Hey guys, just curious if you would support an '09 NPSL team, i'm part of the group that is researching locations and San Francisco is very interesting, travel wouldn't be too bad, it would be up to the costs of stadia around the area, potential support and whether or not a Victory USL 1 team was coming back in '09, what do you think? contact me if you have any more information/questions etc..
I know I would be interested in putting together another soccer team for San Francisco, but I don't know much about the NPSL. What is it?
NPSL is the equivalent of the PDL in USL(in the US soccer pyramid), except its much cheaper to operate, and has no age restrictions, and the PDL is based mainly on development, so for a franchise looking to move up the chain, getting a competitive side together is much easier than in PDL, if you could shoot me a PM or email, i'd love to chat more, see if the 1906 guys would be interested.
I also thought about the Victory starting a NPSL club. However, San Francisco already has the Seals playing in the PDL. Its already tough enough as it is operating one club in the city of San Francisco never mind two at the PDL/NPSL level -- we need to put our resources together and have one strong amateur club in San Francisco. I'm all for bringing back the Victory, but the Victory were appealing because they were playing at a higher level than the Seals and the two clubs were not competing for the same players, etc. I'd rather be patient and wait for new investors to re-launch the Victory USL-1 club in 2009. If you are looking to launch a NPSL club in the San Francisco area -- the East Bay is much better option. The Seals usually play a couple of home games in the East Bay. We tend to have bigger crowds in the East Bay than in San Francisco proper. The NPSL is also appealing because there are a lot of NPSL clubs in the area and so compared to PDL where most of the clubs are in Southern California travel costs are greatly reduced. It really would make a lot more sense financially for the Seals to play in the NPSL, but we have already committed to the USL/PDL.
I believe there is a NPSL club in San Jose ... Real San Jose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_San_Jose I'd link to their site but google tells me it's malicious.
concerning the PDL club, PDL isn't much of a threat as its a development league, with age restrictions, mainly used for college players to keep their fitness levels up when out of school. NPSL would be a competitive stepping stone towards a higher professional league, and would ideally retain the Victory name.
I would go. I have never been to a NPSL game but I know guys who have and they say it was pretty good. The comparisons to PDL as far a skill level goes is fairly accurate.
The NPSL is merely an offshoot of the PDL begun by disgruntled West Coast PDL franchises. There is virtually no difference between the two leagues. They draw their core group of players from the exact same talent pool. And the NPSL's looser age restrictions only add more players who never were able to make it in the pro ranks or simply continue to play for the love of the game. In fact, the PDL at this juncture produces more professional prospects than the NPSL. In terms of serving as a stepping stone into the professional ranks I don't see how the NPSL has any advantage here. The NPSL has no affiliations with professional leagues. A PDL team would get a break on franchise fees if they moved up from amateur to USL D-2. Plus if a club can't afford to start a PDL team how in the world can they expect to afford to make the leap to the professional ranks? You get what you pay for, and the low entry fee into the NPSL is reflected in the overall dysfunction of the league. It's so easy to start an NPSL team that you see quite a few shoddy organizations come on board. A league run by teams without a solid league office hasn't turned out too well. I know you are gung ho on the NPSL but I just wanted to add a dose of reality to the dialogue out here. NPSL and PDL are pretty much the same product. PDL is a bit more polished but has some pretty high fees. NPSL is dirt cheap, but not as well organized. The product on the field is virtually identical.
For an organization set on moving up the ranks, NPSL makes more sense than PDL, its not that we wouldn't be able to afford PDL, but why pay so much more for virtually the same competition level? would make sense use that money towards the move up the ranks, and reinvesting it into the club than giving it away to the USL.
But where are you gonna move up to? NPSL is no a very good steeping stone for a USL-2 or 1, since the USL hates the NPSL, so all the benefits of saving money goes no where cause your basically blocked from going to the USL pro side from the NPSL, and I know you are not even thinking of jumping to MLS. So its a safe bet to say a PDL team is better if your planing to jump to the pro leagues.
There are plans for NPSL to develop a Pro Division from the stronger NPSL clubs. However, there is nothing definitive at the moment. There's no doubt that the NPSL is growing very rapidly, but there's also a lot of turnover from season to season. There is also turnover in the PDL ranks from season to season, but there just seems to be a higher level of stability in the PDL. It really would be great if the USL could develop a USL2 Western Division -- it would give ambitious clubs like Fresno a stepping stone to USL1.
That argument doesn't care much weight, unless you planned on joining a new professional league outside of the USL. If you join the USL as a PDL team and then decided to move up to D-2 or D-1, you would be given credit for your PDL franchise fee against the higher professional franchise fees. So, at the end of the day, whether you started in NPSL or PDL you'd pay the same money to join one of the USL pro leagues.
Well I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. It costs around $5,000 to join the NPSL (cheap) but $50,000 to join the PDL. I am not sure what kind of break the USL gives PDL teams that want to move up (when has that happened recently anyways?). But I am sure, at best, they might waive $50,000 of the reportedly $150,000 USL2 or $450,000 USL1 franchise entrance fee. I think walkingcity's idea is that if you can get into the NPSL for $5,000 and build a decent organization (using money you saved from not going PDL) you will be in a good situation to then jump to the USL2 (for example) and pay the $150,000 for a franchise. And the idea that USL wouldn't allow a NPSL team to join the league is not valid. The SJ Frogs just did in 2007 and the Kalamazoo team did it for 2008. USL didn't seem to mind. Their money is just as good as anyone else's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and Lord knows I've been wrong way more times than I'd like to admit, but no one has made that argument in this discussion. It's pretty common knowledge that teams have jumped over from the NPSL to the PDL. The argument is which league would serve as the best stepping stone to the pro ranks and I think valid arguments can be made on both sides. Would be so much better for all parties involved if the 'Great Western Schism' in amateur U.S. soccer could be healed and one big league formed.
you think USL would turn away an NPSL team trying to make it to the pro level? They may hate the NPSL as an entity, but they'll take anyone with a check in hand. The took the SJ Frogs over from the NPSL to the PDL, so I don't think they would say no if the Vics made it good enough in the amateur ranks with a solid business and wanted to go pro. The USL needs a lot more positive business groups with the former Vics, the Virginia Beach saga last year, and the Rhino's looking more and more like they are going to go defunct.