn't a factor. Where teams could set up and play and fans could come out and support them for free but that ship sailed a long time ago. I'm against pro/rel not only because it's a completely unnecessary system but because it will kill soccer teams in the US and because no organization whether it's US Soccer or FIFA has a right to tell a league who it can and can't add. We know how sports leagues work in the US. We have four big templates and none of them use pro/rel and it's worked out fine. Now I know. You think pro/rel is some integral part of soccer. It's not. Just like playoffs are not either or a white ball over an orange one. It's one way that some countries have decided to organize their leagues. We in the US and Canada don't do it that way. It works just fine and there's really no reason to try and force a round peg through a square hole. Pro/rel will thankfully never happen here at the highest level. It makes no business sense and soccer is thriving here without it. Yes it's all about the money because that's what keeps the leagues running.
I'm a huge college football fan not many things I love in the world more than sitting down on a Saturday and watching 30+ games from 9 in the morning until after 10 at night love it. And I think the chaos around College football actually helps it some. So I agree the system is working pretty well, but that alone is not an answer. Just because something works doesn't mean it couldn't be made better.I'm not trying to get anyone to concede, I'm honestly not laying a trap, i'm simply curious about arguments against pro/rel with the economic arguments removed.
Actually he was taking about the perspective of the head of a league. Professional sports in the US are run by the leagues. In most of Europe they're run by an amateur association. So he was right. If you talked to an average a Tulsa Athletic fan you may get a different story. ---- In terms of MLS not having a presence outside of MLS cities,it took football, basketball and hockey a good 40-50 years to make a national impact. The sudden growth in interest in the 50s, 60s and 70s was the side-effect of TV companies realizing that professional sport was a cheap way of selling advertising. Back in the 50s NFL games were played in baseball stadiums with average attendances of around 30,000. ---- Anyway, I think soccer can work both ways. That MLS can be our premiere or showpiece league, while the professional game grows beneath it. I can understand it being the bête noire of those who feel that a team can go from a public park to winning a championship but that's a fantasy unless the park team can find a billionaire owner. If pro-rel is to be implemented I think you have to forget MLS. It can work. Cincinnati fans didn't show up at Nippert Stadium to watch a team qualify for MLS, they went to watch a team play in USL. The 20,000+ that watched Chattanooga play Cosmos B didn't pay to watch a team play their way into USL, they paid to watch their team play in a championship game. These trophies can stand on their own. If you're USSF you have to navigate between the interests of your cash cow, and the overall health of the game at both the professional and amateur level. I think we need to strong independent leagues. But to succeed the leagues need a reasonable degree of insurance that their most successful products won't be eaten up by another company. From there pro soccer can develop and systems for promoting and relegating teams can evolve, wherever it's optional or meritocratic. The role of USSF would be to keep MLS and proper football (I'm being facetious) apart. Ok, I'm probably the biggest fantasist here.
Really? Ask fans in England about that, where whenever even the meekest suggestion of getting rid of pro/rel it is shouted down instantly. . It's rare that all three promoted teams are immediately relegated. I'd have to look back but it's only happened a handful of times in the last 20 years, and the inverse is true that it's even rarer (can't remember it actually happening) that all three relegated teams are immediately promoted. So that tells me that actually there is overlap and the bottom of the prem is worse than the top of the Championship, so by definition you are making the league better. Okay but one thing that hasn't change in 20 years is pro/rel while a lot of other things have. So it's interesting that your blaming this widening gap on the one thing that hasn't changed Sounds like the ACC in College Football. Yeah because Wolves are sacrificial lambs, oh wait aren't they one of only two sides to take points off City? Which is why I have asked friends from England who support clubs who can/have been relegated. And guess what they are appalled at the thought of getting rid of pro/rel. So yeah it isn't just bandwagon American fans who like it, it's the supporters who are directly impacted So again it always goes back to economic, which is fine. And that's important, but I have yet to see a good argument in favor of a closed league that isn't based on making the most/losing the least money. Do you have one? I'd honestly love to hear it.
All you can talk about is money while for clubs like Excelsior and their fans it's about joining the party. They give a f.ck about the title and arenot coming to the stadium expecting that. They come to the stadium to watch a match of good football against bigger clubs and occasionally an upset. But all you and your buddies talk about is money, money, money AND NOT ABOUT FANS LIKE OF THAT TINY CLUB. What a fresh breath of air would it give if fans in the USA of a club with a stadium of around 10-12k could be in the top flight and enjoy the ride. Then comes riding in the anti brigade..but..but..but money..money ..money.
