The YBTD Pro/Rel Thread, Part 9,614

So if this was adopted, would it mean every five years there's a new promoted side, and a relegated side, or just a new member of MLS? I admit, I'm not really sure what Mexico's system is right now.

 

You would have a promoted side and relegated side every year ... the first pro/rel would occur AFTER the initial 5yr period and then be every year from there. Each new season is added to the 5yr rolling table and the results of the last season on the table are dropped.

2018
2017
2016
2015
2014

.... so the results at the end of 2019 would replace the 2014 data set.

 

I don't really know how the Ascenso MX promotes, but relegation occurs every season. The team with the worst 3 year aggregate record gets relegated, so basically, if you get promoted, you've got at least 3 years in the top flight.

 

Not exactly. Mexico has a split season. I believe relegation is determined by results over three seasons. So that would be a year and a half.

 

No, three seasons. 6 'tournaments' (e.g. 3x Apertura/Clausura tournaments).

 

Ah! That definitely seems to favor the establishment!

 

Id say the practice of relegated teams 'buying' the promoted team, rebranding and buying back all their players to stay up is more in favor but that's just me.

 

I mean, sure, but that's not exactly codified into the competition format.

 

I disagree with this disagreement!

I mean, obviously different folks will have different opinions on this, but I think it's worth noting that the European promotion/relegation system isn't the only model to draw from.

That said, I also like the Apertura/Clausura format, so...

 

You make a lot of good points here. I haven't finished reading Das Reboot yet, but I'll do that. But we're not exactly starting from the same point that Germany was when they rebooted. They had already won what, 3 World Cups and developed countless great players before they rebooted. And, if I'm not mistaken, their coaching license fees are a fraction of what they are here. Which of those things do you think made a bigger difference? The buildings or the coaches? How about France? It seems like most of their players are coming from immigrant communities.

I agree that having 40 good academies would be better than 20, but I'm not convinced that a 40 team MLS will mean 40 good academies. I'd rather have 20 academies competing with each other to find best practices, and having real consequences for failure, than 40 academies with 2/3 of them going thru the motions because it's a requirement, and having no real consequences for failure. And why couldn't a 20 team MLS 2 all have academies as well? I also don't think a 40 team first division would be more profitable, which means they will have less money to invest in academies. Even in the NBA, with all the best players in the world, people will really only watch a handful of teams. Now take MLS, with only a handful of really well-known players in the entire league, and spread the talent out evenly across 40 teams. People will watch their home team, but how many would watch any other teams? Regarding numbers of homegrown players getting playing time, a lot of teams had starters gone because MLS played thru the international break, but I don't think that's representative of a normal week in MLS. In any case, you're free to prefer your pizza, and I can still prefer mine.

 

The other thing that's different in the US versus Germany is that immigrants here are much more likely to be passionate about soccer. It may be true that most German players come from middle class or upper class backgrounds. I don't know. But in the U.S. the children of immigrants, who are most likely to be passionate about soccer, are often left out of the system, or segregated into hispanic leagues where they are often ignored or left out by the US Soccer establishment. Here's just one example https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...ont-pay-upfront-race-us-soccer-fields-seattle.

 

Oh yeh never trying to say we should go with the European model because it's the "right way" or anything like that, I just prefer the simplicity of it. You finish at the top (which can mean winning the playoffs) you're the champion, you finish at the bottom you're down. But in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy we can agree to disagree.

As for the Apertura/Clasura no way, one season per year anything else is just witchcraft!

(although it still doesn't stop me from enjoying amazing Carnitas Tacos while watching Xolos so I guess i'm starting to get used to it. )

 

"Delete your account"

 

For the 2016 Euros, 37 percent of the French and Portuguese national teams had immigrant backgrounds. I don't know if that applies to French club level footie, though I would guess that it does. France used to put official roadblocks in the way of doing any research regarding ethnic, racial, religious background, but I would guess you are correct on France.
You're making a good case, but remember that MLS is new, and without new stadia would have no stadia. Without new stuff, they have no stuff. That isn't the case here. Without new stuff, clubs have their old stuff. It's a lot cheaper to stuff new tech into existing training facilities than that buy the new tech to put into a building your are constructing. I'm just saying the cost comparison isn't apples to apples. Obviously, the cost of coaching badges, and scarcity in the US, is a problem. How the USSF hasn't addressed this while sitting on a sizeable surplus, I have no idea, but that has nothing to do with club level footie. Everyone benefits from more licensed coaches, inlcuding MLS. Same thing with refs.
Also, given the size and low population density of the US, is it certain that 20 versus 40 academies means a concentration of talent, and not simply that a lot of hidden gems stay hidden?
The US is building a soccer structure, not tapping into one. Are we sure A. that 20 top level clubs would actually have more money per club than clubs in the current league? B. Is it possible, that picking 20 might decrease the potential for revenue streams in the league?

