They definately have gotten some great friendly matches over the last couple years. The also seem to have a good set up with Camps, youth clubs, a womans team and the PDL team. i cant find anything about them wanting to move up though. I also thought 1K average would be about the cut off for me in potential clubs. But their first two years they averaged about 1200 the last two have been over 800. so the they are boarderline in my own fantasy soccer world standards. i give them extra points for their connections and their good foundation to a club. the stadium isnt the most desireable, Im not a big fan of football fields, and dont like a stadium with a track and it looks like it has both, still I know sometimes you have to deal with what you have.
“Our league growth plan calls for 14-18 teams in 2011; 22-26 teams by 2013; and 28-32 teams by 2015,” Holt said. I will believe it once I see it. http://www.potomacsoccerwire.com/news/460/12906
It seems that FC London and Michigan Bucks of the PDL is considering the move to USL Pro http://www.lfpress.com/sports/column.../15355721.html
links not working for me but definately intresting.... EDIT I think this is the link http://www.lfpress.com/sports/columnists/morris_dalla_costa/2010/09/15/15355721.html
The Bucks thing is interesting... from the way I'm reading the quote, it looks like Dan Duggan is intending to keep a team in PDL *and* put a team in USL Pro. Maybe that means the Bucks move up and a new team comes into the PDL, or the Bucks stay and Michigan gets a new pro franchise also owned by Duggan. Maybe this is the much-vaunted Detroit expansion?
Interesting article. From what the London said, doesn't sound like they would join next year but maybe in the future. Not surprised to here the Michigan would be joinging. They have been working on getting additional investors the past couple of years.
"FC London", yes. I welcome them. "Forest City London"....uhhhhhhhhhhNO! I wish Idaho would be more viable. They seemed to have an NPSL team a few years ago (Idaho Wolves?). But nothing since. And no men's team at BSU, UI, or, I believe, ISU, to fuel the state's soccer culture.
Yes, the Idaho Wolves played in the NPSL years ago, but sucked so badly they folded after their debut year. Boise could certainly support a PDL team, and would make a nice addition to the Northwest division. The Spokane PDL team has played a couple of games over the border in Post Falls, but that is the only ball played in the state to date.
slightly off-topic, but does anyone know the backstory behind the Chico Rooks + why they folded? At one stage they were drawing Fresno-type numbers. Could they be revived? The reason I ask about the Rooks is that a revived Rooks team with good attendance could change the equation for Fresno. Right now, if they step up alone their travel costs will kill them, unless they're playing in a league that's California and maybe 2-3 teams in Nevada, Arizona and Utah (BYU was said to be "D3-curious"). But if they step up to a regional D3 with a series of weak/under-capitalised/sub-1,200 teams that self-relegate within 3 seasons, Fresno could go do everything right and still go bust with them. IIRC, Brian Quarstaad's series had Des Moines declining a step-up for that very reason.
On Cincinatti, maybe Chad Ocho-whatever could spring some $/get involved. Would be great free publicity even if he wasn't playing but making appearances at soccer camps, events, etc.
Read back through the rest of the thread. I was assuming that the Western Conference talked about by the Phoenix Monsoon would include the teams they claim they're working on -- San Diego, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Jose and LA. We then took the discussion on to thinking about PDL teams that are in the area, are close to the needed level and could possibly make the jump. If we add Fresno to the above list, as well as Hollywood United (which ShefWed reported is looking into it) and Ventura County, then you have a nice 8-team group. Granted, distances out west are still problematic, so that group may still not be close enough to make things work for Fresno. They also may not be sufficiently experienced, or, as you say, capitalized. Regarding Chico, isn't Chico farther than Sacramento? I do miss them (they were a great team), but Sacramento would be slightly better for travel. It's all just playing around with ideas until something solid comes out of the USL. We will see what we will see.
Chico is a college town 75 or so miles n. of Sacto. Only about 80,000 in the city. Butte County, not sure.
There is actually a movement starting with the hopes of getting professional soccer in boise ASAP. The aim is either USL PRO or NASL. Realistically, if they moved as fast as possible...what is the earliest games they could join? And does anyone have a link to the requirements of USLPRO?
I will excuse your naivete, since you wouldn't ask that question if you knew anything about the USL. The USL's only requirement is the proper size check, payable to the league office. Everything else is ... ahem .... negotiable.
After USL's Holt mentioned that USL PRO had several teams that met or exceeded the USSF's D3 requirements, USSF was asked, what exactly are these requirements that USL was referring to. USSF's answer? "We haven't decided yet, we are reevaluating them". Weak.