In the Expansion Forum I've actually seen some debate about this with some Cincy fans saying that they don't really care about MLS expansion and it's all about supporting the current team in which ever league they play in while others saying the numbers they were getting are directly linked to the possibility of going into MLS. Also will be interesting to see what happens in Sacramento as their expansion bid becomes less and less likely. I hope you're right that other leagues can grow and maintain on their own independent of MLS but the history of smaller independent leagues in American sports isn't good.
You really have no clue about how a soccerfan in Europe experience soccer from your comment on this. If a fan in Rotterdam is interested in competing for the title, that fan's going to Feyenoord as one of the top 5 clubs. However a fan is a fan not because of longing to be part of success, but out of tradition and first exposure and by that token can end up with Sparta or Excelsior and not with Feyenoord. If it's shitty they have ample opportunity to change allegiance as Feyenoord is a mere 6 and 8 kilometers away from those stadiums. However they stick with that shitty existence, while something better from your pov is in american eyes just a stone throw away. Strange...they must be idiots. Let's bring those idiots soccer american style with no choice, but only the rule of money, money, money. What a waste of money from mls pov in Rotterdam. In a region with a million people the fan base is devided over threeclubs. What a bunch of idiots. Let's bring them soccer american style. Kill Sparta and Excelsior. Only Feyenoord needs to exist. Make more money that way for sure. Right, in a city where you cross the river over a bridge looking at the Feyenoord stadium, thus causing fans of the other two clubs to look the other way to avoid looking at it. But ..but..but..money..money.
Sigh,......fans support a club out of love for it...not as an investment in entertainment. All you have to offer is talk about money, money, money. If a Sparta or Exce;sior fan would see his money for a season ticket as an investment in a business, why would they not choose to buy a Feyenoord season ticket? Oh, wait..they donot look at it as an investment, but as a means to be part of the club they love.
Oh it definately could be made better. All FBS conferences should have their champion play in an actual playoff like the FCS conferences do. The lack of involvement by the NCAA in big-time football is part of the problem and the bowls are a scam. If we're talking college sports, it would require a complete dismantling of the conference system and a complete restructure of the NCAA divisional guidelines and a tearing down of a time-honored system that actually works. I can't stress enough that conferences are about more than just one sport. Sure football is a beast but each conference is it's own separate league. No matter if you opened it up, Murray State is never going to have the wherewithal to compete with the UNC's and Duke's of the world on a regular basis. Murray State can win the Ohio Valley Conference though and hopefully make a run in the NCAA basketball tournament. Screw off. Seriously. Take your Eurosnobbery out of here. You question the fact that I'm paying for season tickets out of anything other than a passion for the game and my local team? Screw you! Seriously why do you go to games? I'll venture to guess that it's because you get enjoyment out of watching and because you feel an emotional connection to your team. Guess what? You're paying a business to entertain you and you've added an emotional portion to it. Your experience isn't any different than Green Bay Packers fans who put their season tickets in their will so the next generation can enjoy the team. Your experience isn't any different than the Chicago Cubs fan who took a radio to their parents grave and listened to the Cubs win the World Series at their parents' graveside because it meant so much to their family. Your experience isn't any different than mine when I got so happy that I cried when I got Eric Davis to wave to me at a Reds game when I was a kid. Your experience isn't any different than mine when I visited Cincinnati for their second game against Louisville and I literally cried when the teams walked out in front of 28,000 people in my hometown where just 20 years before I played on shitty high school football teams and had homophobic slurs thrown at me and my friends by jocks because we played soccer. Your experience isn't any different than those Americans who are buried in their favorite teams jersey. But because these are all closed leagues, we don't know what we're talking about. I bring up money because that's what keeps pro sports afloat and any plan to incorporate pro/rel is going to have to answer those questions. Don't like it, sorry about you. That's the reality. And if you think for a moment that just because I talk about the business of sports (something I'm intimately acquainted with) that it means that I don't have a passion for it then screw off. I take it back. You are a lost cause.
Not sure why you are seeing things solely in terms of the pocketbooks of a limited number of mjaor league owners allowed to operate as an effective cartel.