 

Given our 4 other sports to draw data from ... the % of "eh" or outright shit teams is pretty much the same any given year (obviously you have overly competitive and overly down years happening here and there). You've got 1/4 to 1/3 of the teams being pretty good, a middle 1/3 or so and then everyone else. That seems to be the natural stratification.

The drama is there though ... it just takes into account more than one season of results.

The measures can be made to effect everyone. It isn't about protecting the biggest clubs, but protecting the clubs themselves period. Nobody wants Leeds or Blackburn or anything like that.

I'm going with how our sporting culture works. IF pro/rel is ever inserted into our soccer scene it WILL be somehow modified to fit what we do here.

Though, a concentration on the UPWARD part more than the DOWNWARD part makes sense. Control the upward mobility and make clubs "get there" in all aspects as much as possible before earning promotion would likely be a working idea IMO.

 

Sure so by simple math if you have a 20 team league you are going to have fewer "eh" teams than if you have a 40 team league, and while their might not be a limit on teams in a league there is a limit on the amount of games you can play, which is probably in the high 20's low 30's if you want to keep playoffs, stop for the important international breaks, and maximize your weekend matches.

So if your increasing the sheer number of "eh" teams but not the number of games well you are going to increase the number of games against "eh" teams. Unless of course all of the good teams are in one region, which would make the other region really lame.

Seems like all the mitigation is to protect the rich teams. When you argue against pro/rel your usually asking me what happens to MLS if there are no teams in LA or NY, not Columbus or Dallas.

As for Blackburn that was a S*** owner simple as that. Saying nobody wants a "Blackburn" is no different that me saying nobody wants a "Crew" or nobody wants the "Chargers". Or could go even further and say nobody wants a "Chivas". Crappy owners exist in all sports.

And interesting you should single out Blackburn, a friend of mine who was a Blackburn season ticket holder until he moved to Texas, was visiting in April and we were talking about Blackburn's season. He said he's as excited about them now as he's been in years. He also added that while the relegations were painful they were probably the best thing for the club because they allowed them to offload a bunch of underperforming high way wage payers, replace them with local academy guys, and change the whole vibe around the club.

Basically he's describing rebuilding. The difference being that the fans get to actually see their team win and play competitive meaningful games during this process.

Agree

 

Hailtotheking, making a solid case for promotion and relegation in the US.
As I read these posts, though, I think I can hear Bill Murray saying something about dogs and cats living together.

 

Divisions break 'em up rather nicely in every other sport. Why would soccer be different? Sure, there's ebbs and flows and you get the "East is Beast" or the "West is Best" years/runs ... but you'll have both good and shit teams on both coasts and scattered throughout the middle.

You'll also have more good teams by simple math, and that's the trade off. More good teams are what's going to sell the league. Could you imagine the EPL with spots 6-8 being in title contention?

I've actually not done that. All I've ever stated on this front is that with how our sporting culture is, good luck getting TV on board with this. It's much different when the teams are over seas VS in your back yard.

Of course there are. I just see it much easier for ones to slip into the pro/rel structure due to the money involved today. If someone comes by waving around a check to clear the debt clubs will be sold for 1 freaking pound (which has effectively happened) .... snake oil stickers on the car be damned.

Chivas was a poor directed play that was just a bad idea all around. Precourt is the only true ******** up the league has had in allowing an owner in. Though, the way it has all played out it is looking more and more like a long sabotage play as opposed to an outright ********ing up.

That happens here too. "Meaningful" is subjective.

 

Ken Horowitz in Miami maybe. Though I don't think he was intentionally screwing things up, he just didn't have the resources to really be an owner.

 

Sure it could work in soccer too, but what about, and I am just spitballing here, if we could create a system where you always had the best teams in the same division, and had it changed every year so as teams ebbed and flowed you always had the best teams. That would be pretty cool right?

Not necessarily, it's hard to make your team good it's not hard to make your team meh, so I don't agree that adding numbers would automatically add more good teams.

Yep but don't see that as a fault with pro/rel, and I have offered up a way of managing pro/rel while still allowing MLS to control expansion and sales of ownership.

no meaningful is not subjective. I game to decide a title, or advance in the playoffs, or qualify for the playoffs, or remain in a division, or move up a division is more meaningful than a game that doesn't have anything riding on it. That simple. Will hardcore fans still find a way to enjoy any game? Sure but those games aren't as meaningful, simples.