We did keep salaries down but the blindspot that Kinnear built over time was that you still had to identify gamechangers within that modulated salary approach, to compete on the budget. Otherwise you are just an underpaid journeyman team like last season, not even competitive. If you're not going to pay people, fine, but you better be finding Camerons and Bonieks every single season who are the functional equivalent but playing for less than they deserve. Kinnear over time lost both the talented core, and the ability to find new people to replenish it. The truly talented players on the team became fewer and fewer. The lunchpail types that used to be role players started to fill most of the XI. If you run out mediocre players even with a sharp system the team starts to struggle. And when Kinnear left we lost the system boost, and it became poor team running systems that don't really boost the talent to more than the sum of the parts. FCD has basically stepped in our old role. They have a well coached team, they keep costs down with HGP and draft picks, and they pick more veteran signing winners. I think it's fair to generally complain about the budget because that makes it harder for us. But part of what happened is more GM swings and misses and not enough truly talented coming in. People tend to focus on Kinnear's system but we had a bunch of really good players on those teams and that's how we could beat the millionaire outfits. People ignore the "scouting" part of this problem at their own peril. We used to be able to make the playoffs still, signing people like Boniek who were quietly very good. FWIW, LA had a rougher year last season, Gerrard was a little bit of a flop his stint here, even for teams with checkbook in hand it still comes down to finding people who are truly talented and have gas in the tank. It's unlikely they will fall as far as we do, but if they too swing and miss they aren't winning titles either. The GM needs to be highly accountable in this approach because we cannot afford many swings and misses.
As one of the original MLS teams, FCD have only won the US Open Cup twice (1997 and 2016). Until they can win a league championship, I hesitate to make them the poster boy for how to run an MLS team. They've done a great job with their Academy, I'll give them that. At some point that has to translate into trophies. There are 3 original teams that have yet to win an MLS Cup: NY Red Bulls, FCD, and NE.
Without a balanced schedule, we will never know which teams are really the best. At this point MLS is not really up to par as far as schedules, and lacks true seriousness without Relegation risks.
I think in the current MLS (3.0 or whatever you call it) they have positioned themselves nicely from a talent and pipeline standpoint to be a contender for a while. I'm not sure there is an MLS team that does everything right or the ones that look that way (LAG) have significant advantages that allow them to buy their way out of mistakes.
Oh, c'mon dude, this is abstracted nonsense. If there is anything that distorts who "wins," it's the playoffs, not the schedule. I think the schedule tends to be fairly accurate in terms of the table result, I doubt the table would change much if it was rejiggered to reflect a EPL-style home and away instead of our 3/2/1 thing. Reality is I am assessed relative to my conference and we've all played each other a bunch, so it's relatively apt. The real "randomness" comes in with the "short season" playoffs where a round may be as few as one game, and a team with the right tactics can oust a stronger team, and with enough a roll, go from last seed to the title. But the impact of the schedule is probably negligible. I also think finishing 19th place and having STH drop is plenty of punishment, and I don't want the outright ruin relegation can wreak. Gretna, Pompey, etc. There is a whole system of parachute payments installed to deal with how bad they know it gets. And that's setting aside the reality that, while pro-rel people like to suggest it makes everyone try, it really tends to tier the effort. A team like Blackburn, who feels condemned to the drop, may quit spending, save money for the drop, and start blooding the youth players. Teams in the middle of the league with nothing to play for start goofing off once they can't affect their outcome. It's not that you've eliminated not giving a crap, it's you've moved it to different places. I want a league with teams that last and promote the sport here in their outposts more than I want some pure bastion of capitalist Darwinism that rewards the supposedly good while it bankrupts dumb teams. As it is the smart teams make the playoffs and the dumb ones don't, and if you're dumb enough you don't for a while and the fans find other things to do.
