Just to get away from overanalyzing this and back to reminiscing... Portland Timbers with Peter Withe (the Mad Header who had so much will and determination he hit a goalpost going for a header), Jimmy Kelly, than Clyde Best. They also had a GK, can't remember his name, who wasn't the best in the net but he could punt the ball from box to box a la Brad Friedel. Can anyone remember that keepers' name?
Keep in mind that the NASL did not continue it's 35 yard offside (which was ineffective anyway), did not continue the shootout (it went to penalty kicks) or other "gimmicks". Plus, MLS did have a "shootout" (exactly like the first NASL version) for a couple of years. The idea that the NASL was a league filled with gimmicks of various types is an outright myth.
Be honest Sempwhatever, were you actually around for the days of the NASL? I would venture a guess of no. Your comments are simply ridiculous. The NASL was the pioneer for soccer in the US. They did make a lot of mistakes through the years, however there was one constant... The games were all exciting, there were quality players on just about every team not just the Cosmos. It was the '70's and early '80's dude. Business was done a lot differently then than it is now. Think of it this way, if the NASL and MLS were close in attendance their first 10 seasons (Which is a fact), and as you say Americans aren't stupid about soccer anymore then why the hell doesn't MLS far exceed the NASL attendance figures??? Soccer was in its infancy here during the NASL and because of the exciting play, fans went. MLS is boring for the most part and full of players that would NEVER make an NASL roster. This paragraph above is hysterical! The level of talent was league-wide! What about the Chicago Sting, ever hear of Granitza? How about the San Jose Earthquakes, ever hear of George Best? Toronto Blizzard - Roberto Bettega, Detroit Express - Keith Francis, Minnesota Kicks - Alan Willey and Ace Nstsolenge, Ft. Lauderdale Strikers - Gerd Mueller, Seattle - Steve Daly, San Diego - Kaz Deyna, Hugo Sanchez... Let me know if I can prove your point to be any more ridiculous and un-educated! This is an amazing pipe-dream pal! MLS won't invest in players. The ownership structure will NEVER allow for star players from abroad to enter the league. Sure, HDC, Bridgeview, PHP are all awesome venues. However, they sit half full each week. Ask youself why. Let me help you answer your question... The level of play is boring and no one wants to go out and watch average talent play soccer. IF MLS wants to succeed, it needs to divest itself from team ownership, get out of bed with the likes of the concert promoters at AEG, and find some individuals and corporations with money to run their own teams. Until then, please do not make an ass of yourself by calling it a more superior league to the NASL. It isn't!
Oh, really....? NASL Average attendance in first ten years: 6495. MLS Average attendance in first ten years: 15,008. That NASL average was just 5710 before their tenth year, 1977, when the average shot up to 13,558, which is still lower than MLS's worst-ever year of 2000, when the average was 13,756. In addition, the NASL averaged under 5000 fans in each of its first five years, led by the craptacular 2930 in 1969. Not a fact. Not even close. http://www.kenn.com/sports/soccer/nasl/index.html http://www.kenn.com/soccer/mls/basic.html
Thank you very much for pointing this out. My mistake is that I was a San Jose NASL fan and the team there started in 1974. Let me try again if I may: IF you compare the last 10 seasons of the NASL to MLS, the #'s ARE relatively close. Here is the problem... MLS has a target market that is 10X bigger than the NASL had back in the '70's and '80's. Wouldn't you agree? My question to you is simple... With all of the USMNT recognition that exists now that did not then and the growth of youth soccer in the US which we both know is night and day different from the '70's and '80's are you happy with the MLS attendance figures present day?
Uhhhhhh, no. The NASL first had ties, then went to penalties to decide tied matches in 1974. They introduced the shootout in 1977 and continued with it until the league's demise after the 1984 season. And they didn't continue it, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because FIFA mandated it before the 1982 season. I've already shown you where you're 100% back-to-front on this one. No, not really. 35-yard offside line? Check Shootout to decide games? Check Team America? Check 6 points for a win, bonus points for each goal up to three per game? Check Cheerleaders? Check Mini-games in the playoffs? Check The NASL was filled with gimmicks. And I loved every minute of it.
Great points to bring out for discussion! I am with you all the way man! The 35 yard-line was designed for more scoring. I remember the players actually loved it, obviously the forwards did the most. Although not in tradition with FIFA, it was a gimmick, but I personally loved it! Shootout to decide games: MLS instituted it in the early years. Team America: I would now consider all MLS teams to be called this for the most part! Cheerleaders: A few MLS teams have these. I saw for myself at a Chivas USA game not too long ago! The NASL and MLS are not comparable. Two sepearate theories on how to run a league, and two seperate generations from then to now. I hope MLS prospers. I just want to see it managed differently!
