Asking why he's terrified. AND why he thinks they'll collapse. These things are businesses in and of themselves now. Realistically, they are not all going to get into MLS, nor could they, and they will have to have a plan to survive and thrive regardless of level. And it's a lot easier to do that now, when the sport is more popular than ever and when a club can draw thousands of people a game at the lower level, than it was even before the MLS carrot was put out there. (Not to mention the USSF standards, which are designed to keep fly-by-night people out anyway. Do fewer clubs fold now than used to? Yes. The standards are part of that.) Appearing ambitious is a great face to put on your product for the benefit of the people you are trying to sell tickets to, but we're at the point where Phoenix had better sell what is has and San Antonio had better sell what it has and be able to make it work in case they are not one of the next four. I mean, isn't that kind of a pre-requisite for the environment pro/rel advocates are fond of telling us we'll foster? Because even if we HAVE pro/rel someday, that can't be everyone's business plan. Somebody's going up, but somebody's going down, too. "Collapse" is just a ridiculous premise. Clubs are becoming relevant in their own rights because of the work that is being done to ingrain them into their communities and fans are more and more okay with just having a club, regardless.
Agreed. Though many of pro/rel advocates contradict themselves by declaring victories in PDL, NPSL, NASL and USL to be "meaningless" unless it means going up a division. How they reconcile that the odds of any club in the 3rd tier of English football one day winning the Premier League is beyond me.
^ I think that just might be down to the conditioning of thinking we have VS what they have. Pro/Rel has been such a part of the history there ... the "meaning" of winning a league that isn't the top tier has been replaced by "promotion." The actual act of winning the Championship or League One is essentially irrelevant to (or just a feel good showpiece in conjunction with) the actuality of promotion. HERE ... the point is to be the best at what you are regardless of anything else that being so may entail. The "meaning" of winning is still "winning" and the rewards therein are the byproduct of doing so. I'll say it again, you're a damned fool if you think that winning the NASL title in 2014 is meaningless, irrelevant, empty, or anything other than Fantastic and the entire point of playing the games. The fact that we didn't gain entry into the MLS because of it is irrelevant because: - That's not something that happens - The point of the season was to win the championship When you replace the value of winning/coming first in the competition you effect the competition itself and the perceived notion of it. Who cares if you finished 2nd in the Championship, didn't win the FA Cup, didn't win the League Cup, and don't have a single piece of hardware to show for the season? You "won" PROMOTION! Which is "better" anyway !!! ..... To me, that in of itself is an issue.
And ironically, due to the fact that promotees rarely challenge for their D1 title, winning is rarely the endgame for these clubs. It's a bit like being happy with getting to the very end of Super Mario Bros and simply dodging Bowser's fireballs.
This convo was had on these very forums several years ago ... while it may not sound right/good ... it isn't incorrect. Initialisms pronouncing each letter in the acronym etc etc down the rabbit hole of grammar.
Actually we're using the world that the English folk derived to differentiate this type from the other types of football. So really we're more proper than they are .......
It's a shortening of "Association Football" (Assoc. being an abbreviation of Association). We should reclaim the sport's proper name. Or start calling Basketball "hoops".
Then they need to make up their minds ... either we're wrong and aren't doing it properly (soccer) or shut the front door about our naming clubs FC (posing). Cake/eat it ... etc
"The NFL" = "The National Football League" = "The League." "The NBA" = "The National Basketball Association" = "The Association." "The FBI" = "The Federal Bureau of Investigation" = "The Bureau." "The MLS" = "The Major League Soccer" = "The....Soccer?" If the LEAGUE doesn't refer to itself as "the MLS" (while other leagues do refer to themselves with the article) and most people do not, why do you insist on being contrary? You would never say out loud "The Major League Soccer." You would however, say all the others out loud. So, again - most people do it one way, yet you insist on being contrary. ******** rabbit holes, this is bleeding obvious.
I'm well aware ... I've an English minor and taught both reading and English. I merely stated that "it wasn't incorrect." Nothing more, and nothing less. Is it contrary to what many/most people say? Sure, but then again there are many things about the translatives between speaking/writing/etc that are contrary to each other or the majority. That doesn't make things correct or incorrect however. It's just what sticks with people was they form their way of speaking/writing. With the in/out/up/down/etc etc I've done over the years with the written/spoken language ... "The MLS" is just one of those things. It is correct by more rules than not. Sure, "The .... Soccer" (which is far and away nothing more than a sound test ... which sounding right usually isn't, but anyway) but our version of the English language is the poster child for exceptions. Due to the vast amount of other rules that abound, this is one of them. It isn't contrary just to be contrary ... it's just one of the things that has stuck for me. I freely admitted "while it may not sound right/good" ... though just because it doesn't to most doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean I'm wrong for using it.
