Not super far removed from going to back to back USL Championship Finals, but sure, punching bag the last couple of years. I guess teams can't go through dips if they're Reserve squads.
I'd say yes for all reserve teams except for the Red Bulls who deserve to play at a higher level. Although what do you do about the hybrid teams?
They were the league runners up in 2017 and a playoff team the next year. Last year they were at the bottom of the table, but SKC had major injury problems and drew heavily from SPR to fill their ranks, which drastically changed their season. Real Monarchs are the defending champions and had the best regular season performance in 2017. RBII was the champion in 2016. NTSC absolutely dominated League One last season. I'm not sure the argument to stick all of the reserves teams in League One is particularly good for anybody, especially the independent League One teams.
People made that argument when the reserve teams joined USL but they proved to be the glue that kept the league together after several founding teams had folded.
Without a doubt, the reserves teams would go a long way towards getting L1's numbers up to a place where they could consider regionalizing. But a big difference is that the reserves were never a majority in USL-C.
Do you actually follow this league? Some MLS reserve sides tear up USL C now, put them in USL1 and it would be more lopsided.
If they do like SKC II, you never get a consistent squad. One time it's all Academy Players, next it's SKC players playing into shape and it becomes a SKC B team.... I don't like that... I still say put them in League one with Dallas who uses the side correctly to develop young players......
Breaking the rust off last night at #NCvBHM pic.twitter.com/CJQR8x5bD3— Andy Mead (@theAndyMead) August 3, 2020
I don't necessarily disagree with putting them in League 1 ... I disagree with throwing them into MLS2 teams that don't "try" to win or have performed poorly. Last year was a bad year, year before that, 7 seed that upset 2 seed, 2 years prior in USL championship ... put them in League 1 because you don't want MLS 2 teams in USL Championship (I can understand and get behind that) but don't put them in because you don't think they're good enough ... because then there are a lot of independent teams with worse records over the last 4+ years than SKCII.
Robb has been asking some pointed questions with regards to Covid and games. They might just feel it is safer/easier/cheaper to host as few games as possible. It's really hard to extrapolate anything about this particular year.
I think taking any decisions made in 2020 "year of COVID" as something other than just "it is what it is" is slightly cruel. If SKC doesn't really want to "try" then they'll move down to L1 on their own, but that hasn't been the case. Did they ever come out with reasons? SKC as an organization gains very little financially from hosting regular season USL games. Their "gains" are in "developing players" and in this odd year, I could see them as an organization throwing Indy, St. Louis & Louisville a bone saying, look, you need the "gate" more than us, and will benefit from the extra home games far more than us, and we get to push our development with a heavy road schedule instead of a home schedule. Since it's an odd year with no real competitive balance to anything, we'll travel to your place the rest of the season. Unless statements come out on the matter, it's only speculation. Look, I think they should move to L1 anyways ... I just don't agree with your overall reasoning and "reading tea leaves" with regards to their decisions. Small sample size is showing ... "they're competing just fine on the road at a couple tough environments in Louisville and Indy".
I agree. If anything, SKC removes the potential loss at the gate this year. Gameday expenses are not cheap and are even more pronounced when the MLS club isn't even allowed to play at home.
I can't disagree with valid points. I'm really surprised USL tried to play this year, as they are a gate receipts league, and they are not going to get gate.... I figured they would be better off taking a year off and restart next year. They have a solid core of teams..
Since coaches will think their players are better off in leagues they can compete in, others will think they need to play at as high a level as possible. SKC II have players 4 full seasons. They were USL runners-up twice and semi- finalists once. Their poor 2019 season might be down to signing 8 players from the SKC academy. Maybe their away heavy schedule is down to Children's Mercy Park being available to SKC I.
They did make a concerted effort to get "younger" and play more younger/academy players starting in 2019. If that trend continues, and they continue to struggle at the USL C level, I do hope they consider voluntarily going down to League 1 ... but to think they should be forced is a bit premature.