As a supporter of a team that's been promoted and relegated seven times, I will merely lol at the idea that it's got nothing to do with fans. And lower down the pyramid, since pro/rel was introduced to/from the Football League, no team has been relegated the seasonafter being promoted to the League. Macclesfield look like they may become the first to have that dubious honour. And beat Chelsea today... It's actually more specific than that as it's almost always about the closed major league owners making money as opposed to owners in general.
Good to see that someone worth a mere $7 billion can overcome the big boys. Money isn't everything after all.
Wouldn't it be fairer to give all Eredivisie clubs an equal share of TV revenue rather than let PSV, Ajax and Feyenoord keep more than a third of it? That way the smaller clubs would have more chance of surviving. Money isn't everything after all.
Fans in America will not put up with knowing their team can never win the title. In terms of the game on the field, only one thing matters in America. WINNING THE TITLE. Soccer needs to work within this framework to work in America.
Excelsior have won the Eerste Divisie several times. And let's be realistic here - if this were the US, a club like Excelsior would likely be forever consigned to the "minor leagues". So much for their having a chance of "WINNING THE TITLE" (sic).
Relegation would give them a much better chance to WIN THE TITLE. That being said, I don't think I buy your thesis, anyway. Lions fans long ago stopped thinking they could win a title. Kentucky football fans understand their program's station. Brewers, Pirates, and As fan know that championships are unlikely. Could they happen? Sure. And Excelsior could also fluke into some wonder year, but fandom shouldn't be based on how likely they are to win it all.
How? Pro/rel certainly hasn't stopped the usual suspect from dominating all the big Euro leagues. I mean, the EPL is considered the most competitive because maybe five teams are legit contenders and even now, ManCity really only has one other team to worry about in the standings. I know a lot of Kentucky fans (my family is from there) and I can tell you a lot of them actually thought they had a shot at the SEC East this year. Besides, they made the Citrus Bowl this year, which is pretty good. Lions fans are perpetually frustrated because in all of the American leagues, the NFL is the one where a team should be able to turn it around pretty quickly. That said, they could go on another run if they make the right draft choices and trades. These things happen in cycles. Golden State was garbage until they made smart draft choices. Uh...the Brewers almost won the National League this year. The Pirates made the playoffs just five years ago.
Because winning the Championship is WINNING A TITLE. We don't put an asterisk next to the D-II champion. I'm not disputing that fans hope/expect/pray that their team will be competitive this year, but winning the SEC East, a collection of butt teams and UGA, is a way lower set of expectations than "winning the SEC East, beating Alabama, and two top-4 teams". Even the bluest Wildcats fan would have to be pretty high on meth to buy into that. Detroit fans won't believe that team can win a playoff game until they do. They don't go into the preseason thinking "this is going to be the year we win the Superbowl". The optimistic might think they've got a shot at the playoffs; the superfans might think they could advance past the first round. Again, no argument. Leicester City won the Premier League. Until 2002, Man City had spent two decades bouncing between D1 and D3. I am not saying that teams can't turn their fortunes around, but fans aren't oblivious to their chances during sustained mediocrity. Ask a Warriors fan from the 80s or 90s if they thought that once powerhouse would ever win an NBA title again. Almost! The Falcons almost won Superbowl LI! The quote we're working with here is: By this measure, the accomplishments of neither of those teams matters. Which was a welcome surprise to Pirates fans who had dealt with 20 years of cellar dwelling. They went to the post season 2 more times after that! They lost in the wildcard both times. Despite their relative newfound success, I doubt hard core Pirates fans were planning their October schedule around PNC Park during that stretch. They sold McCutcheon and business returned to usual. My point isn't that bad teams can't win or find success, it's that American sports fans don't really think that the only thing that matters is winning a trophy.
I wouldn't entirely rule out the effect of almost winning. In the past two NHL seasons the Predators and Golden Knights were kind of the league darlings despite both losing in the finals.
Let's put this in perspective: I know season ticket holders in East Anglia of Norwich City and Ipswich Town who long ago made peace with the fact that their clubs aren't big enough or wealthy enough to ever win a title. Consider that in the case of Leicester, it was so unthinkable that they could win the title that people were still predicting the bubble to burst as late as Easter. While a Lions fan may not see a title challenge anytime soon, do you legitimately believe that they see literally zero chance of them ever having a shot again in their entire future? Because barring the slim chance of catching the eye of a free-spending billionaire, that's what the fans of most clubs in top soccer nations are resigned to.