Great, and I have an award for you sir... The first USRufnex Anti-Pro/Rel GOLDEN JACKASS AWARD! This award goes to only the most hypocritical of anti-Pro/Rel posters who can't seem to fathom that their own views can become every bit as extreme as those they ridicule... the competition was fierce, but the asshole is strong in you, sir. Congrats. Strawman argument. You told me to SHUT UP among other choice insults in this thread. You are a poster child for bigsoccer hypocrisy, double-standards, entitlement, and groupthink. And guess what? You shouldn't be allowed to troll, moderator or no. My opinions are based on a solid knowledge of facts including how the league was formed. You're just pissed that you (and several other anti-pro/rel jackasses) haven't scared me off from posting. I gave MLS fifteen years of carte blanche to do anything they wanted to keep the league afloat. Part of the reason why I've become critical of MLS and recently changed my mind on Pro/Rel (not on single table or playoffs or any number of other things) is because I, like many others, would like to see Pro/Rel in this country someday and I won't EVER let arrogant know-it-all bullies like yourself and others on this thread tell me what I can and can't think or want. Repeating your opinion as fact over and over again will never make it so. I've said several times that I believe domestic Pro/Rel including single entity MLS is "pie-in-the-sky." I've stated that I know it won't happen anytime soon, but would want it to be part of the conversation at the highest levels, because I've known for a long time (at least the past 3 years) that MLS won't stop expanding at 24 teams. If MLS had stopped at 20, then I believe you would have seen a far stronger and more vibrant D-2 in the form of the new NASL. And God forbid we have that. /sarcasm More opinion disguised as fact from your side. I've said that relegated MLS teams would need a place to go, and that a relatively weak D-2 is not that place. The "Pro/Rel requires superclubs" argument doesn't hold water IMO, because I believe allowing superclubs to emerge is the most likely future of MLS... without Pro/Rel. I've also pointed out that parity in American pro sports is rarely achieved, and oftentimes isn't even the preferred outcome, despite parity measures. And when bigsoccer market-size-queens with their exhaustive lists of MSA's, CSA's, and nielsen markets, try to re-write history to state that the old NASL folded in 1984 because it overexpanded to Tulsa, it's personal. Maybe not to you, but definitely to me. You guys won the Lamar Hunt Sweepstakes in 1994 with over 10k season ticket deposits due to the hard work of your mayor and the good folks at Kroger. It was roughly double the number of any other city. Tulsa had more paid season ticket deposits than Seattle, BTW. No sir, you didn't do it. The city of Columbus didn't pay for it. Lamar Hunt did. 20k to 30k capacity stadiums were the vision of the original MLS from Day One and rich Uncle Lamar gifted your city by privately funding your stadium. Sure, there was some squabbling over location and infrastructure, but your citizens were never dragged through the excruciating political sausage making process in order to build the first "soccer specific stadium." Your city never had to experience MLS making friends with well connected politicians and developers in an effort to get a taxpayer funded soccer stadium on the ballot. I remember a great story about Francis Rooney and two former Roughnecks players showing up at Univ of Tulsa offices wearing hard hats... We, in Tulsa, paid our dues... literally. Despite this article being riddled with inaccuracies and revisionist history, the point remains.... What happened in 1983 is clearly old news... but so is what happened in 1993 in Columbus. In short, your city (and mine) shouldn't be "entitled" to a damned thing. If any city deserves a place at the table, it's been Rochester. Their politicians got a baseball park built in the 1990s that was "soccer-friendly." The fans filled that ballpark for Rhinos games on a regular basis, and it was their city that built and owns a soccer specific stadium, not yours (or mine). Theirs is still the only lower division team to win the US Open Cup in the MLS era. Cry me a river. Larger markets will always have their built-in advantages; welcome to the real world. In a Pro/Rel world (most other countries), weaker teams are relegated to a lower division based on performance while the stronger teams in the lower division(s) are promoted. There's movement up and down the pyramid. In MLS, we have "Stadium Pro/Rel." Build a stadium and you might be promoted and if you don't? You're relegated to the dustbin of history and pushed off a cliff. Ten years ago, I believed single-entity stadium-centric ends justified the means but, with 20/20 hindsight, I observe the stadium deals in Bridgeview, Frisco, and