DOnt underestmate the effect of the '84 Olympics and the full stadiums for the soccer tournament there, run by many of the same guys who later got the US the '94 World Cup and started MLS. In some ways the '84 Olympics were more of a catalyst than the NASL which was never really an "American" league (they had to have "minimum American player" rules for pete's sake), it was always more of an outlaw league with too-old players, plastic american football fields, crazy gimmicks, and some of the ugliest uniforms and worst nicknames in human history. For crying out loud, they had BOB COUSY as a commissioner for a little while, who admitted he knew absolutely NOTHING about the game. It's fun and tredny to wax rhapsodic and wish for the "good old days" but if you weren't in NY or Seattle or Minnesota or Tampa or one of those places, there really weren't any "good old days". DOnt get me wrong...I watched it as a kid, when I could, though it wasnt on the tube a whole lot. As a pre-teen I was a Tulsa Roughnecks fan for some odd reason I can't remember, even though I'd never been to Tulsa and am pretty sure I didnt even know it was in Oklahoma, or even where Oklahoma was. All in all I'll take MLS any day.
Yes, FIFA disliked the 35 yard offside and they pressured the NASL to drop it. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that it made the game more offensive in nature. Shootouts I did not care for, mostly because the shootout winner took all of the points (most of the time....did they not toy with some splitting of points?....I know MLS did that). As has already been mentioned, the idea of Team America is the backbone of MLS....it's just that the NASL did not embrace the idea of legitimate US born players. The points systems (and the NASL did change their points system from time to time) was a little weird, but in many ways I think it was a method of trying to emulate US sports....football (6 points for a touchdown), basketball (2 points for a basket), etc. At times, it was a maze, no doubt about it. MLS has monkeyed around with the points too. If there is to be a shootout of any kind, I like to see the winner get an extra point for it, but nothing more. The shootout (or penalties) does not reflect the game that was just played. I understand the winner take all in tournament type competition, but nothing else. Cheerleaders.....some MLS teams have/had them. Again, that is an attempt to Americanize the the experience, since virtually all American sports have them...even baseball. Mini games in the playoffs. MLS does that now (who could forget SJ vs. LA in 2003?), so that is a gimmick that has spilled over, although MLS has not always done that. To me the bigger "gimmicks" of the NASL were things like halftime shows. Who can forget Suicide Cyrus? We had him twice in San Jose....he did not complete the job the first time. When you think of things like player introductions, halftime events.....the show biz stuff....the US has impacted the world in that area of soccer. Plus, John Carbray painting the field....not a favorite of FIFA either. He did that in San Jose and in Washington. The San Jose Clash wanted to paint the center circle as a soccer ball for the first MLS game and it was denied permission. I always thought that kind of thing was pretty tight ass. In the end, I suppose some of that could be considered "gimmicks", but so was the designated hitter in baseball. Things change, and the changes are often viewed as gimmicks.
too tempting not to post... The Tulsa Roughnecks had a large fanbase of soccer-novices who loudly cheered for a really physical team playing on hard-as-cement astroturf. For all the skills on display, alot of goals came as a direct result of high bounces off corners, clearing passes, etc... remember a last second goal by Karl Heinz Granitza on the astroturf at Soldier Field when a ball kicked by the goalkeeper (Paul Coffee, I think) bounced at the 40 yardline and bounced another 20 yards to Granitza, who turned and rocketed a shot past Roughnecks GK Winston DuBose... I really think there were two NASLs... ONE from the early 70s with developing american players and summer transfers from Britain, a league with the Philadelphia Atoms and St Louis Stars and Dallas's Kyle Rote, Jr... ANOTHER after Pele's arrival when the league tried to go mainstream which inspired moronic and obnoxiously optimistic pronouncements of the league's future greatness... Granted, watching Johann Cruyff, Rodney Marsh, Franz Beckenbauer, Carlos Alberto, George Best, Roberto Bettega, etc, etc, etc, was wonderful back in the day. But I also got alot of enjoyment watching Hristo Stoichkov's days with the Fire in MLS. I'd agree that the talent was better in the post-Pele NASL (especially over the first few years of MLS) but for every Tampa, Minnesota and Vancouver were lousy teams in the Atlanta Chiefs, Philadelphia Fury and Houston Hurricane... Oh, and I hated the shootout... but liked the 35 yard offsides...
I guess the idea behind the 35 yard offside line was that it would make the game more offensive. It also often eliminated things like offside traps, which is a very defensive part of the game. However, eliminating offside traps also eliminated counter attack breakaways. Maybe they thought that since the forwards could play closer to goal, they would score more often. However, if the forwards play closer to goal, so do the defenders. It's not like the defense is going to let forwards play behind them. It did take away the judgement calls of the linesmen between the center line and the 35 yard line.....an meant less movement for the linesmen, as they did not venture beyond the 35 yard line. To me, it was the same thing as making the goal larger, another silly idea that fortunately did not happen. A bigger goal might change things for a season or two, but eventually the defense would be able to adjust to it. Actually, I would prefer to see giving yellow cards everytime a player pretends to pull one out toward the ref. I guess some might see that as a gimmick.
