No, it's definitely NOT CRAP to mention Pro/Rel as part of a presentation. It is crap IMHO to engage in bigsoccer censorship by systematically belittling, ridiculing, and attempting to marginalize the many people who'd like to see it. To call it "delusion" without examining it within the full context of how it was discussed is ludicrous. I seriously doubt the presentation involved any serious proposal for direct Promotion/Relegation between a 2nd division NASL that plays spring and summer seasons from April to October for a total of 32 regular season games and a defacto 4th division NPSL that plays between 8 and 14 regular season games between May and July. Especially when the travel costs of a single roadtrip to Edmonton would financially wreck 97% of the clubs in the current NPSL. Said another way, I think NPSL (etc) has a better chance of growing "up" than MLS does of growing "down"— Dennis Crowley 🇺🇸 // now on Threads @dens (@dens) December 31, 2016
You just explained WHY it's crap. No serious proposal can exist for Pro/Rel between NASL and NPSL. You freely admit that.... THEN WHY DID THEY EVEN BRING IT UP!
Actually there are a couple of clubs that meet all but one of the criteria to move up to NASL...both get a mention in the EoS article. Detroit only lacks a owner with the requisite net worth and Chattanooga doesn't meet the metro area size criteria. Both would certainly meet the DIII criteria.
Commisso negotiates to buy Cosmos to save NASL http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/teams/cosmos2.php?article_id=46774
It's like the old days of the Soviet Union..."sorry Mr. Peterson, but you are going to be sick for a very long time."
They brought it up for future consideration. A serious proposal for how to move, over the course of years, towards a better, less stratified system where Pro/Rel is not only an option, but a highly desirable one is something I and many others can fully get behind.
I get not wanting pro/rel, I'm not a fan either, but it is ridiculous to want a whole league to fail just because some of the people in the league promote pro/rel. That is just stupid.
Future consideration. It's like saying you or I could be supermodels some day. I mean yeah it's not totally out of the realm of possibility. But we probably both have better odds of being bitten by a shark while being struck by lightening holding a winning lotto ticket. It completely ignores the realities of where NASL and NPSL need to have their focus for at least the next decade or two. Which is not stroking the collective Pro/Rel chubby.
It's the only reason I'd like to see NASL fail, it's just one of a litany of reasons. And the one at hand.
Let's stick to actual NASL news, not rehashed comments about a potential NASL expansion consultant and what he did/didn't do at the general NPSL meeting. NASL didn't actually care about pro/rel in the past and they certainly are too wounded to give it anything but lip service again at the present.
I could care less about some people talking about Pro/Rel...it simply won't happen anytime in the near future. As I said, a couple of teams are close to being able to move up, but even they have big obstacles to overcome. The only "promotion" they could get is thanks to putting up cold, hard cash and paying the fee to join. The thing was not the most interesting thing we've learned from the actual EoS article is the tidbit about MLS not wanting it's reserve teams to be Division 2. It goes against what Jake Edwards said about USL's application for Division 2. And it may mark the first disagreement between the two. The reason? Without splitting USL into two tiers, they don't get DII status without a waiver. And MLS apparently doesn't want that to happen - at least for now.
BS. More condescendingly untrue BS trolling which fails to address the subject being discussed. What is it about bigsoccer's anti-Pro/Rel zealots that turns y'all into a herd of condescending, know-it-all, holier-than-thou jackasses? Here's the deal: NPSL could experiment with Pro/Rel in certain conferences within the next few years. Having a lower division would allow South Central clubs that have struggled on the field the past couple of years like the Houston Regals, Ft Worth Vaqueros and Joplin Demize chances to play against a level of competition closer to their own rather than being perpetual losers. While more dominant clubs like mine, FC Wichita and others could enjoy the "promotion option" of moving up to an NPSL Pro or NASL 2 in a 3rd division that maybe plays between 16 and 28 game regular seasons. NASL could have an option where its weaker teams participate in a (preferably regionalized) 3rd division... thinking outside the box, I'd personally like to see an early season equivalent of NCAA college non-conference games where NASL clubs could play a limited number of games that count towards the standings against NPSL or 3rd division clubs in their own region to offset some of the higher national travel costs. I've noticed increased stratification between MLS, NASL and between USL and PDL/NPSL in the former's quest for D2 status. IMHO, the USSF needs to stop putting up additional walls between divisions and start building some bridges. Because the way things are going, the US Open Cup as we know it may sooner or later cease to exist. Which would be a shame, because for my money it has great potential to one day become a worthy American version of the FA Cup. Peter Wilt is not just any "potential NASL expansion consultant." This is an NASL news thread in an NASL subforum, and the Pro/Rel aspect of Wilt's presentation is the kind of news that is worthy of serious discussion, not insults and/or abuse.
Okay, then. Other than as a dandy means of putting even more undercapitalized teams into a struggling league, I'm curious as to what you believe the benefits of pro/rel could be to NASL in the near and long term. (asking for a friend)
He also likes puppies and kittens, loves long walks on the beach at sunset, and I heard he also slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Okay, then. Are you interested in having a serious and respectful conservation on the subject or are you only interested in snarky invective? (asking for a friend)
That's really gonna put a damper on the future asking price to purchase majority interest in Tulsa Roughnecks FC. Just sayin'
From the article quoted above... Bob Funk says: "'Do we qualify for Division 2? Yes. Is there anything holding us back from Division 2? No, I don't think there is anything that should hold us back.'" Except for those pesky independent teams that DON'T meet the Division 2 standard. And apparently the wishes of the Don... And then there's this: "Rowdies owner Bill Edwards joined under the presumption it would receive the sanctioning based on the stability and growth of the league." Maybe this was what USL commish Jake Edwards and Bill Edwards were talking about when they sat together at the last Rowdies home game this season.
I give what I get. When you start off the conversation accusing the other party of bad faith if they disagree with you, it kind of puts a damper on others' willingness to see your viewpoint. In any event, I'm still waiting for the pro/relots to explain exactly how pro/rel could work in the US pro sports landscape. Any takers on that one?
Yes. He wooed the majority owner away, stole the stadium lease after his group had initially lost it to the NASL group, and stole the lease to the future offices of the NASL team. (All verifiable. Not just my opinion.) He recently said to the local newspaper that he could have put in an MLS bid, BUT there are more pressing social justice issues in OKC that we need to tackle first..... ?!?!? He's a lying, weasely sack of $#!t (that IS my opinion)
What They're Saying: Tampa Bay Rowdies owner Bill Edwards January 6th, 2017 6:08AM http://www.socceramerica.com/articl...mpa-bay-rowdies-owner-bill.html?edition=16651 go ahead Bill...please tell all of us how you REALLY feel about the NASL...sour grapes this early in the AM...sigh
And so do I. It's been your side in this convo who consistently stop at nothing to ridicule, belittle and attempt to marginalize anyone who dares challenge your anti-Pro/Rel snark. I ask why this subforum's moderator chose to sit on his hands after a cherry picked Pro/Rel tweet from Ben Fast was posted and ridiculed completely out of context and off topic? All I did was simply confirm that Peter Wilt did indeed address the NPSL and that the presentation included Pro/Rel. Your side attacked the message, the messenger(s), and then attacked Peter Wilt personally for daring even suggest Pro/Rel. I'm certainly not gonna write you a Pro/Rel term paper so you can systematically cherry pick and ridicule it, that's for sure. Within the context of this thread and on page 3, I've already posted my views on the subject at hand. Meanwhile, back to the discussion of how the NASL survives this mess and keeps its 2nd Div status...