For the most part, I've given up on posting on Big Soccer in general, but the topic of expansion really catches my eye. I'm often times amazed that more mid-size and good size markets in the Midwest aren't tapped especially with talent college teams like UW-Milwaukee, UIC, Bradley, and really the Big Ten schools have been good as well. Peoria or Bloomington-Normal in IL would make excellent homes for USL teams especially if you could place teams in Madison, the Quad Cities, St. Louis, and/or Indianapolis. I also think that if that if indoor soccer tanks, and it just might finally breath it's final breath that bringing Milwaukee (because the Wave have a fan base) and Rockford into the USL would be smart. Maybe it's just me, but often feel like the Midwest gets overlooked.
I have a feeling the midwest will get a real good look from USL in the coming years. MLS has taken the 3 west coast teams, so USL-1 is now an almost entirely eastern league. I would expect USL to move it's way westward to Vegas and Phoenix, stopping in St. Louis, OKC, Detroit, Milwaukee and probably others along the way.
Yea. There really isn't anywhere for USL1 to go in the Pacific NW. I definitely see the league trying to fill in the middle part of the country especially now with Austin in the league -- Tulsa, OKC, St. Louis. The league needs to set up a USL2 on the West Coast: USL2 West North Victoria Seattle Kitsap Boise South Fresno Ventura County LA (maybe Legends or SFV Quakes) SF Bay Area
I think Phoenix should just get a USL1 team. The USL1 is growing like crazy right now. Its only going to get bigger in the future.
It needs to grow the right way, though. Cross-country road trips are a killer on the budget, and that's part of the reason Richmond went down to D 2. If USL-1 continues on the West coast, it needs to be a separate conference, and East and West should only play limited schedules against each other. Plus, MLS more or less has the West Coast market sewn up, unless teams like Fresno group up with new teams in Phoenix, San Diego, Sacramento, or Las Vegas, and even then, they would have to be in a separate conference. USL should work on stabilizing what they have for now, and save the West coast for later.
I’m amaze how the Islanders overcome all that crying of cross-country issue. Did you know that the Islanders have world record of the logger travel between a league? 3789 miles (Bayamon to Vancouver). I truly believe any team in continental USA has more opportunities to get the resources and sponsors needed to run a team. The issue is the lack of cojones from most of the investors, period.
Yeah, lack of balls is the reason that teams would rather not pay large travel expenses. Just because teams could afford it, or could get the sponsorship and raise money to travel doesn't mean that they should have to. Which is better, playing a 30 game season with $50,000 in travel costs, or playing a 30 game season with $100,000 in travel costs? I just pulled the number out of my ass, but it doesn't matter. Here's another analogy, say I have 1000 units of some project to sell. And I can sell all of it to a company 300 miles away that we can ship to cheaply by a truck. Or I can sell it to a company across the country that we'll have to fly it to for twice the cost. If my boss tells me to forget about the buyer across the country do I then tell him that he's not a real man and has no balls? Cojones has nothing to do with it, it's just good business. The bottom line is that the benefits do not outweigh cost. For PR they do, because the alternative is playing in their local league, which didn't even really exist until recently. But for the rest of the US teams will it really add to their revenues if they have to travel farther?
Well put. The ownership groups need to step up and realize that in America, sports come with a hefty travel expense.
If a team cant handle the travel expenses then go to USL2 instead of USL1. The head people in USL1 want a national league not a regional league with east and midwest teams.
So what cities in the West should we go to? I understand what they want, but lets be realistic. Name me a city. Sacramento/Phoenix/Las Vegas? Sacramento is almost doable. Phoenix wants MLS for good reason, they are a bit big for USL-1. So you have what, 1 or 2 teams in the West. I mean these cities aren't even close like Seattle/Portland/Vancouver were. Remember everyone would go and play all those three at the same time, so it was basically one flight, two bus trips, 3 games. But thats very different from a couple of flights to get around the west. And for what? There isn't really much of any group expressing interesting in USL-1 out west so should we try to prop up a team that might fail cause its group isn't very strong, all to ensure a "national league"..... seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Quite. They can want in one hand, and spit in the other, and see which one gets full the fastest. It's almost like it was pre-1994 APSL, when the only teams in the west were the remnants of the old WSA, Vancouver, LA, and Colorado, and everybody else was east of the Mississippi (heck, they were east of the Chattahoochee!); Seattle didn't come in until 1994. People need to face the fact that the USL, for the moment, has lost the west coast, and they will need to identify committed owners with almost MLS-level money, in at least five AAA-size markets to be able to have another Western division, and even then, there would still have to be very limited, if any, inter-divisional play. You can't just have a local millionaire whose kid plays soccer, buy a team and put them in the nearest high school, college, or minor league baseball stadium, and expect things to go swimmingly; not every place is Des Moines or Rochester. Sac'to and Vegas are possibilities, as would be San Diego (maybe), but Boulder, Provo (they already have a PDL team in BYU, correct?), Boise (well, maybe), Cheyenne aren't going to cut it. That's like the NASL putting teams in San Antonio and Honolulu back in the 70s. The ASL had at least three teams in the LA area at one time by 1978 (LA Skyhawks, LA/SoCal Lasers, CA Sunshine); all three were done by 1981. The USL will have to tread very lightly regarding the West for the next few years, and advocate slow growth out there, that is, cultivating enough owners to be able to start up an entire division at one time, and keep it going. That's the only way it can work; you can't have one or two teams out there dying on the vine because they have to make gargantuan road trips, even to play each other. I will reiterate that the USL needs to have no more than 12 teams for the near future, with three divisions of four teams apiece, where the division winners and the wild card make the playoffs. Austin and Minnesota need to be the westernmost teams for the foreseeable future. Get Austin, Cleveland, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, and New York up and running (and look at a replacement for Montreal and NY (maybe even St. Louis), should they get MLS), and keep things stable for awhile, before even thinking about a national, coast-to-coast league again.