Commerce City, and see the point of diminishing returns comes far sooner than any of us thought possible... once the "new" wears off in Kansas City (KS), I don't expect much different. I've read the entire Johnson County KS feasibility study and the one completed the previous year by the same consulting firm for Tulsa. Once again, I argue this is the facade of "forced parity," especially in MLS's single entity (a system I was initially led to believe would only be temporary, just wait until MLS "removes the training wheels".... it now looks more and more entrenched with each and every passing year). And I believe the preferential treatment based on $$$ will only get worse. My city never had lofty expectations of being the most talented on the pitch; we knew we were small and were subject to a small budget. Former Commish Doug Logan promised Seattle taxpayers an MLS club if they voted "Yes." They did. But then Garber played hardball for years trying to leverage Seattle and other cities into building soccer specific stadiums holding 20k to 30k... my once proud soccer city has been without pro soccer for 15 years because of MLS's all-or-nothing soccer stadium strategy. Eventually, MLS relaxed a bit to allow expansion to Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver without the required 20k to 30k capacity newly constructed SSS... And we Tulsa fans did what was asked of us at the very same time... Lamar Hunt took a new Tulsa mayor and his entourage during the summer of 2002 to CCS and Arrowhead Stadium to show the stark contrast and the vision the league had to build its own facilities. In one 2003 exhibition game between KC and Dallas, we had a Saturday afternoon crowd of more than 14k and 3,500 signed up for season ticket during and shortly after the game (final season ticket commitments totaled more than 5k). Bullshit. You sir, have a "raging boner" to insult and ridicule anyone's POV that doesn't match your own entitled closed-mindedness. This isn't about "weaseling" into a league. The hell you "paved the way." "So many years" gave a handful of cities the luxury of time to become meshed with your communities and come up with your own soccer stadium solutions and pursuit of local ownership, which is a helluva a lot easier than building a soccer specific stadium at taxpayer expense cold turkey... for a league that had just shed Tampa and Miami... and offered a business model that required a local ownership group committed to an operating loss of $2mil a year for the foreseeable future. Maybe a league owned team in Tulsa for 1996 would have resulted in Tulsa getting kicked to the curb alongside Miami and Tampa... or... instead of being strong armed by MLS and Lamar Hunt to build a brand new 22,500 seat stadium at taxpayer expense (a profoundly unpopular option outside of local soccer circles) to lure the Kansas City Wizards here, Tulsa could have satisfied MLS after 10 years of proving themselves to their own community, into being an integral part of TU's $25mil stadium renovations that initially planned to widen the field, convert to grass, and construct a new press box with 20 luxury suites (same as Frisco, TX).... I've never said MLS needs to institute Pro/Rel right this minute. But I do believe going forward, an Americanized version needs to be fully explored for the future of minor league soccer over the prospects of a traditional baseball farm club system. And yes, I believe a Pro/Rel system involving MLS will ultimately move the compass a little closer to True North by changing the equation to something that offers advantages in player development and salaries for the rank-and-file over the wishes of stadium developers and the decidedly uncreative defenders of the status quo.
For years, as someone who doesn't like baseball but decided to follow KC when I was living there, I thought relegation was the answer for KC, their only chance to ever play another meaningful game in Sept. Or August. Or late July (about when they were usually eliminated from comp). I figured, they fight to survive, and if they fail, they have a great chance of bouncing back up and in the meantime they've won something, and that's cool. And then last year happened. I admit, I didn't see/hear a single pitch and didn't even bother watching highlights, because I really can't bring myself to car, but the people I know who do care were over the moon. I'm a believer in suffering with your team, and know that years of frustration vanish when they finally turn it around. But relegation in this sports world of cash is an intensely bitter pill. It's not so much the going down, it's the fear that the attempt to stay up almost financially ruined the club and now the revenue is flat out gone, meaning all of the players you've come to support vanish, in a heartbeat (which happens anyway, but usually slowly). But I fear I repeat myself, or someone else.
