Exactly. I feel like I keep harping on it (but I guess that's what message boards are for) There isn't a meaningful distinction between division 3 and division 2. They are both pro, they are both not MLS. It seems to matter for the owners' egos, but that's worrying in itself, since ego (in this sense) is not the best decision maker. In some ways, I see the NISA as trying to be a redo of the minor leagues. Have teams own the league, but do not have major league ambitions.
Might need to go digging it for it, but Wilt outlined a master plan branching out of NISA. Includes creating a pathway up all the way from the city and state leagues. It does, though, include plans for a league higher than NASL as the top. Not sure what to make of that
There was, once. Ambition-wise and barriers to entry-wise. And I would say that time was the late 90s, but, realistically, when the TOA/USL split happened, what was USL Pro (and now USL) was most definitely the Fisher-Price version, while the NASL (which was still ramshackle) had bigger ideas (even if they did not come to fruition). You might very well ask, "Does the public make a distinction?" Not so much anymore, it seems. In preparation for applying for D2 status, USL insisted its clubs step up their games and no longer act like the Fort Worth Toros and San Antonio Pumas and Cleveland Caps did back in the day. Bolstering a club's front office and its sales and marketing efforts so that it looks more like a robust operation worth supporting goes a long way. (And, of course, the game at all levels has benefited from everything that has happened since Suwon.)
13 Letters of Intent have been submitted and several more are under review. Formal applications, vetting & fees thru August.— NISA Official (@NISALeague) July 8, 2017 Anyone hear anything about who's interested in NASL's new venture? Also sorry to post a twitter response to crazy Ted.
Hopefully, the NISA can focus on regional gameplay & not have cross-country in mind, since the budget for each team will be small.
Yea, it is a separate organization from NASL started by Peter Wilt, who has strong ties to NASL, with intentions of partnering with NASL. But it is not a NASL venture, and there is no formal agreement in place yet. I think it's an incredibly exciting project, though
So has Wilt given up on putting a team in Chicago for NASL? He seems to have switched gears from that to this pretty quick.
Nope. He's still working on that too. He's got 4 potential sites for a modular or permanent stadium and one existing venue possibility.
The moment the NASL (and maybe NPSL) change their tune that they are doing pro/rel with NISA I'll retract. But until then this is simply a new 3rd division pro league.
Emphasis added. I'm sure they love the idea of taking NISA's best teams--part one of Wilt's proposal. Not getting an expansion fee, maybe not so much. But on the relegation side, imagine this sales pitch to potential investors: sign-up today, pay an expansion fee, and in a few years we kick you out if you have a rebuild season (while your place gets taken by someone who didn't pay their freight)! Also, I want this to happen, because I want to see NISA try to survive as they keep losing their stronger members--who hopefully are the stronger organizations--and replacing them with NASL basket cases. That would be entertaining. If pro/rel ever happens in the U.S., it will be inside one league first, so that no one is being kicked out of the club, and everyone is still pulling in the same direction.
There would obviously be a lot for them to consider regarding promoting themselves up the ladder and into which league, but I would love to see them in the USL, giving Nashville SC a Tennessee derby rival.
Tim Kelly of Chattanooga FC confirmed he was at recent NISA meeting in Chicago along with the owner of the Tulsa Athletics, Sonny Dalesandro. Not sure of anyone else.
Club Speculating: Minneapolis Milwaukee Detroit Cleveland Philadelphia Chattanooga St. Louis Tulsa Omaha Little Rock
Pretty strong guesses for the most part. My list would not include Minneapolis, Cleveland and Philadelphia, but would include Dayton, Boston, Hartford and Buffalo.
Would make sense. When I interviewed him, he said he had paperwork for USL and NASL, but was concerned with their rising costs. NISA sounds like it would make more sense. And I second taking off Cleveland, MPLS and Philly. The other four have all made noise about wanting to go pro. It would seem that it would make most sense, if these are the teams, to do: Milwaukee Detroit Buffalo Dayton Chattanooga Tulsa Omaha Little Rock Hold off on Boston and Hartford until you get a couple more East Coast, Atlantic region teams. Boston to Milwaukee is way too far.
Gotten that vibe a little too, but NISA would be cheaper and you might be able to get promoted to NASL in a few years. One person mentioned that USL could be mentioned in the article strictly because the writer doesn't know about other options for the team.
Maybe but I'm guessing Wichita wants to keep all their options open including USL. I bet they'll consider the current USL expansion fee a bit out of their depth and ultimately choose between NISA for 2018 or USL D3 for 2019. As for the NASL, I don't think they like the potential to be an admittedly unstable league's doormat when they could start more modestly in NISA. As for Tulsa, there's alot of moving parts and the rumors I'm hearing are currently all over the map. I suspect nothing will shake out until the end of the Roughnecks USL season this fall, and alot will depend on who the new owners will be and where that USL team will ultimately play next year.