The Punch List

And yet you have not have one comment that tells us, wow this guy is on to something, he is sharp and we should listen. Tell us how to fix it genius?

 

I'm not going to get into the pro/rel discussion on every single thread.

 

I don't care about pro/rel, you don't agree with it that is fine. What do you think the whole US Federation should do in order to see something different 4, 8, 12 years from now.

 

I believe that better lower divisions would definitely benefit the soccer landscape in the US in the ways that you mention. The "base of the pyramid" is extremely important. with a solid base we will have consistency and a high level, without it extreme peaks and valleys with a few to players here and there with a spotty supporting cast.

No doubt at all that one of the major missing links in US soccer is lower level soccer. there needs to be several levels, it needs to provide a wage that players can survive on, there needs to be enough teams and the teams must be high enough quality so that players will get meaningful competition and preparation for the next level. How they move to the next level is relatively unimportant as long as there is a mechanism for them to move when ready.

I have serious doubts that pro/rel would increase interest and stability in the lower divisions. You say "how could it not?" as if it is obvious. I don't see it as obvious. How does relegation increase the stability of a team? It is placed into a lower division where income is reduced, fan support will likely be reduced (teams in the US will not have the same traditional support that many teams in Europe have.There will not be any teams with fans that have rooted for that same team for generations. As a result, the loyalty that exists in Europe may not exist in the US (I don't believe fans would stick by a relegated team the way they do in Europe). Increased interest? how so. There will still be a finite number of fans that grows steadily. Do you feel that people will tune in just because pro/rel exists? I know that pro/rel is a popular topic that many people feel will benefit our country but regardless of whether it is better or worse than the current systems, it will not be a magic bullet and there are many things that will prove much more important. What is critical is that there are quality lower tier leagues and that players have a mechanism to move between tiers. the movement of teams is not the most efficient mechanism for that movement. Probably the most efficient system for movement of that sort is the farm club system in MLB. European teams generally have several teams (youth teams and a reserve team) below their first team. What is lacking even in Europe is the level that is between the top level and the reserve team. A team in B1 has a team in 4th division. If they want the player to get experience at a higher level they have to loan him out. Compare to MLB, Single A, Double A, Triple A and the Majors. (also other lower leagues as well). Is that realistic at this point? definitely not but the point is that lower levels are what is important. In Europe they have lower levels and make use of loans which is not traditionally done in US sports but in Europe. one use is as a mechanism for moving a player to a level of play that the club cannot provide on it's own. US soccer uses loans to some degree but not like they do in Europe. That, to me, would be a more productive change than implementing pro/rel. I believe that people see pro/rel in Europe, notice that the overall system is better (better teams, better competition, better lower tiers, better in virtually every way) and they put 2 and 2 together and get 5....pro/rel must be the cause. Maybe it is, but I need a lot more evidence than just correlation.

 

I wasn't thinking in terms of MLS but for any league. I agree that moving franchises, especially without reason or on a whim is not beneficial. I would say that the moving of franchises is a reflection of several things that are probably mostly related to the US' system (not just soccer).

I don't think it is a solution to teams moving, but as long as there are unfilled markets willing and able to support a team (different size markets for different size teams/leagues) there will be teams that try to fill those markets either by moving or through expansion. Considering the US is an economic giant with many large markets spread across the nation, it will be quite some time before those markets will be filled...especially if the popularity of soccer continues to grow. I am sure that there will always be teams that move occasionally...look at the NFL and other US sports. As untapped markets are filled, there will be fewer enticements for clubs to move locations. I believe that is one (far from the only) reason that you don't see European teams move. If Sacramento wants a team, they can try to get in via expansion or by stealing an existing club. If pro/rel was in place they could work their way up...also at the expense of a club that is on a downturn (temporary or not). As you say, stealing is not stabilizing and I don't think pro/rel is either. Expanding is tricky too because it has to be done at the right pace. If done correctly it can be stabilizing, if done incorrectly it could conceivably lead to the destabilization and/or failure in markets and conceivably the failure of a league. (USL, MLS or what have you)

 

Ironically pro/rel is the most American of systems, never understood why it is resisted by the America first crowd and seen as a Eurosnob proposal.

It’s competition period. It will benefit the sport, the USMNT, improve interest, participation, revenue, development and everything else the same way Locke laid out centuries ago, it is 100% the way to go.

Anyone who resists pro/rel and supports the MLS/Sum monopoly is a communist and therefore an idiot.

 

It also makes for strong bones and 95% of all dentists recommend pro/rel.

 

Dentists are the exact type of entitled elitists that prefer SUM/MLS actually, according to the latest polls anyway.

 

The same problems arise in all promotion scenarios around the world. There are minimum standards.

Teams do get a pretty big chunk of money for getting promoted... and relegated teams also get some money to ease the pain.


When River Plate got relegated ( Estamos en la B!!!!!) they made more tv money than when they were in the first division. Since about 30% of Argentine fans are River supporters, the first division suffered.

It seems first division teams shared the tv pool. Second division teams kept what they could sell.

 

I think this is a decent way to approach it but still have doubts every team that earns promotion could handle the fee to move up. I'm still intrigued by the baseball way with 4-5 minor leagues to move your own players around playing for your coaches and your style. Maybe a combination would be best as seems to be the case in Germany where players get loaned but many teams also have elite U19 squads that compete only against other U19 elite squads. My question is whether promotion relegation is better at creating elite players or creating a better league.

