The All-Encompassing Pro/Rel Thread on Soccer in the USA

Japan.

Looking at a map of J-League teams, a large majority are accessible by Shinkansen.

 

Sparta hadn't been relegated before 2003.

Excelsior has a 4500k venue, which means it's physically impossible for them to average higher than the USL attendance for independent clubs. Tram stop or not, that hardly points to pro/rel spurring on infrastructure.

 

I think the biggest issue with NCAA sports is that people aren't going to give $ multi-million donations to teams that aren't up front and center when it comes to big championships.

For instance, in 2013 Don Walsworth donated $8.5 million to the athletic program at Missouri. For that sort of money he expects to see his alma mater on the big TV networks every Spring and Fall.

The combined value of donations to athletics programs across NCAA in 2015 alone was $1.2 billion. I can't imagine that happening if the bigger recipients involved were playing at an inferior level of competition.

 

First thanks for responding I really do appreciate the answers...

Well maybe on paper but we know that's not true in reality.

And we've seen this at the FBS level. I am not as connected as you but I have read that BYU going into the Pac-12 is a nonstarter because of their intolerant positions around LGBT issues.

But again this is administrative and off the field. Where is pro/rel being stopped on the field or in the stands?

For the 10th time I not trying to argue whether pro/rel will happen in College sports, I have said from my very first post that it's not going to happen for the very reasons you have laid out here. What I am trying to point out, and I think you've actually done a nice job of pointing out is that all of the roadblocks are administrative. Not once have you said it shouldn't happen because it would be shitty for the fans.

 

Sure and in a hypothetical world where this happens (and I keep saying it won't) it would give an even bigger incentive for programs to stay in the elite conferences because they might lose donations.

But again this is off the field, my whole point of diving down this rabbit hole was to look at pro/rel in America from a different perspective. I have noticed their is a little bit of a catch-22 at work. When successful examples of pro/rel are used, primarily in England, the response is "that's not America". But then when America is used I get responses around how dumb it is replacing the San Diego Padres with the Albuquerque Isotopes.

So I looked at College football which grew up more organically, has over 100 D-1 programs and said what would happen if we hypothetically (won't happen) used Pro/rel to organize the conferences rather than our system. What would that look like, how would it be for the fans. What negatives would it offer strictly from an on field and in the stands perspective. That's it.

 

I fail to see what any of this has to do with #RapidMassTransitForUSA

 

Train service in the NY metro is far better and cheaper than the London metro.

Trains around New York are rarely overcrowded, rarely late and incredibly cheap (it costs me $28 for a 100 mile round trip).

The only problem is that of the MTA North fails there's no alternative route. You're stuck.

Amtrak is way more comfortable but generally more expensive than Virgin Trains.

 

I'm with you. I don't see how the Padres perpetually sucking is somehow "good for the fans". Or how the fans are stuck with a crappy owner, but because they live in San Diego, that's their only choice.

 

There are consequences, notably falling TV audiences and advertising revenue, which ultimately force the owners to invest or sell up.

Baseball is a bit like cricket though, in that good individual performances can offset a losing season.

 

Cheaper than my public transport in the Rotterdam region it doesnot get. I travel free of cost after 9 o'clock in the morning because I'm a geriatric Rotterdam citizen.

 

I would wager that it's more profitable, less effort, and less risk to have an uncompetitive major league franchise than actually investing to be competitive. Franchise sales don't happen because their owners can no longer afford it.

 

Given the low level of population density in much (most?) of the US, the type of passenger train service you see in densely populated countries like England and Japan is never going to be economically viable here. Other than in a few areas like the Boston-DC corridor.

We should have high speed passenger trains on a dedicated right of way along that corridor. The economic benefits would be substantial, but Americans and their governments are generally too short-sighted and cheap to see that.

 

But I am not entirely sure that's the case. The team hasn't been in the playoffs in over ten years, and only one of those seasons were they even the race on Labor Day. I Sh** you not most seasons they are 10 games out by memorial day. So anyone still paying attention at this point is a die hard and it's reasonable to assume they would follow the team to a lower division. At least that's what seems logical to me, would love to see TV's internal breakdowns on who is watching though.

Now where I do agree is game day attendance. Being in MLB gives the Pads access to big match ups, and San Diego being such a transplant, and destination city, there are always big out of town numbers for certain teams like the Cubs, Phillies, Dodgers, Giants, and when the Red Sox come to town, ohhhh boy it's like every Masshole in the country is there. So yeah economically it's makes a hell of a lot more sense for the owners to be in MLB.

But we're back at the same debate, clearly a closed league is better for the owners who are currently in the league. I think Pro/rel is better for the fans, but interested to hear counter arguments to that.

