I read with quite some interest a post on this board on the PDL team of week and the scarcity of college players. The Dynamo (PSL) just played the Raleigh PDL team last night and all players are returning to college next year. I was in attendance with a professional coach that has played internationally. He was at the game to take a look at players and had some interesting comments. On the Raleigh team he saw no player that was ready to play professionally, please read on, at this time. In the same breathe he added that it was great that these college players were getting this opportunity to develope and more of this type of thing was needed. Next thing out of his mouth was that in his opinion it would be good for the Raleigh team to have a couple of veteran players involved to help the younger players along. He also thought is was excellent for the PDL to play the PSL. Basically, isn't that the consensus of this board on the purpose of PDL, and supposedly the league? Then what would be the purpose of a PDL team loading up with older players except to give those guys some place to play? I've been around soccer long enough to know it isn't for the money, either a player or owner. And before someone jumps all over me, Ford Williams had pretty much a nightmare game, including two chips over him for goals. The coach knew of Ford, and I think his comments on that were interesting. First, that is the danger/problem of looking at a player in one game, to easy to get a skewed view one way or another. Second was that this is exactly what players of Ford's ability need. To play under conditions where natural and/or superior athletic ability will not get you by.
posting ? actually the post I referred to is in the college section, guess maybe I should have put it there, if so , card me.
This is fine. The posts you are referring to are, I believe, https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=51584 and https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=50517 Not to plug another board, but there was also a recent discussion related to this here: http://www.usldiscussions.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000484 I don't know if there is a "consensus" on this board. I believe some overage players ARE needed, but others feel very strongly the league should be strictly for young kids. Most seem to agree that the current "limit" of 8 over-23s per team is a little bit excessive. My feeling is that the teams are business entities, and fielding only youngsters - while admirable - limits their abilities to produce a winning team. If we really want a "developmental league", the money is going to have to come from pockets other than these poor little PDL teams. After all, they're generally not in this for philanthropic reasons alone.
The "limit" of eight is preposterous. I agree that some older, experienced players can help the development of the younger players, both as teammates and opponents. I think the limit should be three or maybe four players older than 23. I mean, these guys aren't playing for relegation or promotion. There's no financial payout for winning, no increased TV revenue if you make the finals, etc so winning or losing isn't big business in the PDL. If they just want to be the US fourth division, that's fine and they can do whatever they want in terms of fielding teams. But, as long as the D in PDL stands for development, than they should be emphasizing develoiping players - for the higher USL divisions, MLS and even to improve college ball - and stick with college and even some HS age players as their primary source of talent. As it stands now, the PDL is a joke because there isn't nearly enough emphasis placed on development. And, I say this as a huge proponent and advocate of top college, youth national team and even HS players playing PDL.
bidness is bidness Sue, I've got to go with Sandon on this one. There are very little financial rewards to winning in PDL. Maybe an argument could be made that a winning team puts a few more fans in the seats. I did not know of the limit of 8 professionals. Because these guys aren't paid, maybe that is a realistic number to have, not knowing who may be available with "real job" conflicts. Maybe they could put a 3 player limit on the game roster. Another valid point by Sandon is the "4th division." I don't necessarily fault dropped professionals looking for a place to play, there just is way too much supply of players for the demand. But is their place in the development league?
As long as the third division only has 13 teams, yes. If we had a decent third division with 20-30 teams, then there would be no excuse for those players playing in the PDL. But, if you are 24 and not quite A-League caliber and are nowhere near a PSL team, but have a PDL team locally, I see no problem for playing in the PDL team at least one or two years. And there CAN be financial rewards for those teams who put the effort into that end of things. The team I follow had four owners in its first three years of existence. The first three owners were pretty incompetent to put it mildly. The team couldn't compete on the field and attraced very little attention off of it. The fourth (and current) owner brought an eye for talent, boundless energy to promote the team, and a little bit of business sense. The team wins and averages ~1000 fans/game, and the affiliated camps are some of the most popular in the state. Yes, there are overage players on the Voltage, but there are also a few local boys, and if this owner hadn't taken over, there would be NOWHERE in the state for those local kids to train and play at this level in the summer.
Ditto on Sandon's comments. But, Greensboro_Pride_fan, I need to correct you on one thing. The Raleigh team does have overage players that are out of college. Buehler and Norbet are both college grads. Other than, I believe the whole team is comprised of college aged players. Also, IMO, some of Raleigh's better players weren't there last night. I'm very curious to hear who the pro coach is that was there, and if you want, send me a PM with his comments. I've been outspoken on these boards in the past, stating my contempt with the "overage" players, as Sandon pointed out...but as Sue mentioned, the real emphasis in PDL is Winning, not developing players. Also, some teams are just as political as your son's U12 team. I thought at the PDL level, soccer politics were gone...but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm going to chime in on the side with Sue. I agree that 8 is probably too many oveage players, but I think that 3 is not enough. My preference would be 5 - 6. When you take into consideration off field issues/commitments and injuries this is a good number. I have to chuckle every time I read that winning isn't important. Then why keep score, have standings, and playoffs? Why not just set up training centers around the country and have these players come and train a couple of times a week. Having a winning or competive team does two things. It may help you put extra butts in seats. An extra 100 people a game may be the difference between losing 50,000 instead of 100,000. Most of the teams in the PDL can not afford to continue to lose money year after year, even if it is a lot less then what MLS teams lose. Also it helps to attract better players to your team or even to keep some of the good players you have. As a player would you prefer to win games or get beat most of the time. Also I find it hard to beleive that once you hit 24 you quit developing and will never be a better player. I've spent most of the last few seasons and volunteering for PDL team and think that the over 23 players are a very important part of any team. Also in this time I've seen both players and organizations develop. So in my view the PDL is currently developing better players.
