You apparently think pretty highly of yourself. What is dysfunctional in the system? MLS has helped usher in one of the most successful soccer eras in this nation. Lower leagues wouldn't be in this spot without all of the investment that MLS has made. People never appreciate it. The leagues would not be here without the investment that the Hunts, Krafts, and Anschutzs (Anschutzes?) made. I'm well aware of the history of soccer in the country. Yes, there was soccer after the NASL imploded. Nobody was stepping up to take D1 and the leagues weren't professional. I'm not insecure about my position. I'm just tired of reading the posts of everyone predicting the downfall of MLS and how the free and unrestricted second division will compete and eventually take over. It's not happening. I like people to live in reality. Here's a hint, USL-1/A-League had no salary cap. As well you should. I'll keep having fun supporting my NPSL team.
How would you gather that? I've been called out for banning about 8 times by the same guys, and gotten two warnings from the moderators. Now my "reply" feature is disabled-- after reporting two violations of the very policy everyone calling for my removal supposedly wanted to ban me for-- having this discussion on other forums besides ones designed for it like this one. That's not thinking highly of myself. It's common sense.
It's not arbitrary. There were two designs for a FIFA-mandated Division I league as a condition of the awarding of the 1994 World Cup. MLS' plan was better than the APSL's plan, which was basically not much of a plan at all. Those people (not you) are adopting a point of view that is not based on facts. Annnnnnnnnd, again. It has to be done exactly as it's done in other countries, or it's not valid, say these people (again, not you). Even if you believe MLS was "gifted" its status (let's be honest, here...it wasn't exactly a land rush to get in on this thing), it has certainly earned its place based on the expenditures and patience displayed by its core group of owners. It could have easily died in 2001 and people would have said "Oh, well, see? Can't be done here." The game would have continued at some level (the game always survives), but it would have been a while - maybe even today it wouldn't have happened - before someone tried to mount that task again. So anybody who's resentful because MLS didn't "earn" its spot (a ridiculous point of view) is someone who views buying a scarf and a season ticket to be a major investment in a club. Do they find the fact that MLS has managed to survive for 17 years, build some really good stadiums and have only two teams out of 21 go away in that time to be "distasteful?" Those people whould start their own league with their own billions if they want to rebel against the system that has provided the most stable DI league this country has ever had. These are the same people who were writing letters to Sunil Gulati begging for sanctioning because they had a connection to the NASL that they never felt with USL even though the NASL had not, to that point, kicked a ********ing ball as a league. They were just being spiteful. Because - mostly - they're bitter, spiteful people who lash out when everything isn't exactly the way they want it. A vocal section of online fans, no question. They're annoying. Yeah, except you can get beer pretty much anywhere. If you want to watch live outdoor men's professional soccer in Ft. Lauderdale, you have, at this point in history, one choice. If MLS decides to put a team in that market, that will be it for your second option (most likely) and good luck with your competition. In the very limited sample of cases where an MLS and a lower-level team have "competed" (hand-to-hand, face-to-face), the MLS team wins. Handily. That's not a competition - that's you operating with a competitive void and being trumped by a better-financed organization that can provide what you cannot. Also, any league is free to consider itself anything it wants, but just making "Division II" a bad word or the elephant in the room doesn't change the fact that they are a second division. Their owners (except for Minnesota's guy, obviously, and the Middle Eastern Guys New Yorkers Apparently Like As Opposed To The Middle Eastern Guy New Yorkers Apparently Don't Like) don't have the level of capitalization of MLS' owners. Their stadiums aren't as good. Their players aren't as good. Their budgets aren't as big. Their staffs aren't as big. They're not on television. They have lost teams. That's not a competition. That's not Miller vs. Budweiser. That's InBev vs. Home Brew. Choice is great. The market will decide. Long live America. And that sounds spiteful and a way to take something that's supposed to be fun (let us not forget...this is why we watch sports, right? It's fun?) and make it a morality play. You absolutely have a right to consume or not consume any product you choose. You can do so for whatever reason you like. You can even detail your reasons for doing so loudly and proudly. Such is America. But at the end of the day...it's a freaking soccer team. That's all it is.
And the thing is, what did the Cosmos do to earn their spot in the second division? Did they work their way up? What did Fort Lauderdale or Tampa do to earn 2nd division status? How can it be that the top division is illegitimate for teams not earning their places, but the second division is pure and holy, when the teams didn't earn their spot either?
Totally different. They're fighting the good fight, and they brought back retro names, so their fanboys can claim they're the same club that used to have 1st division status, so it's all valid.