I know baseball games can be long but don't insult it buy comparing it to cricket. At least the games end the same day!

 

So, it's about Chris having blocked you on twitter.
The same way I have blocked you on twitter.
The same way if Crazy Joe were to consistently refer to me as a Pro/Rel "truther" on twitter, he'd be blocked too.... and, to be "truthful," there really aren't that many of you.

List them. All of them, please.
And maybe to put that list in the context of what Chris actually said, list how many of those countries have D2 and D3 leagues in a closed system in which the D1 league gets all the $$$ for televised national team games through an entity similar to SUM, using both men's and women's soccer.

If a #ProRelForUSA person told you "the sky is blue," you'd respond that what he said is "factually incorrect"... because on some rainy days, the sky is grey... and on other days the sky actually has these puffy white things in it called clouds, and then you'd claim his statement "the sky is blue" is not the place for "generalized claims."

I'd say "a mission statement" is, in fact, a very good place for generalized claims in which everyone knows what you mean when you say, "the sky is blue."

Despite your primary motivation to start a twitter account in order to confront and antagonize perceived Pro/Rel zealots, you can't really do that on Twitter because if you tried monopolizing an argument with Ted and Ben (et al), you'd be blocked. And for good reason, I might add...

Before I put you on "Ignore" for weeks and months at a time, you'd try to monopolize my time by responding two to three times to every one of my posts. You'd even resort to talking about how "Tulsa stole Team Hawaii" despite not even believing it yourself. Then, even after I put you on Ignore, you continued to do so to the point where I could spot check your posts from time to time, much like putting Crazy Joe on ignore and spot checking to see him continue to call me a Pro/Rel "truther" with no repercussions from our disinterested moderator.

I like soccer.

If people on twitter want to endlessly argue how soccer is an overrated sport in this country and drone on and on about how it's unnecessary and shouldn't be taken seriously..... I will block them. I have a shared interest in #ProRelForUSA. Many people also share this interest in a positive way. If I choose to block people on twitter who don't have a shared interest in #ProRelForUSA and resort to belittling and mocking my position on this issue, they will be blocked, which is far more effective than putting the usual anti-Pro/Rel suspects on Bigsoccer on "Ignore."

Oh lord. I hope he blocked you because I warned him about you. Because, frankly, nobody I've ever dealt with on this issue has been as contrarian as you have.

Within the realm of those of us who want to see Pro/Rel in this country, there is a huge variety of views about how/why/where/when it should be done... there is also a variety of views about how high a priority it should be. Those of us who want to see an open system including Pro/Rel in this country come from all points across the political spectrum, left, right, and center... so dealing with MLS apologists who want to refer to us as "truthers" "proles" "prawns" and compare us to creationists and fans of Alex Jones need not apply.

A shared interest is not an "echo chamber."
Not by a longshot.

And might I suggest that you're the chicken and I'm the pig in this breakfast conversation... and trust me, I have more than just an "emotional investment in the brand in question."

"The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed." Martina Navratilova

Beetlejuice... Beetlejuice... Beetlejuice...

No, what you see is how a small, highly condescending clique of MLS apologists (including about ten of you from Bigsoccer) try to stereotype those who use the #ProRelForUSA hashtag to communicate our divergent views advocating a Pro/Rel system for America as well as a more open system.

I haven't seen him "condescend, belittle and marginalize" to anyone.
That's been your side's modus operandi for many years now... especially on Bigsoccer.

 

I have.
I did.
You're done.
Barry summoned you by tagging you; I didn't.
I simply pointed out the hypocrisy in his position of attacking people on twitter who "block people with opinions on the subject that differ".who don't even post here.

I believe our last (only?) one-on-one discussion on twitter involved you asking how bitter I'd be on my deathbed when there's no Pro/Rel in America.
And I believe my last one-on-one twitter discussion with Loney ended with him tweeting random jibberish to bury the headline that there are knowledgeable people who vehemently disagree with him and his perpetual anti-Pro/Rel views.

Which exposes the hypocrisy of Barry pointing his finger at one Pro/Rel advocate in particular when you have done worse than that.

You see, over the years, you've referred to me as someone who "lives in the past" as well as someone who has "the attention span of a goldfish."

Neither is true.

I used to believe that at the end of the day, all us soccer fans could argue and fight like cats and dogs about the future of the sport in this country, and in the end we'd all agree that at the very least we want what's best for the sport in general and that there's no harm done because we're all reasonably good-natured people.

You and Dan Loney have proved otherwise.

 

I think a majority of American soccer fans disagree with you.
And I see that number of American soccer fans who disagree with you increasing, not decreasing.

