It's so funny how people with zero skin in the game want all the Bs and IIs to go to Division III for aesthetic reasons. When the people footing the bill for said teams may actually want those players exposed to a higher level of competition, and to hell with your aesthetics.
I still find it hilarious that the same people that want things like Europe want MLS 2 teams to be abolished.
When these folks say “Europe” they really mean England. If the6 looked at other D2 leagues in Europe they would notice that many of them do in fact have B and II teams in them......Spain in particular. Germany does not allow them past the regional leagues. England doesn’t have any, which might explain why player development is seemingly quite low on the priority list for many pro teams in England.....
The latest word from NISA Peter Wilt, if NASL appeal fails, NISA-II will start play in Fall 2018 with 8 teams. (6 former NASL plus 2 NPSL). The initial clubs will be NY Cosmos, Jacksonville, Miami, San Diego, Cal United, Indy, Detroit City FC and Foundry St. Louis. Sounds like great plan to me! Also work continues on NISA-III and NISA-IV.
Depends how long the season is going to be if its a shortish teaser season then yeah its a good idea. If its a full slate and they're going to a fall to spring calender then I think they'll struggle for attendance. Detroit and NYC (especially coney island) in Nov. to Feb. is freaking cold and I'm not so sure the teams will draw as well as a spring to winter schedule but I'd be interested in seeing it.
Dan, I believe it's for a fall season only with 2019 being a full season, spring to fall. The fall season will probably be July to November.
Where did Peter say this? Because it wasn’t the case when I interviewed him a week and a half ago. Nor does it really jive with the off the record stuff I have. I’d love for it to be true but seems like wishful thinking.
Yeah, this is why I asked for a link above. A Google search didn’t turn up anything like this, and there wasn’t anything on Wilt’s Twitter account or the league account for NISA. And you would figure news like that would be findable one of those three ways.
Where is this “word” coming from? Because that idea flies in the face of what we know about San Diego, Cosmos and Miami and their desire to remain D2 or not bother.
It's pretty ironic that you yourself have "zero skin in the game"... yet.... people who actually have skin in the game have already made their voices heard... As USL league meetings begin, MLS2 clubs a hot-button issue by James Poling Published: August 1, 2017
I know you're joking, so I'll just say "Touche" and move on. They would have eight teams. A first-year league only needs eight teams to apply for DII. And that particular eight-team lineup would give them at least one team in each of the three time zones required to maintain DII status. I doubt the legitimacy of this report -- partly because it comes without a source, partly because I can't find independent sourcing, and partly because it doesn't mention anything about the three markets that NISA has already accepted. But the scenario painted here is one that could happen under the rules -- the bulk of the NASL (minus PRFC) joining with a couple subsidized newbies and applying for sanctioning under a new, unsullied label. I think that perhaps the USSF should revisit this scenario in future editions of the PLS -- perhaps a stipulation that no more than 50% of clubs in a new league applying for sanctioning can have played in a recently de-sanctioned league? Standards don't mean much if you can just close the shop in trouble and open up another. The only people helped by that loophole are the snake-oil salesmen.
It has been suggested by those with more understanding of the USSF rules than I do (note, the soccer twitterati; Dure, Morris, Wahl, etc.) that any new league can apply to be division 1, 2, or 3 by meeting the barest minimum requirements. They would then be accepted with waivers because they would not be in full compliance. NISA and each team within NISA, of course, would then need to work toward meeting both the league and team standards. I have no idea whether it is accurate---nor, truth be told, do I really care---but it has been argued that it is possible. EDIT: I see OnTheGrid understands the process better than I, and laid out an appropriate response.
As long as they meet the standards, I don't see what the problem is. I don't know that a team with 8 brand new teams would necessarily be more stable than one made of mostly established (non-failing) teams from a failed league.
The problem, in my view, is the loophole created by lower standards for leagues in their first few years — which can be used as a reset button for failed leagues who (like NASL) couldn’t/didn’t meet the increased standards as time went on. The league we would be talking about here, for example, would have six of its eight members as refugees from a failed league. In what way would this version of NISA not effectively be NASL Redux? Wouldn’t it simply inherit NASL’s problems, NASL’s attitudes toward the PLS, etc.? And if it fails as well, what would stop them from forming another new league and starting all over again? I don’t care if they want to spend/waste tons of their own money, but I do care about having the inherent instability of NASL revisited on the pyramid ad nauseam et ad infinitum.
I had forgotten about the lower standards for new leagues. In that case, maybe a reconstituted league would not qualify for the new league standards but would need to meet the standard standards. If they did that, then they could go forward.
That would work. I should add that I needed to be more clear, and that the lower standards are only a thing for DI and DII. I think DIII standards remain consistent from Year One. And I’ve never looked at the PLS for women’s leagues. So this loophole isn’t a loophole for every league at every level.