Why the fixation with who wins the Premier League? Take Burton Albion, for example. I remember watching them play in the Southern League Midland Division way back when. Yes, their odds of ever winning the Premier League are essentially zero, but so what? What pro/rel has allowed them do is rise five (I think) levels of league to a remarkable current season in the Championship. That is what makes victories in a pro/rel pyramid of leagues more significant than in a closed league environment.
To whom? In SA it means dick all. Winning the NASL Title is infinitely more significant to us than Burton Albion rising 139879119739847289712 levels.
First of all, it wasn't a case of more or less significant. The adjective consistently used in the cases we're discussing is "meaningless". The position we are discussing is specifically "without a path to D1 there's no point". Look up the #ProRelforUSA hashtag on twitter after any USL, NASL, PDL, NPSL or other non-D1 title game and you'll see that sentiment expressed repeatedly. Taking that to its logical conclusion, surely if access to D1 is a requirement to results being meaningful, then it follows that being able to win D1 is just as important. Of course for all the narrative, Albion's journey hasn't been significant to enough people to fill their 7k seater stadium in a league that averages well over double that number.
And Burton "have a path" to do precisely that, however remote the possibility seems at present. And, of course, their results are very meaningful in that they are one place above the Championship relegation spots at present. Wtf is your fixation with what may or may not happen on Twitter? Well above their attendances when playing in the Southern League. And, of course, making their ability to climb the leagues even more remarkable.
The odds you gave were "essentially zero". There's just as much of a path to having a competitive team in a D1 in the US. Firstly, that depends on your definition of "well above". They averaged 1400 the year they went up to the conference. They now average 5k. As a percentage, that's a 350% increase. In real numbers, that's 3.5k. The trouble is, they entered the conference in 2002. They stayed in the conference until 2010, averaging 1.5-2k, then League 2 until 2015, hovering a little below 3k. The year in League 1 - their truly remarkable season - they saw 4k in attendance. So what we're seeing are small incremental increases with each level, which is quite normal and is just as likely connected to the improved standard of football as any excitement surrounding the clubs not-that-rapid-apart-from-one-season ascent. This leads me to my second point: again, for all the narrative, the punters aren't really as into the journey to the top as we're led to believe. Burton Albion will be unlikely to score full houses for an entire season unless they actually reach the Premiership, despite having a tiny venue. They'll be unlikely to retain even this relatively small attendance if they get relegated. Are they to be commended for their achievements? Absolutely. Does it make a nice narrative? No doubt. But what does that actually translate into? A few raised eyebrows? The odd impressed nod of approval? Perhaps a small article or blog piece about the adventures of an overachieving minnow? Neither the journey nor the destination is bringing the crowds flocking despite their rise to what is the most highly attended D2 on the planet. Whatever subjective assessments of "meaning" and "significance" you might want to put on it, there were just as many people turning up to see a minor league San Antonio outfit win their championship. Though in fairness to both teams, their second tier attendances would be perfectly typical in most football D2s around the world.
It's a key platform that those who consider themselves pro/rel activists use and where the sentiments being discussed are routinely expressed.
So absolutely nothing to do with a discussion on BigSoccer on US Top Flight Access and Expansion Debate
They were averaging 900 or so before they started challenging for promotion to the Conference in the late 90's. So a five to six-fold increase in twenty years. Not too shabby even if the numbers are lower than they potentially could be. Why don't you ask the fans and people of Burton? Just maybe it means a little more than you're trying to pass it off as. Why your fixation on attendances anyway? Burton are there on sporting merit and that's a remarkable achievement. I didn't know they handed out trophies for having the biggest crowds.
It sounds great when you say "five-to-six-fold". An increase of 4k over twenty years, despite playing four divisions higher, not so much. It also sounds less dramatic when you break it down as I did, level-to-level. The people of Burton? An average of 68,000 of which aren't interested in attending on any give matchday, despite the ground having an average of 2,000 seats to spare? What's your fixation with accusing me of having fixations? I'm thinking about significance in terms of being worthy of attention. Only 5,000 people on average in the town of Burton-on-Trent are deeming it worth enough of their attention to turn up to games on a given matchday. If you'd rather weigh significance in terms of importance, San Antonio won a seasonal title and league championship, in a league that considered itself an MLS competitor, seeking D1 status and presenting itself as "D2 in name only". They became champions by finishing top of the national league they played in. That's more important than moving up some ranks, winning some divisions whose primary function is to solve a logistical problem.
A vocal group of people with a relatively prominent place in US soccer culture, deeming leagues worthless because they don't provide access to a US top flight, has nothing to with a US Top Flight Access and Expansion Debate? On a thread where a poster in the natural flow of discussion, mentioned the very group referred to?
Snickering about what someone may or may not say on Twitter hardly adds anything useful to a thread on Big Soccer, especially as you pollute the other pro/rel thread with this stuff. I'm surprised the moderator tolerates it. On second thoughts, no I'm not.