I am not holding them up as the bastion of greatness, the dominant dynasty, but more as a model of how a budget team can compete. I see how my post could be read like they have stepped into our dynastic shoes. Not really what I meant. The point I did mean holds. You can compete on a budget -- perhaps not win but compete -- by getting in plenty of decent cheap young talent from your own system or drafts -- which bolsters the team without denting the budget, and then you have to get truly quality talent when you hit the transfer market. One thing we have lost any traction on, until perhaps this season, is drafting and signing decent young players. This was once the team of Holden and Cameron, no doubters. It became a hopeful Sarkodie drafting team. By last season there were no picks on the roster or HGP playing. One aspect overlooked of that is the value of a $60k rookie who plays like a $200k veteran. We not only missed the veteran market boat lately, we also weren't getting many cheap young bargains in either. Everyone has been a transfer or loan bought from some other team, and you start paying more in salary plus a fee. Drafting and developing well not only benefits the team but keeps costs down. I understand the "they didn't win the title" argument, but they did win conference. We were dead last. Both teams have been fairly stable in their spot in the pecking order for a few years now. I want my team to be up above them. So a benchmarking team looking for someone like them to imitate is still looking upwards at teams like Dallas. Learn from what they are doing we aren't. I think looking at how budget teams do better than us is more useful than the temper tantrum of comparing ourselves to the big spenders. At least for the time being, we ain't spending. So you have to look to your peer group of like minded budget teams and try to be the best one of those. Learn how they manage a budget better. If you look at the pattern of recent years, every other year, or sometimes every third year, the budget teams still get in and win a title. So quit moping and be the strongest and most efficient budget side, and when the dominos fall our way, be positioned to take advantage.
Playoffs are a lot of fun, but are not the best indicator of quality over a hard fought campaign when half of the teams get in. They do entertain though.
Also, while I am thinking about it, the locational and franchise and attendance and so forth quality of the minor league or would be expansion sites is usually sufficiently poor compared to all that is MLS that they literally should not be in our league right now. To do pro-rel in a responsible fashion you really need layers of teams with attendance and finance and stadia and such worthy of the EPL, who just happen to not be there this season. Then you can shuffle teams around. Without that, you're creating a system where either strong teams get dumped in an economically insufficient lower league, a notch above semi pro, or small cities get elevated to a level where they don't belong attendance wise or financially. The Gretna example almost doesn't cover it, because they tried. You're talking about some small city team that maybe pays the whole roster half a million, and plays in a 10k stadium, and can't find more fans, suddenly in a league where attendance is closer to 20k and teams pay $4-5 million minimum in salary. This is not a league where you could have a dozen London teams if everything went right, and most could show up 20k for an EPL run of a year. This is a league where if you do pro-rel Sacramento is suddenly in with NYC, and goes from paying $30k salaries to playing against teams who pay millions. The "drop" or "jump" is literally too big now. Also, for that matter, the growth of the II teams muddles the whole idea of pro-rel here. USL is the dominant minor league and is increasingly in fact a minor league of second team affiliates. Are you sending teams down to that? Or them up with us? And if the idea is to split MLS, we're still in the low 20s in terms of teams. I prefer this sort of 20-team-ish size to going back to 12 teams again.
Yes, so many teams get into the playoffs, that if you don't get in, YOU KNOW you are a complete loser. And the Dynamo have missed the playoffs several years in a row. And yes, playoffs are fun. I still remember. *BTW, is anybody else watching KPRC's Jennifer Reyna this morning? She's so distracting!
On playoffs, our neighbor nation to the South has such an attraction to playoffs in league soccer that they have TWO playoffs each year! And as a big Rockets junkie, all around Houston sports life, playoff games for our city have been tremendous moments for my buddies and I. Great memories and action/historic moments! I have wanted our league to use our long "Winter Break" in a way that there is something to be played for in both the Fall and in the Spring. Perhaps not two sets of playoff tournaments like LMX but perhaps a League Cup and MLS Cup to be contested for in some knockout tournament/playoff format both in the Fall and Spring.
