The Kings have done this twice this year. I never really followed USL until I moved to Cincinnati. I was kind of shocked the first time I saw it on the schedule. Is it just a lower division quirk?
Most teams have to do it 3 or 4 times. Has a lot to do with travel budgets combined with the means of travel and the forms of travel. I've learned to avoid matches where both teams are playing their second match within 24 hours. They're fit enough so that they can play without dragging too much, but their touch suffers (you see lots of passing that is just a bit off, so they game doesn't flow), and they're a bit tired mentally, so you'll see a lot of chippiness. Not good for the game, but I don't really see how they can avoid it at this stage.
I have read (on one of these baords) that the USL demands all teams do it. I suppose they figure if a couple of teams do it all teams should do it at least once to even it up. I can't confirm this but I'm sure somebody in the know will correct me if I'm wrong. I deliberately missed Vancouvers last home game (even though I have a seasons ticket) because it was a Sunday game against Seattle and both teams had played the night before in Seattle, not to mention it was Vancouvers 5th game in 9 days. As I suspected the game was a dull 0-0 game that from what I've read on the net from supporters of both teams was a waste of time.
A-League used to mandate that they were at least 2 sets of back to back games for all teams. The rest of the leagues made it up to the individual teams when they did their scheduling. As of this year, I don't know how much the 'rules' for this has changed.
The Silverbacks already did it this year. They played in Virginia Beach on a Friday and played them at home the next day. Last year when teams had to play at Puerto Rico twice, usually what they'd do is play one game then play them again two days later.
The Portland Timbers play back-to-back on five occasions this year. As Krammerhead pointed out, it really hurts the quality of play in this league, especially for teams that play on poor surfaces.
Are USL teams still allowed 5 substitutions like last year? This would seem to help a little with back to back games.
Not only that, but teams such as Portland who share their facilities with a baseball team have a difficult time arranging a decent schedule. For example, the Timbers have punishing August and September dates that could easily kill off a promising playoff run.
Five subsitutions per game does help a little but that still leaves 6 players with tired legs, not to mention some teams don't even bring 5 subs on a road trip so they can;t make that many changes. Also creates a lack of cohesion and chemistry with the lineups being radically changed during matches.
Well, just do the math. Season length: Usually starts in April, ends the end of August or early September. Northern teams usually are pushed to get any home games in before May, so starting earlier doesn't seem likely. Ending later isn't likely because many facilities are shared high school football stadiums although I guess it's doable. So, roughly 5 months is what we got. That's 20-21 weeks. Number of games: That can vary depending on the number of games but from my memory, mid to upper 20's is the number we usually play. We could cut that number down to 18-20, but based on the # of teams, it probably wouldn't be "balanced". Also, lengthening the season increases the payroll, and reducing the # of games reduces revenue. Instead of playing Friday/Saturday or Friday/Sunday, teams could play in the middle of the week but teams like to have their home games on weekends. Also, if you're on a road trip and having to pay travel expenses, 2 matches per weekend reduces a team's travel cost. e.g. If they're playing Wednesday and Saturday, then it's more days in a hotel, meals, etc. If you've got to play X number of matches in Y number of weeks and X>Y, there's simply no way to play once per week and playing midweek, while doable, is not desirable from a financial standpoint. It's a complicated equation.
The real reason the months of the season were shortened has nothing to do with lack of stadium availability or weather in northern climates, it has all to do with crowd sizes and as you say reducing the payroll. I recall the NASL used to kickoff in late March (even teams in places like Calgary and Edmonton did) and they could play in that type of weather. The A-League used to have the regular season finish in mid September but found that crowds dropped off drastically in many cities after labour day weekend. So they basically shortened a couple of weeks of the end of the schedue. Biggest problem is teams not wanting to host midweek games and screwing the fans by cramming multiple games in on weekends (Fri-Sun). I recall that there were more midweek games by all teams quite a few years ago.
I can believe it. If my memory is correct, it seems most teams that make the playoffs don't even hit their season attendance average although some of that is also due to many team's season ticket packages don't include playoff games, you have to buy them separately. It's a tough call for clubs, lose/lose all the way around for the fans.
You are correct. Even Rochester drops down to 6,000 or so crowds during playoffs. I can only think of very few clubs that do get the same crowds for playoffs. Vancouver has and playoff tickets were never included in season ticket package. Oddly enough this season they did include a first round ticket in the season ticket packages, probably to make up for moving a regular season game to another city. I always wonder when I see certain clubs that are looking good to make the playoffs tank (and trade good players) late in the season. Sometimes makes me think that it just might be deliberate as making the playoffs might cause the team to lose more money than it would make.