But they already have one, Edmonton. They are sanctioned to play in the US league, have to meet the other requirements to play in D2...yet curiously the one rule they don't apply to them is the time zone thing, of which by not including them technically keeps NASL in non-compliance with the sanctioning criteria.
While I kind of agree that Edmonton should count (and PR before) Canada teams do get special treatment (teams outside the USA) since by D2 rule only 25% can be from outside the USA (USSF jurisdiction), so it is not as out of left filed as you may think. Well it is more complicated than that, they are sanctioned by the Canadian Assosiation but receive waivers to play in a USA league. USSF does not have as much control over Canada teams as they do over American teams. USSF wants to increase American teams, so they really do not worry about Canada (and arguably shouldn't) that is why the rule applies to US only. Well you created a fantasy scenario that does not apply. But as the rule stands Canada does not count, so even if the rule was the same as before, NASL would still be in violation of that standard if they fail to expand west (mountain or Pacific) because Edmonton does not count, you (and me some what) may not agree, but the rule was 3 time zones for American teams. NASL is still as of right now in violation of the old and the new standard. I would see your point if say NASL was ready to expand to Boise Idaho and then USSF changed the rules, but again, everyone knew that Canada did not count, so nothing has changed. Again you may not agree with the rule, but everyone knew that Canada (and PR) teams do not count for this particular standard, so no, nothing has really changed, NASL still does nto meet this requirement, old or new. Edit: I was actually more surprised about Puerto Rico, since they are a US territory even if controlled under a different FA. But even the Islanders as far as we know, did not count for this standard.
Mandating that a US sanctioned league needs to have 75% of its teams located in the United States is fine and pretty reasonable. That isn't the issue in my eyes, but if you are going to allow one of those teams to count toward the 25% limit then it follows naturally that by virtue of being accepted into the league then the other rules governing D2 teams should also apply. Such as their geographical location for the lame time zone requirement. Yes. It is slightly more complicated, but the precedent has already been set as USSF has allowed teams from Canada to participate in the US leagues, due in no small part to $$$ and that the CPL is barely above semi-pro status. Which is why they have the 75% rule, i get that, but once you are in it makes no sense at all to not count that admitted franchise towards the D2 sanctioning requirements on all counts. Same for Puerto Rico. I'm not disputing what the rule says, i am disputing the rational for its existence and speculating on its motive and intent in the wake of the recent rumor about USL Pro seeking D2 sanctioning.
The rule (3 time zone for American teams) was there before the USL rumor started. So it is not valid speculation IMO. Again if NASL had a Boise or El Paso expansion team, I could join you in that speculation, but as it stands now, rule change or not, Unless NASL expands they would have failed to meet the old standard and the new one.
Why does the USSF need a reason that *YOU* find acceptable to change things now? They decided that it is in US Soccer's best interests that in a US D1 or D2 sanctioned league, there be US teams in the 3 most populated timezones (ones that make up >90% of the population of the country). They also introduced a whole lot of other changes in professional league standards (including the entirety of standards for D1&D3 mens, as well as D1-3 womens leagues). I would hazard a guess that they have been working on developing and finalizing these standards for quite some time. You can be angry about the previous standards, which were only published about D2, and could definitely have been a way to try to strongarm NASL out, but these new standards are much more thought out and clear in their intent. They intend to encourage the development of a strong professional league system in the US.
Personally I think the mean and median team salary would be a better way to determine D1, D2, and D3, because that actually fairly accurately represents quality of players and financial standing of the league. It doesn't use arbitrary standards such as your owner has to be worth at least this much, and you must play in a city at least this big. If other sports had those kind of rules the Green Bay Packers wouldn't exist, and they are one of the most successful NFL franchises by any measure.
Peter Wilt is about the only name that comes to mind readily. The guy who should be the commissioner of the NASL instead of the sock puppet ass clown that is.
http://bigapplesoccer.com/leagues/usl2.php?article_id=40102 USL Pro has renamed it's self United Soccer League, next they apply for D2 status, if they get NASL could be in trouble. Can anyone shed some light as to the ramifications?
Canadian teams will be able to join USL, USOC will start USL and NASL in the same round or something. MLS will have reserve teams in D2.
Quite a few teams will drop out from the league/form a new D3 league due to not being able to meet the USSF requirements for a D2 league.
How many/Who are you talking about? I'm assuming you're saying USL clubs not meeting D2 requirements ... and I don't know who that would be. A few are short on "capacity", but not by much (modest increases would get them up to snuff) ... I don't know enough about the owner finances requirements and how that effects the current USL clubs (curious if you knew).
Stadiums are one issue which would prevent them from initially making the jump (they would most likely need to meet those requirements immediately). Finances and ownership requirements are the more likely causes of hangups. I don't have any hard info on the ownerships, and probably no one outside of USSF or the teams/league themselves does. However, many of the teams in USL are there specifically because they didn't want to/couldn't meet the old USSF D2 standards, so they probably still won't want to meet them.
