Will USSF take away Div. 2 from NASL and grant it to USL? I personally can't see it. The NASL, IMO, is a better packaged league than the USL. The USL allowing MLS B-teams into their league was a bad idea. What do you think?
No there can be more than 1 D2 league. They would both be D2 and as different models (NASL independant pro league, USL MLS farm team/affiliate minor league) they will both continue on much like now. USL has said D2 is mainly desired for the profile, they wouldn't really change much of how they operate so the level of play and such would remain similar, just USL ownership and stadiums would be shored up. So regardless of designation things will be much as they are now with the leagues.
i would agree that will be pretty much how it shakes out. it will be pretty clear cut for USL clubs that have a MLS team as there durect mjor league club. AS well for the currant NASL clubs who joined up and are set up to be clear cut DII clubs. Grey area will come from the USL Clubs who do not have an MLS major partner. Original and some who joined after start of the USL PRO as it was redefined a DII. WILL the clear DIII Clubs in the usl stay as th original DIII model. WILL the USL Clubs joining as USL DII Model not affiliated wit an MLS Club be better to regroup again an join the original clubs that became the dii nasl
Nope, they're all moving up to D2. The entire USL voted unanimously to make the jump. Which means any teams that might not quite meet D2 requirements, like say the OC Blues, will be working to meet D2 requirements between now and the move up or they'll fold up shop. The US seems headed for a Pyramid missing D3 for the time being.
Well thats what they say now, its not written in stone and this is the usl so wouldn't be surprised if by 2017 they have a D3 league as well IF they're successful in their application for D2 sanctioning.
I can't see teams like OC Blues getting D2 status. They're way off the mark and should be classified as D3.
They're surely one of the candidates who may have issues meeting D2 requirements, their stadium holds 2500 (not that they come anywhere near filling it anyway - 2014 average attendance for them was 766 per game) and organizationally they're pretty poor, but the owner does have some money and seems willing to continue losing it. They're a likely candidate to go into a new usl D3 league in 2017 if the current usl can move up to D2 in a couple of years.
Eh they'll more likely be classified as "former team" than anything else. Most of their league mates already meet D2 requirements or can very easily meet them if need be. They're really an outlier as far as USL goes. Now would they possibly create a D3 league to save teams like the Blues... anything is possible. But it doesn't seem likely. There's just not enough teams in USL that would need to stay behind.
Very easily? I am not so sure about that. More importantly, I think MLS and USL are working to get the D2 rules changed, and I think USL is banking on that.
We know they are re-examing the D2 rules and status. It would be logical to assume MLS, being board members of the USSF would be involved. Why would they make it harder for the USL to move up? Perhaps you would like to take us through a roundup of current USL ownership groups and venues and how it "matches up" to D2 reqs again? That way we can see how "easily" this whole move up will work?
All you have here are assumptions. Assumption 1: They're "re-examing" DII rules. So what? These rules are constantly under examination. The question is whether that's consequential in any way here. Or is it simply routine refinement and clarification? You assume it is consequential. Assumption 2: You assume since MLS is part of this "re-examination" that they would move to make it easier for the USL to move to DII. That is an outright admitted assumption on your part. You're also assuming that MLS's preferences would carry the day. But MLS isn't the only voice here (though they are powerful), and it would only make sense for MLS to move for easier DII rules if the USL needed easier rules to achieve DII status. Assumption 3: You assume the current USL teams do need easier rules to achieve DII. To my eye, that's one of the reasons you assume that the USSF will relax the standards. You're working backwards from that assumption to conclude that USSF (and MLS) will make it easy on the USL to be a DII league. Like @athletics68, I believe most USL teams can or will be able to meet the existing standards. No, I haven't looked closely at every owner, but I've seen enough to believe this is a group that can largely meet those standards. So I don't buy this one bit. Again, if you're going to propose this theory, give me something solid to go on. Otherwise I just don't see why I should believe you at all. I don't think this is credible. Frankly, if you want to be really conspiratorial here, I'll tell you the one thing I could absolutely see the USSF doing to the DII standards. I could see them making them much, much harder. In particular, I could see them demanding multiple teams in the the Pacific, Central and Eastern time zones. In other words, I'd be 100% shocked if the USSF relaxed the DII rules, but I could easily see them making those rules stricter. That sort of change wouldn't make too much of a difference to the USL, but it could certainly affect another league.
