Here. FIFA wants MLS to expand to 18 teams, no more. San Antonio, Toronto, Houston, Philadelphia, Rochester, Cleveland and Seattle are potential sites. Note - those seem to be the usual suspects, although I am surprised to see Cleveland still on the list.
18 Teams would stiffel the development of soccer in this country. Countries can do whatever they want FIFA has no say in domestic affairs. The EPL is 20 teams and used to be 24, which is what I belive the Coca Cola Championships is these day. With no European cup clutter, FA and league cup clutter by comparison the MLS shouldn't limit itself, the more teams the better.
Something to be said for that, but right now, we're just working to get to our original plan of 16. And more to the point, we can't outstrip the talent base. This has to be a league based on US players, and while there are a good amount of players for the size of the league we have now, the talent pool isn't large enough to grow more than a team a year (on average). The recently implemented reserve system will certainly spur that development some, of course. So bottom line - we're looking at 2011 or so before the league even gets to 18 teams at the most optimistic. As for what we do when we get to that point, it will probably come down to economics. If MLS is kicking butt and making money hand over fist and people are dying to get into the league, I'm sure they will go beyond 18.
The 18 team cap probably relates to FIFA wanting no more than 34 league games based on the assumpion that there is a conventional soccer league table playing each team once home and away. Easy way around it is to have regional conferences and playoffs.
Shoot. That's a great point and now I think I can see the writing on the wall for lovers of the single table idea. Rats.
My dream would be for MLS to implement promotion/relegation within itself (AAGH, NO! I mentioned pro/rel!!!), an MLS.1 and MLS.2. And since baseball watchers have actually talked about pro/rel, by the time we reach 18 teams, maybe the US will be open to the notion. But, yeah, I'm with you, Old Man. I expect that, as Blizzard sez, we'll get conferences and unbalanced schedules and playoffs. The US is just too big to do anything else. Unless we follow the Brazil model.
FIFA is absolutely right to really get on MLS to stay at or below 18 teams. The reason for this is because the way to grow the game in this country is not by having 30 some MLS teams...it's by having many different divisions of teams. MLS with 18 USL div1 with 18 USL div2 with 18 PDL with 18 etc, etc. I think that's what FIFA is trying to get MLS to focus on...strengthening the game at all levels here in the states, not just the top level. I agree with them on that.
Sorta like the joke candidate (jock or nerd) that always manages to get printed on the Homecoming Queen ballots. Cleveland: The Harold Stassen of expansion hopefuls.
I would love to see soccer get so popular that the only way to fill the need is to have a second division. Is it really going to happen in the next 15 years? (Sorry to bring reality back to the table.)
Mexico and Chile (among others) split into groups and playoffs. Although my grand plan for US soccer (assuming a pro/rel format) was to regionalize the leagues: MLS | USL1 West=USL1 East | USL2 North=USL2 West=USL2 South=USL2 East And then PDL in an 8-group format, if it was to link with USL2 in pro/rel
Hey, if you're going to dream big, take the last step -- linking PDL into the regional rec leages by pro/rel -- that's my happy fantasy daydream.
Sorry I was speaking in generalities. Just to link up all the divisions of soccer here. Hell we could have 3 divisions of 18 PDL teams for all I care. I just want a pyramid structure here at some point.
Assuming that the 18 team thing relates to games played, MLS could do a two conference/four division format of 20 teams realtively easily. Play two home and two away games w/in division, home and away against the the other division, and then either home or away (alternating) against the other conference. (16 games, 10 games and 10 games). If you play mid-week games in the early part of the season then give way to USOC matches later, you could do that in a 30 week season like we do now. West Pacific: Los Angeles Galaxy, San Jose EarthQuakes*, Chivas USA, Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders Mid-West: FC Dallas '96, San Antonio Athletic, Club America de Houston, Real Salt Lake, Colorado Rapids East Atlantic or North: New England Revolusion, Rochester Raging Rhinos, MetroStars, Toronto (???), Philadelphia Fury Central or South: Chicago Fire, DC United, Columbus Crew, Kansas City Wizards* Wizards, Miami Fusion (*) I am not going to speculate about either of these teams moving.
Your plan would work, even without relegation. USL should actually do that, if only to cut down on transportation costs.
Sigh - poor Portland. We are always left out of these articles even though we have some of the richest Soccer history in the country along with an incredibly rabid fanbase in place. A super rich guy just bought us but he has made no mention of moving to MLS. The biggest impediment at the lower levels to having a national league are the travle costs. Those traditionally kill of weak 1st and 2nd Division teams faster than player salaries.
I'm honestly curious as to what Joe Average American Soccer Fan's reaction would be if his team was relegated, as it would be a foreign concept to him.
