There's actually almost nothing around Abingdon Town's ground. It appears to be flood plain land. The ground is visible on the left of this picture...
If you sell two highly wanted players you don't need for a huge amount and spend it on 5 additions that made you go from 11th to 3d place, I call that excellent team management. They obviously had analysed their selection and made changes needed without breaking the bank to achieve their goal.
Hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of college sports shamateurism: https://www.espn.com/college-sports...ides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation
It would be really interesting to see how profitable the NFL would be if it could no longer outsource player development to institutions of higher learning.
Even if they have to pay their players, I can't imagine NCAA football programs are going away any time soon. And the NFL didn't outsource its player development to the colleges and universities. Collegiate sports existed, and were popular, decades before the NFL. The NFL could disappear from the face of the earth, and Alabama, Ohio State and other schools like them would keep playing football.
I'm aware of all that. I was using "outsource" as a figure of speech. I do think the fact that college football has become such a big business--and that the NFL relies on it to develop talent--is a problem. I don't know what the solution is, I'm just noting one peculiarity of American sports which evolved over several decades. That said, I'll be watching the Huskers this season, wondering/hoping if Frost is finally turning things around.
I can see a bunch going away because paying your football players means paying women's players in non revenue sports. D1 might be left with 20 teams.
I highly doubt that many will go away completely. The SC decision doesn't say that schools have to pay them, only that it is illegal for the NCAA to say that they can't. That will likely result in the few elite programs paying more than they do already, but it is highly unlikely that it will result in a large decrease in football programs.
Will it not be like what has been put forward by some in here as the "flaw" of the open system that the money will suck the best to certain schools/uni's and the rest will be losing interest and thus money?
Not really. Only a small minority of collegiate sports programs make money (primarily football and some basketball programs). Only a few, elite sports programs will be able to afford to pay their players, and those were the programs that were already attracting the top talent.
I don't see any school paying all of their athletes. The vast majority of sports programs make little or no money, and are simply paid out of a school's general budget. I'd be surprised if any collegiate athletes outside of football or basketball programs get paid.
Yup--and even then, probably only at most "Power 5" schools. Other sports don't generate the TV or merchandise revenue to be in this conversation. There's always the odd popular program here and there--Women's volleyball is a big deal back home in Nebraska, for example--that sell a lot of tickets, but national TV audiences don't watch in big numbers.
There'll be a littered across the country cross section of sports/programs for volleyball, baseball, and wrestling that I can see .... And at best that total number will equal the number of football programs that pay.
Biggest issue I foresee, you're going to have the bigger schools that already had an edge gain even more of one in recruiting because they'll be the schools really ponying up to players of certain sports like football and basketball.
I went to a division 2 game last night. About 7000 to 8000 people there. Lots of team jerseys in the crowd as well as 'parent club' jerseys. Many people had obviously been before so it wasn't a one off on Fireworks night. There were smoke bombs, at one point a stream of red white and blue for the holiday, drums, chanting and singing. There was beer. People got to go on the field after the game for the post game victory party. I didnt get the sense that people were suffering from some sort of angst because the victory didn't allow for the potential of moving up a league or 5 or 6 of their players were on contract to the 'parent club. People enjoyed themselves. They seemed to like being with other people and watching a soccer game because it's fun.
Wait, was this a regular D2 game (i.e. USLC) or a USLC game at an MLS2 side? The only MLS related team that sees anywhere near those sorts of numbers ever is Las Vegas and that whole arrangement with LAFC started this season.
Ok, thanks. Things went downhill with the Lights when they ditched the llamas. But the crowd makes sense, in context: LV was not only an independent team for their first three seasons, but also carried a real carnival atmosphere around games. They averaged almost 8k/game leading up to this season. They haven’t actually reported their attendance for any match this year, so it’s hard to know what effect their relationship has done to the crowds or if last night was an anomaly or anything.
The lamas were back, one died unexpectedly before the season. They introduced the new one last night. Maybe it wasn't packed, it could be due being on the West Coast and not having been in a crowd bigger than 100 for over a year has warped my sense of judging how big crowds are.
Yeah for the "false shortage" created by closed major leagues. Oakland and Alameda County got stuck with $65 million in debt and a stadium with an $8m yearly deficit when the Raiders moved to Las Vegas. Now I read this about the proposed terms of the deal to build a new stadium for the Oakland A's: "The city also says in the report that the non-relocation agreement should last as long as the A’s lease with the port or the term of any outstanding debt issued for the project by any public entity. The A’s have only agreed to a 20-year term for the relocation agreement. By comparison, the proposed lease for the ballpark lasts 66 years and the infrastructure financing district lasts 45 years." https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay...t-pushes-for-changes-to-A-s-term-16290591.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-run-off-to-Las-Vegas-they-leave-14914255.php
Lower division clubs in the US have had a tough road to hoe because they don't have the multiple decades of history that foreighn clubs have. Pro/rel isn't a concept familiar to the majority of Americans.
Lower division clubs in the U.S. have a tough row to hoe not because of their history or lack thereof, it’s because the only mental model Americans have, in the absence of pro/rel, is major and minor leagues.