100 people per game x 9 home games = 900 people. $100,000 - $50,000 = $50,000. $50,000/900 people = $55.56 per ticket. An extra 100 people a game is more likely the difference between losing $50,000 and losing $43,700.
Nobody said winning was important, it was pointed out that winning is a higher priority than developing players in the PDL. And since the D in PDL stands for development, that's kind of ironic, don't you think? Concerning overage players...why are they so important? Almost all of the overage players I've seen, aren't very good....in fact, in most cases, they shouldn't be playing at all...but they are, because they're older and that means they're supposed to be better. If the overage players aren't really adding anything to the team, then why have them? Everyone assumes that because the guy is older, he's better, well guess what....that's not the case. These overage guys need to be playing in some recreation adult league, not in the PDL taking up space.
Very good points made here, each has a good argument for their position as well. It is as varied as the teams are. First, I believe the limit for pros on a PDL team is 11 isn't it, as per the USASA rules? There seem to be two camps in the PDL, those that want to win and those that want to develop. I have respect for the teams that play the young players, such as Toledo and KC, I also think that peppering the team with more experienced players does help develop the youth. Memphis has Tony Kuhn, he has been on 3 MLS teams, one year he was on the one that won the MLS cup, last year he played A-League for half the year. He is not working his way back up the ladder but he has some outstanding moves and thought processes that youth players can learn a bunch from. The first post in this series mentioned a coach stating that nobody on the PDL team was ready for the pros, that is probably the case most of the time. Memphis has an 'elderly' team, but they do have some good youth. Most people would agree that the 16 year old (Ryan Hoorman) is the only possible pro material and that is a big 'possible'. I think we are going full circle. At the end of the 1994 season the USL (then all amateur) had 72 teams and they voted and split 36 to 36 teams, hald went PDL and half went D3. That seems to be kind of where we are now, some of the PDL teams want to push the rules to the edge while others play only youth. I would think that the USL could lower the fee for PSL down to the same level as the PDL and many of the PDL teams could break off to the PSL and then they could change the number of pros, number of over 23's without alienating any teams.
I think that's an important point. The A-League and D3 have lost 22 teams in the last 4 years...that's over 300 older players pushed into the PDL.
Some of those "lost" teams have dropped down a level, either from A-League to D3 or D3 to PDL. And the reason some of those PDL teams might not be interested in going to the PSL is they'd have no interest in having a club that's outwardly "professional" with salaries and workman's comp and employment taxes and stuff. At least, those who are doing okay financially (there have to be some PDL teams who are doing well, Kalamazoo used to do great). Self-relegation has often been about finances, and I don't see D3 getting too much bigger anytime soon (in a lot of places it's just a glorified PDL now, there are teams where the players are probably losing money on the deal with driving in and other expenses).
That's interesting, Kenn, I've been wondering for a while now (on my show, www.soccerfanaticsradio.com) if the PSL might not become redundant if MLS ever expands to any degree. There simply might not be a place for a level between PDL and the A-League if there are, say, 14-16 MLS teams. Intro players go to PDL, and then go to the A-League to turn pro.
redundant SY, as much as I would hope your idea isn't valid, I'm not so sure smart money wouldn't go with you. However, if it does go your way I see PDL becoming more of a conflict. I'll use the Carolina Dynamo as an example. The owner has the financial ability to move to A league right now, but he doesn't because of the losses he would have. He can "afford" it, he just doesn't chose to do it. I can't see many more PSL owners in any better situation. So unless some changes were made I don't see many current PSL teams moving to the A league. Also, correct me if I am wrong, the A league doesn't seem to hve outside investors jumping at a chance to bring in new teams. So with the MLS expansion I see the Aleague losing 1,2, or 3 franchises and gaining maybe the same from the PSL and new sources. In other words, I see no new spots for the remaining top PSL players to go. If the PSL folds let's say most teams drop to PDL. Use the Dynamo again, the team is made up of 4 or 5 college seniors and the rest guys with professional experience. One heck of a PDL team. Of course, to abide by ncaa regs PDL players can not be paid, so that throws a little more mud in the water as to how this all shakes out. But it just shows, to me at least, that a PSL league is not redundant and is very much needed. The PDL to develope scholastic players. The PSL as a training/proving ground. The A league as support to the top level MLS. Whether the PSL remains is anyones bet. But if it does disappear look for major changes in the PDL.
It's just that given the choice between losing a lot of money in the A-League, slightly less money in D3, or even less in the PDL, many choose the PDL because of the other ancillary issues that come with paying players. D3 had 40 teams or something when I was working in it. What's it got now? The middle class has been squeezed out. There comes a point at which it has two few teams to make sense, unless it's a D3 East and D3 West and the winners meet in the final.