Fair enough ... not a lot of information no one else knows, thought you might have known more. Find it hard to believe that USL would be seeking D2 sanctioning without a majority of the ownership groups prepared to make the jump if necessary. I don't think the stadium capacity issue would be much of an issue ... Harrisburg - add 1k "temperary" seating if necessary Pittsburgh - add 1k "temperary" seating if necessary Toronto FC 2 - play at BMO or add 1.5k seating in Vaughn Colorado Springs - add 1.5k temperary seating Galaxy 2 - play at Stub Hub OC Blues - could be a problem Portland - less than 200 seats short Seattle - 500 seats short Vancouver - 1.5k short Maybe it's a bigger deal ... maybe it's not, I don't know what "seating capacity" requires ... some temperary/rented bleachers can increase the capacity pretty easily.
If USL is promoted to Div II. Then does that mean that NASL is automatically demoted? Or can two leagues occupy the same Division. I am not a pro/rel advocate but it seems to me that the only obvious difference between divisions would be the round in which teams enter the cup competition.
This is absolutely correct. I looked into this a while back with some help from people on these boards. The finances of some independent teams are a little uncertain, but for those for which information was available, the wealth of the owners were vastly greater than many assumed. Indeed, IIRC, we only found one that was pretty clearly below the DII financial threshold, and his team (Harrisburg) may be taken over by Philly. (I have doubts about the Switchbacks too.) All the MLS-2 teams qualify without any problem. The idea that the USL owners can't afford DII is, in all likelihood, false.
It could also be part of the reasoning behind Dayton moving down. The move WILL slow down expansion because you reduce the number of potential owners in this country ... unless you provide a D3 alternative (which I think it something we haven't thought about yet).
That would not necessarily be the case, as the CSA could still choose not to allow USL to enter standalone teams in Canada. They have a close relationship with the NASL apparently and also don't want to be left with less markets/cities for their all Canadian D3 league thats slowly being put together.
I saw your discussion on this and other than mostly speculation there hasn't been any concrete info shown that most of D3 USL teams could meet the financial requirements. It was apparently a major reason they didn't want to apply for D2 when NASL did in the first place along with the greater costs being D2 incurs. Surely the MLS farm teams have the money so they have more teams that could meet that requirement now though, others that could not would possibly go into another D3 set up by USL if they chose to set up such a league. In any event, if USL receives D2 sanctioning in the next few years its not a magic designation that puts them at the same level of quality that the NASL is - NASL would still be the better quality D2 at least at first having years of experience in D2 and more professional organizations overall with a higher level of play and teams with higher player/operating budjets and higher attendances and revenue's. USL would also still be MLS's farm team/affiliate minor league and NASL the independant pro league that differentiates them and puts them in a different light and stature. In one way but not a perfect example it would be like the NHL and WHA leagues in 70's pro hockey where they were both seen as pro leagues at the same level but one(NHL) was clearly better that the other. I think that the different models of the leagues would still mean that it wouldn't necessarily make a major difference if USL received D2 sanctioning along with NASL in the future and it would still be similar to the way things are now.
I like your take on this. If the USL does acquire D2 status that would certainly put a huge hold on the rapidly expanding independent teams with the costs now equal to the already established and now movement of the NASL with better more dedicated ownership groups as well as already a movement towards better stadium facilities already happening. The USL clubs that are the minor league affiliates with a MLS club will be firmly in place. It would likely place the MLS clubs who are owning their own team at a lower cost playing at a less than D2 quality stadium to make an investment to be in line with the other top Minor leagues of MLB and NHL. For current independent clubs or future expansion clubs into D2 the better established NASL vs teams and cities that are not a minor league MLS2 teams. The NASL would certainly be a better option. Along with the CSA already sanctioned NASL, aside from the MLS clubs USL teams, The cost difference or stadium standards would be the same with the USL as D2. So why would say Calgary want to play a club that is an MLS2 team. Opposed to the top team from already rival canadian cities in NHL and CFL. EDM, Ottawa, future Hamilton, and possible other cities. Would be a much better marketing sell to be playing the likes of EDM, Ottawa, Hamilton, etc opposed to the minor league teams of Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto.
Wouldn't USL have lower expansion costs even at the D2 level? That's just an assumption, but I don't know why they'd need to raise that cost. Plus, the travel in NASL is still greatly different than the USL. Plus, we don't know if ALL ownership groups consider MLS2 teams a bad thing ... association with MLS may be a positive to some ownership groups (and that's what you're talking about, not fans ... fans don't make the decision as to what league the team enters ... that's done by the ownership group). Now, a wrong decision by the ownership group may mean you cut off a certain group of fans, but that can be factored in their decision too. Good discussion. Going to be interesting. I'm guessing it's not a one sided decision and you'll see a majority in one vs the other.
I think he just means the minimum requirements would be the same as NASL, as in stadium size, owner wealth, etc.
I understand ... he just kept throwing the "costs now equal/cost difference gone" and it made me think of the expansion fee's.
Well NASL could try to lower their expansion fees and yearly league fee (or what ever they call this). But 1, teams that already paid (Indy, Jacksonville) would not be happy, 2. That would mean the league would no longer have money to keep teams like Atlanta and Minnesota (before they sold it) afloat for longer than 1 year. Remember the D2 standards do try to set up league wide bond to keep a team afloat in case ownership bails in the middle of the season, but nothing about keeping the team going for multiple years.
I didn't think that all of the USL Pro teams had enough resources to "promote" to DII, perhaps we are going to see the return of the old "USL 1st Division" as DII & "USL 2nd Division" as DIII?