I HATE it when people get the words wrong Again, no. Bob Cousy was the commissioner of the American Soccer League from 1975-1980. Not the North American Soccer League. The ASL. That's fine. But FIFA didn't pressure the NASL to drop it. They insisted. It wasn't pressure. It was the threat of being an outlaw league. Because at that point in history we couldn't play. And Team America wasn't very good because some of the NASL teams wouldn't release their American players to play for TA on loan that year. But it was still a gimmick. But it's not a gimmick, right? Little different. SJ/LA in 2003 wasn't really a mini-game, it was series overtime. Mini-games in the NASL were actual games, played to their conclusion. They were just shorter.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong We can quibble about the sematics all day long. I never suggested that just because MLS does something it is not a "gimmick" by some standard. American sports are loaded with various things to attract the American audience. A lot of stuff is viewed as "gimmicks" by purists of the various sports, but it often puts butts in the seats. My point is that the NASL did not really do much that any different than sports of that era or sports of this era, like MLS. A perfect case for "semantics" is comparing a "mini-game" to FIFA "overtime". The names are different, but they are, in fact, the same thing, coin toss, half time, etc. Both are played to their conclusion. Team America was a gimmick, by some definitions. It did not work, but that does not mean it should not have been attempted. The Americans were not very good, regardless of which team had them, plus the rules about Americans on the field really impacted the whole idea. However, the logical extension of the concept is an entire league of Americans. Not possible then, but obviously possible now. Plus, there have been MLS coaches who have not been cooperative about releasing players for national team duty....ask Eric Wynalda about his experiences with Laurie Calloway in San Jose. It was always surprising to me that FIFA picked the 35 yard offside rule as something they would pursue. The shootout was, by far, a more serious bending of the rules. But, again, it is soccer and game officials (including FIFA) tend to have a rule or two that they seem to dwell upon. It is just part of the way things are done. I recall a ref who wrongly dwelled on the placement of the ball on a corner kick (insisting that the entire ball needed to be totally inside the corner arc....even gave a yellow card to a guy who would not do it). Of course, the things that I openly suggest as gimmicks were not addressed. Half time entertainment, pompous player introductions, national anthems, fireworks, etc.......all are "gimmicks" by my definition. It is not that I think it should not be done, but none of it has anything to do with playing the game.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong The offside line was a bigger change in the rules. The offside line affected the play for all 90 minutes of every game. The shootout had no effect on the conduct of play when they were actually playing soccer (except perhaps some strategic decisions), and was only used in a minority of games.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong But MLS "Series Overtime" was not in 2003. And that's what we were talking about with regards to LA/San Jose in 2003. Rodrigo Faria's goal ended that series immediately. I didn't compare a "mini-game" to FIFA "overtime." I know FIFA overtime is played to its conclusion. The NASL minigame was played to its conclusion (and had its own overtime and shootout). MLS Series Overtime, which is what you were referencing as akin to an NASL minigame, was not in 2003. I'm not even sure it is anymore.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong But the thing is, there is no evidence that the 35 yard offside line affected anything. It certainly did not change the scoring, which was the point of having it in the first place. If there had been more scoring, why have a shootout? More scoring would have increased the chances of one team winning during regular play. I personally did not care for the shootout at all. If anything, I would have preferred to see a tie, and barring that, maybe a single point for shootout winners. Penalties and shootouts often reward the inferior team. It is bad enough to reward the inferior team with equal points, but far worse to reward them with all of the points. I concede that they have yet to come up with a better method in a tournament situation. Few people probably remember this, but in the 60's, in a tie situation, in college soccer, the NCAA awarded the win to the team with the most corner kicks. Lots of stuff has been tried.....and most of it has not worked all that well. Much of the NASL's problem with their rules is that once they had them, they were reluctant to scrap them (then again, that is way FIFA works too). They were far more likely to just put another rule in place, on top of the ones that did not have the intended effect.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong The league began the 35-yard line experiment halfway through the 1972 season (a strange time to implement a new rule, but there it was). Anyway, it didn't have a big effect on scoring, as the chart below will show: 1967-1972...3.40 goals per game 1973-1981...3.49 goals per game 1982-1984...3.80 goals per game Whether it increased shots or scoring chances, I couldn't tell you because the NASL stats are spotty and I've never seen a stat for scoring chances. But just like the prevailing wisdom among many sports management types is that a team in playoff contention is good for business, therefore there should be as many playoff spots as possible, the prevailing wisdom at the time is that it would open up the game and make it more appealing to Americans. But they weren't looking at the actual results of things back then so much. They went more with what they thought would happen.
