It is great. They've gone from a club that traditionally didn't even feature in the top echelons of non-league soccer into a club that's playing in the Championship. Their average attendance is about 1 in 12 the population. I'd say that's pretty impressive. 1 in 12 of the population. I disagree. San Antonio will continue to play at the same level of competition regardless of their performances on the field of play unless and until MLS accepts a cartel membership fee from them. Burton, by virtue of their own efforts, have been able to move up to compete in a completely different level of play than 20 years ago.
Baseless claims that a poster is "snickering" are hardly useful either. Well, I guess it could be used to present a post you disagree with in a weaker tone... In any case, since when was referencing a topic in broader terms not useful? The fact remains that a common claim by detractors of the US league format, is that the lack of access via promotion to "D1" renders results in other leagues "meaningless". The platform on which they express this view isn't important. The reference to this school of thought prompted a direct post from you that in turn led to a discussion on the significance of results in different league systems.
Huh? No it didn't. You chose to introduce "Look up the #ProRelforUSA hashtag on twitter" in a reply to my comment.
1 in 14 actually. Or 7% of the population. 72k people in the town. 5k in their 7k stadium. Burnley has a population of 73k and routinely attract more than double that amount.
Yes it did. Kenn and I mentioned pro/rel advocates. I referred to the fact that a prominent subset of that group routinely decries titles won in NASL,USL, NPSL, PDL among others, as "meaningless" due to lack of access to D1. When you chipped in, I reiterated the "meaningless" claim and referred you to a medium where you might find such people expressing this sentiment.
Burnley are a pretty exceptional outlier. I doubt Burton's crowds are much different percentage wise from other small to mid sized Midlands towns.Northampton: 222k, 6k average, Coventry 345k, 9k average; Oxford 168k, 8.5k average. Shrewsbury 72k, 5k average... oh, just like Burton.
And not in the slightest bit germane to my comment which asked why you were fixated with who wins the Premier League.
It was completely "germane" to your comment. My whole point about winning the Premiership was in reference to the very position held by those individuals. The topic of discussion that you joined with that comment, was a specific stance that a league structure that doesn't allow a team to get to the top of the pile, is worthless. You said yourself that Burton's odds were virtually zero. So by the (highly flawed IMO) logic of the stance being discussed, that would render anything else they've achieved "meaningless".
Your "body of work" in bringing pro pro/rel tweeters and their tweets into your arguments is there for all of us to see and your motives are pretty transparent. Of course, you'll try and argue differently and continue to pollute these threads in this manner.
Coventry are at the bottom of the division below Burton. If it stays that way, it will be their lowest position since 1959. When they were in Burton's current division, they were averaging between 15-20k. Shrewsbury as you point out, are getting similar gates to Burton. They're a league lower and in the relegation battle. When Burton were in the division, despite a remarkable consecutive promotion, they only drew 4k. As discussed earlier, Burton were hovering around the 3k mark while in League 2. In the same league, Shrewsbury were consistently in the 4-5.5k range. Northampton are also a division below Burton and haven't been in the second tier since the sixties, during which time they were drawing 9k. In more recent times they've drawn about 4.5k in League 2. Aside from their most recent relegation season, they were drawing 5-5.5k in League 1. Now to me, these aren't dramatic differences. However, you did stipulate "percentage wise" and such differences clearly resonate more with you. Therefore, I'm surprised that you're now passing off 25%, 50% and 100% differences in attendance as not being "much different percentage wise". ...and would you care to theorize why Burnley are such an outlier?
I don't think I've ever seen a better case of "transparent motives" than exhibited in your post here. Let he who doesn't frequently try to bait American soccer fans with the same tedious, recycled posts about cartels and team relocations, cast the first stone.
Their last season in Div 1/Championship was 11/12 when they averaged 15k. To average the same percentage of population as Burton are now achieving in the same division they'd have to have averaged 23k. Shrewsbury are currently averaging less than when they were in League Two. There's no indication that their crowds would rise significantly from current levels if promoted to the Championship. Northampton is over three times as large as Burton. To average the same percentage-wise they'd have to get over 15k. Stats not your strong point I guess. I don't see anything in those numbers to suggest Burton are supported poorer as a percentage of their population than those three other Midlands teams. More historic team with more a tradition of supporting their team perhaps. Their crowds did evaporate in the mid 80's - I see they averaged just over 3k in 85/86.
So what? One of those clubs doesn't have the capacity to get 7% of the population. Another is in its worst position for generations. All are in lower divisions than Burton but are getting better attendances, including the one with the same population. I'd also imagine it's a bit easier to reach 7% of your population when that number amounts to 5k. I'm sure factors such as a team yo-yoing blunts the impact of promotion. One thing that is consistent is that leagues typically average lower attendance the lower the division. What your points here also underline is my prior point that the journey isn't as compelling in practice as we might romanticize it to be.
You'd better ask yourself that question given you're the one who is fixated on Burton's attendances. And doesn't fill the capacity it does have. Which is why I gave a comparison to the last season they were in exactly the same position as Burton is now. Shrewsbury are getting 95 more spectators a game with no indication they would get significantly more if they were at a level higher. I find Burton's story very compelling as I'm sure many neutrals do. Oh, and Burton's fans.
To get things back on track, NASL interim commissioner Rishi Sehgal, was interviewed in this Podcast: https://unitedandliverpoolfans.podbean.com/e/soc-takes-pilot-episode-interview-with-rishi-sehgal/ Importantly, he had this to say on divisional sanctioning: This confirms once and for all, that multiple D1s are allowed. This is significant because it highlights an alternative means of accessing D1, even if a club doesn't make it into MLS as an expansion team.
Only if said club plays in a league where all clubs are capable of "moving up" to Div 1 standards. In practical terms, that is way less likely than an individual club improving itself through its own efforts and also removes the ability of a club to control its own destiny. With this kind of set up, Burton Albion might still be playing in the Northern Premier League.
That's a given. Regardless of the comparative likelihood, there's no reason why a fledgling independent league can't implement entry rules and requirements that ensure teams and ownership either line-up with D1 reqs, or are committed to doing so. At the time of writing, we know of 12 ownerships that claim to be willing and able to meet D1 league criteria. While there are a number of factors and nuances in play, it's at least possible that the eight teams that don't join MLS could potentially club together to form their own league. Provided they can deliver what their MLS applications would likely propose, such a group would be just four teams away from D1 sanctioning. Four teams short with all other requirements in place, might well be enough for a temporary waiver of the 12 team req.
What entry rules and requirements did NASL have to ensure that their clubs were lined-up with D1 reqs or that they were committed to doing so?
But the aim of pro/rel is to "move up" is it not? This just removes the pretense ... and those that aren't shitting on the pot. Ownership? CHECK Stadium/Stadium plan? CHECK $$$? CHECK yup