 

I'll chime in, Jeff.
It's about a guy who blocks people who has never interacted with him for simply disagreeing (in my case) or questioning him (in the case of dozens of others) actually thinking that they are mature enough to be the head of any organization that comes under public scrutiny. No one disagrees that there are issues that USSF could address. I actually agree with Chris on some youth development issues but I can't discuss that with him because I disagree with him on pro/rel. He thinks (wrongly) that pro/rel solves everything and he peddles in USSF/SUM/MLS/NFL conspiracy theories. If he believes he's mature enough to be the VP of USSF then he isn't doing himself any favors by being an obstinate a-hole on social media. I hope he gets hard questions from actual reporters just to see his reaction.

It's not Joe, Jeffry. I've never given out my name. You are a truther. You're like the 9/11 truthers in that no amount of evidence is going to shake your belief. You're like the young-earth creationist who insists the earth in only 5,000 years old and ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary. You don't want to have a debate or even a discussion. You want everyone to agree with you and when even those who like the idea of pro/rel point out just one little obstacle, you label them as an enemy and anit-pro/rel. You're a truther. Sorry, but the label fits. I can call you a cultist if that's better. Either way, you're detached from reality.

If a #ProRelForUSA person told me the sky is blue I'd say, "yes. cool. Are we talking about the sky or pro/rel? Because, like most issues the #ProRelForUSA "movemen" brings up, the sky has nothing to do with pro/rel. Are we sticking to the sky? Alright."

By your logic, they did.

Again, Geoff, not Joe. I get that you're trying to antagonize me. I've gone over why I call you a truther. You whine about the moderator despite the fact that my posts get edited or dropped at a pretty regular clip. You want this "discussion" to be all about how pro/rel is great and how we should just all hate on USSF/SUM/NFL/Garber/Galactus or whichever perceived enemy to your preferred standings gimmick.

I think we all do. Soccer doesn't equal pro/rel. It's just one way to organize leagues. It's not some egalitarian social movement.

Then block and ignore or get off the pot. Jesus! The reason people argue with you and mock your positions is because you have such a weak footing. You have nothing to back up your assertions other than your feelings and out of context photos from Twitter. Paul and Owain are more than willing to actually debate, you throw your toys out of the stroller and complain about the mods.

Yet you get angry at just those people on BigSoccer.

Then why do you insist that this forum become an echo chamber?

I'll openly mock those that use that hashtag because they're almost univerally idiots who don't want to actually debate. You have Ted (a bigot), Ben (who I'm nearly certain is playing a character), Chris Kessel (who blocks people who don't agree with him despite never interacting with them), and a whole cadre of dolts who put out stupid assertions that "ML$ is a failing league" "ML$ inflates attendance numbers" "If we had pro/rel the Silverbacks wouldn't have folded" "Ricardo Silva wasn't pulling a publicity stunt when he offered $5 billion in TV fees and he was totally above board". None of them are interested in a debate.

I have a movement before 10 a.m. every day that creates more substance than the #ProRelForUSA movement has made in years.

Cry, bitch, whine.

 

Apologies Kenn - I just used the "@" like Jeff but didn't unlink you like he did (didn't realise he had to be honest).

Ben and Ted are prominent, staunch pro/rel fundamentalists who feed a lot of misinformation and "opinions-as-fact" into the broad discussion while in the case of the latter, engaging in some hideous behavior.

They are very much part of the #ProRelforUSA landscape and are very much a counterpoint to your accusations that those challenging staunch pro/rel fundamentalism are "the bad guys".

Chris Kessell literally runs prorelforusa.com, originated the hashtag, is an official for a number of soccer organizations and is currently talking about running for the position of VP of the USSF.

For those reasons, his belief that pro/rel is a fundamental requirement for soccer in the US and that anyone who thinks differently is a "contrarian" whose thoughts and ideas merit zero acknowledgment, is a valid concern IMO.

I'm also not Kenn and have no idea who he has blocked, so I'm not sure how that would make me a hypocrite.

FTR, if Kenn, you, Paul Berry, Dan Loney or anyone else blocked myself and others for nothing more than holding a differing view in a debate they prominently engage in I would have the same criticism.

Now blocking someone for malevolent behavior OTOH, or for personal privacy, is fine by me.

What has following anyone got to do with what I said?

My point is that these people are actively excluding people from countering points which may be weak, misinformed or misleading.

Choosing not to follow people isn't remotely comparable.

Having a more private account for other purposes isn't either.

You come across as far from good-natured.

I made a valid point about a person seeking a position of authority who actively ignores the other side of the debate surrounding the cause he prominently champions.

Your counter argument? "What about Kenn?"

Pure Whataboutism.

And while we're on hypocrisy, why do you deride Tomasch and Loney while excusing far worse behavior from Ted?