The USL has got to go to mid-major markets like omaha, des moinse, boise,providence,colorado springs etc... It cant go to major markets anymore. It used to "balance" out with MLS but not anymore since USL clubs have been moving to MLS. Also they should have an ss stadium requirment like MLS it just looks stupid playing in a high school stadium and it will make the league stronger and possibly bring in more investers
The USL has operated with three west coast teams for almost five years (not counting the pathetic California Victory). It would only need to pick up 3 to 4 new western clubs in the next two years for it to maintain a national footprint. The USL is going to roll the dice and go for that. Tim Holt as much as confirmed it. They may go down in flames trying, but they are going to try. The good news is that they do have additional clubs coming in on the east coast (NYC and Tampa). There are plenty of western markets that could support USL 1. The problem is you need an ownership group, not just a suitable city. The USL has a decent chance at staying a national league. It has time on its side.
Well put, Bluesfan. As you know well from the Miami FC fiasco of recent times, commited ownership is key. It's why I worry so much about Pachuca having a team in USL. They don't seem commited at all. I used to think it was just how they were treating the Orlando supporters, but when I learned that they are ignoring just about everything coming out of the Pachuca fans on BS. I contrast this to the FC Orlando group, which I get at least one email (usually more than three) per day, because we keep up a consistent dialog. If Pachuca was paying attention (which I know they aren't, at least to BigSoccer), I wouldn't be so against them right now. The fact that they aren't paying attention should be evidence enough that they just don't care.
So let me get this straight, Phoenix is too big for USL1 and New York City isnt. That doesnt make since. I would rather have a USL1 team than no team at all.
NYC wants MLS too, but if MLS doesn't come knocking, or more accurately an ownership group doesn't step with a good plan and a SSS, USL-1 is always an option. As Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Toronto, and others have proven, you can always start in USL and upgrade to MLS. Miami's metro area is absolutely huge for USL, but it's all we have at the moment. Tampa Bay too. Beggars can't be choosers I'm afraid. USL targeting the large markets MLS has passed up, if done properly with decent ownership, can only mean good things for the league. Even if MLS adds two more USL cities in 2012 to make 20 MLS teams, there will still be plenty of big markets for USL to capture. If MLS decides to stop at 20 for awhile, having several strong teams in big markets, possibly with their own stadiums, will give USL serious leverage if they ever want to try some kind of merger or stronger partnership with MLS. Get a couple more Montréals and USL will be in great shape.
I was going to respond to that lack of logic as well, but seemed a bit too easy. Frankly Los Angeles is underserved by MLS right now. MLS has two clubs playing in the same stadium. Despite the idle and pointless chatter elsewhere on these boards about Chivas moving out of HDC, I just don't see it happening. If I was the USL and I had a Mexican club wanting to enter a club into the USL 1st, I would point them to LA. The team could operate an honest to God farm club in a different area of LA and then pull the five to six thousand necessary to make ends meet.
I would also like to say that to the people that think MLS took all the west coast cities are crazy because there many suitable cities for a USL1 or USL2 team. The following is a list of cities who can succeed in USL1 or a USL2 East or West division. These cities have major populations. West Coast Los Angleles San Diego San Francisco Oakland Tucson Phoenix Albuquerque Sacramento Honolulu Fresno Anaheim Las Vegas Fresno Long Beach Omaha Central Detroit San Antonio Indianapolis El Paso Milwaukee Oklahoma City Tulsa St. Louis Cincinnati Louisville East Jacksonville Nashville Memphis New Orleans Birmingham Buffalo And of course all the canadien cities, I realize that some of these cities wouldnt work but with the right ownership and philosophy it could and would work. Think of the rivalries it would make. Imagine Puerto Rico travelling to Honolulu. Thats crazy to think about. What do yall think? Lets Go Charleston Beat Vancouver
Seems like that's the plan for Pachuca here in Orlando. The only problem is, despite the high Hispanic population, the vast majority of them are not Mexican. While that shouldn't matter, you'd think "El Equipo de Mexico" would want a city that has a Mexican population large enough to fill a stadium, even a SSS in the US. Right now, they have a quarter of that in Orlando.
I forgot to say that MLS is not going to have more than 20 teams I dont think. More than 20 would be too much. hint this is where a promotion/relegation system would work perfect.
MLS can get away with more than 20 because of the shear size/population of the United States and Canada. Every other pro sports league in the US has at least 30 teams. I'm absolutely for Pro/Reg but until a system that can prevent the massive financial hit being relagated comes with, it can't work in the US. As the current economic situation shows, sudden hits that lead to big losses tend to spiral out of control.
With 20 teams, I assume you would play a home and away with every team in the MLS. Thats 38 games plus playoffs. Any more teams than 20 would be uncalled for. And we need to remember North American Soccer is not the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB. Its totally different, they dont need to be like other sports. Soccer must create its identification here in the US for it to succeed big time. And by the way I dont expect to have a promotion/relegation system in a few years. Give it 7 to 10 years and Im sure that that arguement will be everywhere at that time.