For the Rowdies, I think if they do not get into MLS the team will stick around, but it is hard to say for sure. They would loose some of the fan base, but I think an average of 4-5K per game is reasonable if they stay in USL. Going back to NASL is rather unlikely as long as Bill Edwards is around, and he is pretty invested in the team. Some of the other teams looking to make the jump will possibly fold if they do not hit MLS, but they mostly have the potential to make it in USL should they choose to. It will be interesting to see how teams like Sacramento and FCC develop if they do not get into MLS in short order. Sacramento in particular as many fans seem to be married to the idea that MLS is a matter of when and not if. Of course there will always be a dedicated core, but how many will feel slighted and disenfranchised? But make no mistake, having the stadium plan lined up is a huge selling point for TB in MLS's eyes.
I said this in December on the Carolina board when they were announcing their re-brand and intention to bid for MLS... "I do wonder what happens when MLS stops expanding, because that WILL happen eventually. Right now everyone says "Our goal is MLS". The new USL franchises in Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis and now Nashville are all saying that. Now it's Mr. Malik's turn. I'm sure Mr. Edwards will say the same thing in St. Petersburg tonight. (BTW, Edwards did announce an MLS bid and got what he wanted to possibly make it happen the other night) If those owners DON"T get MLS teams (and not all of them will get in), do they stay in the USL forever or just sell it off....or worse fold up the tents?" Some things have changed since then but I think it's still a relevant question for some of the bigger markets in the USL and for North Carolina and Indy in the NASL. It's a decision that will come up for some of these franchises sooner or later.
Things about to go down tonight for the USL. Independent teams want MLS 2 sides to either join the new D3 or get independent owners, like Rio Grande and Reno. http://m.newsok.com/article/5558393 End of the article is enlightening: "However, the independent owners will receive a strong push back from the remaining MLS2 clubs. At least one Eastern Conference club, with an emphasis on player development, is adamant to remain in USL and will not consider a move to Division III or further investment into its USL business operation. "The MLS teams have built great stadiums, invested heavily in player development and built fan bases," Edwards said. "They've done all of that. Their objective with their second team are not to do that all again." Edwards has a difficult job of balancing the needs of both ownership groups, but he has found a key ally in the USSF for these negotiations. As part of the USL's Division II provisional sanctioning, its clubs must work to meet all of the USSF Division II standards, most notably playing in a stadium with a minimum capacity of 5,000. Swope Park Rangers (Sporting Kansas City's affiliate), LA Galaxy II, New York Red Bulls II, Vancouver Whitecaps 2 and Toronto FC II do not meet this seating requirement. However, USSF has given assurances to USL that it will give special consideration to the needs of the MLS2 clubs when assessing USL's permanent Division II sanctioning, which will take place after each season."
Don't you think this was always the "end game" of sorts? There are some clubs that will find the value in putting their USL club in a different market (Swope Park move to Omaha?). But I could also say that if you took the top 3-4 players off of Swope Park Rangers, the rest of the squad (much younger) would likely comprise a pretty good D3 club ... and you'd just find D2 independent club to loan the 3-4 players you think are "near" MLS ready. I can see the benefit both ways ... I also like the idea of having 20-24 "independent" ownership groups at the D2 level ... working towards building stadiums for the D2 level (like Louisville is doing, Rio Grande Valley did, Charleston did many years ago, etc).
It's an interesting article. Thanks for the link. Remember that USL3 doesn't start until 2019 and we don't know how many teams will be in that league to start. Nothing has to happen in the short term, especially if the USSF isn't going to be sticklers about standards. There was some talk about starting off as a relatively small regional league probably in the East or Midwest. It seems hard to imagine that it would be possible to make that work with all of the MLS2 teams since they are pretty dispersed across the country. Additionally, pushing all of the MLS2 teams into USL3 would also reduce the team density that is helping the current D2 league maintain regionalism. On the other hand, there are still a lot of MLS teams that don't have MLS2 teams. It will be interesting to see if any more are formed in the near future and what form they take. The RGV/Reno/Tacoma model may be the way of the future anyway.
