Temporary Promotion from USL-1 to MLS

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by MasterShake29, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm sure this has been discussed 1,000 times before, but I feel the need to start another thread.

    This is not a pro/rel thread. There is no relegation portion of this idea. I'd like to see that eventually, but that's besides the point.

    Here's the idea: While MLS is at 16 teams or less, 2 USL-1 sides will be permitted to play in MLS for one season.

    Let's say this starts in 2008. The two USL-1 teams would be the USL Regular Season winner and the USL playoff winner. For future seasons, either those two automatically replace the two in MLS, or they advance to an end of season playoff for those berths. Should a USL team win the MLS Cup, then they automatically get to play in the league the next season.

    The temporarily promoted teams would have to meet stadium requirements (i.e. have a reasonable stadium and have reasonable control of playing dates) and have to prove they could handle the finances.

    They don't necessarily get any share of TV money, they either wouldn't participate in the draft or would get the last selections in each round.

    Once MLS finds teams 17 & 18 (if that's the goal), then this arrangement would end.


    Ok, so why is this idea horrible?
     
  2. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because since the teams won't be hanging around MLS, they won't have any incentive or means to upgrade the rosters, and the teams would get DRILLED. Repeatedly.
     
  3. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They would bring the lowest attendances of the year every time they go on the road. Unless the MLS hosts slash ticket prices for those games.
     
  4. JayKay

    JayKay New Member

    Apr 22, 2003
    NJ
    I don't think attendance would suffer one bit. Does is suffer when teams play bottom feeders like RSL?

    I think attendance would be fine for these games. The casual fan will see it as "just another regular season home game".

    However, attendance at the USL home grounds should increase significantly. The extra revenue may inspire these teams to temporarily improve their rosters. This happens all the time in other promoted teams around the world.

    They might get drilled, but then they might not.
     
  5. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's a fair point.

    I wonder about that. What's D.C.'s attendance vs. New York compared to everyone else?
     
  6. MtMike

    MtMike Member+

    Nov 18, 1999
    the 417
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    sounds an awful like promotion and relegation to me.
     
  7. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not if the team is playing in a tiny place. The Railhawks announce attendance at ~5000 for the matches I go to, and the place holds 7-something.
     
  8. denver_mugwamp

    denver_mugwamp New Member

    Feb 9, 2003
    Denver, Colorado
    Sounds like a great opportunity for the USL team that gets to move up. They would increase their attendance and probably make a bit more money. But what about the rest of the USL? How would Rochester do at the gate if Montreal wasn't available for their big rivalry? And is there any possible advantage to this scheme for MLS? Wouldn't this just be generating interest in a league that considers themselves a rival and with which they have no financial relationship? I can't think of any possible reason why the folks at MLS headquarters wouldn't laugh this idea out the door.
     
  9. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is the USL really competition for MLS in a business perspective? I don't think so, regardless of what they say.

    The Impact (hehe) on the remainder of the USL-1 teams is a concern. It may be an incentive for teams to join USL-1 if they know they have a chance of playing in MLS, even for one year.

    What's the benefit for MLS? It would give them a chance to test out markets for a permanent MLS team, which isn't insignificant. How well would Seattle draw in MLS? In this scheme, you may just find out. It makes MLS a bit more exciting I think, giving two new teams per season.

    It also makes it clear that MLS is the top division and USL isn't, not that we don't know that.
     
  10. FijiUnited

    FijiUnited Member+

    Feb 21, 2007
    Orlando
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just because Montreal and Rochester wouldn't play each other in the league anymore wouldn't mean the rivalry will go away. If you don't believe me, go to Leeds with a Man Utd shirt on or vice versa. Also, imagine if they're separated by leagues and meet in the USOC. If this rivalry is as big as you make it out to be, that would be another one of those defining moments we've been seeing so much this season.
     
  11. garnet&blackattack

    garnet&blackattack New Member

    Jan 14, 2007
    Columbia, SC
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i think that this is actually a good idea. Traditionally, I scough at any suggestion of promotion/relegation in the MLS. But, this establishes enough continuity for the permanent MLS teams.

    The ONLY problem the theory is if the two teams actually perform pretty well, maybe finish 3rd or 4th in their conference but don't win the MLS cup, then they have to go back down down to the USL?

    I'm sure this problem could be resolved, but that's the only flaw i see in the plan.

    Other than that, not a bad idea by any means.
     
  12. Juan Luis Guerra

    Juan Luis Guerra Red Card

    Jun 11, 2001
    New York City
    I really like this thread and we got to thank you from bringing this topic up. I agree with you 98%. The only thing i would add to your plan is that any USL that enter into MLS must expand its stadium's capacity to at least 10,000. This could be fix with expandable seats. They will also need to build some more bathrooms and food stands.
     
  13. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It would be quite a moment if Rochester and Montreal met in the U.S. Open Cup. :D But I agree that the rivalry wouldn't die if the teams don't face each other for one season.

    They're not full members of MLS, so I don't think it's fair that they get to stay in MLS beyond one year. However, in the improbability that a USL team wins MLS Cup, I think they should get to defend their title.

    Of course, a team could stay in MLS by paying the franchise fee as well.
     
  14. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can't conceive of ANY promoted team finishing ahead of ANY MLS team. There's just no way.

    I've seen David Stokes 5 times in person, and once on TV, in the USL, and he's outstanding at this level.
     
  15. FCmagic01

    FCmagic01 Member

    Nov 10, 2006
    I think this is a great idea.....I think some franchises in USL should just be bought by MLS has a hole. No promotion because we all know what teams from USL might last in MLS: Rochester, Seattle, Portland, Montreal, and Vancouver come to mind at the moment.

    MLS would have to pay USL-1 money for this to work......
    Would the teams still participate in an expansion draft??