Covid has messed up soccer like so many other things in the world right now. But once we get that under control and get back closer to what a normal soccer season would be, I really think its time MLS & USL sit down and figure out what to do with MLS-2 teams once and for all. Maybe they do have a plan, maybe they don't. I still think its USL that has to push the issue on this. With USL-C trying to get investors to add some teams in markets, I still think with some of the MLS-2 teams abysmal attendances and some teams weak on field performances, why would you want to invest big money to get a team or for that matter, if your are an existing owner, pay to build a stadium? It just doesn't make for a good appearance say when you have a Louisville build a 12,000 amazing stadium and then compare to LAG2 paying many times before a couple hundred people on a track and field stadium on the back side of a college. I would say then just bring back the old reserve team games, have the team travel with and play after the first time. Otherwise, either lets do a MLB style ladder or add another rung to the USL pyramid specifically for the MLS-2 teams. Or how about if MLS gets to 32 & USL-C sizes to 32, why not make USL-1 64 reserve teams of MLS & USL-C grouped geographically to keep travel down etc. Kind of sort of Germany style. Then, USL-2 becomes a full on U23 league with a more broad span of type of players and kind of get past the NCAA connection. My USL-2 becomes an all comers league= walk ons, college grads from NCAA-NAIA-JC who want to try to make the jump,players from amateur leagues leagues, ethnic leagues, players coming over from NISA , NPSL, UPSL, players you may have scouted but not quite really for USL-1, players coming back from injury, players trying to get their green card status etc etc. Then in my world, your academy is underneath this level U18, U16, U14 etc... Your academy players obviously make the jump to USL-2 as well. I know there will be many ideas on this, but I still think the the 2 leagues need to get this issue settled.
LAG 2 play at the track and field stadium at Dignity Health Sports Park. But anyway, I agree that reserve teams should play in L1, though what do you do about hybrids, Reno and RGV Toros, and what do you do about reserve teams who've invested a significant amount in USLC compliant stadiums, like RB2 and Tacoma Defiance (Sounders 2)?
The thing is, though, Louisville's (or Tampa's or New Mexico's) attendance isn't affected at all based on whether they're playing an independent or reserve team, so I'm not sure how Los Dos' or SKCII's attendance figures matter much. Now what is a problem is the wild variable they can bring to the conference table: e.g. when Tacoma was an absolute guaranteed 3 points for everybody in the Western Conference except Sacramento when they suited up like 5 first team players.
------------------------------------- Good points. I guess with USL-1 the question becomes if every MLS or USL-C team wants complete control over the USL-1 team or do they let a local owner run the team, market the team, build a stadium etc. and then maybe MLS & USL-C supply most or all the players. That would take that cost off the local owner. I assume the players are paid by the parent club anyway (?) I guess that would be a hybrid of sorts, not knowing the exact details of the current hybrid teams we have. As for the competition portion as noted by the other post, would seem that could be corrected with some changes in regulations as to how many first team players can play vs. the amount of your USL-1 squad. Otherwise, it does seem to make the competitive nature of the league unbalanced. So I guess another way of saying it, either you go strictly for player development and don't worry about the won/loss record or attendances, or , and this is what I believe USL-C needs to be, a proper competitive league with the best players and stadiums they can. A solid second division benefits soccer in this country as the country is so big and MLS can't be it all.
-------------------- I think attendance matters if you want a growing/stable league in a lot of markets will MLS will never be. The country is so large, we can and should have the best possible 2nd division we can. As for competition, obviously some clubs are approaching things in different ways, thus another reason MLS & USL need to rethink their relationship especially with the MLS-2 teams, player movements, etc. - Not counting NASL-NISA-NPSL which are a different can of worms, the current MLS & USL set up is a start. I guess they just have to be careful on what they call their business relationship to avoid anti-trust issues that have been brought up in the past.
IMO ... USL (and maybe MLS') has an end goal of moving MLS2 teams down to L1 ... if only to help that division grow (helping the regional aspect of it, similar to how they helped USLC grow. At some point, L1 will be big enough to start pro/rel between USLC and L1 and IMO USL shouldn't prevent MLS2 teams from moving up if they're talented enough. They SHOULD restrict "single game loan downs" though and rosters should be "set" at given times in the season. And IMO, this country doesn't "need" a 4th division. 3 is enough, and you just make it as regional as possible. 4th division can still stay the amateur division ... but I think some MLS U19 teams could compete in that as well. IMO, I don't see why MLS U19 teams don't join the PDL for summer play and just play in the MLS Academy system in other months.