 

The baseball model works beyond any doubt. It's just difficult to directly compare results, in part because the player market for baseball players is regional (generally, North America, portions of the Caribbean, Central and northern South America, and Japan and Korea), whereas the player market for soccer players--at least for the top 4 or so leagues--is truly global.

 

I'm intrigued by the concept and that it may actually give the US an advantage over other countries and they'd never be able to do it. Think about how all the academies around the world teach their players how to play their way (ok, the good academies). Then when a player gets to be certain age they might loan them out to a team that doesn't have their best interests in mind and plays a different style. Isn't that what everyone is telling FCD to do and create a second division team? Now, take 25 or so players and multiply by at least three more teams and have movement up and down? I don't know it's a better model but it's worth discussing.

 

Apparently, there are over 400 professional baseball teams in America. There are 30 MLB teams, each having at least 4 minor league teams (AAA, AA, High-A, Low-A) along with three more leagues... A-short season, Advanced Rookie, Rookie. Then there are the independent leagues.

I’d personally think a combo of this set up and a version of Pro/Rel could work. I guess it is really what they do in many parts of Europe but with more teams per club. At the same time allow independent clubs who want to invest that chance to move up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_baseball_teams_in_the_United_States_by_city

• Independent Leagues, consisting of teams which are not operated in conjunction with either Major League or Minor League baseball. There are currently eight independent, traditional-season leagues in North America, which have between them a total of 63 teams (59 in the United States and 4 in Canada): the American Association, Atlantic League, Can-Am League, Frontier League, Mount Rainier Professional Baseball League, North Country Baseball League, Pacific Association of Professional Baseball Clubs, and Pecos League. (Two teams in the Pecos League, the Alpine [Texas] Cowboys and the Trinidad [Colorado] Triggers, are not shown in this list, as they are not located in cities even large enough to be considered micropolitan statistical areas, defined as having an urban area of at least 10,000 people. Also not shown in this list are two traveling teams, one in the Frontier League and one in the North Country Baseball League.)

Additionally, there are ten off-season leagues, six affiliated with Major League Baseball and four independent. All are located in Latin America, other than the Arizona Fall League, the six teams of which operate in six of the same facilities used by the Arizona League.

 

The reason that the system works in Europe is because they have huge amounts of depth. the quality and depth of the player pool something we do not have in the US. Think about the farm system. In the US any soccer farm system would be incredibly small compared to MLB. In Europe, however, they have the player pool to have a soccer farm system that rivals or surpasses MLB. The system does not work because of pro/rel. Pro/rel works within the constraints of the player pool, just as the farm system in MLB works within the constraints of the player pool...it does not determine the player pool. Pro/rel is not a developmental system per se. the developmental system is the different levels and the mechanism(s) that promote instruction and practice as the players move vertically in the system based upon their improvement.

 

I hear pro/rel is being seriously considered for USL 1 and USL 2.

Altho I favor a 60 team league (first division) with regional hubs and expanded playoffs, I wouldn't think pro/rel would be out of the question as the number of teams keeps progressing.

I think the best argument against pro/rel is simply that it is premature under any circumstances. Where would the relegated go? How do you tell somebody "you're relegated and by the way Miami FC is taking your place in their first year of existence." From that point of view, relegation now and forever is "stupid".

 

If the 'best' national soccer league promoted national players, that would be best. In the end they want something very different while they struggle to make money. Separate the USSF/USMNT from ANY MLS ties and we have a start.

The one thing that elevates soccer in the US is success at the WC. It could boost the MLS' stock greater than anything in their business plan. That is, if they gave a crap about it and created an environment where the best US youth talent was coached up correctly and pushed into playing time.

In the meantime, get as many talented kids overseas as possible and hire a USMNT coach that is not beholden to the MLS or any past US 'stars'.

 

Wanna fix the problem? Stop the USSF from continuing to be a marketing arm of MLS. Get the USSF singularly focused on winning the World Cup. Let MLS and the other leagues worry about their TV ratings. Win the cup and ratings and sport popularity will climb out of the niche market it currently occupies. Keep worrying about promoting the Sunday Toronto FC / FC Dallas game and nobody's going anywhere.

 

My goodness the posturing. The irony in you making a mockery of the intellect of others would be amusing if you weren't so sincere. Stop making a damn fool of yourself.

 

Coaching improvements are needed, but not sure lowering fees will help there, unless you use the surplus to cover for a period (which I'm fine with). But access is only good, if what's being taught is actually going to help. So we first need to address the education courses. Then we can open up classes. Maybe even have everything up to a C, including certificates, be free for those willing to volunteer team coaching local rec leagues to reinvest it.

 

This approach is a terrible idea if the end goal is a stronger NT. Baseball teams horde their best young players. They have zero interest in anything other than having their ML club to be the best it can be. If they have three potential All Stars in their system but they are blocked from the big club by existing stars they don't trade them to other teams so those players have a chance to develop to their potential. They keep them right where they are unless some team offers them the moon for them.

So a minor league club system would increase the number of players playing at higher levels giving clubs such long term control over them isn't going to get more top flight play infused into the NT.