I went to a swope park match. I wasn't impressed with the seating. They had porta potties on the southwest end. The smell was strong in the second half at mid field seats. Atmosphere pretty dead with 700 people there if that many. No desire to see another match in swope park.
Hartford...another chance at Dillon Stadium: http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-dillon-stadium-rfp-20170914-story.html
My point doesn't have anything to do with fans in Boise. It's about the logistics of MLS development. Right now, Seattle can take a U19 player and give him a game with S2 in the USL if they want. S2 plays in Seattle and it will be easy when they play just down the road in Tacoma, too. Academy players can train with USL pros and play in USL games without any logistical problems in order to challenge them and test them at a higher level. Portland can do the same thing right now with T2, but not when their USL team is in Boise. Houston's USL team is an affiliation with RGV. Maybe that accomplishes their goals because there's no indication they give a shit about their academy, but their USL team is almost entirely divorced from their U19 team. There's no integration at all. It's just too far.
Not that unusual. Take the AHL and NHL. Some teams have their minor league squads in close proximity and have some overlap, for example San Jose. Others have their teams hundreds of miles away.
That analogy doesn't work. The issue isn't so much MLS-to-USL (e.g. NHL-AHL), it's USL-to-academy. U19 players are amateur high schoolers and if you want a seamless connection between your U19 team and the USL team, everything has to be in the same market. You just aren't going to get a lot of USL games in Boise for U19 players based in Portland. If your goal is to provide a clear developmental pathway, why would it be a good idea to put this obstacle in place? I've said this before, but I think what ultimately makes sense is to have an in-house D3 team for new/very raw pros and academy kids getting a taste of the professional atmosphere and then form an affiliation to accommodate D2 loans for the handful of guys who have "graduated" from the D3 level of play but aren't ready for MLS.
Was at the Swope Park Rangers game yesterday and saw Max Rugova score his first professional goal as a player on an "Academy Contract" from our U18's. Not sure how often that happens at Omaha. I also noticed the entire SKC staff standing on top of the "press box" at the facility. I doubt that happens if they're in Omaha. Heck, another thing that happened is newly signed SKC player Kevin Oliveira played 11+ minutes in the SKC game on Saturday evening ... and then came in an played 32+ minutes as a sub in the Swope Park Rangers game on Sunday ... that sure as heck doesn't happen if they're in Omaha. I love the way SKC are using Swope Park Rangers. They had 5 players from SKC's roster playing (GK, 3 defenders and 1 forward) who have been playing on SPR consistently all season (Zendejas, Didic, Storm, Pasher, Belmar) and saw 3 Academy graduates (2 on SPR contracts and 1 on non professional "Academy Contract") score in the 5-2 win over San Antonio. San Antonio is a REALLY good D2 team ... SPR just won't get the same development curve is they're forced to move to D3 so I hope that doesn't happen!
Hartford, 10,165 for MLS match played at the Rent: http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-nycfc-rentschler-field-0924-20170923-story.html
http://www.usld3.com/news_article/show/850955?referrer_id=3067503 United Soccer League’s Division III expansion team sets its sights on New England as the league will meet with business and civic leaders Nov. 6-10. Executives from the new third-division league will travel to Providence, RI, before making their way north to Worcester, MA, Manchester, NH, and Portland, ME.
http://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/851480?referrer_id=2333971 Hartford Sports Group Makes Case for Dillon Renovation 11/2/17, 8:30AM EDT Public-private partnership would potentially bring USL to city for 2019 season
Since Bill Edwards owns everything about the Fort Lauderdale Strikers could he decide to relaunch them in the USL? Could the NASL block that? Do the USL have a rule against one owner owning multiple teams?
Not long ago, there was a headline (SocTakes?) that a sale of the Strikers was “imminent.” (Hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge.) I don’t know if that meant someone was about to buy the moribund NASL franchise formerly operated under that name or the intellectual property. (I, like you, thought Edwards got that, and USPTO indicates “Marketing Solution Publications, Inc.” of St. Petersburg, which Edwards owns.) I do not know if USL rules preclude multiple team ownership. (I can’t think of an instance where someone owned more than one USL team, but, to be honest, until recently, owning one was bad enough.) But even if he didn’t want to launch a second team, anybody who DID and wanted that name would have to go through him. And the NASL would have zippo to say about it.
So of the viable remaining NASL teams, which ones will USL absorb (assuming the NASL loses their USSF appeal)? My best is Indy and Jacksonville will both end up in USL next year. Miami FC should be but the lawsuits and Silva will prevent it.
Bill Reese @ReeseCommaBill Dec 9 Brass Bonanza in the USL? Somebody called "Hartford Sports Group LLC" has trademarked the name "Whale City FC" That, or NYCFC to E. Hartford?@MidfieldPress @SocTakes @theUSLshow
-------------------------------- Agree for the most part. Academy U8 > U18 should be in the city of the MLS parent. Kind of like the high school relation that RSL is doing. Your next jump PDL U23 and USL 3 should also be local because you are going to have players that will still want to play college and thus the PDL piece stays in play. USL3 could be a more catch all of players who graduated already, chose not to play college, walk on's etc. I am ok with your USL 2 being a little further away, but still regional as opposed to being across country etc.
The UT ran an update yesterday on 1904FC... http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/sd-sp-1904-nasl-appeal-20171212-story.html Basically still in limbo until the NASL appeal fails or is granted as we expected. Only good news is they maintain they still want to play even if NASL dies this week, which they reiterate will happen if the appeal is denied. And USL is one of the options being considere, though it’s getting very late for 2018.
I severely doubt they join USL in time for 2018, but I do know that they are having their first tryout this weekend. It must be challenging for them to have to build now without committing too strongly to anything. But they can't really afford not to build right? If they get the green light that they are hoping for its a sprint to March to get everything else locked and loaded.
Well it’s not too late until USLs schedule is out. So if they pull the trigger before Christmas there’s still a chance. And USL remains the only really viable option for them for 2018.
You're not wrong, but I don't think its that simple. If NASL doesn't make it, I don't think 1904 plays anywhere in 2018. I hope I'm wrong though.
San Antonio was announced as a 2016 team on 1/7/16 and NYRBII was announced on 1/21/15 for 2015, but I am certain USL knew they were coming many moons in advance. Galaxy II was announced 1/29/14 for that year. They replaced Phoenix FC with Arizona United (new franchise) on 3/13/14, just weeks before the season. (But same schedule, obvs.)
Having read what the 1904 guys and those around them are saying I disagree. It’s 2018 or bust for these guys is the sense they’re giving off. They have a narrow window to build their stadium, play at USD, etc... and they want to take advantage of it.
http://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/867698?referrer_id=2333971 San Francisco is in for 2021. Erm.. Meant Oakland....