So usl pro is now simply usl. http://www.uslsoccer.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=32800&SPID=157039&SPSID=971518&DB_OEM_ID=32800
The USL site is fine, logo included. It is growing on me. But now the PDL looks disjointed. Is USL no longer running PDL? Not that the PDL site is bad, but it's just way different than the USL rebrand.
Anyone else notice that this picture appears to show what logo and colors Charlotte are going with, a change in coloring of the OC Blues logo, and a brand new logo for Rochester?
Why on Earth would you think that? They rebranded one of their leagues. There have been whispers about future tweaks to the others. But they rebranded the professional men's league. Given NuRock does pretty well with the PDL as a business, I would not expect them to abandon it.
I think Rochester and OC Blues had already "unvailed" their logo modification (Rochester just for this season due to an anniversary). I hope USL didn't "out" the Charlotte logo although I think they did ... check Charlotte's twitter page to see them laughing this off (sort of) by saying USL released the "wrong" logo.
Huh. I would have thought something like that with the logos would have been featured on the USL website. But with the rebrand, they had other things to take care of
Just wagering an opinion as somebody who is fascinated with corporate art and branding. I am not a student of the form, I admit. *backs away very, very slowly*
What in the name of all that is holy were they thinking with these logos? Are they serious? D2READY? So D2READY that they're going to ask the USSF to lower the D2 standards in order to prove how far they've come? What a joke.
It remains to be seen if they are, indeed, D2 ready. I think some work would still have to be done before they could even make that pitch with a straight face. Namely ownership capitalization and infrastructure, which, admittedly, are big ones. I would imagine it would be more involved than "asking the USSF to lower the D2 standards." They'll either come up to them or they won't.
Without knowing the financial backing of USL owners ... it's hard to tell IMO. The stadium capacity can be upgraded with moderate costs relatively quickly (nothing more than adding some metal bleachers in most cases).
I don't know. I think some teams could, conceivably. Ignoring for a moment that some of their clubs bailed on D2 several years ago for reasons that remain valid. I have no idea if they plan to take some teams "up" to an upper division (a la the Select League of 1996) and leave some others in D3 (yes, Harrisburg, I'm looking at you) or if they plan to upgrade everybody and move or merge or divest the ones who can't realistically do it. I would imagine they would not take this step without having consulted with the "swing states," as it were. I would also imagine they and those teams know more about the actual plan than we do. Put it this way: in 2010, they absolutely couldn't do it, they didn't have enough teams after the divorce. In 2011, the quality of infrastructure wasn't there. They're closer in 2015 and may be even closer in eight months, I don't know. I wouldn't put odds on it either way just yet, other than to say now is a better time to do it than prior years.
People tend to underestimate ( a ) how expensive that actually is, and ( b ) what the sports consumer in this day and age actually expects when you are competing for their dollar. "Some metal bleachers" ain't gonna cut it in some of the markets USL is in now and is going to have to do good things in.
Completely understand ... but if stadium capacity is the only thing standing in your way of getting D2 sanctioned ... and your league wants that sanction ... you do that ... and figure a way to improve upon that if your attendance dictates (which attendance isn't a factor for D2 ... so you may just put the metal bleachers up to get a sanction without worrying about filling them).
I understand this to be an application or a sign of intent. They USL clearly doesn't meet all of these standards. So either they will be granted temporary status until they are all up to snuff, or this is the beginning of a dialogue with USSF. However what should be clear is that MSL has publicly taken aim at NASL. MLS has played nice in the media, but their business plan is clearly bent on a future without the NASL. I do not expect all USL clubs to survive (OC Blues & HCI are clearly on shaky ground) and I don't know how the league keeps expanding without MLS partners for some clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if some NASL clubs don't partner and move but that is only a guess. (one question or example is would ATL partner with the new ATL expansion club?) ps. I think we should expect 2 new USL MLS2 clubs in 2016 (Houston 2 & FCD 2). but what number of USL teams is actually sustainable? just some thoughts.
Yes, but that's just duct tape and chewing gum for the problem. That's like buying Fix-A-Flat to inflate the tire on the car you're trying to sell. No one's going to buy a car with a flat tire, so you can't sell the car without it, and you can certainly use Fix-A-Flat, but tomorrow the tire's going to be flat. WTF? Wait, what? "Attendance isn't a factor for D2?" What? Just "putting the middle bleachers up to get a sanction" does NOT solve the problem. And not worrying about filling them is, in actuality, part of the frigging problem. Not to mention, again, "just put the metal bleachers up" is a stupid - and not inexpensive - strategy. That would be a facade. It would be counter productive. It would be incredibly, incredibly dumb.
An application is an application. Saying you intend to apply is not an application. OR they will not ACTUALLY apply until they feel they DO meet the standards. Or apply with plans to address issues for which they could request a temporary waiver. But at some point, they're going to have to deal with the issues. Throwing up bleachers is not a solution. Temporary solutions are not solutions. They need to address their infrastructure and THEN apply. And all they did today was state their intention to apply "this year." This year has 324 days left.