Another pro/rel thread yayz!

They wouldn't have too.



They're going straight to the 8K - Phase II.

Odds are, that with the stadium they'll be drawing at that 8K and pushing it even several dates a year. Phase III is 12K, which is right on par with what SJ has been playing in as they've searched for a stadium and what SKC was using for three years (08-10). That Phase III could easily be done in the off-season, ditto Phase IV.

 

Not really but lets not go so quickly. I know we have learned from the old NASL days but I feel that 20 teams would be best... maybe not for 5 years but somewhere within that. Perhaps 3.

 

As long as MLS continues to be diligent with their feasibility reviews, pulling a NASL should not be a problem.

 

I suppose in theory, if you had 30+ teams and there was quite a range of support levels, you might get to a stage where the bigger clubs were feeling they were being held back - especially internationally - by the cap being set to a level the smaller teams could afford.

If you had 32 teams drawing from maybe 20,000 to 35,000 it's less likely to be an issue, but if crowds are ranging 40,000 down to 10,000, it might.

One option in that scenario is going to two divisions, which could be a better option than culling the smaller clubs or raising the cap to levels which sees them condemned to struggle.

 

The demand is clearly there ... so why not ? especially given that the ownership groups in position t0 make the moves aren't of the NASL variety (meaning old NASL).

 

If there are teams ready to join the league that meet all the requirements that MLS is looking for? Sure. Why would MLS keep someone out of the league in those circumstances?

I think we'll see a 22-team MLS by about 2016.

 

Possibly. You could potentially make the argument that dividing the pie more ways is not optimal. (The counter-argument is that the pie gets bigger.)

The biggest thing I could see is that it actually behooves a league to have more demand for franchises than there are slots. It creates the perception of scarcity and prestige (in other words, "resale value") and gives you options. If you tap out the reserve of markets, then what? Where do you go?

 

Completely agree ... I think though, that you'd agree, that we aren't at that point yet.

 

Is phase IV the final phase for an MLS club? I seem to remember there being five phases to the stadium with the last one being something along the lines of the phase III photo above. If so, it would look so much better for MLS.

 

What point? The point of being tapped out? No, we're not. But we're a lot closer to it than we were in 2004 and we're a lot closer to it than some people think.

 

That is the "new" rendering for the final project. The old:


^ personally, I think that looks worse and pretty dumb on that "grand" stand side. I much prefer the new design and 500 more seats.

 

Correct.

^ personally I think that's a two part answer.

Demand/want/interest .... I don't think so.

Viability ... I agree.

 

ITA.

 

Interest is usually interest right up to the point where someone has to write a check.

Not everyone with the means has the stomach. Not everyone with the stomach has the means.

 

And what difference there is is in the type of muscle mass, not in fat.

 

I would imagine the differences are more like differences with sprinters and distance runners. (then again Bolt looks like a distance runner and is the fastest dude in the world).

 

Bruch Arena, one of the most respectable figures in US soccer has certainly no faith in college thing for soccer. If so then.. you know..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-house-visit/2012/05/14/gIQAKG40PU_blog.html
"We’re inefficient in how we allocate resources in the academy. There’s a likely argument where you can say we have improved the ability to move kids to the age of 17 or 18. Where do they go from there? It’s a black hole. It’s insane. We should have a USL type of league [to develop players]. Right now, the kids would be better off going to college, and then we are back to the same thing again."

 

Not relevant to the discussion. Stay on topic.

Also, note (from your quote): "Right now, the kids would be better off going to college"

 

We had talked about this player development. It's all inter-related.
College thing is not for soccer unlike other US sports.
The best thing is to have strong lower divisions in a structured competitive environment.

Also note: "and then we are back to the same thing(shit) again." after what you noted.

 

All of this makes sense, based on what Bruce said

Until this.

 

Uh.. why? Bruce said "We should have a USL type of league [to develop players]"

 

But...but...USL is not the League you describe, the open pyrmaid competitive whatever-you-said. USL is now, and has always been, a closed league with a serious of closed divisions.

 

Bruce pointed out college is not it, should have lower divisions.
Making it more competitive in a structured organized system, and thus making it stronger is only better.

 

Well, that's not what he said, but I can see why someone like you would think that's what he said

But he didn't say that. That's your opinion, one you've said 10,000 times before, but it's academically dishonest to pretend Bruce Arena agrees with you

 

... because that's kept him from posting the countless other dribble he's shat all over these boards ?