Well, here is where the lower division would have to be an entertaining product, and high enough quality that people would come to see it anyway. If there is talent in the US to support 32 teams, and you only have 18 in the first division, then the second division has some pretty good teams in it as well. That would work. But we've got a long way to go before we get there. (A) people have to get into soccer [probably because] (B) we have the talent to be entertaining and good. Frankly, we barely have enough talent for two teams at that level, let alone 12 or 16. It is going to take another ten years for that talent base to grow and also for the league to have the financial legs to afford to keep the US players at that level and attract foreign players at that level. Can it be done? Sure as h-e-double-hockey-stick. Compare the talent base now to ten years ago - it is quite an improvement. The Reserve League is going to help quite a bit (although that probably won't kick in for another three years in terms of producing players that can have an impact - but it will accelerate the growth process). Once MLS has 16 teams of a higher calibre of play, then you will see more people coming out to games. The league needs to be where LA-NE are *average* teams, not the best teams in the league.
My dream: WESTERN CONFERENCE: Pacific Division: Los Angeles Galaxy San Francisco Earthquakes Seattle Sounders Portland Timbers CD Chivas USA Central Division: FC Dallas Colorado Rapids Real Salt Lake Houston Eagles Kansas City (or, San Antonio) Wizards EASTERN CONFERENCE: Atlantic Division: DC United New England Revolution New Jersey Metros Philadelphia Athletic New York Cosmos* Midwest Division: Rochester Rhinos Miami Fusion Dynamo Detroit Chicago Fire Columbus Crew * Please don't bother to remind me that the name is owned by some schmuck who hasn't sold it yet. This is MY dream, and I'll use it if I want to! Four games vs. division rivals = 16 Two games vs. other division in same conference = 10 One game vs. other conference = 10 36-game schedule. Top eight teams in each conference make playoffs. Playoff format: Within each conference, two groups of four teams, seeded by regular-season finish. Group A: Seeds 1,4,6,8. Group B: Seeds 2,3,5,7. The higher seed hosts each game, and the only tiebreaker within the group is higher seed. The two group winners play in the Conference Final, to be hosted by higher seed. Conference Final winners play in MLS Cup Final.
I really don't think that playoff scenario would work - I think the interest would be low. And it is so . . . . thirty-years-ago-World Cup. (I tried to find a nicer way to say that, but failed miserably. Sorry.) I think you will probably see home and away legs as the standard for quite some time. You might see a bye for the top seed. Maybe six teams per conference make the playoffs, the top two get byes, the remaining four have to play a Wed-Sat first round, then the second round is a Sat-Sat home and away and then the current conference final game. That would also allow the top seeds a lot of time to promote their home games.
Especially if the average fan is in a market with many sports (both major or high minor)...and the fans turn to baseball, hockey, basketball, football, etc. Even disregarding the lost revenue from sponsorships, tv contracts, etc, the MLS team would lose a lot of revenue from fans jumping ship in the US sports scene that contains many premier sporting options, usually more than anywhere else. On the other side, the promoted team would have to really push their marketing and the like to increase their revenues and overcome the premier sporting options in their market. In the US sports culture and media, I still think that would be a net loss. Not only that, but I think the effect would be the same with the media as well. You could easily turn down the limited local coverage for teams. And further, the national media has less to concentrate on with only 18 teams. Imagine if there are no Chicago, New York, or LA teams in the top teir. This doesn't mean that small markets are bad (a mix is preferable), and doesn't affect MLS as much now as in the future.....but whether good or bad at that particular time, as long as their stable healthy franchises, these markets, and those like them, capture attention. And then think about the business aspect of sports in this country, and those not wanting to lose $$$, especially on a sport such as soccer, which doesn't have enough support in the US. Imagine the premier facilities, such as HDC having their team relegated. Then lets also talk about the difference of opinion between MLS and USL. There would have to be a huge undertaking by MLS to implement everything you are talking about, and/or a serious about face by the USL. Then you have travel costs for minor league teams as correctly noted here... Then you have the fact that many American sports fans just don't like it. They may be totally aware of relegation, even see some advantages along with disadvantages, but just do not like it. They like the consistant slate of opponents over the years. They like the tradition and history built while being in "the league." Obviously some relate to variables (timing, culture, etc), but there are still many issues. Please let's stop with this relegation garbage. Yes, we do do it differently here. Just because it's done with relegation in some places, doesn't mean the US has to. You can always expand past 18 or 20 with 2 leagues under one umbrella (for instance like American & National in baseball used to be (before interleague) or even still are), or regional leagues, conferences, divisions, playoffs, etc....just as already stated above...
At the risk of sounding like the "We have to do it exactly like they do in Europe" crowd, it's basically just transplanting the English/Italian/Spanish/Portugese pyramid model to US soil.