But surely that's worse. Currently the 69th biggest city and 49th biggest metro areas have MLS teams. That leaves plenty of big cities and metro areas in with a chance of joining an alternative league.
It's not irrelevant when the subject is "How Do We Stop The Largest Cities From Monopolizing The 1st Division?" That's why I included cities and MSAs. Basically as it stands MLS includes 28 of the largest 49 MSAs.
Cities in this context is shorthand for metros, though. Nobody is concerned with arbitrary historical anomalies that determine legal city boundaries. It’s like how Sitka AK is the largest city in the U.S…. by area. It’s not really relevant to anything meaningful.
I was extremely happy to leave Birmingham (and never go back to live there) when I went to university. But I worked there for a few months 12 years ago and it gave me a fresh perspective on the city. Now I visit it on every UK trip and love it. And, yeah, the grittiness and unpretentiousness is definitely part of the appeal.
Another example of a team whose crazy ownership had consequences in a pro/rel pyramid as opposed to being rewarded for their failure as happens in US closed leagues.
The obvious answer to that is select teams based on their performances on the field of play rather than allowing a league to select based on whose cartel membership fee they want to accept.
How do you know? Anyway, I included both to cover my bases, based on population. There are 28 metro areas represented in MLS, KC is #31, San Jose #35, Austin #36, SLC #47. The top MSAs without MLS, assuming Detroit, Vegas and San Diego will probably get eaten up at some point, are: Phoenix, SF/Oakland, San Bernadino Valley, Tampa/St Pete, Baltimore, San Antonio, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, Indy and Cleveland, all bigger than the San Jose and Austin MSAs. Then you have Virginia Beach, Jacksonville FL, Milwaukee, OKC, Raleigh, Memphis, Richmond, Louisville and New Orleans, all bigger than the SLC MSA. To finish off the top 50 you have Hartford, Buffalo and Birmingham, then at #51 Rochester. You could go on. But anyway you have 9 of the top 35 and 22 of the top 51 MSAs without a MLS club. You need 12 teams to start a D1 league, increasing to 14 after a few years.
12 is the minimum based on D1 PLS. "League must have a minimum of 12 teams to apply. By year three, the league must have a minimum of 14 teams."
I guess the New Orleans Jesters are on hiatus this season. Too bad. I'd like to see the NFL start a second division league in the spring.
User error. "In early 2019, the Jesters exercised their right to become inactive for the 2019 NPSL season. In 2020, the Jesters resumed play in the NPSL." - Wikipedia
I'm equally depressed about Notts County not being in a playoff spot as New York City no longer being in a playoff spot. If the US loses to Mexico I may as well give up soccer.
I went to an NCAA Division II Men's Soccer match today between host West Chester and visitors East Stroudsburg. Both are Pennsylvania (PSAC) schools. West Chester won 1-0, with a 2nd half goal (R) ! The match was somewhat enjoyable, but there's no automatic pro/rel in NCAA, but voluntary pro/rel among schools. West Chester actually were champions of the 1961 NCAA Division I season, before later self-relegating, like 1977 D1 Champions Hartwick (NY), which self-relegated to D3 a few years ago. Pro/rel advocates: your challenge is to say how automatic pro/rel would help the NCAA, in all sports. Personally, I'd start by firing NCAA President Mark Emmert, who has outlived his usefulness, if he ever had any! That's all, folks!
Pro/Rel in college would take quite a revolution. Along with other changes, NCAA colleges have to participate in a particular division in all sanctioned sports for the most part. DII and DIII schools are allowed to play up in Division 1 in a single men's or women's sport but that's it. So if you are Division 1 in basketball or soccer for example you have to be Division 1 in almost all your sports. Most of the teams playing up in D1 do so in hockey or lacrosse as their one sport. If you did pro/rel teams from a single university would wind up in different divisions. That would really mess with conferences which are almost entirely division based. University presidents run the NCAA. Getting them on board for pro/rel would be very, very difficult.
Prah/rel would be bad brah, considering the entire team changes composition every few years. You could end up with a really bad team being relegated only to have the best team in the nation stuck in a lower league 3 years later. If I took that role I'd start by imposing FIFA rules in NCAA games. I'd create an amateur cup which colleges could compete in against USASA teams. I'd also like to see a national amateur team, which could include college players. Several international associations field amateur teams.
All that said, soccer could follow the college rugby model and distance itself from the NCAA. College rugby is almost entirely a club sport and they have competitions that don't follow NCAA rules. They have divisions that have nothing to do with the NCAA divisions. They are mostly self-selected divisions and teams are free to move up or down but it would certainly be easier to institute pro/rel if the clubs wanted it.
They can be. Colleges can give scholarships for whatever they want when they are outside of NCAA rules. They are going to be more need based and usually not full rides but they are available. More similar to what DIII colleges do for their athletes.
which is a great utopian ideal you lot love to spout, except in this country, market size actually matters and contributes to the potential continued survival of a first division club. des moines, iowa cannot support an mls team period full stop. it is too small. i cannot for the life of me understand why the non-americans can't grasp this and the americans seemingly refuse to.