I don't think so, at least not Reno and RGV. It just doesn't fit the needs of MLS. When your USL team is so far away, there's no integration between USL and U18 academy squads. Teams that are interested in bringing academy players through their pro teams need the USL team to be in market or close by. Bethlehem and Tacoma work for this purpose. RGV, Reno, and other affiliates do not. Furthermore, if you are going to go heavy on teenage pros and academy amateurs, you are going to lose most games at the D2 level. That's what's happening to LA, Seattle, and Portland particularly right now. If you set up a baseball-style arrangement where the MLS club controls of the on-field and independent ownership controls the business, that independent ownership is going to get frustrated if you send them a crap team that loses a lot of games every season.
Some good points. I think it would be somewhat reasonable to put a "deadline" on getting the MLS2 teams to comply to the "D3 or different market" requirement ... say 2020. By then, D2 likely will have enough teams to maintain the D2 regionalism (especially if a handful of the MLS2 teams choose different market). If you think about the 10 currently not in compliant (and if this entire article is based in truth that does get voted on/approved, you'd have to assume that any new MLS2 teams would have to comply upon entry, and not a future date), 1 is already going to a different market (Seattle/Tacoma), one has looked into it strongly (Portland/Boise), two may have other options (Toronto/Vancouver/CPL), another started in a different market that they could presumably go back to (Orlando). Swope Park has options (Omaha/Des Moines/Topeka/Wichita), Real Monarch's are building a stadium in a different suburb than Sandy (not sure if this would comply or not) ... and you're left with LA and NYRB with decisions to make. I'd guess NYRB or Toronto are the "eastern club" that's not liking this ... but who knows. Interesting to see what comes of this.
I don't get what's so desirable about forcing MLS-2 teams into markets that can support independent clubs at the D2 or D3 level. The more stable teams we have in the lower divisions the better. When MLS is at 28 teams and if you have, say, 28 other markets able to successfully support a D2 independent team but those markets are all taken up by MLS-2 teams, you're only able to have 28 teams operating at the D2 level. If you continue with MLS-2 teams playing in their MLS market, you can have 28 independent teams at the D2 level and 28 MLS-2 teams operating at the D2 level, so 56 total teams operating at the D2 level. A massive positive in terms of the number of roster spots available to players and in terms of providing regionalization.
Good points. We'll see what the MLS teams do going forward. The most recent trend seems to be going to the "hybrid" relationship. The Seattle/Tacoma one is a lot closer geographically than the RGV and Reno situations so that is probably better as you mention but the teams may chose to different things with their teams. It sounds like the Portland/Boise deal, if it happens, will be more like RGV and Reno.
Completely agree and posted something similar on reddit. Ideally, an ownership group like RGV has decides that they don't need the training wheels the Dynamo are providing them and ends (lets expire?) their affiliation/agreement and goes at it alone. The Dynamo then set up shop in Corpus Cristi or somewhere else and repeats the process until USL (or whatever) doesn't view the MLS2 teams in the same market as MLS as a detriment and the Dynamo 2 teams plays in Houston. Couldn't agree with your post more.
A couple of things: Omaha is probably joining NISA, not USL. A lot of teams interested in USL's D3 got less interested after talking with leadership and comparing it with NISA. Got a pretty good feel for who NISA is announcing as founding teams this month, and it should make a lot of teams/cities interested in D3 turn their heads. USL might have to push MLS 2 teams into D3 to prop it up. I'm not saying this as an apologist of NISA or anything. I've seen the list of teams joining NISA, and the teams that are talking to them about eventually joining, and it gives USL D3 a big, big mountain to climb.
That's very interesting and not completely surprising. I thought NISA would need to make a big splash in year 1 and have teams like Detroit, Chattanooga and a few others in it to keep USLD3 at bay so to speak. Will be interested if any NASL issues (rumors of SF Delta's death after year 1, Miami FC joining Beckham, etc) will hurt NISA as well. I hope not, and I hope NASL and NISA are successful, but there is risk there. USL is somewhat "risk free" but likely more restrictive in many ways.
What's in it for the MLS team? It's non-trivial to organize and set up a reserve team with another ownership group in a new market. Constantly having to move your reserve team around every few years isn't a desirable feature for an MLS team. You're wasting time, money and resources making that happen and getting basically nothing out of it.
