Can someone tell me thoughts on the way things are done in the MLS, I'm living here (US) coming from England, and things like the draft, and the whole transfer system is similar here to other US sports, which work different to the system in place in England. Are people aware of the way things work in Europe, and do you think the US way is better or worse? I just can't get used to the US way of doing things, esp. the draft. your thoughts?
Well a big problem is that soccer has been considered a fringe sport in this country. The more optimistic among us think that is changing. Drafts are a normal part of the US sports scene - If you've been living here for a few months, its hard to miss out on the overwrought NFL draft. The NBA draft is so big they even have a pre-draft lottery to figure out who gets the top picks. Yes, folks do understand how the transfer market works in England and other countries, but the draft concept is part of the national consciousness. Three related elements are important to consider: 1. MLS handles ALL player contracts - not the teams. 2. There is a hard salary cap that generally prevents the better teams from retaining their key players as contracts expire. 3. The teams are still beginning to develop youth squads. This development needs to be expanded.
I do think that the draft does have a good point in that it does develop home grown talent rather than just imports. How important is the draft in the MLS to the fans?
The draft is used by NFL and NBA because both basketball and football (American) were well developed college sports before they became well developed professional sports sometime in the 50's or so. So the new leagues would get the best college players and have more or less kept the same system. The development of players is by and large left to the colleges, of which there are multitudes. No danger in any talent going unnoticed. Baseball, on the other hand, is about as old as professional soccer in England. Development depends on the farm system. Where minor league clubs are the primary feeders to the major leagues. MLS follows a similar plan as NBA and NFL since there are many college soccer teams. On the other hand they also have Project-40 and the USSF's soccer academy where a select group of high school players are trained at a higher level than the amatuerish college game. I'm sure I got some detail wrong about this. Someone else can explain Project 40 better.
Well, MLS limits the number of foreign players each club can have on the roster. That does more to help develop US talent that does the draft. How important is it to the fans? Well, it's something to talk about during the off season. Few fans are really all that knowledgeable about the players who are in the draft. The draft is not very important in terms of actually bringing new talent into the league that can make a difference right away. Very, very few draftees can step into an MLS starting line-up. Relatively few even end up making an MLS roster (rosters are tiny in MLS: 18 players on the senior roster and a 6 player developmental roster). Most draftees are US college players, and US college soccer isn't very good. But there are always a few diamonds in the rough. Plus, each year there are several players in the draft who skipped college (i.e., they 're 16-17 years old and tend to be starters on the various US U-teams) and, sometimes, US players who are returning from stints abroad (like Twellman was last year).
The big difference.... As for the understanding of the fans, there seems to be a major diffrence in terms of parity between the teams. I think that in the UK and Europe, people generally accept the thoughts that some teams are richer and will always be richer. The fans seem content with an occasional upset. In the US, people expect all the teams in the same league to have an equal chance at glory. Thus the salary cap and draft. As an American, I have a hard time understanding the situation in Scotland, where there's only two teams with a chance at the championship. I mean, it's huge disparity between 50,000 fans and maybe 2500 with the smaller clubs.
Re: The big difference.... Couldn't disagree more. Yeah, "parity" is a key part of the NFL and, now, MLS. But baseball? Granted, it's not like Ranger and Celtic in Scotland, but ery, vert few MLS clubs have any shot whatsoever at winning the World Series each year.
You are correct about baseball.. ...but the sport is paying the price. There's serious talk about cutting some teams, especially the two in Florda. There's been a great deal of movement toward revenue shring, and it was a major topic of the last labot negotiations. It's not a healthy league and, although you might debate me on this, the lack of parity is one factor.
I'm not a real baseball fan, but three different teams have won the World Series in the past three years (Angels, Diamondbacks, Yankees). The 1990's featured 6 different champions for 9 seasons (1994 had no series). Yes, Yankees had a nice run from 1996-2000 (4 chamionships in 5 years) but other teams have not been totally shut out. EDIT: Strike that. I re-read the posts.
First, soccer is following in the footsteps of its other sports. It has to do with how the teams and leagues were formed to. As stated earlier, players in other sports came to the league fairly well developed and more importantly hyped via college. Since what exists is basicly an open market, the draft help control incoming player salaries and keep costs down around the league. Players that circumvent the MLB draft can see huge contracts getting tossed at the by the Yankees and maybe 1 or 2 other teams. There is also no national governing body over baseball, football or basketball with any real teeth, so teams have been able to limit the competition that can reach the top levels in the sport. In Europe there are national FA's with relegation and promotion, there is no need to keep all the teams in the premiership as viable since those that arent simply relegate down and another takes their place. In American sports a perpetual loser is always stuck at the bottom of the league, meaning if it starts losing money it will always lose money. As a result American sports have a need to maintain a certain amount of parity.
Re: Re: Re: The big difference.... Yes and no. The A's I think prove that you can build a consistent winner without a big budget. So while theoreticly all franchises have a shot, it takes a very very smart management team for many to have any chance.
my condolences , just an example : european: why do you guys list the away team first and not the home team, it is realy confusing especialy if the away team wins but the score is posted Winner - Looser, should be Home - Away always american : well screw your stupid question, that is the way things are done here, why are you trying to force your rules on us, it is the way we done it for 100 years leave us alone
Re: Re: The situation in the USA - part 1 Well usually I think in america its listed away - home, again a baseball influenced convention. Basicly the home team bats last, so the score would be listed in the order of at bats. Thats the only good sporting reason for listing things that way that I know of (I mean seriously, why list the home team first, in what way does it make more sense then listing them last?), and I personally have to do a double take on soccer scores.
I have to say having the home team first makes more sense. It's a competitive game which most people are familiar with the use of V - for versus EG. Chicago V LA Chicago being at home, they are hosting the game, they should be named first. Doing the home team last ends up being LA @ Chicago AT? AT!!??? No, its too odd. Americans always wanna mess things up, worse than this issue is the whole date thing, the month then the day, whats that about and whats the reason for it, in the UK we do it, day/month/year, the pattern being... it goes in order of size, the I don't see any reason for having the month first.
It's completely arbitrary. Claiming one way makes more sense than the other is silly. Since we say the date as May 7, 2003 it seems reasonable to list the date in the same order, hence 5/7/03.
Don't take my last respone too seriously, it was made with tongue in cheek, everywhere has differences, I was just having some fun poking at the US ones.
last saturday MLSnet lists the Revolution _ San Jose game incorectly, the others happend that the home team won and the other ended in ties, from reading the results one has no clue where the game took place,was it inSan Jose ? This is the problem you see. It makes a BIG difference where the game was played. I find this type of listing in the newspapers as well, and i should suck it out of the air where the game was played at. Saturday, May 3 San Jose 2, New England 0 incorrect MetroStars 2, Colorado 1 Dallas 0, D.C. United 0 (OT) Columbus 2, Kansas City 2 (OT)
I know you were poking fun, but to me, Chicago @ DC leaves no doubt at all about where the game is. DC vs. Chicago does not imply that the game is in DC. So using @ is to my mind unambiguous and therefore superior. Yes, the prevalence of baseball as the first team sport to gain wide, regular media attention in the US, and the fact that the home team bats last in that sport, led to the convention of the home team being listed second.
casper, the problem is things are not consistent results are listed with the Winner - Looser ,there are no more vs , @ signs when posting results how do you differentiate which team was home and away ?