So how come the Quakes were allowed into the league twice with no stadium deal in place, NYCFC are playing at Yankee Stadium, Atlanta have no such deal in place and neither do LAFC? If Tulsa is such a no-brainer for MLS expansion, with thousands of fans clamouring for a team, why has there been no Sons of Ben type lobbying or movement? I have to believe from what I've just read on the Rochester Rhinos financial and stadium difficulties, they were overreaching and turned out not to be a good candidate for expansion. I mean Sacramento is certainly on the table and the Rhinos were at least entertained. It's not like MLS is arbitrarily dismissing expansion candidates without reason. You talk about "stadium pro/rel" but every league has stadium requirements. The difference is that in England, you have to meet most of the major criteria three divisions below the Premiership. MLS actually doesn't have stringent requirements but I for one encourage them to push for a SSS whenever they can. I want as few teams as possible playing on artificial surfaces that hurt the quality of play. I want as few teams as possible having to work around the schedule of a team in a more popular sport. I appreciate MLS looking for demonstrations of commitment and stability from its teams and owners. I've avoided putting anything in this post that jokey, snarky or with any kind of tone that you may find objectionable because I want you to respond to these counterpoints. I would also like to know clearly why you changed your mind on pro/rel. Note though, that you're the one posting memes and accusing people of being "bullies".
And how exactly does pro/rel offer those advantages? That's the part that looks like hand-waving. Pro/rel seems to most of us to be a negative for development, because relegation-threatened clubs tend to sign veterans and stop playing younger players. And the same is true for rank-and-file salaries, because of the mass exodus that we see from relegated clubs every year. As far as I can tell, pro/rel has exactly one major advantage, its ability to organize a lot of clubs in one league system. But that's solving a problem that existed in other countries prior to pro/rel, and doesn't exist in the US.
I guess I have a choice here. I could fess up an say "Oops! Missed the 'm'!" or alternatively take the @M route. I think I'll try the latter. There is no reality other than our perception. For all we know, when we lose consciousness and die for the last time, perception and therefore reality, effectively ends for us. 3.5 sq mi is but seven characters combined to signify a concept we know as number, area and measurement. When we dream, our minds might reconstruct the definition of "square mile" to be a million times larger to our dreaming perception. We are but electricity coursing through brain matter. If the multiverse is a reality, then all superpositions exist. All outcomes exist. Everything that can happen is happening in some form. There must be countless realities in which I typed 3.5m and countless realities where a mile is a million times larger than in this. On some level I'm correct. We all are. Except @USRufnex
Irony of the discussion right here, as said from a pro/rel championing poster. Want in one hand, shit in the other ... which fills first ? What you want, is irrelevant. We know what you and the pro/relers want ... we continue and will always ask not for your wants, desires, and opinions, but actual reasons as to why the pro/rel system is the better choice. Yet, is there a pro/rel league of any significance that doesn't have a superclub(s) ? I can't think of one. Odd ... I'm guessing you justified or put out your own measure of what parity is before presenting this ... yeah ? ... yet you argue for a system that says the exact opposite. You want pro/rel because you feel that nobody is "entitled" to a permanent place ... yet the other side of that, is that you feel those not already in are "entitled" to their place at the table. One thought doesn't not go without the other in this discussion. If you feel that those already sitting at the table aren't entitled to the table et al .... then you have to feel that way because others are entitled to it. If not, your whole basis for arguing pro/rel is bullshit. And yet, they are the perfect example as to why the franchise system is better HERE than pro/rel. The vetting process showed the ownership to be a bunch of crap. No, they didn't deserve it ... the people in charge lied and didn't have what they said they did, let alone what it took. Huge difference in being more visible because you're in LA's media market ... and the league's "new policy" that lands Dempsey in Seattle. HUGE difference .... and you know it. How is "stadium pro/rel" any different than "needs an oligarch to have a prayer" ? Both systems rely on vast investment and spending. They just do it differently. Wigan didn't get anywhere until Whelan bought in, brought in the 3 Amigos, and built the DW. Stoke after Britannia was built and Icelandic investment. Cardiff got into the EPL after their new stadium was built Swansea after Liberty stadium was built Tottenham needs a new stadium if they ever hope to break through, ditto Everton. We here in SA can say the same thing dealing with the NFL no less than twice .... I'm not seeing any pro/rel talk in this regard. Then what exactly do you call pro/rel talk from a fan in a city that doesn't have an MLS club and doesn't want to do what the system dictates in order to get one ? The 'farm' system is proven across multiple sports .... and what exactly, are the player development advantages of pro/rel ? Why can't minor league soccer be successful without pro/rel ?
