MLS news from Washington Post

I like the idea of an MLS Cup being at one of the participants home venue. In fact, would love to see a sold out stadium with passionate fans. LA will be lucky to sell out on Sunday.

 

Supporters Shield becomes huge.

I would prefer the way it is.

 

Bummer to me on not having Superliga next year. Depending upon Sunday's results, we may be in the qualifying round of the CCL - would suck to not be in Superliga (in my opinion) and then end up going out to FC Banana from Panama in a midweek home and home series.

 

at least we are the last reserve league champs-those were fun matches to go to, hate to see them go.

 

We need to be expanding the rosters, not shrinking them.

 

this seems to be completely lost on Garber.

Also what do you guys think about the idea that only the conference winners clinching a playoff slot with all others going to wildcard? Kind of seems like a move in the direction of a single table.

 

As the days go by, I see Garber as less of a true CEO and more of a "press secretary" with priviledges. It seems that he hold no power over the league and that he does as he is told.

What's the point then? Let's bring in someone that has more power and more say within the owners.

 

I'm on the other side and do not like the idea of MLS Cup being at the participant's home venue for the fact that not all the markets have an atmosphere like Houston, Toronto, Chi-Town, or DC United. What if MLS Cup were being hosted in New England, Kansas City, or San Jose? Having less than 15,000 for the MLS Cup final would NOT help the league, no matter how vibrant the supporters looked.

They should keep MLS Cup in a neutral site, but put in MUCH more money into making it a big event by announcing big-time A-List half-time performers three months in advance, announcing the host site at least two years in advance, and getting the owners to submit bids to host the game, with the best and most vibrant bid getting the Cup. And have the bids include how they'd provide entertainment for the fans and visitors for the days before the event.

If they want MLS Cup to be big, them make it big. Better spend that money to make that money and make them haters walk funny. (tips hat)

 

I don't know how long you've been following MLS, but Foxboro hosted the MLS Cup twice. In 2002, the Revs made the final and 61,000 people showed up.

 

YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING TOO MUCH NFL!!

 

No link. I won't believe this till I see it.

 

good point re no link in the original post, here ya go...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2008/11/mls_news.html

 

Yep I just talked with someone from the Dynamo FO. Triming of rosters is pretty much a go although nothing "official" yet. This sucks big time.

 

The one change I would like to see is in the first round of the playoffs... it should be an away, then home and home again series, with the last home game a do-over just in case you screw up in your last game.

 

MLS Cup should be neutral venue. Making it home and home or home field advantage for the SS winner has the potential to have the equivalent "Ice Bowl". Appealing perhaps for throwball, but not so much for footy in my mind.

While it's likely impossible, I'd love a "National Stadium" a la Wembley.

 

America is too big and too divisive to have a national stadium like England does. Overe there there's no doubt where a national stadium should be. London's pretty much THE place for anything like that over there. But over here, there's any number of cities that a national stadium could realistically go in.

Just a sample of cities that could realistically house a national stadium:

D.C. (the capital is always on the list)
Los Angeles
New York (the actual city, not the New Jersey suburbs)
Chicago
Houston
Philly
St. Louis
maybe Dallas/Ft. Worth (don't shoot me!)

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I could think of at the moment.

 

Kinda neutral on the whole reserves issue.

I've always thought that the MLS approached the reserves half-assed. The pay for reserves wasn't what I would call "professional."

Either do it right or don't do it all.

So, with that being said, I'm not completely broken up about the reserves going by the wayside.

Let 'em go play in the USL and if they do well enough, then they may get a look in with an MLS team. At least they'll be playing full time.

Take what little money you were paying the reserves and spread it among your first teamers.

 

I remember that. I also remember a couple weeks ago when in their lone playoff game, they had less than 6,000 show up. Chances are that if New England were to host MLS Cup in less than eight days notice, you'd probably see WAAAAAAYYY more empty seats than in the 2002 MLS Cup Final because their FO isn't doing as much as they used to.

lol! Can't hate on that statement. But if soccer wants to be as big in America as the NFL one day (as Don Garber stated in his State of the League address), then it may help to see what they're doing and learn from it.

If they want MLS Cup to get higher ratings and more tickets sold faster, then they have to actually do somethings that would bring in higher ratings and more tickets, such as bring in an array of buzz-worthy performers, make the time-period leading to MLS Cup a festive time in the city that's getting ready to host it, and get cities and ownership groups to fight for hosting the next cup after they've seen how much the cup's done for the previous host city the year before.

 

Some initial thoughts....

1) I'm going to miss reserve games...they were a blast. I also think it's a negative that they are going away.

2) Decreasing the roster size is ridiculous. Is MLS really hurting for money so bad that they can't pay an extra $50,000 a team for player's salaries?

3) Increasing the senior roster to 20 is nice I guess but doesn't really mean much if you don't increase the salary cap too. 20 senior players making a total of 2.3 million will look and play a lot like a team of 18 senior players making a total of 2.3 million.

4) MLS Cup moving away from a neutral site is a joke UNLESS they make the final round home and away too.

 

I feel like the reserves should be able to play in USL 2 or something if the team chooses.


I know in the new W-USA that there are a couple of teams that will field reserve teams and enter them into the W-League (basically the women's PDL). Now, this is mostly because these teams are currently playing in the W-League, and rather than just pick up and leave for the W-USA, they want to keep their relationship with the W-League strong (plus, having a reserve team is good business).


My question is, can an MLS team do this with the PDL (yes I know they are mostly amateurs and under 23, but still) or even USL (1 or 2)? Lets say, they put a PDL or USL team in Beaumont or Corpus, or better yet the Rio Grande Valley (where it would be supported and we already have a development school). I am sure there would be some sort of problem with a "call up" to the big team when players are needed, but this is something that needs to be looked into.



I do understand that the number of games would basically be doubled from the previous reserves schedule, but if you make your home base some place other than Houston, it would work the same as a minor league baseball team and might bring more fans to the big club. How many Dodger fans are there in San Antonio from the Missions being the AA club for so long, I know of several.

 

I definitely think that losing the reserve games will adversely affect in-club player development and therefore will force teams to buy experienced players. This decision from Garber was obviously to try to keep league costs down but address giving senior players more money.

However, in the long run, due to what I said above, I truly believe that he's now made the MLS product more expensive due to buying players rather than player development yet weakened the product as a whole. We cannot afford to use this as our main method to grow the sport. Since we don't have the mass-resources to build the sport, we need both the increased resources AND the existing in-club player development to provide the maximum amount of sport / league development in this country.

 

It'd be nice if the MLS could partner up with the USL and have a relegation/reserve league

 

Relegation would not work, it would cheapen the value of MLS teams and negate the reason for a franchise fee.