Good question. As you notice, I can only quote generically (I guess I could recreate the reply quote code, but I don't know how to do that.) Since eventually it will be figured out anyway (or perhaps this is some demented form of "mercy") I can still post from the little box for a new post at the bottom.
Hmm. Seems to be ok if I use "Quote", but some feature I had on the left is missing. Can still report people though. Anyway.
MLS' plan was created by US Soccer to begin with. The full description of MLS' origins can be found in the player lawsuit. So the Supreme Court had their facts wrong. There are local variations, but the principle is the same-- earn your way up, risk your way down. And let's be honest. It was gifted its status. Largely by the same organization that worked to keep the WC from coming to the US in 1986 in hopes of dooming the NASL. I lack your pessimism. Everything else staying the same, someone would have tried it again by now, perhaps with better results. WIthout scarves and season tickets, you don't have a club. How many of those teams use their old NASL trademarks? Five? And don't you find it weird that MLS is going back to the same places it failed? And the stadiums are intentionally small. They look nice, though. Too bad I can't say the same about the gameplay as the real estate. But thanks to the MLS salary cap and restricting quality, we don't have to. I didn't write such a letter, nor was it ever suggested. I just figured they had to find a way to cobble the fees, and it worked. Preach on, brother! What else would you call people who would hit the rolodex to make up a team before a beloved NY tradition comes back, spread rumors through the Canadian press that the Cosmos would cancel the fall season, and then send your most popular footballer-- good and retired-- to go to the home city of D2 corporate HQ and the sponsor of another storied team-- to announce a competing one? You are so right. MLS FO is filled with bitter, spiteful people who lash out when everything isn't exactly the way they want it Some online fans, indeed, are annoying. I hope you have a better grasp of the MLS plan than I do a knowledge of that area from living there, because there are a number of logistical problems which plagued the Fusion, and which to date have not been solved. In some ways, it's worse. 1) The Fusion played at Lockhart where the Strikers play. No indication that there will be a sharing agreement. 2) There is very little land that could be used in the city proper for a stadium. You will be moving outside unless you use an AmRules Football stadium, which was also done. Otherwise, prepare to demand travel-- which Miami fans usually don't do. 3) Assuming either of those options are available, neither of them were popular-- and still aren't. 4) A large contingent of the Fusion fans were in fact disappointed but resigned Strikers fans. There is little reason for them to leave. 5) The amount MLS spends versus the amount of revenue from people who will actually show up, even if Beckham himself were to play for the team, will be a guaranteed loss for the first few years. 6) None of MLS' previous studies even up to last year indicated that things had changed substantially in Miami. Garber himself told the fans to stop the clamoring and support the Strikers. If this was a revenge move for the Cosmos, it was a stupid one, because the size of MLS projects versus the potential fanbase looks like a myopic giant going anthill spotting. 7) Miami-Dade's per capita income is in the bottom half of the state. 8) Miami has a high Hispanic population, but the largest section of the population is Cuban-American: bigger fans of baseball and boxing than soccer. I assume this is just more "ideology" to you but to regular people who have been there they are called facts. MLS to Miami is a dumb and transparently political idea. And it will cost them if they don't abandon it. What you don't realize is I don't want them to. Doesn't matter.... That's true, but they are turning a profit, which will attract more, medium sized owners and create more stable and larger ownership groups. We'll get there. Ain't that much of a difference. Amazing in light of the above. So? Most of the teams have local television deals, one has a national, and it's assumed the Cosmos will also have a national. Not bad for three years of existence. Considering how they formed, I am sure the folks who wanted them gone are still shaking their heads wondering how they got this far. And you're about to find out, once you match the price point, which American consumers prefer. Choice is great. The market will decide. Long live America. And that sounds spiteful and a way to take something that's supposed to be fun (let us not forget...this is why we watch sports, right? It's fun?) and make it a morality play. You absolutely have a right to consume or not consume any product you choose. You can do so for whatever reason you like. You can even detail your reasons for doing so loudly and proudly. Such is America. But at the end of the day...it's a freaking soccer team. That's all it is.[/quote]
Just to touch on the other thread... I didn't single you out-- I just didn't want to keep dwelling on the topic. By the way, I do like the NPSL. I like the Brooklyn Italians, who are in the NPSL. I am also a fan of your new commissioner. I think the entire divisional structure is totally flawed. The problem is that MLS is aiming for the status quo. Introduce a pro/rel structure and in two seasons, everyone will be earning their places. That's beside the point. The major problem I have is that MLS has created a wealth gap without a discernable talent gap. But it will take an Open Cup or two to prove the point, I guess.