    Obviously a SSS stadium would be needed and it would need to be over 20,000
    To bad none of these teams have these and wont get them unless they are assured a spot in MLS.

    It seems like a great idea but lots of things need to be changed if it ever is going to happen....The Toronto Lynx did not do well in USL but they sell out TCF, it def. shows that MLS will increase attendance.
     
  16. ThreeApples

    ThreeApples Member+

    Jul 28, 1999
    Smurf Village
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They could, but they'd spend themselves out of business to do so. This idea gives the "promoted" clubs all of the the expenses and none of the benefits of being in MLS.
     
  17. jfranz

    jfranz New Member

    Jun 16, 2004
    Portland, OR
    So, wait, a USL-1 team becomes a "special guest" in MLS for a season. And then, after investing in facilities and new talent to avoid embarrassment - an embarrassment that actual, no-asterisk, full-blooded MLS expansion teams have a difficult time avoiding - these "special guests" return to USL-1 the next season, forced to shed some of their newly signed talent they can no longer afford, so that new "guests" can take their place... and invest in their own new talent... only to also return to USL-1, forced to shed some of their newly signed talent they can no longer afford, so that new new "guests" can take their place... and invest in new new talent... only to... etc.

    Or will MLS maintain a "special guest player pool" that these teams can select from? :rolleyes:

    Even giving "existing guests" a chance to stay in the league versus "new guests" is problematic. No matter how you work it, if only the "guests" are eligible for "relegation" it doesn't provide any disincentive for actual MLS teams to avoid the bottom of the table, thus defeating the competitive purpose of pro/rel. And it makes the entire season almost pointless for the USL team, who would have to survive the crap-shoot of some potential "special guest playoff system" no matter how well/poor they play during the season. So, even if they could avoid the embarrassment and difficulty that the history of MLS expansion teaches us, they would still possibly go down. And, on the other side of the coin, if they absolutely suck ass, there is still the possibility that, in a play-off, they could stay up. What the hell is the point! :confused:

    How does shuttling the best teams in USL-1 to MLS and back help the USL? It doesn't. And the senseless roller coaster will bankrupt a few franchises in the process.

    How does shipping the best teams in USL-1 to MLS and back help MLS? Again, it doesn't. And the situation of "special guests" would make a competitive mockery of the league.
     
  18. denver_mugwamp

    denver_mugwamp New Member

    Feb 9, 2003
    Denver, Colorado
    Oh come on! Why does MLS have to "test out" USL cities? It's already been proven at Toronto that there's absolutely no correlation between USL and MLS attendance. An expansion team in MLS is currently priced at least $30 million, which doesn't include the costs of running the team. At the present time, there's a good half dozen candidates for the next round of expansion, some of whom (St, Louis, Philadelphia, Seattle...) are heavily involved in the process of working out SSS deals locally. Why would MLS want to take any attention away from this real expansion, which can easily exceed over $100m in investment, and give publicity to some pissant USL club?
     
  19. Taragui

    Taragui Member+

    Aug 13, 2006
    Northern Utah
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    FYP :D
     
  20. FijiUnited

    FijiUnited Member+

    Feb 21, 2007
    Orlando
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    DAMMIT! THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK!!!
    [​IMG]
    There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
     
  21. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know, is the gap between MLS and USL-1 worse than the gap between the Premier League and the Championship? I doubt it. And I'm sure the USL teams would make some effort to get better.

    Why?

    I would say no. Then again, I hate expansion drafts.

    Why do you need a 20K SSS? How many MLS teams average 20K, one? If Giants Stadium and Gillette Field is good enough for MLS, why wouldn't Quest Field (Seattle) be? And so what if it's small, how does that hurt MLS exactly? If the team can make it work, so be it. As long as the team has control enough to accommodate the MLS schedule, I think that's fine.

    It's a revolutionary concept for sure.
     
  22. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Presumably, the people who run the teams will know this is a one year arrangement, and will plan accordingly and avoid the temptation to build a 60K seat SSS.

    No, but there will be free agents to sign, and they can figure out the rest, like anyone else.

    What incentive is there for Los Angeles Galaxy or Real Salt Lake to avoid the bottom now? There is none. In fact, in MLS there is reward for sucking.

    Again, they have the same incentive as the MLS teams do now, which is none at all really.

    [quote[How does shuttling the best teams in USL-1 to MLS and back help the USL? It doesn't. And the senseless roller coaster will bankrupt a few franchises in the process.[/quote]

    It helps USL a lot. Now MLS fans have a good reason to check out USL, because two of those teams will be in MLS next season in this scenario. And if any team can't handle the finances, they can decline to participate.

    It spices up the league. It lets fans see two new teams a season.


    MLS doesn't have to test out MLS cities, it would just be a by-product of this. And this in no way would prevent teams with the money to join MLS permanently (be it from USL or not).

    "Pissant" USL club huh? Interesting phrase there.
     
  23. Ollie & Friends

    Ollie & Friends New Member

    Jul 13, 2007
    How about we come up with a real promotion/relegation system so teams like Galaxy aren't allowed to stay at the top level even though they suck harder than most park league teams?
     
  24. FijiUnited

    FijiUnited Member+

    Feb 21, 2007
    Orlando
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How about we don't ask questions to which we already know the answer?
     
  25. jfranz

    jfranz New Member

    Jun 16, 2004
    Portland, OR
    You just described every club in USL-1. Or, optimistically, all but two or three clubs in USL-1. Period.

    Remember, all but 2 teams in MLS still operate at a LOSS - and your "guest" teams wouldn't even have the benefits of full MLS membership: revenue sharing, television deals, major league sponsorships, a permanent spot in the league that appreciates in value, etc. "Guests" would have to endure the substantial cost of playing in MLS, with almost none of the benefits.
     

Share This Page