Before USL fans anywhere think they're a shoo-in for a future home in MLS, they should first read the Gospel of Rochester. A great beginning but a bummer of an ending.......
Don't disagree with this either ... although I think extending your brand, leaving your mark on the youth of that area potentially. I don't mind the MLS2 teams in the MLS market, it allows for independent growth. I would love to see a D2 of 18 independent's that play a home/away with each other that is tied to a D3 with pro/rel that has MLS2 teams that are "allowed" to be promoted. Attendance/how it looks on camera/etc doesn't really bother me much, but I'm not putting advertising dollars into broadcast either. I see both sides of it to be honest though. It's growth no matter which option they choose so that's a good thing.
If you read the "Gospel of Rochester", you'd know it has no relevance to the current expansion market crop
I think the main reason USL is trying to reduce the number of MLS owned teams in D2 is that the RGV/Reno hybrid solution is what most prospective new investors want. The USL expansion plans seams focused on people involved in or familiar with minor league baseball, where the hybrid setup is the norm. The Omaha group that are interested in joining have been clear that they want to own and manage the commercial side of the team but for the soccer operation they want cooperation with a MLS team. The problem is that most MLS teams already have solutions in place for their development teams, either local "2" teams or existing partnerships. From an USL perspective having the "2" teams dropping down to D3 would have the double benefit of getting more teams in their new D3 and also freeing up 10+ potential hybrid expansion team spots in D2. In the long run I think this will be a logical step for most MLS teams, but in the short term some would have to be pushed in that direction. USL would be stupid to try to start the pushing unless they know they have the backing of Garber and MLS.
Amateur teams, I am guessing? And the evergreen Omaha, which gets mentioned every single year for some reason. You have always believed every well-intentioned but potentially overmatched owner (like Scott Taylor) who thinks the jump from amateur to pro is just easy peasy lemon squeezy.
There isn't anything that says USL itself is trying to reduce the number of MLS owned teams in D2. There's the one article which says "independent owners" (without naming which ownership groups or even how many) want MLS-2 teams to go to the hybrid model or drop down to D3 (as if there's some magic thing that makes D3 okay for MLS-2 teams but D2 is verboten) but every piece of information that has ever come from the mouth of a USL official, including several quotes from Jake Edwards in that very article, toes the company line that MLS-2 teams aren't going anywhere. If prospective owners want to go the hybrid model, they're free to if they can find an MLS team who wants to go down that road with them. You wanting the hybrid model for yourself doesn't mean you can force it on everyone who has decided to go with a different model. USL is going to get told to pound sand if they try to force MLS teams, particularly high powered MLS teams like Toronto, the Galaxy and the Red Bulls, to abandon their preferred (and superior) player development models so that some minor league baseball owner can fill up a few more dates in his stadium in Omaha. That's not a battle USL is going to win. Also, having "2" teams drop down doesn't free up 10+ hybrid expansion team spots in D2. That assumes MLS teams will want to operate both their 2 team at the D3 level AND staff and operate a hybrid affiliate at the D2 level, which I find to be a dubious assumption. You get one or the other, pretty much. And you can't just dump all the MLS-2 teams into D3 to try and jump start that league. You're destroying the regionalization that is a huge part of the draw of USL and suddenly making the USL D3 league a cross country league with 11 MLS-2 teams from coast to coast and maybe 8 independent teams in the East/Southeast instead of those closely packed 8 D3 teams play against each other in very regional play. I just don't see it. MLS teams are going to carry on doing what they believe is best on a team by team basis, USL will continue to grow with MLS-2 teams in the league and will be better off for it.
I don't believe that at all, I simply communicate what I learn from the teams I interview. You seem to forget that I also interview a lot of teams that make me hang my head as much has anyone else. Yes, the majority are amateur teams, but no scrubs. All non-league heavyweights. And Omaha is happening. Having behind to Omaha, I can tell you there are good reasons it remains evergreen.
Breaking: @SocTakes understands that Birmingham and Memphis will be announced as 1st two @USL expansion teams for 2019 season.— Nipun Chopra, PhD (@NipunChopra7) August 2, 2017 Not sure if this belongs here
USL Announces regular season expansion Board of Governors approves 34-game schedule, 31-week season for 2018