Where do you think any NASL team would finish at the end of an MLS season? Given their current budgets, talent, staff, stadiums, etc., you really think there's no discernable gap between MLS and the NASL? The only way an NASL team will be truly competitive against MLS teams is when that NASL team becomes an MLS team. Like Montreal, Portland, Vancouver, and Seattle. They were not what they are today when they were playing in the USL/NASL. The amount of investment they had to make when they moved to MLS, the number of changes made to the rosters, changes to improve their stadium situations, and the big increase in ticket sales and fans, all show there is a considerable gap between MLS and the lower leagues.
Colin Miller thinks the gap is closing, at least in one-off situations. Thing is, in this sport, one-off situations can go either way (Belo Horizonte, anybody?). That's not necessarily an indicator of relative strength of leagues. And that, boys and girls, is where the rubber meets the road. Not one of the teams that was in the second division and moved up just stood pat. They couldn't. And they had two years to do it, and, except for Seattle, they weren't playoff teams right away. You can talk all you want about markets and hopes and aspirations and nomenclature and dreams and single entity and Open Cup results*, but the bottom line is the bottom line: money is the difference. MLS has a lot more of it. And a 15-year head start. And almost all the markets that make a difference. And the TV contracts. And the sponsorship deals. And the players and the relationships and the roots in their communities. The NASL absolutely can - and should - go into markets that are unlikely to have MLS teams. If the market's big enough (NY or LA) and they want to go in there, in a suburb, knock yourself out, but bring your lunch. And if you want to support a lower-level team instead of MLS, that's totally your right. Just please, don't try to tell us this is a competition among equals or near-equals, or that it's only a matter of time before the NASL catches up to or surpasses MLS. That's not happening unless they suddenly decide to drop billions into this and prepare for a long slog. *How'd that work out for you this year, by the way?
The Xolos are very close to San Diego, but since Tijuana has safety concerns that prevent many people from wanting to travel there, there is good reason to think that San Diego could support its own MLS franchise let alone a NASL or USLPro team. The nearby presence of the Xolos could create a nice cross border rivalry as well.
Ask the Harrisburg City Islanders, who for the first time this year got displaced before taking a fifth turn at beating either the Revs or the Red Bulls. Budgets? Sure. Stadiums? You bet. Talent? Erm, not really. Well, that's not a statement of scientific proof, but a statement of present economic reality. If it's based on stadiums, et cetera, then sure, you're right at least for the immediate future. But an 18-team NASL in 2018 means that likely 14 spots will be in the US Open Cup against MLS. Add in the USL Pro spots and it gets more interesting. Now we can talk all the stuff we want about second teams, et cetera, but the reality is that for the past two cups MLS teams have looked anything but monolithically invincible. Last year the Sounders schooled the lower divisions . This year the Sounders are out. 2/3 of the NASL teams are out. Of course, there were only 6 of them, so I imagine 2014 will be more interesting. Like Montreal, Portland, Vancouver, and Seattle. They were not what they are today when they were playing in the USL/NASL. The amount of investment they had to make when they moved to MLS, the number of changes made to the rosters, changes to improve their stadium situations, and the big increase in ticket sales and fans, all show there is a considerable gap between MLS and the lower leagues.[/quote]
I don't make it a morality play... I will never try to make anybody feel bad for supporting whatever team they support. If there's anything I've learned over the last few years its that I wouldn't want to give any soccer fan in America a hard time, no matter what team they decide they identify with. But I identify with the Cosmos, and I don't know why everybody on every soccer website wants me to feel bad about that. I don't think they will change American soccer forever, or any of that stuff. In fact I'm not even entirely confident they'll be marginally successful in the long term. I'm a realistic Cosmos fan and I still can't display any excitement about the team in any online context without a dozen or so people being like LETS TAKE THIS PUNK DOWN A NOTCH. I don't mean to play the victim but I'm sure you're aware of this attitude towards Cosmos fans. This is where I'm gonna have to just disagree with you. It may just be a soccer team, but my sports teams to me and to a lot of other fans mean more than that. The Mets aren't just a baseball team. The orange and blue, Mr. Met, the camaraderie between fans, the NAME Mets means something to me. I identify with that team. Same with the Knicks. Same with my alma mater's basketball team. It's part of my identity. The Cosmos is the only soccer team that provides me with anywhere close to that sort of thing. Of course the Cosmos of today have no functional connection to the Cosmos in the 70s that I was not even alive to see but the spirit among fans endures, and that's what I care about the most to be honest. You can say that's stupid, naiive, childish or whatever, but that's how I feel, and there are a lot of other folks who do as well. What got me most interested in soccer 3 years ago was the immense, passionate supporters culture that exists with teams all over the world. What makes soccer special is that it's not just a game or a team, that it has the potential to be so much more.
