So, MLS could continue to grow, market-wise for a while. What if there was a soft pro/rel. Hear me out. You could have an upper division and lower division, where there would be inter-division games. You play all the teams in your division, and some of the teams in the other division. It wouldn't be that much different from baseball and football, where you don't play every other team in the league. Then have a certain number of teams in the upper division drop, and a lower division playoff for promotion. The difference would be that the leagues wouldn't be hermetically sealed. There would be lot's of matches between the divisions. And, it's still single entitly.
What's the point and what would that accomplish? I understand the positives to true pro/rel. I don't understand the positives to your suggestion.
in the us system... prositives of pro/rel are..... wait nothing since we don't have divisions in the us lol.
Well, since we're speculating, here's a very speculative scenario.... What if MLS planned to grow to say, 40 teams in a couple of decades [I know, I know, but bear with me...] in order to have two tiers, the first being "MLS Premier" and the second "MLS Division 1". The regular season would be internal to the tier, and the Supporter's Shield is the major season prize for teams in the Premier grouping. 4 teams could rise from Div.1, and 4 could fall from Premier, at the end of each season [this should strongly motivate the more mediocre sides not to just go through the motions once SS was out of the picture]. The top four Premier sides would be guaranteed CCL spots [although some outside of the top 4 could make it by US Open Cup & MLS Cup or the Canada criterion ]. Out of Div.1, the top three spots would be guaranteed promotion, while the 4th placed team would have to meet the Premier side 4th from bottom to decide who would take that Premier spot. MLS Cup would be restricted to 32 teams, the top 16 of the Premier and the top 16 of Div.1.. It would be a straight KO set up, with seedings given by league placement [so SS winner would first meet team 16 from Div.1, etc....] . This Cup would be the one league wide trophy. US Open Cup, of course, would still be the USSF's national trophy, connecting all leagues. There would have to be a "shakedown" season to decide initial placement in the tiers [and of course the league could have other factors at hand in order to set up initial placement] but once set up all teams would have full "equality of opportunity under the law" and any new team to MLS after that would have to enter at Div.1 level... As part of this, should MLS still be a "single entity" league, still making use of a DP system, and so on, then Div.1 teams could have the DP roster rules as currently set up whereas promotion to Premier would allow for significant expansion, if the team wished, in terms of # of DP's, cap space, etc.... This is just an example of what happens when speculation floats free through the Empyrean.... Now back to the brutality of "MLS: It is what Garber says it is"...
I like it. But, I would have some overlap in scheduling. It would make it more palatable to the present owners. They still have a chance of the biggest stars coming through for matches. Have maybe 8 inter-division matches for each team.
Search my posts in the YBTD and Soccer USA forums. Basically written a book worth of posts on pro/rel there as that's where the topic is generally discussed. But since you started this thread, what are the positives to your scenario?
They are the positives of pro/rel. Since you think some of those disappear, which one's? I'll play this cat and mouse game with you all year, because I'm not a big fan of yours as a poster. Like this post of yours. "I'm such an expert that I've 'basically written a book.' So, go search threads, seeking out my wisdom." I don't know which is more lame, if you were serious, or if you weren't. So, which benefits of pro/rel disappear if you do it the way I propose? You feel so strongly about it, should be easy for you to identify. Come on ..... you've got to have *something.* Go re-read your work, if you're struggling to come up with anything.
Lol. You can't even present an argument in your own thread. You want me to take you seriously and put time into this and you haven't uttered a peep about the business aspects or development aspects an open system brings. As far as I can tell, this isn't a serious thread.
To take it a step further, you could have it where each division could earn spots in the MLS Cup playoffs. Say MLS has 36 teams split into two 18-team divisions. You could have the top division send 10 teams to the playoffs and have 2 teams from the lower division. Every team would start off the year with a chance to win it all.
You can't even come up with a reason to disagree with my post. There are several posters engaged in the discussion. You're just like "won't work" "why?" "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." Real Junior High level discussion. I don't give a damn if you take me seriously. I've had you on ignore for a long time. The only reason I even knew you replied in the thread is that I checked it on my phone. Put time into it? How much time does it take to list the pro/rel benefits that go away, if you have soft pro/rel?
There's zero reason or incentive for current MLS ownership to vote for pro/rel. Zero. The folks within the sport arguing for pro/rel are typically those currently excluded from MLS in one way or another.
I basically agree. But, if you could get it, there would be a lot of benefits. I've always thought the p/r discussion was a waste of time. But, now that we see the number if markets that would support soccer*, I think it's worthy of re-visiting. If you could sell it to the owners as even if you go to the 2nd division, 1) you're still in MLS 2) you still have the teams with the big name teams come through every once in a while 3) you still participate in league tv revenue 4) you would be expanding the market for MLS. That would be 10 (or whatever the # is) more cities whose sports section and local evening news are talking about MLS. MLS owners' upside comes from the growth of the sport. The increase in value of their franchise. Expanding the league is the best way to grow the sport. You get attention in that many more cities. You get academies and soccer outreach in that many more cities. As the U.S. is a more successful soccer nation, more attention will come to the league. It's a tough sell. But, it's a better sell than just straight pro/rel.
How is this pro/rel thread under USA men. I haven't seen one post that somehow links any of these concepts to the USMNT. This thread should be moved. There are plenty of pro/rel debate threads on BigSoccer.
Italy has pro/rel ! I have yet to see convincing proof that pro/rel has an impact on player development and national team quality.
One positive is it allows for an open ecosystem. In theory any team, any city, any community can reach the pinnacle of the sport in our country in a truly merit based system. Why should the highest level of domestic competition only be available to 20 teams, or 28, with every other stakeholder closed off and denied access?
Well, that wouldn't apply in my proposed soft p/r. That would be down the road a wayyyyys. We're a long way from our own Leicester story. Or (pick your smalltime team that made it to the PL).
You're pretty strict about what people post where buddy. Sit back and enjoy the ride. USA club team soccer, doesnt have the infrastructure or the player depth to make pro/rel work, at least not yet. More or less, were stuck with what we are doing, since money is the only thing that matters.
What? You asked for a positive of pro/rel. It absolutely applies to your proposal. Your proposal is the same closed system, just masquerading as an open system. An exclusive system that features pro/rel is still an exclusive system.
I would just like MLS to hit the brakes on expansion bit for a bit. They're not going to, and it's taking its toll on the quality play that they were beginning to develop for a while, but that's where we're at with that.
Another poster said that my proposal would lose the benefits of pro/rel. I asked the guy which benefits are you talking about. I was asking him, what benefits were lost. Not asking the world what the benefits of pro/rel are. And, no, it's not masquerading as anything. It's a closed p/r system. A proposal of the best that we could hope for MLS owners to agree to. To actually discuss "open" p/r may be interesting, or fun, but you might as well be discussing "what if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?" It's fantasy. I was just trying to come up with something the MLS owners might bite on.
What you are proposing is what they do in the K-League. That seems like the closest thing we would see to an open system and I could see it happening one day far down the line. But I agree with Marko, MLS need to stop expanding for a while. I am 100% behind expansion teams spending some time as USL or NASL teams first. Build the base first.
Pro/rel will incentivize academies/franchises to pursue the best available playing and coaching talent. The threat of relegation and the promise of promotion will allow the best available to rise to the top. Right now, the current system isn't giving us the best available in terms of coaches or players.