I like the playoffs too and feel like it's a culturally authentic way of deciding the championship. The one thing I'd change is make every round but the final home and away, and go back to neutral championship siting. And for the single table people they now have supporter's shield to make them happy. So you get both worlds. I just think that if anything distorts who "wins" or "finishes high" in MLS, it's not whether the schedule is balanced, it's that every team in the "top 12" (so to speak, I know it's conference based) has an equal chance at glory. The years we won we were 2nd best in conference in regular season, and the one year we won conference we went out of the playoffs quickly. But to me it's like, the best teams earn their way in, and then what happens, happens. I agree with Hydro, what makes me cranky is they let this team get so bad for three straight years it couldn't even make a playoff taking 50-60% of the teams. FWIW, re my semi-optimism for this season, I don't mind people being like, "we'll see what happens when they really count" if they acknowledge the spring has looked interesting. I'd join them in saying they don't count til Seattle. It's the absolutist, "this means nothing" that boggles my mind.
The preseason is for the players to gain fitness, and work on tactics, and cohesiveness, as well as making decisions on players in, and out. That is what it is for, and why it is very useful. You don't win the MLS Cup in Tuscon, nor do you cancel the season.
Sounds great...in theory. You did hit the nail on the head in one respect. "MLS shouldn't forece any player to any team." You're absolutely correct.....however.... ....as long as single entity exists, MLS will ALWAYS be involved in who goes where. Again, those pesky rules. And those rules have been bent/broken/altered to accommodate those big cities. Parity is important. Perception of parity even more so. I'll bet you that if you poll anyone who's followed MLS for the past 7-8 years or at least since Beckham came into the league "Does MLS treat all teams equally when DP's allocated/courted?" that the answer would be in the majority of "No." So Houston could "get out the checkbook" and what? I don't disagree with you regarding how cheap Houston has been over the years. That's factual. But as long as MLS has any say whatsoever in who goes where, there will always be the issue of propping up the "super clubs" (according the Alexi Lalas) at the expense of the rest. Loderio not even in the same ballpark as Beckham, Pirlo, Villa, Giovinco, etc.... so that one doesn't count. I'm talking superstars. But if it's as easy as you say it is regarding getting out the checkbook, then it's a lay down that we could easily get Chicharito, Guardado, etc... I suspect you know the answer to that one as well as I do.
If a soft drink company can convince someone to play in a place where toxic waste once lay for who knows how long, theyll play anywhere. all a matter of money and commitment.
While not a fan of playoffs deciding a league champion, I think it's fine. I do wish though that they would use a balanced schedule or at the very least treat conferences as separate leagues where the only way teams from different conferences would be able to meet would be in the playoffs (which may not be popular but otherwise I don't understand why even have separate conferences). In other words, each conference would have a balanced schedule where each team would play all of the teams in its conference twice and the top four teams from each of the two conferences at the end of the regular season would advance to the playoffs.
Agreed, but as many have pointed out on this board, the team's ownership does not usually spend heavily. The only way Houston gets a "headliner" or well-known international player would be to spend heavily, which is extremely unlikely. The offer would have to significantly exceed what the league/teams in New York City, Los Angeles, and (eventually) Miami would be willing to pay them.
Once they have enough teams youll get your wish for seperate conferences. In the mean time, growing pains.
this is where the single entity structure comes in. depending on the situation we dont have to outbid anyone in mls.
I've been to a Timbers game in their stadium and have always been impressed with the supporters end and their innovative Tifo. I actually though that this kind of thing would be really great for our stadium too, honoring people, events, and those kind of this that make our city great. I've even offered suggestions to the supporters groups in that regard. Unfortunately they outright rejected the suggestion I made for a tifo for the 2017 season opener. I even took the time to do a depiction of what it would have looked like I really don't understand why they did not want to honor one of our Houston greats, after all she was responsible for getting the stadium built. :-(
Luckily we won last weekend, but I feel like BBVA is turning toxic for me. Every time I go I see bad and horribly inept and miss managed things are (primarly because of the stadium, a little because of the club), plus then I see how much they completely price gouge you with everything they do. I really want to do a comparison, but I feel like there are some prices at BBVA that are more expensive than at NRG stadium.
You need to set your expectations aside - Dynamo run a cheap, understaffed and average stadium operation but price things at a premium or near-premium level. It's got great sight lines but nothing else about that place is a draw.