Re: I HATE it when people get the words wrong I think we are entirely on the same page regarding this. There was a prevailing attitude that some how, some way, the game needed to be "Americanized"......so they went about doing some things that they thought would do that. I don't know how many remember watching Mario Machado doing the English games on PBS in the 70's....he was just giving a voice over commentary to grainy, black and white videos. 11 men on the pitch, 1 sub available. The players were announced to the crowd, but not introduced as they are today. Old stadiums, old clocks which barely gave the crowd any idea of the time left. Of course, in those days, there was no announcements regarding what is now known as stoppage or extra time. Having known several people who attended games in those days.....it was NOT a family affair. The fans were primarily adult men and teenage boys. If anything, the NASL can claim a significant amount of credit for changing that aspect of the game in the US, and ultimately, in the world. People often do not realize how the US has affected the game in the rest of the world. Players came here, primarily from Europe, and were often awestruck by the atmosphere in some of the US stadiums (like San Jose). Families with their kids, kids playing half time games, dogs chasing frisbees, model airplane dog fights, cheerleaders arriving in helicopters (Krazy George....in fact, just Krazy George, regardless of how he got there)....this was stuff that was unheard of in England or elsewhere in the world. Now those were gimmicks.....pure show. That, in reality, was "Americanizing" the game.
I don't neccesarily agree that the target market is 10x bigger - because the sporting and entertainment is much more spread these days. In the 70's you didn't have the Sharks in San Jose to compete against, the NBA wasn't as huge as it is today - hell, a Super Bowl was played in cold weather, outdoors (unseasonably cold in The Big Easy) only baseball was a big consistent draw. We were in the midst of the Cold War and a national identity crisis and the biggest event in our young lives, the 1980 hockey game vs the Soviets wasn't even shown live. Eric Heiden was a national hero for speedskating. Sports were a lot different - they weren't glossy, highlight packages on grass, ice, or wood. You watched whatever Jim McKay put on Wide World of Sports and your local teams. How can you not be happy with attendance, the media hasn't embraced the sport - it hasn't penetrated the national psyche - give it another generation - and you know the neat thing about that? MLS' business plan will give it another generation, it won't meet the financial La Brea tarpits that Team America and the Cosmos sadly did.
Certainly in the 70s, the Quakes were the only game in town in San Jose. The Giants were having attendence issues (some games with as few as 1500 people...the San Jose Bees often drew more fans), the 49'ers moved to Candlestick, to the dismay of many loyal fans (plus, the NFL did not resemble the NFL of today). The Warriors won the NBA championship in the 74/75 season (something that is almost unbelievable today), yet they never really captured the hearts of people beyond their immediate fan base. The Quakes, in reality, were a decent sized rock in a pretty small pond of the Bay Area. The NASL was a pebble in the ocean, despite it's "relative" success stories of the late decade (Pele, Cosmos, Earthquakes [for a year or two]. During that decade, because of the relative success of the NASL in the mid-decade, there were several attempts at creating "professional" leagues in various sports. Volleyball (who can forget the San Jose Diablos?), tennis (although there is still a tennis league, but it does not have the same marketing as the original World Team Tennis), women's softball (twice), not to mention the attempts at competing leagues in basketball, hockey and football. There was a certain mindset that Americans would buy into about anything. Some very poor decisions were made across the board in US pro sports during the 70s and 80s. I have to admit that soccer has established itself in the minds of people far beyond what existed in 1979. I would be very happy to see MLS, or pro soccer in general, become something on par with the NHL. Up until about 1970, the National Hockey League was a regional organization. Major League Baseball, until 1958, was a regional organization, with no teams west of the Mississippi River, and baseball has a storied history in the US. Soccer has been "the sport of the future" for a couple of generations now. Hopefully, the correct corner has been turned.
I went to just an many NASL games as I have MLS and I do feel the MLS has done everything right that the NASL did not do to survive long term. - As I sit back now and watch Barcelona and Real Madrid in the USA, the connection to the NASL is quite interesting.. These clubs are all-star teams. The COSMOS were too. They were just 20-25 years ahead of their time. If the COSMOS were in the league now and the rest of the MLS was less , much like the majority of the NASL teams were, would things be the same or different? Is our level playing field bad now? How about DC United. Some years, like this year, they are running away in points. But because of the lack of a world class players, the attendence and interest is not on COSMO level. I don't know if a Beckham rule in the MLS and giving a marque player to every team is better , than having a COSMO type team in the league. -Does the baseball comparison work? The Yankees seem to try to buy the best team and don't always win the world series. Even the Cosmos did not win the NASL every year. - PS= Got to go see that COSMO movie- what a trip down memory lane. Makes me like Geogio even less now when I was an AZTEC fan.
OK, it does, but the river forms the city limits and state boundry on it's east side. That doesn't change anything that I said.