It's unfortunate that internet vitriol is spilling over to a fan like you. You sound like the kind of fan the league needs and runs off. But yeah, there are Cosmos fans (indeed, fans of many other teams too) that love to talk well above their weight. Only difference I can tell is while, for example, Orlando City fans want to see their team making efforts to catch up to the level of MLS and add what they can, a number of Cosmos fans seem to just want everyone ahead of them to crash and burn so that they look wonderful. Lower divisions need to focus on cooperation, if you ask me. Work with each other, work with MLS to find ways to get talented young Americans playing time in significant competitive environments. And many NASL and USL-Pro teams seem to aim this way, while Cosmos don't really sound like they consider that an option--they just want to buy the very best they can. Dunno. That's my impression.
How do teams acquire better talent? Buying better players. Developing better youth talent. Those things cost money. Higher caliber players command more money. Bigger budgets mean more money to get those players. Better youth development comes from investing heavily in higher caliber coaching, scouting, facilities, etc. So bigger budgets means better youth development. Of course, you have to be smart with your money. Smart about the types of players you're bringing in or the way you're developing players. But for the most part, this is where MLS has a massive advantage over the NASL. The ability to acquire better talent. The ability to invest in better players, coaches, facilities, trainers, scouts, etc. The US Open Cup proves very little. It's a series of one-off events, and the NASL/USL teams are playing MLS teams that, for the most part, don't take it as seriously until late in the tournament. You can't prove anything with the Open Cup. The only fact that you can draw an undeniable conclusion from is that MLS teams have won every Open Cup since the inception of MLS, except once, back in 1999. It would be nice to see a more competitive Open Cup. I wish my team took the Open Cup more seriously. The NASL will grow. I hope it does. But it's foolish to think it is on the cusp of dethroning MLS as the top flight league in America. You never responded to this part of my post. Is this not proof that there is a massive gap between the two leagues?
New interview with NASL Commish, with some discussion of this whole issue: http://www.businessofsoccer.com/201...uture-of-the-north-american-soccer-landscape/
"Minor league" doesn't automatically mean "farm league." When I call the NASL a minor league, I'm not saying it's merely a development league for MLS. But it is a minor league. It's not the top flight league in the US by any measurement. Financial investments, team budgets, talent, stadiums, attendance, etc. All of those factors suggest that MLS is the top league in the US. NASL is the 2nd division. Nothing wrong with being 2nd division. A strong 2nd division will be good for the overall health of soccer in the US. England has a strong Div 2 league. Stronger than many Div 1 leagues. And I doubt many of their teams look at themselves as merely a farm team for a Premier League giant. But because of the disparity in wealth, it is inevitable that many of the better players in the Football League Championship will be plucked by Premier League teams. And many players who are not quite good enough to be everyday players on a Premier League team will go to a League Championship team, usually on loan. That is the relationship between Div 1 and Div 2 leagues around the world. Doesn't mean the Div 2 league isn't strong. It can be. I hope the NASL continues to grow. But it's not in a position to overtake MLS. Be happy with a Div 2 league. We haven't had a strong 2nd division before. I hope the NASL can be that.
Right, but the dude says he along with the owners in NASL don't want to be a minor league. The 2nd division teams in England and elsewhere don't see themselves as minor league either, they want to be playing in the top division. And they can be, if they win enough. They have no illusions about the league they're playing in, it's all about the teams themselves. As in, there is a future for those teams outside of the minor league they currently compete in. I can tell you without a shred of doubt that the Cosmos lost hundreds if not thousands of fans when they didn't join the MLS because now they view them as a team with no future. I think this is why some Cosmos fans hold fast to the wish that the NASL will overtake the MLS as the top division. It's all well and good to have decent quality play and player development going on in 2nd division, but if nobody pays to go see it and the teams don't make any money, it won't last.
I like that NASL wants to be a "alternative" to MLS: but some have problems with this. Anybody can support any league they want. Anybody see NASL billboards during USMNT vs Jamaica and Mex-Pan?
Certainly. Don't just then tell us it's poised to supplant (or even gain equality with) MLS. That's the issue. Of course you don't see that. You're just being persecuted for your beliefs. Yet another display of your ignorance of history. Team Owner Association billboards and "Miami FC: Team of the Americas" billboards were displayed at (road) qualifiers in the past. How'd the Miami FC billboards do at building THAT brand?