So in your post you never really answer the question do you think MLS and USL are working together to try to get USL to Div 2? Its not a hard question to answer. Most honest people would say yes they are to try to get rid of NASL, its the nature of business, to try to eliminate those that don't follow your rules. Also being honest, has the NASL poked the bear (MLS) of course to try to get a seat at the big table. Also why not teams in the Mountain Time Zone? if you have teams in three time zones why would that not be sufficient? If they had teams in say AZ, El Paso and NM why would that not satisfy the three time zones requirement? Why does it have to be the Pacific time zone?
I wasn't asked that question. There's a difference between MLS working to get USL DII (almost certainly they are if only because so many MLS teams are involved in the USL directly), and MLS working to kill off the NASL. I actually think that MLS is largely indifferent to the NASL. In other words, I don't think they're actively poaching the best NASL teams or markets because they're NASL teams and markets. Rather, they're the big moneyed league and they throw their weight around and expand where they want. If that hurts the NASL -- well, I'm sure they notice, but I don't think that's a real incentive or factor in their decisions. Or to put it in your terms, I don't think the NASL has successfully poked the bear. It's still more like a little gnat flying around the bear: noticeable and annoying in some ways, but not a threat or a big deal. Because the most recent revision of the rules states DII leagues must have teams in the Pacific, Central and Eastern time zones. Did you not know this? Or are you playing dumb because you think that was an anti-NASL move by the USSF? (It might have been.)
The reason why I asked is that when I searched online for the answer it only said three timezones. That's all not trying to be an a punk at all. Look the NASL for me is in trouble as a league as we sit today. With MinniU and ATL futures in major doubt, needing to get to 12 teams is going to be a challenge and needing a West Coast team in topic that. And that's not talking about San Antonio or Indy11 getting the call to MLS. But I am not anti NASL or anti USL since I hope that at some point both leagues will work together. But that will probably take a change in the commissioner level to reach that.
It will likely take more than that. Traffic would have to give up their ownership of the league. And Traffic does own the league.
NASL is still the most stable D2 league there's been and its premature to say they are in trouble as a league. They're a young league going into year 5 and have been improving each year on and off the field. In a years time if they have no expansion prospects lined up then it may be time to say they're in trouble as a league. Don't see NASL and USL working together or even needing to - their two different business models with NASL the independant pro league and USL the farm team/affiliate minor league of MLS.
Well Traffic now owns less of the league teams. But Traffic "fight" would be with SUM, not sure what that would have to do with USL. Also MLS owners only really own 75% of SUM, they sold a 25% share a few years ago.
Another difference is that the league does not own the teams (they do Atlanta). http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...ew-york-cosmos-minnesota-united-bill-peterson May all be bullshit and it may end up failing like most other American leagues in the past, time will tell, but in some areas it is not looking great.
80% of the country lives in the Eastern and Central Time Zone. 14% lives in the Pacific time zone. So by making the 3 zone rule include the pacific it is placing teams where the most people are. Only 5% of the population of the US is in the Mountain Time Zone. By far the smallest in the continental US. Eastern: 47.0% Central: 32.9% Mountain: 5.4% Pacific: 14.1% Alaska and Hawaii: 0.6%
It will 100% come down to where the young players go for development. If MLS/USL figures out easier ways to MLS for non II Teams, then USL will win the day. If NASL and MLS learn how to play nice on transfers, NASL will win. It's not really difficult to see scenarios where either one becomes the dominant second division league. The league with the better players will win the day. Better players will want to get to MLS. So that path is paramount.