Agreed: Not the best from an offensive skill perspective, but a pretty sweet spectacle. I kind of miss this aspect of American soccer.
Maybe so but I sometimes think that way about the standard format as well. This past playoff game between Pittsburgh and Bethlehem, for instance, where 15 guys effortlessly made their attempts until one dude finally missed. It can be jarring to go from the low scoring standard game to a different format where the ball is constantly in the back of the net. That's something I prefer about single table/no playoffs: the game is the same throughout the whole competition.
I'd support the NASL-style shootout as a replacement for penalty kicks too. The only reason I didn't want it in MLS was that it was being used to decide every tied game. It's not as if penalty shootouts have that much tradition behind them, after all. FIFA only adopted them in 1970, and the earliest documented use was in the 1952 Yugoslav Cup.
My only reservation is that it might be taken by some quarters as America trying to do soccer differently. Otherwise, it's an interesting concept that I'd support trying out.
I'm sure that there must be reasons I haven't thought about why this is a bad idea (and that I'll be told those reasons), but here it is anyway: Rather than replacing penalty shootouts with NASL-style shootouts, I'd like to see them replaced by free-kick shootouts from about 25 yards out. A bit more of a test of skill than penalties. However, I wouldn't want to do this unilaterally. No Americanizing. I'd like it only if it were approved by FIFA and/or the IAFB.
About top clubs cementing themselves in the league, making a mockery of P/R according to some P/R haters. This article highlights exactly those teams in dire straits at half of he season. Unlike the moaning mob claims it isnot a certainty you stay up. Use google translate if interested. The article is Dutch. https://www.ad.nl/buitenlands-voetbal/deze-europese-grootmachten-verkeren-in-ademnood~a6766a202/ Deze Europese grootmachten verkeren in ademnood Van sommige grote clubs geloof je niet dat ze kúnnen degraderen. Maar nu de competities in Europa al over de helft zijn, moet een aantal grootmachten zich toch flink zorgen gaan maken. Een overzicht van gerenommeerde clubs die moeten vrezen. Lars Omloo 25-01-19, 12:30 These European powers are in desperate need for breath You do not believe that some big clubs canrelegate. But now that the competitions in Europe are already about half the way, a number of major powers have to start to worry a lot. An overview of reputable clubs that have to fear. Lars Omloo 25-01-19, 12:30
Fun reading from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/sports/spakenburg-derby-netherlands.html How a Global Reputation Is Changing an Amateur Derby In the Netherlands, thousands of fans turn up every year to watch IJsselmeervogels play S.V. Spakenburg. But can a local derby lose some of its spark when it earns a place on the soccer tourism circuit?
Please call me when Celtic, Barca, Real Madrid, PSG, Ajax, Feyenoord, Juve, Bayern, Dortmund or any of the top EPL teams are in any danger of relegation. Call me again if/when LigaMX sees Club America or Tigres in a relegation battle and actually allows them to go down. Since this is the "Soccer in the USA" forum and 99% of the pro/rel truthers in this country only follow the biggest clubs (many of whom you cited aren't in the article) then we'll talk. Stuttgart doesn't even register to most of these tools other than a logo they scroll through on the FIFA game.
In his first year as Feyenoord coach Gio van Bronckhorst lost the first 7 (seven!) matches of that season. Luckily with the help of Dick Advokaat as sidekick we managed to turn things around. Next season we were champion, but it was scary.
Lower League America's show this week was about Chattanooga FC's fan ownership model: They talk about pro/rel in there briefly, too, to keep it on topic. It was interesting how he stressed that ownership wealth wasn't the issue, it was expectations of ROI on their investment and being stuck in lower divisions. With fan ownership, it's far easier for them to raise capital because the fanbase is happy to provide a couple hundred bucks, which is really different than an investor footing the bill for a couple million. It also invests (figuratively as well as literally) the community in the team. Nipun Chopra had a comment that he didn't know if CFC's successful IPO (for want of a better term for it) was specific to Chattanooga, and I don't disagree with him why ChattanoogaFC's offering has been as successful as it has been. I think the scale of CFC's offering is exceptional, but I don't think the model is. The key is that the expectation needs to be realistic to the valuation of the club to the community: Asheville City FC could probably seek funding this way, but teams that have no presence in their community or are brand new probably would have less luck. Or to put another way, it seems like a less risky way for a club to try to move to the next level, but it has to be done by a team that was already serious about expanding and had the following to do it.
Just the other day on Twitter I saw a Detroit City FC supporter raging against the "billionaire owners" of MLS. His other favorite club was Juventus.
Chattanooga FC is in a weird situation in which they're trying to move from intern-ball to an unsanctioned league. The outlay isn't going to be that high to begin with and I'm dubious that NPSL-pro even makes it to year two. That being said, you hit the nail on the head. Like many issues with pro/rel, the fan-owned club starts to become more unworkable as the team moves up the ranks. What happens if the team needs to buy better players? What happens if they need to build a stadium? How much is each share going to be worth and what happens to those shares if the team is relegated. Are you able to sell them? Or is this a glorified go fund me campaign?
It doesn't seem like a weird situation where a team would start cheaply in amateur leagues, build a following, and grow into a more professional league. That actually seems pretty natural. More natural than plonking down $500k or $7 million on a franchise and saying sink or swim. Also, NPSL is sanctioned as will whatever NPSL Pro will be. It's non-division, but sanctioned. This is actually the opposite of the problem: if the team moves up the ranks it's easier to get investors because there is more exposure and more return on investment. It's the lack of upward mobility (and the initial push over the hump) that makes it so hard to get investment for. Potential investors don't want to buy into a product that cannot reasonably grow.
Well Rangers were relegated (actually, to be accurate they went bankrupt..) but it's certainly true that perennial CL qualification has cemented the status of those teams.
Raises hand... Yep that would be me. Going back to the shootout feels like going back in time where it really felt like "American Soccer" and "World Football" were two completely different sports. It has nothing to do with the merits of the shootout itself, just that MLS needs to make sure that on the field it looks like the rest of the world game.
Main issue I see is teams don't score that regularly from free kicks (either directly or within a few touches). Don't have the stats but would guesstimate it in the 10% range. So we're looking at 10+ attempts per side to break the tie. And obviously could be a lot higher. An idea I had was to use corner kicks. Not taking corner kicks but actually using the number of corner kicks a team gets to decide the match. It seems weird to break the tie on a statistic but it's a way to reward the more aggressive attacking side using a quantifiable stat. It would eliminate the team playing bunker ball trying to hold on for penalties. It would also create a scenario where a game was never truly being drawn. Imagine a scenario where late in extra time one or two corner kicks is the difference, and literally just launching an attack, without having to score, could be enough to swing the game. Plus it would encourage defenders to try and avoid giving away corners leading to even more chaos. But like the post above said I am sure there is some fatal flaw I haven't thought about.
I know it's pretty unlikely (but not impossible), but what if the match ended with either zero or the same number of corners for each side? To be honest, I would be pretty comfortable with replacing penalties with corner kicks: 11v11, you have 10 seconds from the touch or until a goal kick, penalty, or opposing throw in. First team that scores to the other's miss wins. Like penalties, it's reflective of an actual component of the game, unlike penalties, it's not decided by the luck of the goalkeeper falling the correct way.