Earlier in this thread you were making the case for a pro/rel system in a minor league setup, and acknowledging MLS was unlikely ever to be a part of such a system. But that seems to have changed. I'll respond just to what I quoted. While having read a report is mildly impressive, as one of the journalists who actually covered what happened in KC (a primary source of information for the report), I'm convinced you are way off base in this shot at KC. KC was a failing organization, there is no doubt. But it is hard to see where the current ownership group has put a foot wrong to this point. They've delivered a stadium, an Open Cup and an MLS Cup, and created an atmosphere that the local population loves. They've built a sizeable waiting list for season tickets and have a very smart vision for the future. Beyond that, a very decent chunk of the money that went into the new place was their investment. If you're using KC as an example, your argument against SSS seems deeply flawed. Beyond that, attendance is up substantially at the other places. When MLS was flirting with Tulsa, MLS was sinking, and KC was a symptom of a wider problem. There was a rethink on the model, and the notion that maybe going smaller and seriously niche was the future. But that corner has been turned. Tulsa's ~1.1m metro area is half the size of KC, and the new vision of MLS is that the KC sized cities should be the low end of the market. There are small market clubs, Hoffenheim fi, that make it in top divisions, but only through huge investment by a sugar daddy. MLS created a belief in the US that a professional soccer league could work. they created the demand that now exists. We may not like it, but if we love the game in the US, they have earned the rights to call the shots. As noted earlier, a pro/rel system in the lower leagues might be workable.
I rarely talk with anyone willing to go into this kind of detail, especially over a beer, and don't want to write a friggin' term paper on the subject, but this isn't rocket science... and this view is pretty typical... Promotion, Relegation, and…Youth Development? http://thecoachingjourney.org/2015/03/04/promotion-relegation-and-youth-development/
It's also, on its face, ridiculous. Because the Montreal Impact weren't relegated into NASL, youth coaches can't teach players how to dribble with their head up? Because the Montreal Impact weren't relegated to NASL, youth clubs have no pressure to produce good players? And how does pro/rel-free Australia compete in Asia, let alone win? I have to wonder about that author's sanity, if he's actually talking about Bristol Rovers. They weren't a fifth division team until 2014. They're absolutely a team on the downswing, no matter how impressed he was with their academy. But the whole premise is ridiculous. Youth academies don't tend to be built and maintained by teams that can't guarantee income. American youth academies aren't going to focus on pros ahead of colleges until the pro teams look like a long-term, realistic alternative for the nation's best players. This is just a longer version of "Every World Cup winner comes from a country with pro/rel!!"
I suspect this is the reason the writer avoided mentioning Rovers by name, instead saying only that they were in first place and in line for automatic promotion - which, of course, they no longer are. His other arguments were equally ill-fitting. Yes, Athletic Bilbao is a great academy, but their reasons for developing it were largely nationalistic and unrelated to pro/rel. Part of reason they've succeeded in growing it is because they haven't been relegated in any of our lifetimes. And while the writer points out that their academy budget is much less than Barca's, it is undoubtedly considerable nonetheless. The worst argument at all, however, was this: "In Southampton’s world, if the academy did not succeed, there was no hope at all for survival." The problem with this line is that Southampton is very much the exception to the rule. Most PL clubs do not rely much on their academies, and successful academies have not been a formula for survival. If Fulham had bought a couple more first-teamers instead of increasing its academy investment, it might still be in the PL today.
