Which teams should join NISA for the 2018 season? The best options are probably: Albuquerque Baltimore Birmingham Charlotte Cleveland Detroit El Paso Honolulu Las Vegas Little Rock Memphis Milwaukee New Orleans Virginia Beach
Start with Detroit and Chattanooga, then remove all the teams east of The Mississippi and sout of Tennessee, and you have a start. 1. Detroit City FC 2. Chattanooga FC 3. AFC Cleveland 4. FC Buffalo 5. Boston City FC 6. Hartford City FC 7. Asheville City SC 8. Grand Rapids FC
Is there any information about this? I've read vague things on twitter but is there a starter guide to it somewhere?
Forget about Buffalo FC. They have no funding to jump to pro. They seem happy with what they are, a "junior age" amateurs filled with College players and high level beer leaguers. Much like what USHL is for hockey in the US. Buffalo FC is largely run as a break even project by a sports columnist Nick Mendola. He writes for NBC sports blogs for soccer stories. Buffalo FC doesn't even bother with doing the US Open Cup Tournament. They're that strapped for cash.
Cleveland would be a steal of a market for a 3rd tier league. From everything I've read, this is potentially a really cool league with loads of potential for growth. Peter Wilt and co. have thought this out well. I'm all in. Hoping Northeast Ohio is a part of it!
That's the case for the rest of it, then sure no buffalo. But they simply didn't qualify for the open cup last year. Not an issue of deciding to play or not.
As is the case with most things associated with Wilt and the NASL, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sorry if this whole thing just doesn't smell right to me. As the same time the USL, which has proven to be a stable and well-funded league, is starting its own affiliated D3. If this gets off the ground, good for NISA, but I'm not banking on it being successful.
NISA Official @NISALeague 1h1 hour ago A great day of meetings w/a dozen #NISAD3 teams & @USSoccer execs followed by beers in the hotel bar #makinghistory anyone else think the bald guy in the white shirt is Andy Davi of the MKE Torrent?
I can buy, I guess sonny d from tulsa was there too, so we have Detroit, Chattanooga, and Tulsa as defiantly probablys.
It's a big step from the amateur ranks to the pro ranks. It seems as though they have been able to get interested parties (as has USL's proposed third division, which will be second to market). I am skeptical they can meet the ambitious goal of being "built out" at 24 teams within three years as PW has mentioned, because no one has ever done that. Bears watching, obviously. Though it makes me chuckle a bit that many of the people who denigrate teams for moving up a division via any other way than winning their league support clubs mentioned above who, you know, haven't actually won their league and would be moving up by circumventing that. And, as with any other prospective league, people make a list of cities they've heard of and feel through some vague metrics would be "great markets" for a particular level, and then we go to how many times each team will play each other and so on....
Not really. In 2015, only 32 NCAA men's soccer teams averaged over 1,000 per game (31 in D1, 1 in D3) and only 10 averaged over 2,000 per game. The attendance leader, for the 9th consecutive year, was UC Santa Barbara with 3,844. Also, if any college teams were to leave the NCAA structure, they would most likely go into the PDL or NPSL like BYU did. (Of course, no one since BYU has done it.)
I, for one, would love to see this. Not necessarily "NCAA" teams, but college in general move into the amateur leagues where the schedule has a drastic change. I've seen numerous college budgets, there's plenty that can handle this change. It could even be more beneficial with more regional league structure. Won't happen, but it'd be great to see the college game get blown up a bit.
Yes why not? BYU already plays or played in the PDL bypassing the NCAA I believe. A lot of college players are already playing in the NPSL and PDL in the offseason so I don't see a huge difference. They can still maintain their amateur status and play in both leagues.
College players can maintain their amateur status as long as they play with other amateur players. They can play against pro teams but not on teams that have pro players. NCAA teams cannot turn pro and stay NCAA teams. BYU's PDL team is an amateur team, there are no professional players on their team.
I'm not so sure about that. Unless rules were changed, I remember a time where college players were playing with and against professionals and signed a waiver to maintain their amateur status. As long as they weren't paid, no one said a word. Of course that was a long time but I don't know if the rules have changed much. Also college player can play in U23 international tournaments with and against players who earn millions of dollars so if they can do that, I don't see why they can't do the same in club ball. Even if they can't, I'm sure the rule can be changed sooner or later.
College players are not permitted to play WITH (same team) paid [pro] players. College players can play AGAINST (opposing teams) paid players. For sure. That's the rules. College players can get national team waivers to permit them representing the US at a variety of international competitions.
Maybe it changed but they used to be able to. My cousins and friends played for the Earthquakes & SF Bay Blackhawks while in college during the WSA/WSL/APSL years. Of course that was maybe 25-30 years ago and there was no MLS but no one objected or cared. Many during that time played for both club and country in many WCQ matches while in college from what I recall. Recently fired Quakes GM John Doyle comes to mind but many others as well.
With NASL losing its Div. 2 sanctioning, and some of its teams running to the USL or collapsing, do i have any wagers on NISA changing its name to NASL? I'm thinking it's a lead pipe lock guarantee! (Legal notice: this is not a guarantee. Past performance is no indication of future results. This offer is only legal in the Cayman Islands. Your mileage may vary.)
NASL had D2 sanction rejected initially. It's not final, nor does it guarantee they drop to D3. They would still have to meet D3 guidelines. That said, USL will be undergoing their D2 sanctioning decision as well. There are way more teams on waivers in USL than there were in NASL. Good thing going for USL is they at least have the required amount of teams for any division they'd like to be in.
USLs waivers are the MLS2 team don't play in big enough stadiums. They can either just move the team into the home stadium or move them out of the major league market and into a minor one that will support it better. NASL only has 5 real teams; Miami, Edmonton, Indy, NC and the Cosmos. They shouldn't be D2. Honestly I feel like Edmonton saved this league last year solely to have somewhere to play until the CPL started. Knowing that D2 wasn't going to last and he could get out without paying the exit fee or just leaving causing others like NC and Indy who almost left before to also leave and let the league collapse and not having to pay the exit fee.
That's the big difference between the leagues. The NASL can't come up with 12 teams that meet the standards. Last round, the USL had something like 20 teams that meet the standards and another 10 that had problems with stadium/field size or coaching licenses. Some of those teams will fix those problems and those that don't have a direct path to USL_D3