You see that last bit isn't a "dig" but a reason query gained from "debating" you. You honestly don't seem interested in providing serious material. You really do seem to want to "take the piss" as the Brits call it on people and try to get a negative response.
Hardly surprising seeing you're only willing to see half the equation. In a pro/rel pyramid, that poor team is replaced by a promoted team that's often better run and performs better on the field of play. And by providing no disincentive to "coasting", teams can do just that, as has been cited on this thread in the last day.
The fact that you see my posts as "taking the piss" tells me how unwilling you are to debate with folks who disagree with you. I would also point out that my recent post citing an example of a league that moved from closed to pro/rel garnered exactly zero responses...
Let's look at reality. With 1/4 of the MLS season left 18/23 teams are fighting for playoff spots. Of the rest, Cincinnati may have written off the season and Colorado are Kroenk-tied, but Caleb Porter and Peter Vermes will never quit fighting and Marc Dos Santos has a lot to prove at Vancouver.
For me....let's take the Rapids Relegation isn't always a death knell. You might be in the range of 23-27th best team in the country, you win D2 and go right back up. Maybe you don't. Maybe you once were , but your key players are a half step slower, the fans still love them though and bobblehead nights are still big draws. If you want to go back up, you have to make the hard choices. Or maybe it's coaching, or any of the other myriad reasons team's success fluctuates. Maybe your ownership is terrible, and you keep dropping. Hopefully they get out of the ownership business. Also, using Colorado, I'd have to assume there are entities that could mount a campaign to possibly get to the 1st division - Rush bought a d2 team in Harrisburg, seems there's some ambition there... Some people view that a a better outcome than having an owner that doesn't appear to care/have the acumen to fix things and you just languish in the top league forever, maybe eking out a one and done playoff run every 10 years.
My concerns are mostly about avoiding entrenchment of the status quo and that's mainly because I worry that our current structure makes it too easy devolve the lower divisions into a farm system. And that's, frankly, not a future I'm interested in.
I don't see that happening though. Indy, Louisville, Tampa Bay etc are strong independent clubs. We have a farm system, through reserve and under 19 teams, hybrid clubs and the development academy. I don't think the other major sports have had a system like that.
I think relegation would likely be a death knell in the United States though. Maybe a generation from now that isn't the case.
I'm not either, but let's be realistic and acknowledge that it isn't "anti-pro/rel" types who are the problem here--it's deeply-rooted American sports culture. You need a LOT of casual fans to make a fully professional league financially sustainable. One of the many things about this whole debate I find ridiculous is that it's often carried on as if only die-hard soccer fans are going to weigh in on the matter.
Since pro/rel is thankfully never happening here let's just assume for a moment that it is. In American sports, with American sports fans who have numerous other options and who...and I really can't stress this enough...never have to deal with a team being relegated ever in any sport...the Rapids getting kicked down to D2 would most-likely result in the team going bankrupt within a few years. Or they might sell and relocate. Relegated teams see drops in attendance. In the US, because...again...this is a completely foreign concept...you can probably safely assume that the Rapids will see a 30-40% drop in attendance. This, of course, is on top of the usual drop in attendance that just comes from being a shit team. Casual fans and corporate suite sales pay the bills and most casual fans aren't going to stick around if a team is suddenly in the minor leagues. In this fantasy world of pro/rel sure they might survive at the lower leagues but I find it highly unlikely. Or maybe fans vote with their wallet at the top level and ownership sells and fans aren't punished by having their team kicked out of a league for no good reason. They can do that in another league. The beauty of our superior system is that USSF isn't going to stop another D3, D2, or D1 league from forming. The Rush shouldn't get to leech off the investment at MLS teams made simply because England couldn't figure out how to organize their leagues regionally a hundred years ago. You literally described every EPL team that is safe from relegation but is nowhere near able to buy their way to the top. Like Everton or West Ham. But sure, kicking out a team to the minors is so much better for the fans. Gimme a break. They can invest in USL and build an alternative to MLS at the D1 level. Isn't that great?! We don't have a cartel FA arbitrarily limiting the number of teams in each division and they're willing to sanction any league that meets the criteria. All they need to do is invest in their product. What pro/rel advocates want is for these teams to be able to leech off the investment that MLS has made. I haven't because relegating teams for one bad year and punishing the fans is idiotic. I don't hate the fans that much. For the vast majority of American sports fans it is. You know who wouldn't want to see crappy teams get the boot? Fans of crappy teams. Pro/rel in college sports makes even less sense than pro/rel in a single sport pro system.
I don't think the issue is American sports culture, it's corporate Taylorism at the ownership level and the fact that a farm system offers more profit and an unfair labor advantage that effectively squashes market competition. It's simply a much harder business plan for the St. Paul Saints than the Toledo Mudhens and the major leagues can exploit that (and anticompetitive laws in their favor) for their benefit. The problem is that the sports that we currently have developmental leagues for tend to be fairly well suited for it: baseball is largely an individual sport, and basketball and hockey are high offense sports (with small teams), which takes a lot of the edge off the "development" aspect. Although not a perfect comparison, I think the problems with a soccer development league would be quite similar to the problems gridiron football has with pitching development leagues: both games require a total team effort, rely a lot on systems and tactics, and are incredibly boring when played badly.
I'm sure Clippers fans during the Stirling years were thrilled their owner had no incentive to improve the team. Or Pirates fans for the last 25 years. Marlins and Lions fans? Just happy to be here, no doubt. Hold on, King, do you hear that? Bah Gawd it's the Mariners' music!
You can't just think of solely the major league in a sport though. No one doubts that a closed league is great for the owners of the limited number of teams within it. But how about the sport as a whole? Where are the significant professional leagues under the NFL?
The West Ham that has been relegated three times since the Premier League was formed? Or did you have some other West Ham in mind?