Before USSF took down all their PDF files (or made them next to impossible to find online) when they changed their website, there was a standard out there. In fact I remember seeing them for all the levels including women's I honesty can't remember the D3 standards but I remember seeing them, it dealt with min. staff and field requirments, which class of refs, registering players, league fees, etc. I know USSF hasnt revamped them like they did for D2 this season but prehaps USSF cant find them either! so Holt is right in a sense, as USSF is re-evaluating them, they probably do met or exceed the standards the USSF currenly does have in place. To answer ricofans question though, USSF has a min set of standards, which proably need updating. USL has a set of requirments for application into the league. I imagine, In addition to the francise fee, the league looks at venue, market, and business plan of the team. If the league truely wants to be regional, they will set up some sort of rule about new franchise that wont fit into a regional area, making them wait until it becomes viable for them to enter the league. If they want in I next season, they need to be talking to the leagues soon, USL usally has a meeting in Nov. to hash out the schedule and things like that. those schedules usually come out aroudn the new year. Last year I was told a team wanted into USL2 after the schedule was set, and the league told them to wait a year. not sure if that was Dayton or not.
Actually, I don't think USSF has standardized requirements for D3 in the US. Yes USL had them internally. When Holt said that the new USL PRO teams exceeded USSF's standards, USSF response seemed to indicate that they didn't even know if they had them. Its called double-talk, USL has been doing it for years.
Actually I'm with Mickey in remembering at one time the USSF publishing standardards for multiple levels including women's national league. I wish I had saved them. From what I remember I think they were pretty close to what the USL standards for USL 1 , USL 2 and PDL standards have been then last couple of years.
Seriously, are we debating if USL PRO's "exceeded reqs" meant they have 5 lights instead of 4 for night games and 500 seat capacity? USL said this with intention of misleading those who followed the news of USSF's stricter D2 guidelines. Only USL has ever said anything about D3 reqs, and apparently USSF agrees, they can't remember them either.
I'm not sure there's much debate going on here. At least three of us remember the USSF having D3 guidelines (and are kicking ourselves for never having downloaded them). My memory is that they were part of ones that were put together back when MLS and other groups were vying for the new D1 league. Also not sure what you're being so crotchety about. Another memory of mine is more recent -- that the USSF said that they would likely extend the process to look at D3 as well. So, yes, there are D3 standards. Yes, they are out of date. No, the USSF doesn't currently have them available on their website, and hasn't done anything yet about reviewing those as they've been busy for the past few months reviewing and publishing the new standards for D2. My bet is that once they get D2 all sorted out, they'll start into D3. Most likely during next season, the way they did with D2 this year. So as far as I can see, there's no contradictions in anything anyone at the USSF or USL has said. And if you're grumpy because the USL is saying things like 'the highest level of soccer after MLS', well, I guess I can't blame you. But as things stand now, there's no guarantee that the NASL will get sanctioned. Until that happens, the USL can say anything it wants to.
I havent seen the article with the response from USSF, but if your quotes are correct, USSF said they were "reevaluating" them, emphasis on the "re" which would mean to me to me they have standards currently that have been evaluated in the past. I think we all agree that the standards need to be updated though. Either way USL already had D3 status for this upcoming year. I dont think it will have a large effect on on the teams that the changes on D2 have had though. I think the big question is who will be in that league and what the regions will be for 2011. Holt is like the window dresser at a department store. He makes the dresses look good on the mannequin that is a size 2. That doesnt mean they dont sell the size 18 inside the store! that said, i think some of the new teams will be vetted alot more than they have in the past, I understand they turned down two investors for Wilmington since they closed up shop last year.
Gee not even my kids call me grumpy or crotchety (sp?). Let me know when you find those guidelines that were available in PDF before Adobe was a company. And Mickey, I am really shocked that USL has turned down not one but 2 investors in the same market. Has that ever been reported before? Best I have ever heard was that USL said no to new investors when they wanted to invest 7 days before the season started.
Adobe started in the early 80s but didnt get into the design business it is until the late 80s and Acrobat shortly there after. I have no reason to doubt my sources, but I have been wrong before. And I heard it from a couple different people. Both investors were interseted in the Wilmington market, one didnt have the capital to make it happen (prior to this past season starting) and the other wanted some concessions that the league didnt want to budge on (during this season). I'm sure it wasn't reported. I would love to see Wilmington come back as im sure would Charleston, Charlotte and Richmond would even more.
Don't be surprised that concessions requested by owners may be for some form of reasonable expectation for continuity of a viable league framework administered by the USL. Without this assurance why would anybody invest in an enterprise with a hefty franchise that may be non-existent in 2-3 years. There are enough barriers to success in starting a lower division soccer franchise without having to consider that the league presents a non-viable format to compete. Considering that Nurock has not sold 1 pro level franchise to new investors since they purchased USL and have lost numerous franchises through dismissal, self-relegation and the NASL, it is not clear as to who is vetting whom on potential ownership groups.