I don't have 24/7 to respond in full detail to respond to snarky quips from people like you who will NEVER be satisfied by anything I say.
Also, Athletic Bilbao exist in a country where soccer is the indisputably most popular sport. Also, Athletic Bilbao exist in a league where they have to compete with teams like Barcelona. EDIT: Also, the Basque thing.
Nothing's changed. I'd like to see Pro/Rel in MLS someday but understand why it may never happen. I've said Pro/Rel involving MLS is "pie-in-the-sky." I also said I like pie. You might want to tell these guys then... Tulsa MLS expansion mentioned at 42:00. While you're at it, ditto for OKC... http://www.news9.com/story/22870027/major-league-soccer-in-the-works-for-oklahoma-city
I've written this before, but I think it bears mentioning--academies were developed to meet a need for more players. The market came first, THEN the academies. I've no argument against one of the author's points--that our current pay-to-play system is inefficient and unfair. But to claim that pro/rel will create the environment to fix that ignore that--just like with academies--FIRST you need a market need. We don't need pro/rel here because we don't have enough viable clubs. The academy system hasn't fully developed here because pro soccer isn't enough of a profitable investment yet.
He lost me when he started using Barcelona as the antithesis of youth development. Even if you discount imported youth like Messi (even though he was 13 when he arrived), the fact remains that Xavi, Iniesta and Puyol were bedrocks of that teams success and all were Barca academy products. Furthermore, the reason Pep Guardiola's Barca were so dominant at their peak was that the aforementioned players had been raised to play their all-conquering system from an early age. Add to this that Pep was previously their coach at the youth level before being promoted. Then consider that Guardiola himself was a youth product of that very same academy, taught many of the very same philosophies and I have to question how much research this guy did for that piece. On top of that, a more pertinent factor in the Barca example to the argument between pro/rel and minor league as youth development system is how Barca - as well as Real Madrid and for the matter, Atheltic Bilbao - handle their second string: They have "B teams" that play in the lower leagues and are exempt from promotion to La Liga. They are effectively doing in the Spanish lower divisions what MLS teams are starting to do in USL and have been for decades. Meanwhile, one of the most prominent characteristics of promotion and relegation candidates in the modern era is the need for many to think short term. When you're scrapping for every point you can get, you can't afford to give youth players time to develop. It's far more common for managers of such clubs to scour the globe looking for experienced pros available at a bargain. I've watched hordes of Man United youth prospects come and go and the only time the lower leagues are used in their development is in the last season or two of their time in the reserves, when professional playing time is required and not available in the first team. In fact, of the "Fergie's Fledglings" group that came through in the late 90s, only David Beckham went out on loan.
From that same article: "When you open the system and allow youth clubs to enter the professional game, magic happens." I'd love to see him quantify "magic happens." I'd also love to see some citations.
But you do have time to continually post quips and opinion responses, dig up links, and right your own snarky diatribe ! Irony is completely lost on you. And yeah, if you could answer questions with actualities (as have been asked of you) rather than opinions ... list the actual merits of pro/rel and the actual true advantages of the system that you keep alluding to ... I'd certainly be satisfied with that response. May not agree with it, but it would certainly be satisfactory. 2013 ... how'd that go again ?
Didn't read or watch it, did you... http://www.news9.com/story/22870027/major-league-soccer-in-the-works-for-oklahoma-city
No, commented on the overbearing point. You link to ... MLS STADIUM ETC ETC ETC OKC ITS COMING BLAH BLAH ... and the reality is ...
Just because a local owner says they are working to bring in a MLS club, it doesn't mean MLS is actually interested in them. What you generally find is that the MLS carrot is being used to either get money out of a local government for a stadium, or to convince fans that they have ambitions higher than their current league. Hmm.. Now, if I were a pro/rel advocate, perhaps I would use that as an argument in favor of pro/rel.. Maybe.. Just maybe...
The fact that someone might use a potential spot in your league as leverage in a negotiation, is not a good reason to significantly change your format.